User talk:DuncanHill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Merry Christmas![edit]

Happy New Year[edit]

Clarification for mistake[edit]

My reversion on the Cabinet of the United Kingdom was intended to remove Larry, the Chief Mouser from the membership list as I could not find a source for it.

I unintentionally reverted an earlier edit to Suella Braverman's DOB instead. Apologies for the inconvenience. SuperWIKI (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The weekly mail authentication[edit]

Sir, the weekly mail is not hijacked in any way. It has been restarted afresh. Therefore the contribution to the Wikipedia page should not be undo. 2409:4052:4E93:2704:0:0:96CB:E408 (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the article is about the Welsh newspaper. If you want to start a new article about your website, which is totally unconnected with the newspaper, you should go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. You will need to demonstrate notability, and you MUST declare any connexion you have with the subject, according to our Conflicts of Interest rules. I shall copy this message to the article talk page to be sure you see it. DuncanHill (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Weekly Mail[edit]

sir, the weekly mail newspaper in Welsh has closed. It has been reintroduced in India. Which is related to walesh newspaper the weekly mail only. It has been started smoothly again with the plan to expand it. 2409:4052:4E93:2704:0:0:96CB:E408 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my reply above and on the article talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Lloyd George[edit]

  • The below is in reply to this

Apologies for missing your comment of the talk page! I have adjusted the intro based on your valuable feedback. I'm also still learning about some of the discussion and editing procedures. Thank you. TG11TG15 (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TG11TG15: It's easier if you reply to comments on your talk page there. I think you need to slow down. There is no deadline. I also think you would benefit from reading WP:WEIGHT. Lloyd George was, indeed still is, a global figure, and our article needs to reflect this. There may well be a place for a section on the lines of "Lloyd George and Wales", and Grigg's pamphlet of the same name would be of use for that. One would have of course to mention Grigg's point that for Lloyd George "his interest in specifically Welsh issues... was genuine up to a point, but never exclusive... he would never have been content with Welsh national leadership and nothing more", and that "his Welsh patriotism, though fervent, was part of his larger British and imperial patriotism". We would do well, in the main article, to mention more of the actual practical things he did for Wales, such as the grants for the National Library of Wales, the Welsh colleges, and the Museum (he gave them much more than they asked for). Quotations about him from lots of talking heads don't add anything like as much as actual concrete actions by the man himself. But this is really a discussion for the article talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for your suggestions. TG11TG15 (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent revert at Robert Carrier (chef)[edit]

Hi DuncanHill, since we're now WP acquaintances, I thought I should give you the courtesy of a notice on your talk page, as you did me. Not following you around, but I happen to have Robert Carrier (chef) on my watchlist, and I saw that here you reverted edits which I believe are correct. The text says, "Carrier was the subject of the *United Kingdom* television show This Is Your Life, but you've re-linked to the US version of This Is Your Life. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carlstak: Thanks for spotting that - the IP is a block evader who violates WP:NOTBROKEN on an industrial scale, I was reverting his edits en masse and missed his one good one! DuncanHill (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought as much. I do mass reverts of IP socks as well. Carlstak (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Three years!

"Oath of Allegiance (UK))" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Oath of Allegiance (UK)) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 1#Oath of Allegiance (UK)) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look after yourself![edit]

Mark LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your ref desk post[edit]

Apologies for removing your post at [1]. Unfortunately, the OP is a banned user, so I had to nuke your good faith reply along with his original post. Best wishes, --Viennese Waltz 12:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I enjoyed both the question and finding the answer. DuncanHill (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I enjoyed the exchange too, but rules is rules. --Viennese Waltz 14:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resource Exchange request fulfilled[edit]
Message: Belgian Review. no. 5. March 1942 pp 31-32.

