User talk:Dabbler/Archive 2

This way to Archive 1 and to Archive 3

Wine-Dark Sea image

No not at all. I was trying to add a few images and have found I had used a "smaller than usual" setting. So having put a "very large" sizing - realised my mistake and am in the process of putting up a revised set of images and bringing the sizes back to normal. We have just tripped over each other I think. By the way I like all the work you and Ivankinsman have been doing on this series. It is much more in keeping with the notability of the literature that they used to be. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Wine-Dark-Sea cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:The Wine-Dark-Sea cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Old Marlburians

Hi. I agree with you on Hallus and White, but perhaps there's a case for Hugh Pym, who seems to meet the General notability guideline, viz., he's received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, as defined in the guideline. Apart from being a journalist, he's the author of a book on Gordon Brown. Xn4 13:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Moore

I quickly checked the BBC site, including news as well as Google News and there's no mention of his death. You're wise to suspect that it was a hoax. It's not the first time I've seen a bogus reference to someone's death in a wikipedia article. Autarch (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Trampoline/Trampolining

Hi Dabbler - not sure if you noticed but the history piece you recently reverted from trampolining because was repeated in trampoline introduced a subtle issue. As the editor reworked the trampolining article pre-revert there was a clear implication that Griswold was 'inventor' not Nissen. Quite a gob-smacker if true. Do you have a view on this? I'm trying to do some research into Ted Blake at present that might lead me to contacts who could resolve but wondered if you had a view. DaveK@BTC (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The West View site with its History states that they worked together and that apparently comes from an article on Griswold. I don't know much more than that. Dabbler (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK - I'll see what I can find out in my researches elsewhere. In the meantime the original editor who made the changes has not come back on them. DaveK@BTC (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Trampoline Glossary

Hi again Dabbler - I was surprised to find MoA site still live; the club effectively folded last year (or before?) following suspension(s) of coaching staff as I understand it (to be honest not really followed it in any detail - too busy for gossip). I think all their performers are now in other clubs. It is a good glossary though for as long as the site stays in place. DaveK@BTC (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

OK we had better keep an eye on it to see if it turns into a dead link one day. They must have pre-paid for their site name and hosting and not been able/thought of getting rid of it. Dabbler (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Lafontaine

Articles are not kept on the basis of maybe being referenceable. Any article can be redirected to another topic, with no advance discussion required, if references aren't already present. And furthermore, all of the content in the Lafontaine article is already present in the parent topic's article as well; the redirect did not result in the "loss" of any information at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The township article doesn't have enough references, certainly, but it does have some, whereas the separate article on Lafontaine had none at all. The general practice for Canadian geographical articles right now is that there should always be an article about the municipality, whereas an unincorporated community within a municipality should only have an article if there's sufficient referenced content to warrant subdividing the municipal-level article. We never upmerge municipal-level articles to their county; that would result in overly long and unmanageable articles. And I don't think one single half-sentence that got missed warrants jumping down someone's throat about "deleted" content, either. Though YMMV, I suppose. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Response

If you are actively working on it, place an appropriate template on the item. It had sat for over a day without improvement or any assertion of notability, so WP:CSD#A7 is clear cut. The other alternative, is to work on it at your own pace in your user space and move it to main space when it's ready for its debut. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bayview Village

"I have never seen the boundaries listed as extending to Leslie or including the NYGH grounds" added by Dabbler as hidden comment.

I am using the map at City of Toronto's website to determine the boundaries. A link to the page is in the references section, and it is pointed to from 3 places in the article. On the City Hall page, the map is also copied into PDF files compiling census data, which suggests these are the boundaries used in the census process, and this seems to make them official. It may be that these are not traditional boundaries, but they do seem to be the current ones.

