User talk:DuncanHill

Hi, my recent block has now expired, and I would like to give you a token of my warm appreciation for sticking up for me at User talk:Tamzin/Archive/16. I would have joined in the recent unfortunate contretemps on the Ref Desks but was still blocked.

See also Cholsey Great Barn: world's largest barn being digitally rebuilt. You support was hugely appreciated, very best wishes. MinorProphet (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Duncan, good to see you're still here. Thanks for fixing my silly mistake. All the very best, and have a good Christmas. Regards, Jack (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mary King (merchant) § Issues with various National Records of Scotland cites. I noticed that you had edited this article or its talk page in the past and thought you might be able to help with the three errant National Records of Scotland cites. Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Hi, I'm sorry but I don't know how to fix them. DuncanHill (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello , seen you edited article Thalassery. i have made an edit request on Thalassery artcle. Can you please review it?: Jitheshuv (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jitheshuv:, Sorry it's outside of my area of expertise. DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi there. We seem to have made simultaneous edits which have mucked thing up. The reference should be to Hastings. Hope you understand what I mean. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin:, No I fixed one error (you had used the same refname for Mittler as had been used elsewhere in the article for "Жертвы двух диктатур. Остарбайтеры и военнопленные в Третьем Рейхе и их репатриация", and you then introduced another with Hastings. The problem is using refnames like ":0" or ":5". You should use meaningful refnames, like "Hastings2011p669-670" or such that are unlikely to be duplicated. Numbered refnames are the source of far too many errors in far too many articles, done by far too many editors. The problems are 1) nobody coming new to an article knows how high the count has got, and 2) people copy bits of text from other articles with the same numbered refnames in. So many people make this same mistake. DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

See Template:Refname rules. DuncanHill (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I realise it was my fault. The problem was that I copied a reference from my sandbox and it changed the reference name when I pasted it into the article. I don't know why it does this but there seems to be some automatic process that changes reference names when you copy a citation from your sandbox into an article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Dang it, I never saw the thread un-redacted, so I can't... wait, what did SarekOfVulcan say just above? Ok, there it is. I might use that article as a ref at Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I never saw the thread unredacted either. I'm probably not allowed to suggest that anyone enter the word's geoffrey epstein's wikipedia account into a search engine. So I won't. God forbid we should reveal something that 1) has been reported in mainstream media, and 2) has been reported on on Wikipedia previoulsly, and c) is about a dead paedophile. The WMF would have kittens! DuncanHill (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Right, if one searched that, one could encounter a Reddit thread titled who knows what. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed! DuncanHill (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Just in case it's needed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Here is a quotation from Pranksters:making mischief in the modern world:

"Paul's endorsement of G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve–along with several other positions he holds–has made him an icon for New World Order conspiracy theorists. Griffin's book is laced with standard-issue references to the Council on Foreign Relations, W. Cleon Skousen, Carroll Quigley, the Rothschild family, and the Bavarian Illuminati (a branch of which, the author suggests, played a role in assassinating Abraham Lincoln). Griffin was also a longtime affiliate of the John Birch Society, which published several of his nutty books. In Paul's blurb for The Creature from Jekyll Island, he calls it "a superb analysis deserving serious attention by all Americans. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind." It sure is. The congressman is a principled libertarian conservative whose positions on civil liberties, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the legalization of drugs overlap with those of many people on the left. He is a learned man and not a nut. However, when this congressman appears on Alex Jones's show, endorses Bircher books about a Federal Reserve conspiracy, and warns of nonexistent plans for a NAFTA Superhighway, it shows how the fringe ideas discussed throughout this book have infiltrated substantial parts of the political mainstream."

As you can see there is nothing here which cites any evidence which disproves Griffin's ideas. It just calls it "nutty". Do you have any other quotes from this book to disprove his theories regarding the federal reserve? If not then either find a better source or stop reverting my edits to the preamble of G.Edward Griffin's page.

As you said on the edit history I have looked through the talk page and there are multiple people who have criticised this source yet everyone who is in favour of using this source simply runs away or just blindly asserts it as an authority despite the valid criticisms of it.

Please provide another quote or source or I will reinstate my edit. King of Crimson (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@King of Crimson: the correct place to discuss article content is the article talk page, not here. Secondly, you've mis-read the edit history, it was another editor who told you to see multiple prior discussions. DuncanHill (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I see I'll direct this to them.I should say though I did make a topic for this on the talk page and got no response which is why I took it into user's personal talk pages. King of Crimson (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

It was late at night, and I was tired. I missed some of the refs I needed to copy over. Thank you for inserting the rest!! Buckshot06 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I saw your revert on Antisemitism in Poland with the note “massive reference errors,” and I’d like to clarify what specific issues you’re referring to.

My edits primarily involved rewording existing content for neutrality and attribution, rather than removing sources. If any citations became disconnected from the text or were inadvertently affected during restructuring, that was unintentional and I’m happy to correct it.

Could you please point to the specific diffs or passages where the reference errors occurred? That would make it much easier to address the problem directly.

A full revert without identifying the exact issues makes it difficult to improve the article collaboratively, especially when the changes were aimed at aligning the text more closely with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

I’m happy to work through any concrete problems and restore or adjust citations as needed.

Thanks. -~2026-22316-36 (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-22316-36: there were 12 undefined refnames, and an undefined sfn. It looks like you have removed the text that contained the definitions without bothering to replace them. It's clear now I look at the history that you are edit-warring. You need to stop that, and go to the article talk-page, explain there the changes you want to make, and seek consensus for them. Otherwise you are VERY likely to get blocked. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2026 (UTC)