User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 15:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonwilliamsl: Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lord Privy Seal[edit]

A few weeks ago a user whose been editing only since April changed the Ernest Bevin quote hyperlinks from Outhouse to Privy Council of the United Kingdom and Pinniped to Privy seal. When I said that removed its point the response was "The preexisting hyperlinks linked to pages that didn't make contextual sense.". Since then I've attempted indicate the quote's meaning, including with videos of the Frost Report sketch and Richard Dawkins explaining the phrase in an interview, but the user continues to believe "Bevin was most certainly not saying that he wasn’t a toilet or a pinniped.". Perhaps you could join the discussion at in an attempt to change his/her mind. Mcljlm (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christopher J. Lane[edit]

Hi, can you assist or advise on how to deal with a Wikipedia article that seems like a self-promotional autobiography? I saw you in the edit history for Christopher J. Lane article, and the more I look at it, the more I see that it was crafted by the person himself and not in good intent. It seems to read just like his bio at his own website (which also links the Wikipedia page as part of his external links, which would be suspect of an inappropriate use of Wikipedia for promotional usage). 2603:8000:B600:4000:34C2:BE1C:BAD6:91C0 (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Younger Pitt, Vol. 1: The years of acclaim etc[edit]

If you are in the mood for cleaning up citations, I suggest losing the Google Books URL as they aren't the only booksellers in town. IMO, we should only use them when they provide a page preview. I would replace it with an OLCC number(which links to Worldcat). John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started to do so but none of the editions listed had the given publisher. I doubt that it matters but thought it best leave it to someone more familiar with the topic. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not a fan of google books either - even when they do give a preview it's not always visible in all countries. I was just fixing a couple of harv/sfn errors (a pet peeve) on Pitt the Younger. DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pet peeve of mine too! Face-smile.svg --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another barnstar for you![edit]

Compass barnstar.png The Guidance Barnstar
Dear colleague, Face-smile.svg
Thank you for finding the time to offer advice and guidance to your fellow editors, especially about the existence of useful tools, as you did for my benefit, here.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 16:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Operation Tabarin - citation help[edit]

Dear DuncanHill, thanks very much for your help with the editing errors you corrected in this article. I will take more care checking the sfn syntax in future. I'm afraid I didn't really understand how to use those tools /guides you suggested. If you have time to explain a little more, I'd be keen to try it. Thanks also for correcting the section headings - someone else had changed my - to the curly brackets, and not being very experienced at editing I assumed they knew more than me. Kind regards Buckland1072 (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops! Very sorry about that, and thanks for all the corrections. I've corrected my user page source list, where I think all these came from. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Johnbod: No worries - I rather enjoy working through that sort of thing, and it makes me read up on subjects that I otherwise might not. I always struggle with Sidney/Sydney myself, and -berg/-burg must be a common slip too. There were three articles I found where a reference wasn't defined which you might be able to fix - Giovanni Bellini (ref 7), Alvise Vivarini (ref 2), and Sacred and Profane Love (ref 28). All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, fixed these - none were me I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 18[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George M. Johnson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SFN Errors[edit]

Thank you for the instructions here - I'm afraid I might've messed that up on a few pages as I was updated that same citation in several locations. I have never used the sfn template before and did not realize it worked that way. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 22:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Seventeen years here and I still learn something new every day. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BD2412: Glad to be of assistance! It's an odd little glitch. DuncanHill (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BD2412 and DuncanHill, I assume it's because those are special characters, i.e. they already mean something to MediaWiki (in this templates). As a result, it would be impossible to link to that section. In order to make that possible, we would be need to have escape code that have MediaWiki interpret them as plain text rather a command (which I assume there is no such code) e.g like how, in HTML (and MediaWiki), you can use ">" and "<" to output ">" and "<" which would otherwise be interpreted as commands — Python Drink (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did have a hunch, but...[edit]