Re. the sentence about churches, there is a typo there, and I'm trying to figure how I can put the word "churches" at the front, as it looks awkward to read through a list before you get to what the sentence is talking about. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bayview Village Association recognises the boundaries as Finch, Bayview and Sheppard Avenues and the East Don River,thereby excluding the townhouses on the west of Leslie Street which are cut off from the rest of the community with no direct access the ravine. Certainly NYGH is well outside the accepted boundaries. The city document does state that it creates the tracts based on census data breakdown of areas and that they do not necessarily correspond to the "traditional" neighbourhoods. At the very least this should be distinguished in the article, as the city's criteria may change after the next census and with the allthe new development south of Sheppard may lead to the area round NYGH, which has no permanent population, could be reassigned. Dabbler (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I am trying to fix up some Toronto neighbourhood articles, but don't know if I'll be able to get to all or many of them. I'm finding out neighbourhood boundaries, names, and existence are not as straightforward as I thought. Any help in sorting it out is appreciated. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Pigeon Post

I apologise for tyhe misrating of Pigeon Post. I failed to notice the Carnegie medal comment and thus decided that, as sixth in a series, it was probably Low notability. My mistake has not been corrected. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 09:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot really comment on your views on the Wikipedia rating system, but I would like to point out that the importance rating is intended as a guide to the Article's relevance to the project as a whole; as such, in the Children's Literature project, individual books rarely score highly, wheras Children's Literature is top priority. When rating, I try to remain as neutral as possible, but sometimes mistakes are made - particularly since my rating is usually based on the first few lines of an article only. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 12:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Operation Market Garden

I do understand, that in article should be posted only division commanders or higher. Hovever polish 1st brigade was a specific unit during this operation, so I think brigade commander name should be posted in article. Regards, Jacek Jaruchowski, Poland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.87.244.55 (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't argue with your edit of the photo caption today because I don't know when the photo was taken; however, elements of the US 5th Armored Division had already penetrated the west wall before M-G began, and other 12th Army Group units certainly would have followed had they been given the logistical support to do so. So saying the westwall penetration was not contemoraneous with M-G is not quite right. With kind regards, DMorpheus (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

List of residents of the Isle of Man

Hey D: just as a heads up, I wanted to let you know I reversed your move of List of residents of the Isle of Man; even though the list is just of noable people, the WP:BIO guideline says that in the article title "notable is assumed, and so should not be part of the title." UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes did review the conversations on the topic afterwards and I consider that to be one of the stupider rules of Wikipedia in that it encourages all sorts of nonsense and I consider that the people who enforce it are totally misguided in enforcing a stupid rule. But that is what the world and Wikipedia is all about, people being too busy to make constructive edits because they are creating and enforcing stupid rules to hamper those doing the worker. Dabbler (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Rudyard Kipling FAR

Rudyard Kipling has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

World Championships

Hi Dabbler - I hadn't seen that page and, no I don't have a list pre-1982 but know some people who might. I'll send out a few emails and see what response I get. DaveK@BTC (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Trampoline World Championships

As there is not a single Men'd champion or Women's champion, it might not be worth your effort in adding them to the page? -- ratarsed (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Check our the talk page of Trampoline World Championships for the full list of winners and venues. DaveK@BTC (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC Bates method article

I am contacting you quite randomly. For the following reason. The reason is the Bates method article, which in my opinion is edited by parties who are far from objective. Most logical associated party ophthalmology or a group focussed on just being skeptic. I am hoping for your comment on some current essential and interesting issues. Issues in which presenting objective strong arguments are completely neglected and ignored. If you have time and are willing to share you opinion and arguments, please do. My goal is to come to some kind of decision tool. By clearly stating if an argument is valid or not by the objective editor. My request is also to give a weight-factor for example between 1 and 10. For exmple1 for a valid argument but not very important and 10 for a very important argument. And zero for a fake-argument. Please feel free to comment and look at the current three RFC. Nr 1, Nr 2 and Nr 3 on the talkpage of the Bates method article. Seeyou (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Iraq War

Kingcol came from Palestine and included elements of the Arab Legion)

The fact that the Kingcol came from a location i.e. Palestine doesnt make them "Palestinians" or whatever - i believe they were mostly British troops based there for interal secuirty.

Do you have a citation to support members of the Arab Legion taking part, where these solders from The British mandate of Palestine?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent info :) Although do you have a citation and source just to back it up in the article?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff, cheers! :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Action of 13 January 1797

Dabbler, thanks for your message. I regularly get messages asking me to tone down the sarcasm. I actually have toned it down a lot, but apparently I still offend. That's a tough one. For me, much of the payoff for doing the editing is getting to wax a bit snarky, but in any case I like to point out some of the language fads that get in the way of clean writing on Wikipedia. I'm hoping to help people hone their writing, as well as honing articles by the sweat of my own brow.

As for making many small edits, I'm surprised that you suggest making a large edit. Some time ago I had someone request I NOT make large edits because that usually meant there were both good and bad edits, and it couldn't be solved with a simple revert. Also, I tend to edit as I go, reading from the main text rather than in the edit screen.

I'd be pleased if you pointed out where I removed essential meaning. I'm sympathetic to that sentiment, as any author tends to think what he says is important in every respect, but this isn't supposed to be nuanced literature, it's supposed to be informative and, as much as possible, concise. Not brief, since there's no space restriction, but concise so that it doesn't tire people out with unnecessarily overloaded sentences.

This really is an impressive article. Some people obviously worked hard, paid great attention to detail, and created a highly informative piece. I'll try to be less snarky and more informative in my edit remarks, since the writers of this and many other articles certainly do deserve respect. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Dabbler. Thanks for your note and it is nice to hear from you again. I know that this has been discussed many times on OW's talk page. I thought that we had settled on leaving the page in the state that I returned it too. If I am wrong please alter it per your ideas. I trust your judgement (as well as Old Moonraker's) regarding OW's page so please do what you think best. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Cochrane

Cochrane actually called himself Sir Thomas Cochrane aswell as Lord Cochrane.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).

He once qouted: "I, Sir Thomas Cochrane, commonly called Lord Cochrane..." This is in Cochrane The Dauntless by David Cordingly. Also I would be interested to see where it says it is a incorrect usage of his title as I am not to sure whether it is or not.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).

I refer you to a number of well known peers who also had knighthoods, Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, John Jervis, 1st Earl of St. Vincent, Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis, Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig as you may notice, not one of them have either Sir or Rt. Hon in their Wikipedia articles, because that does not follow the correct style. Now the Rt. Hon. part is due to Wikipedia as English peers should have Rt. Hon. though not I think Scottish peersm but the Sir bit is because it is superseded by the senior title of Earl, Viscount or Duke. Dabbler (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Crewkerne

Stop editing the page - i'm only stating the facts. Gee was in charge of the school when it went into special measures and took "retirement" when the board of governers stepped in. I'm not putting anything wrong on the page, but it's right for people to know who was in charge when things went wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.110.246 (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dendrology and Arborology

Dendrology is more about wooded plants as a whole. Arborology is more about trees specifically. There is also dendrochronology which is the subject of aging wooded plants. I didn't know there was one of dendrology so I will expand it.

Thanks a lot. I didn't know!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 25th May 2009.

P. S. I have just started building a page of arborology and have improved the page on dendrology.

Thomas Cochrane

Hello, the amount I can write in the edit summary is restricted so I'll give you my thoughts about this article on your talk page. The first thing I notice when I read through the article is the lack of inline citations – 7 large sections of the article contain just 3 inline sections. Of the 27 references, the first 2 are just unsourced footnotes and 10 others are from thepeerage.com which I'm not sure can be considered a reliable website. You already removed the refimprove tag added by another user so I thought the no footnotes tag would be more appropriate. The usage instructions on Template:No footnotes instruct editors to place this tag in the references section of the article. I have Cordingly's biography of Cochrane so in the future I will add a few more, but for now I think the tag you have added will warn readers that large amounts of this article are unverified. All the best. Barret (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Cockchafer (1915)

On July 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Cockchafer (1915), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

DAFMM

You seem to have had better luck in reaching DAFMM to be reasonable than I did. He hasn't stopped generating those crap talkpages; I've had to delete three that he created after his conversation with you.