Regarding this one, [2] could you remind me who that was? I'd seen it before, but just couldn't recall the user. I got a bit concerned that I'd "shot first asked questions later" but as it turned out, I probably should've trusted instinct on that. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mako001: that's OK. The original account AFAIK is User:Harry the house (mention that when reporting at AIV), has been through several shed-loads of IPs. Does lots of WP:OVERLINK and WP:NOTBROKEN violations, mainly targets British politics and children's television. DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, oddly, that wasnt the user I was thinking of when I reverted as block evasion. It was someone else, but they are weirdly similar to Harry the house, and started off with a named account. They also did much the same things to British politician articles, violating NOTBROKEN until they got blocked. There was an attempt to mentor them after their first block or two, but they then returned to doing the exact same thing and eventually got indeffed for LOUTSOCKing and lack of competence after they exceeded the (very substantial) patience of their mentor/s, amd everyone else. They also used IPs to evade the block. I think that they got indeffed around when HTH showed up. I'll dig a bit deeper and see if I can find them. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mako001: Interesting - I wasn't the one who made the HtheH identification. I had just picked up on a lot of IPs making these changes, and someone else made the connexion. DuncanHill (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just found it, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr Hall of England. This is the one I was thinking of. They got indeffed in July 2021. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mako001: Oh I remember him! Yes this is very similar. DuncanHill (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
HTH was created back in August 2014, a few months after Mr Hall got their first sock-block that January, then went quiet until around the time that Mr Hall got back into deep trouble in mid 2021.
  • Both don't give a hoot about NOTBROKEN
  • Both seem to have some competence issues
  • Their editing histories have some strange coincidences
  • Both edited politics articles
And then theres the small matter that Mr Hall's most recent sock was House of Nobles (now where have we seen another username with "house" in?)
It's getting rather hard to see this as purely a coincidence. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mako001: Do you fancy getting the two sock cases combined? This editor just cropped up on my watchlist - massive overlinking, overcatting, non-standard punctuation (I think that was one of Mr Hall's characteristics), which I rather suspect may be related. I'm not 100% up to working up another SPI case myself (have had some health issues recently and am trying not to get over-stressed if I can avoid it). DuncanHill (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have some experience with SPI, so that shouldn't be an issue. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Donald Healey[edit]

Concerning Donald Healey, it would be more accurate to say he attended Newquay Grammar School not Newquay College, particular as that links to Tretherras school which was not built until well into the 1950's. I was pleased to be a pupil there when Donald came in 1952 to talk about his life. 2A00:23C5:D086:8601:7C56:6853:F98B:E980 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why restore pipe through redirect?[edit]

Even if you think it was not broken, why would you revert to the less-good state of piping through a redirect? That revert can't possibly be considered an improvement. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No personal attacks[edit]

Calling somebody childish[3] is a WP:Personal attack, as I'm sure you're aware. Consider this a reminder not to personally attack other editors. – 2.O.Boxing 21:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought I was being kind. DuncanHill (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heads-up about a unilateral page mover[edit]

Because of your previous corrective actions to fix undiscussed page moves at articles such as History of the United Kingdom during the First World War (in Nov. 2017) and similar titles, you might be interested in following this UTP discussion. This user's pattern includes deleting warning messages from their UTP as soon as they notice them, so if it's not there when you click, here's a permalink. Thanks for all you do to keep the encyclopedia humming. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mathglot: Thanks for that. I've warned that editor about WP:NOTBROKEN before, and they've never replied. I'll keep an eye out. DuncanHill (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Jolliffe[edit]

Thanks for a prompt and courteous fill-in. Doug butler (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Brazier[edit]

Thanks for your help there. I had to leave the laptop quickly when someone called and I saved the work without adding the source. Sorry for the inconvenience you were caused. BcJvs UTC 17:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Hello DuncanHill Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A book of country clouds and sunshine (1897), cropped.jpg

Happy New Year, DuncanHill![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Moops T 02:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About a recent edit[edit]

Hey, I’m the owner of the trademark for white lives matter and I saw you did a recent edit. My name is Ramses Ja and the mark is owned by my LLC/radio show Civic Cipher. I wondered if it might be meaningful for that to be reflected on the page you edited for the phrase. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:4A96:FF00:31F3:20F2:A57F:3215 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sorry--I searched for the title and for the name, and now I see that I took his first name as his last name. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Drmies: No worries, shortened citations confuse the best of us. DuncanHill (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You and I don't bring out the best in each other, but I do respect your fairness. Check out an article called 'Good Will Hunting'.