As I said to him, I don't want to impose disciplinary measures on him, but I will if I have to.

(Also... I have no idea where he got this idea that I don't speak English? Is there anything in my word choice that makes it seem like I'm not a native speaker?) DS (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Cochrane Bias

Do you think that the section the the Stock Exchange Scandal on Thomas Cochrane's article reads biased? Please see the below.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

I placed it on your talk page to ask for your advice and so that you had a copy of it there. I thought it would be more convenient for you to be a ble to see it in front of you than having to go off and find the talk page in question. I placed it on your talk page because I wondered what you thought as you are a 'regular editor'.

I reply to the 'arguing' I was only getting my opin ion on the subject accross.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 31st August 2009.

BarretBonden seems to have done a good job on rewriting it so the dispute seems to be over with.

With etc..

DAFMM (talk), 31st August 2009.

OKW

Sorry, I saved a very incomplete set of remarks on my talk page which I see you have replied to. The full version is now up. Thanks! --Xdamr^talk 19:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Master and Commander

Great edit. Would you be interested in the new Napoleonic fiction Military History working group, I am beginning to organize it now.SADADS (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, but I do not join any of those Task Force thingies. I prefer to potter around and do my own thing rather than feeling obligated to consider the requirements of other editors. I have no objection to people who do join these Task Forces, it is just not for me. Dabbler (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there isn't much of anyone around, so its a good place to get resources and whatnot. Sadads (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Building consensus on copyright issue

You were involved in a discussion regarding the use of copyrighted architectural designs on Wikipedia pages and I'm trying to find community consensus on a gray area. If you can, please let me know at what point you feel these images should be replaced here. Thank you so much! DR04 (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:PDuck.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PDuck.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wilde

Hi Dabbler, As a long time contributor to the Wilde article, I was wondering if you had any general comments on it? Though still imperfect, I think it is about ready for GA nomination. Any remarks would be appreciated. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Marius Quote on Thomas More Article

I think the quote from Richard Marius should be deleted not only because I think it´s biased, but because I think it´s against Wikipedia policies [1]. Please read: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." So my edit is in tone with Wikipedia policies. Do you still think that Richard Marius quote is in tone with Wikipedia policies? If it´s not me, sooner or later, other editors certainly will questione the presence of that quote. Regards.Mistico (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do because by excluding it you are trying to silence a significant minority, not a tiny minority, who consider that Thomas More is not a saint but a torturer and killer of saints. In other words you are trying to maintain your POV at the expense of other people's. Either both should be expressed or a NPOV opinion found. As More is still a very divisive character, otherwise protection would not berequired from time to time to prevent edit warring, I think that both opinions should be included. Dabbler (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

quite decent of you

Thanks for your comments on my talk page.Wrotesolid (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The sacred isles

Hello, Dabbler. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent

Actually, St. Vincent is a nickname.

Earl of St. Vincent or Earl St. Vincent is a title. Corneredmouse (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I would add that a nickname can also be both. If I write a cheque to my friend Terence Smith and simply write Terry Smith on the cheque the bank still honour it. Terry however is not his given name but a nickname. The way one is addressed can be a name, nickname or both. The contraction of a name does not mean that it no longer remains a name. That contraction does, however, allow it to be a nickname though. I included St. Vincent as a nickname because he was referred to as St. Vincent and it was a contraction of his name. I referred to him as St. Vincent (where appropriate and not chronologically before he received the title) in the article because it is a perfectly acceptable practice. In the same way that one might use Jervis instead of Mr or Lieutenent Jervis. I don't want to change it back before I can have the opportunity of convincing you that it should be included. Corneredmouse (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly they were not as thorough as I have been/intend to be! I looked up nickname on Wikipedia and it seems to support us both in differing degrees. As I am the primary contributor to the article would you have any strenuous objections if I were to put it back again?

I've had a brief look round and you're right. It doesn't appear to be something regularly used. Never mind. I appreciate that you brought it to my attention and am pleased I've learned a little bit more wikipedia language. Cheers, Corneredmouse (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:CITN cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CITN cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Edward Pellew

Please could you insert a source for your comment that Pellew did not return to the Mediterranean until 1816. My comment that he returned "He returned the following year" was sourced from ODNB. Also, assuming you are right that he did not return until 1816, do you know who filled the vacancy in between? I am very keen to get the details correct. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I checked Osler and Parkinson again and although he did not receive orders to act against the North African deys until 1816, he actually did return to the Mediterranean in 1815, superseding Penrose. Sorry for the mistake. Dabbler (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the trouble to check. It is much appreciated. Dormskirk (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Irish Guards

Hi, do you know why there appears to be two articles on the Irish Guards, ie, Irish Guards set up around March 2004 and History of the Irish Guards set up in July 2004? If they are dealing with the same subject, shouldn't they be merged? Hohenloh ⁺ 01:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Hilton Poynton

Hello, thanks for the note on my talk page. You asked the question "If he is so notable, why does he not have any Wikipedia article yet?" I would suggest that although wikipedia does have an enormous amount of articles, it is not yet complete in terms of having an article for everything and everyone that deserves one. One of the tenets of the wikipedia project is that it is a work in progress. I agree that dotting red links everywhere has certain dangers, but in this instance the individual is notable, and I have provided a citation that both corroborates that he was at the school and confirms his notability. The red link will, I hope, encourage someone to write an article, even if that person is not the person that added the link. I have found red links have encouraged me to write articles, and although I would not suggest to generalise from my example, it has been suggested in the Red link editing guideline that red links help the project grow. In addition, once an article has been created, the former red link stops the article being an orphan and furthers the aim to connect the web. Although I do appreciate some of the points in the essay Wikipedia:Write the article first, I disagree that red links are no longer useful. As for writing the article myself, I may do this, or perhaps you could, or perhaps we could harness the collaborative power of wikipedia as a whole.Kwib (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewards and Fairies

Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Nice little article, but too short. It needs to be 1500 words to qualify for DYK, but only has 481 (excluding references), so will need some extra work.Philipjelley (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wilde vs Queensberry

Thanks for picking that up: shaky copy-and-paste while editing with an external application. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rewards and Fairies

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Peel

Ooops, thanks for catching this one :-)  Badgernet  ₪  14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Marlborough, Wiltshire move decision NOT a Consensus

This is not the first time I've seen a rigged vote on Wikipedia, nor do I expect it to be the last. — Robert Greer (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at ErikHaugen's talk page. Message added 18:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC).

Demonstrated performance is not POV

Capacity factors for rebuilt CANDUs are between 59 and 69%. That is not speculation, that is the measured and published performance figure from the CANDU Owners Group. The number is referenced and published. I don't mind adding a statement about existing Darlington capacity factors, but only in addition to the lower performance of rebuilt units. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I was commenting on the POV speculation that the Clean Air Alliance made to calculate its own post-refurbishment power cost figures. I also would argue that drawing conclusions from Pickering A current post restart performance and extrapolating it to Darlington is verging on the deceptive. The scope of work done for the Pickering A return to service was NOT close to the scope of a refurbishment such as is being proposed for Darlington and to suggest that they are equivalent is manifestly POV. Dabbler (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh. If the issue was simply Pickering then one might have an argument. However, the cost overruns are universal to all CANDU refurb efforts. The work being proposed at Darlington A is similar to the work proposed for Pt. Lepreau, which is currently 250% over budget and the accounting is not complete. So we have a fact that every CANDU refurb has gone over budget, and a fact that every refurbed unit has very low capacity factors. A simple calculation based on two well supported facts does not strike me as POV, but YMMV. Instead I will simply mention the two issues. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I would class it as POV and OR myself if you really want to know. You are making predictions based on disconnected facts about unlike projects run by different people. You can't say what the capacity factor of refurbished unit will be until the project is completed and the unit restarted. If I change the oil on a jalopy and it still keeps breaking down, does it follow that if I change the engine on another car it will also keep breaking down with a new engine? It may, but until I start running it I am making unfounded predictions if I say that it definitely will. Dabbler (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll admit that is true. However, in the original reference the point is not that it will do this, but what if it does?. That's a different issue. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, that's not clear. The speculation in this case is on the part of OPG - they're the ones making the claim, one that is clearly unsupported by reality. The CLA is simply pointing this out. If that's POV, then how is the OPG's claim not the same thing? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