Seasider53 reverted an addition I made without citation (fair enough). I then provided a citation (from the hundreds available). Again reverted.

Have a look. You have enough clout to make a decision. I won't dispute it. But please be fair. (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stub now on-line. Nothing to be proud of but it's OK. I only mention it to draw your attention to my findings and ruminations on the Talk page. Curious, but all I have to solve it is Trove and free-to-view genealogy pages, neither much help. Cheers and thanks again. Doug butler (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

though I'm curious[edit]

"Bloody horrible referencing method, let those who like it fix their own mistakes." What's horrible about it? --Golbez (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Golbez: 1) For me as a reader it takes too many clicks to get to the reference and back to the text - and in and of itself something like "Bloggs 1944" is meaningless what is it? A book? An article?, 2) it fails disgracefully (that is to say even a small mistake makes it fail completely), 3) none of the people who likeit are competent at using it, 4) it gets broken by people fixing typos, copying text from one article to another, not noticing that a ref is being used when they clean up "unused" refs, etc, 5) it's unfair on people who don't know what their source's surname is :) I suppose it makes a sort of sense if both paper and typesetting are expensive, but we suffer from neither of those problems. DuncanHill (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I take it you're referring to the sfn template? I'm pretty new here, so I haven't had a TON of experience with it, but I have found it useful for exactly one purpose so far - using a book source to generate many (and I mean many - not just 2 or 3) citations. When adding content from a book, it's nice to be able to cite the book just once with ALL the info, then use short refs to cite specific pages or sections. You're not able to do this with a ref name, since the named ref can only have one range of pages.
I get your point about typesetting not being expensive here, this being the internet, but I personally like the more compact-looking ref list citations for books - it makes it easier to scan the ref list to see proportionally where citations are coming from. And books aren't exactly the most accessible sources on the internet anyway... so being 1 more click away doesn't add that much more time, relatively, if you're looking to verify the content being cited.
... anyways, if you have other reasons why you dislike the ref method you mentioned, I'd genuinely like to hear them - I'm trying to improve as a content editor, and I realize how important it is to be good at citations. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PhotofenicScientist: Yes, Template:Sfn, though I don't like short references in general. You can use Template:Rp with refnames to specify pages. Anyway, lots of people DO like sfn, hence Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors being the size it is. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changed citation at Law of France[edit]

Thanks for looking out for WP:Verifiability at Law of France by adding the {{cite web}} template in this edit. Just a heads-up: that was not a malformed {{sfn}}, because it was not an sfn template at all; rather, it's a wrapper, {{sfn Legifrance}}, one of several related templates that permits economical citations to the Légifrance website which are, generally much easier to code and shorter than a full {{cite web}} would be. Also, it was working: if you go back to the previous version and click the "Decision" link in the short citation linked by note [50], you'll see it correctly brings up the Legifrance page. The {{cite web}} you added is equivalent to what was there before (plus or minus direct citation vs. short citation), so there's no reason to change it back; it's fine the way it is. But going forward, if you encounter this template in other articles please don't change it to the longer, {{cite web}} form. May I ask how you found this in the first place? If it was via AWB, there may be an AWB pattern that is falsely labeling this template as a typo or mistaken syntax; if that's the case, the rule will have to be changed so other users don't waste their time "fixing" it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mathglot: I spotted it because your edit introducing the ref added the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, which I have watchlisted. I looked at the reference and clicked on the highlighted (as it would be if it were an sfn) word "Legifrance" and nothing happened, exactly as nothing happens with bad sfn's, and was also highlighted as bad by User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. So it looked and behaved like a bad sfn, just with a link afterwards. I changed it to a ref that behaves as expected. I'll take your word for it that yours is a legitimate method, but it strikes me as unnecessarily obscure and confusing to readers used to clickable refs. DuncanHill (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, that's very helpful, thanks. Now I see what happened and why it ended up on that list. Normally, it doesn't, because like any {{sfn}}, it has to be paired with a citation in a "Sources" or "Works cited" section which lists the full citation and is discoverable by the {{sfn}} from two parameters in the full citation via |last= and either |year= or |date= (or else by using the |ref= param of the full citation to explicitly specify the link target for {{sfn}} using {{harvid}}). In this case, I had simply forgotten to include the full citation, provoking that error. It has nothing to do with {{sfn Legifrance}} itself, only the fact that, like {{sfn}}, if you forget to include the full citation (or, if the linkage is broken due to missing year, last name, or bad |ref=) you will get the error you saw, and it ends up in the tracking categories where you spotted it. When used properly, it's light-years simpler, and encourages users to cite things which they otherwise might not, due to the complexity of a full citation to Légifrance, which you did correctly in your edit, but which—let's face it—plenty of editors either don't know how to, or aren't going to bother with. (which is the whole point).
To clarify: the template allows the user to code this:

Lorum ipsum dolor sit amet.{{sfn Legifrance|CP|121-3}}

. . .

== Works cited ==
* {{cite Legifrance}}

which generates this:
Lorum ipsum dolor sit amet.[1]
including citation #1 below;

instead of coding this:
Lorum ipsum dolor sit amet.<ref name="Legifrance CP 121-3">{{cite web |author=République française |author2=Secrétariat général du gouvernement |date=19 October 2022 |title=Légifrance Le service public de la diffusion du droit : Penal code, 121-3 |trans-title=The public service for dissemination of the law |website=Légifrance |issn=2270-8987 |publisher=Direction de l'information légale et administrative |url=​LEGIARTI000006417208/2023-02-27 |oclc=867599055}}</ref>
which generates this:
Lorum ipsum dolor sit amet.[2]
including the footnote below, but which most editors won't bother to do.
The generated code is identical in both cases, and it works either way (see citation and refs below, all linkages working), so the reader won't care; but for the editor who has to write the wikicode, the top one, with {{sfn Legifrance|CP|121-3}} is clearly easier to code, and encourages use. It also makes the wikicode easier to read for other editors who come along later, and facilitates their copying and pasting existing sfn's already in the code to make new ones, suited to their purpose. Hope this makes more sense, now, and thanks again for pointing out the missing full citation in the "Works cited" section on that article. I'll probably have to use other {{sfn}}'s there, so it's good to know. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Citations and refs
Works cited
  • République française; Secrétariat général du gouvernement (19 October 2022). "Légifrance Le service public de la diffusion du droit" [The public service for dissemination of the law]. Légifrance. Direction de l'information légale et administrative. ISSN 2270-8987. OCLC 867599055.

  1. ^ Legifrance, Penal code, 121-3.
  2. ^ République française; Secrétariat général du gouvernement (19 October 2022). "Légifrance Le service public de la diffusion du droit : Penal code, 121-3" [The public service for dissemination of the law]. Légifrance. Direction de l'information légale et administrative. ISSN 2270-8987. OCLC 867599055.

‎A barnstar for your efforts[edit]

Cleanup Barnstar Hires.png The Cleanup Barnstar
Awarded for your unending efforts in tidying up citations in articles. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 28 February 2023

Cdjp1 (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, DuncanHill. I hope you are having a nice day. You recently reverted my edit on the World War 1 page. I would like to ask why. You said in your summary, "Well that's the myth sold by the Nazis anyway." What exactly do you have against that statement? Professor Penguino (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussions about article content belong on article talk pages not here. DuncanHill (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I just wanted to notify you. I'll start a discussion on the talk page. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just FYI, I have started the section on the article's talk page if you are interested. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk Page quotes[edit]

So I was hoping the blockquote would be indented in such a way that it was clear it was associated with my comment ... is there a better template for that? (maybe collapsable?) Walt Yoder (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know. Perhaps continue your comment after the blockquote. DuncanHill (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]