One is an engineered project plan and one is speculation based on unrelated facts. Is a back of the envelope guesstimate for a new building based on a rule of thumb for cost/square foot the same as a detailed architectural and engineering design package? Yes in a way they are both POV, but you were the one who decided both needed to be included. I would prefer to keep to the facts and basically leave out the speculations.

OPG is working on developing a detailed refurbishment project plan which will be implemented in the later part of this decade. Anti-nuclear activists are trying to shoot it down based on dubiously related previous experience. Can you really claim that the current OPG plan will not be improved as a result of the previous experience of both OPG and other utilities? Compare the retubing times of the Pickering A reactors in the late 1980s. The first reactor took much longer and cost more than the later ones because lessons were learned and the process adapted. Following the Pickering 4 restart debacle, Pickering 1 was correctly planned and then the project plan as developed was implemented on time and budget, admittedly not the first cursory over-optimistic plan developed at the same time as the Pickering 4 plan but once the proper planning was done following the bad experience. However, I would not add that to the article at the moment as I believe that both sides are speculating on the future to a certain extent and so it would be better to leave the whole issue until the outcome is known. Dabbler (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

sophie neville

Thank you so much - I do agree that the entry needs to be encyclopedic. I am a novice Wiki contributer so modelled the entry on others such as the article on Suzanna Hamilton. Would you like contact me about photographs by e-mail: sophie@sophieneville.co.uk Sophieneville (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

you are right but...

[2] it is true that legal acceptance of Rome's authority ended in 1558 but communion existed between the churches until the Papal Bull of 1572? I guess my own prejudice is to regard communion as the important relationship but I can see that may not be a universal POV. --BozMo talk 14:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Communion implies a two way street, while the Papal Bull may have excommunicated the Queen only in 1572, did not the renewed Act of Supremacy effectively excommunicate the Pope from the English church?--Dabbler (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it did then I misunderstand it (which is possible of course). Sure there was the bit about "I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities" but I think that means denying the authority of Rome over the English Church, not declaring that the Pope was no longer in communion with God (which is actually what the act of excommunication is supposed to declare AFAIK?) I don't think there was a declaration on say the invalidity of Roman orders. The way it is being taught to my kids at school, the excommunication of Elizabeth was highly political and came with a formal declaration she was not rightful queen of England, that Roman Catholics were obliged to rise up against her and install Philip of Spain etc. This Papal bull was in retaliation to a simple denial of Papal authority with a deal of concession towards Catholicism. From that point of view subsequent banning Roman Catholicism was more like banning a terrorist organisation today, in that Roman Catholics had a formal commitment to overthrow the state? Whether it was an appropriate act for the Pope is completely arguable; depends what the Pope thinks he is of course. But all this probably doesn't affect that article content. --BozMo talk 23:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't using the term excommunicate in its most accurate theological term but in the effect it had on the relationship between the Pope and the Church of England. By declaring the Pope had no authority in England, they were effectively repudiating his temporal and spiritual authority. The Thirty Nine Articles reiterated this in 1563. So the final split with Rome, from the English POV was 1558, perhaps Rome hoped for a reconciliation for a few years but a one-sided relationship does not a marriage make. --Dabbler (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that communion without authority (as in the current Anglican Communion) must have been an option too, even then. That does exist between some Roman and other churches, as well as within the Porvoo Communion. It may have been the relationship with the Orthodox churches then too? --BozMo talk 07:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Act of Supremacy 1558 contained an Oath of Supremacy which explicitly forced Roman Catholics to renounce Papal authority. So the article should perhaps suggest that papal authority was explicitly rejected. I have made some changes, I hope not controversial to the article. Dabbler (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not contraversial in my view but the "te" presumably is a typo. I think being explicit about Papal authority when definitive statements exist is an improvement (the bit on Bertha I tagged earlier is a problem where no definitive statements apparently exist). However denying Papal authority does not equate to splitting the Communion, so from my point of view it wasn't a quid pro quo, the Pope (1) declared Elizabeth not to be rightful queen forcing Elizabeth to deny Papal authority in response (which was politically inevitable). Then even though Elizabeth was pretty moderate and accommodating towards Catholic doctrine the Pope excommunicated Elizabeth, called on Roman Catholics to rebel and set about trying to sponsor an invasion. He must only have done that in the belief he could definitely capture the English throne for Philip. To modern eyes the Pope's interference in the succession and his sponsorship of the Spanish Armada was extraordinary. But in those days why not? Anyway I accept if the Catholic Communion had remained intact probably Cromwell or William of Orange would have broken it anyway so I cannot really blame the Pope for the British Schism even though it appears his was the first sin. --BozMo talk 20:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

My fingers are slower than my mind, so I find I sometimes leave out letters to catch up and I am not good at proof-reading! I don't blame the Pope for schism, nor the English. In my mind it was a clash of a new world view with an old one, and this clash had been developing for decades if not centuries, it just happened that Henry's personal interests sparked the changes in England, whereas it was Luther in parts of Germany etc. Dabbler (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Your greater wisdom shows. I go to services in both Anglican and Roman churches (and have taken communion in both wherever the local Roman Catholic bishop, whom I ask, has given consent including for years in Africa). It is so blatantly obvious that they are exactly the same faith that it makes me angry at the separation, and the anger goes somewhere. This view seems to be privately shared by bishops on both sides but not aired. Given a 15 minute section of service you often would not be able to work out which church it was from. To separate on basis a different understanding of what the faith is, when the faith and practice itself is clearly the same, makes no emotional sense to me. --BozMo talk 18:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I was brought up in the Church of England, my wife's family is Roman Catholic and I have attended many a mass with them, although not taken communion. I have had many religious discussions with my mother in law, a staunch and traditional Irish Catholic who has also attended a number of Anglican services with me. There are some differences in belief, but the overlap, as you suggest is considerable. There are many Anglicans who are more "Catholic" than many Catholics. Dabbler (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. FWIW I was brought up as a Congregationalist and became an Anglican by conviction as a teenager. I found the claim to be the Church (from which one does not dissent without reason) strong, however, denominations were not as much a part of the decision making process back then as faith versus secularism (Hans Wilhelm Frei's 1974 book was fairly convincing). These days the Anglican decision is mainly to do with how I want my children brought up (the Anglican tradition to be open minded appeals to parents) but there is an Anglican church in our garden which helps. --BozMo talk 21:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Dabbler for helping to promote Patrick Moore to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding POV content to articles

You have been told previously that your edits to the Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran are POV and your citations are unverifiable/non existent. Please stop adding POV content as it is against policyJanus945 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC).

Please read the citation which clearly explains that there was a diplomatic note and describes the build-up of troops. Then explain why you believe it is incorrect. You seem to be the POV pusher here, not me. Dabbler (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry i removed your template

I guess you saw what happened. I was editing on my iPhone(which I know not this best idea) and I was having some trouble typing the edit summary, then my phone froze for a bit. Meanwhile you made your intermediate edit. Sorry--Racerx11 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to sign. The above was at Kangchenjunga, and to finish my story: I eventually switched to my laptop (with even more difficulty with slowness) and made the edit, and it was during that attempt your edit was made. Must have been a connection problem at the time. The above post on this talk page was later made with my phone and I had no problem then. So there's the whole story, again sorry bout all that.--Racerx11 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No harm done, I did not think it was deliberate sabotage! Dabbler (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran article

You are the one that is POV pushing. Also, I have noticed that each time you are "evolving" your sources and your claims in order to push these claims about a supposed "Note" being given by "someone" in the British government to "someone else" before the undeclared surprise attack occurred.Janus945 (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to argue with you on the Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran Talk Page that NPOV requires both sides to be presented. This is where discussions about an article should take place, not on User Talk pages which other editors may not see them.

By the way deleting critical material from your Talk Page is considered by some to be an admission of guilt and is also ineffective as the edits can still be recovered from the Wikipedia archive. It is better to leave material there so people can see how you have respnded to an accusation. Dabbler (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit on talk page

I am not sure why i reverted that conversation, seems to me a case of mistaken revert, Thanks a lot of cleaning it up , regards-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

A smile for you You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.137 (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference

Dabbler - Thanks for adding a citation. However, you didn't use the proper reference template. The various types can be found at Wikipedia:Citation templates. I think that Template:Cite journal is the one you'd want to use in this case. Thanks, --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I found a Template:Cite Hansard. Thanks for reminding me I tend to be lazy about correct citation formats.Dabbler (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought there was a specific hansard template, but I couldn't find it. Thanks for digging it out. I'll add it to my shortcuts. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. When you recently edited Patrick Tull, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bexhill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You are introducing POV to article again

Your repeated edits are clearly POV and unsupported. There are no facts to support your claim Janus945 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

Please explain clearly why you cannot read the factual reference in the London Gazette and see the evidence of the report of the build up of British forces and the delivery of the diplomatic note and the comment that the Iranian government knew of the pending attack. These are all as factual as we are likely to get from the British standpoint and I would suggest more likely to be true than the reference that it was a complete surprise which seems to be a dubious source at best. Dabbler (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop with the threats on my talk page. You have had plenty of opportunities to prove your highly lopsided point.Janus945 (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What will it take to get you to simply explain why you think my edits are POV? Are you incapable of explaining your opinion? Can you formulate a single sensible reason for your opinion, backed by reliable sources as my edits are? Just because you say I have a POV doesn't make it true. Dabbler (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of 1812

May I remind you that the majority of land battles were won by the British, Natives, and Canadians. (See:Battle of Fort Dearborn, Battle of Mackinac Island (1812), Siege of Fort Mackinac, Siege of Detroit, Battle of Queenston Heights, Battle of Lacolle Mills (1812), Battle of Frenchtown, Battle of Ogdensburg, Battle of Chateauguay, Battle of Beaver Dam, Battle of Cook's Mills, Battle of Crysler's Farm, Battle of Lundy's Lane, Battle of Stoney Creek, Battle of Mackinac Island, Engagements on Lake Huron, Battle of Lacolle Mills (1814), Battle of Prairie du Chien, Battle of Saint-Denis (1837), Battle of the Windmill, Battle of Windsor, Short Hills Raid, Battle of Eccles Hill, Battle of Loon Lake) It was the naval battles which were mostly lost to the Americans. Check your history!--Captain Thor (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The point being that while there were a number of individual single-ship naval engagements lost to the Americans, the Royal Navy blockaded the American coast so effectively that their international and coastal trade was destroyed and their navy rendered ineffective. This is what brought the war to a conclusuion. As for the land battles, they did not materially affect the outcome of the war from the British perspective, they were mostly defensive in repelling American invasions and they could not capitalise on any of them in the peace negotiations. The result of the war has been described as a draw with neither side gaining anything of significance. Dabbler (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on what you mentioned, however, it was the naval battles lost on the Great Lakes and especially the last one on Lake Champlain that caused the war to be a stalemate. Had the naval battles been won, Maine and Minnesota would have been annexed to Canada, and the Native people of America would have had their own country formed from the Midwestern states. Unfortunately, neither occurred even though Canada had been attacked and invaded.--216.137.122.194 (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Swagger stick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shillelagh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This way to Archive 3