User talk:Dabbler/Archive 3

This way to Archive 1 and Archive 2

Indian army in WW2

I agree,but infact it was British Indian army,as it's government was British India,not India. Indian army came to exist as India achieved her independence,right.At least call it Royal Indian army,Indian army of republic of India and Royal Indian army served for British crown are not same.

I added my view in the notice box where it is written briefly discuss changes you made. India was a colony of Britain in WW2,it must be mentioned.

Elements of Indian army played important role in Indian freedom movement,INA,it also should be added,because Wiki is a encyclopidia,so all information should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovsek (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Indian Army during the period of British rule was only ever known as the Indian Army, it was never known by any of the other names that you suggest. I guarantee that you will not find a single reliable source stating that it was called that at the time. As Wikipedia only deals with reliable sources, we cannot use those other names. During the same period, the British legal term for India was either India as in the India Office in London or the Government of India (in first Calcutta and then New Delhi) or sometimes the Indian Empire or occasionally, and unofficially, British India.

Secondly, the Indian Army and the Indian National Army are two completely different entities with different organizations, aims and each has their own Wikipedia article. The information is already there in the article on the INA. Dabbler (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree,but INA soldiers were ex-British Indian army soldiers.So when about 40000 ex-British Indian army soldiers joined INA and fought against British in the after match of Singapore battle,this important event should be added in battle of Singapore section. And also,when Japanese troops entered in India,in 1944,then INA soldiers also entered,it is not mentioned,why?

At least add this that in WW2,India was a colony of WW2.04:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)04:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)~~

I can understand mentioning that some Indian Army troops captured by the Japanese chose to join the INA and fight with Japan, just as some captured European troops decided to join Hitler and fight with Germany. However, this article is about the Indian Army, not the Indian national Army which has its own article.

As for mentioning that at the time India was a colony of Britain, that is surely covered elsewhere and such an obvious statement is unnecessary in this minor article as it really does not matter to the subject. Dabbler (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Since Indian National army had it's origin in British Indian army aka army of British Raj,so I think in the see also section it should be added.Thank you.Ovsek (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article Talk page, not just my Talk page as there more people can read your explanation and a consensus can be more easily established.. Dabbler (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas More

Please take a moment to inspect diffs before reverting. You are reverting to a vandalised version, while the previous IP was actually removing the vandalism. Thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry my mistake.Dabbler (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

St. James in Penetang

None of the references given spell the name of the church with the upper case O that you insist in using. There is some variation in how the dashes are applied but NONE capitalize the O in on, but do for the L in Lines. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am in the final stages of preparing an article on the church and was there on Saturday taking photographs. The church itself spells it "St James On-the-Lines" in its leaflets etc. which it gives out to visitors which I am taking as the definitive method. But I agree there are many references elsewhere which write the name in any number of different ways with varying hyphenation and capitalisation. I will be making note of the variations in the article. Dabbler (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am talking here about the references given in your article in preparation, including the church website, which is all we will have in Wikipedia once you move it to article space. So you are going to use a piece of printed material that we don't have access to, and which is the only thing that spells it with an upper case O, as the entire basis for naming the article? Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want a reference which can be accessed on-line where the name is spelled with a capital O, then please can you can look at the following list and recommend which I use as a reference for that spelling. Community Organizations link War of 1812 bicentennial page Penetanguishene Town website Dabbler (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Good. You can use those for a reference, but I think the ones you already had were all more direct souces. The first comparably named church that came to mind was St Martin-in-the-Fields in London. I think this is the same format that St. James-on-the-Lines is using. There are numerous other english churches and places named in this manner. Just check out London alone. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh! I love this one. St. Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe! Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

My original usage was St. James on-the-Lines which seemed to be the most common way in the various references. I only changed it because I wanted to use the name that was used by the church and parish itself. Just because something is common it does not necessarily mean that it is the correct usage as defined by the actual organization. Other English and Canadian churches have their own methods of writing their names and I would not presume to change the local usage because they didn't match one particular way. Dabbler (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me - I will work with you on this. I just wanted to make sure you got the name right and referenced it properly. That is why I have pointed out that all the current primary references conflict with the name you have chosen. We don't want to immediately go through a request for a name change. Secondarywaltz (talk)

I am now leaning back towards St. James on-the-Lines as that is what the Diocese of Toronto calls the church. I will leave the other alternatives in as well though. I do understand your point and I would appreciate it if you want to take another look through it. I would like to put it into the main space tomorrow if you think there are no real problems. I am also looking for ideas for hooks for a Did You Know entry. Dabbler (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It can be tweaked once it is exposed to the public. I probably will not have any more time today, but I wil come back to it. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Is your name Adam Quinan? The File:St James.JPG that you uploaded names him as the photographer, without any reason given that the copyright holder actually released the image under the license stated, unless they are the same person - You. Obviously I don't want to tag such a good image if there is no real conflict here. If that is true you could easily transfer it to Commons and claim ownership at the same time. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have moved it to Commons. Dabbler (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Isle of Mann in Manx

Dear Dabbler, As a first language speaker of Manx, I can confirm that Ellan Vannin is used. However, the correct Manx for "Isle of Mann" is "Mannin". Ellan Vannin is what we call Baarlaghys, or Anglicism -- i.e. a literal translation of English. Ellan Vannin was not used when Manx was the primary language of Mann. Any true Manx speaker uses "Mannin". "Ellan Vannin" tends to be used by Anglophones.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielquayle (talk • contribs) 13:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia does not deal with what you as a first language Manx speaker say on the subject but what can be independently verified in documents/websites etc. Even if you can give reliable sources that Ellan Vannin is only used by Anglophones, that does not make it a name that is not used, and does not make Mannin the only valid name for the island. Ellan Vannin is a valid name and can be documented going back centuries. It may be a translation of the English name, but it is probably the most used Manx name for the island worldwide. Dabbler (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Mannin is the name of the country. Simple. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielquayle (talk • contribs) 11:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Provide unequivocal reliable sources that say so and I will happily agree. But I can provide you with many sources that state that Ellan Vannin is the name of the country. Its not a matter of my opinion or yours, it is what can be demonstrated by documented sources. Dabbler (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What's your evidence that England isn't called "Isle of England"? Danielquayle (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a principle called "Assume Good Faith". Basically it means, assume that people are trying to do the right thing even when what they are doing seems wrong to you. Try and see it from the other person's perspective and do not assume that you are always right and they are always wrong. That is why principles such as having "Reliable sources" for facts is so important. It takes Wikipedia out of the realm of opinion and back to fact. When someone makes a claim that you do not agree with, then it is appropriate to ask for reliable sources, but you are asking me to provide sources for a claim that I haven't made.Dabbler (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, in the etymology section, it states that the genetive of Mannin would be Mhannin, which in modern manx is Vannin. This is NOT the case. Ever since Manx was first written, it has always used a V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielquayle (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You may look and see that I have made a change to the article to reflect this comment. I am not totally negative towards you. I also have put the issue on Talk:Isle of Man for other people to comment on and you should please make any future comments there so that a wider range of editors can be involved and I hope that a suitable consensus can be achieved. Dabbler (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for St. James on-the-Lines

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Vuly Trampolines

Since you tagged this article as an advertisement, I thought you'd like to know that I've nominated it for deletion. Graham87 00:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If you look at Springfree Trampoline then you can see a similar if somewhat less promotional article. I am wondering whether a rewrite could save them both or whether they are beyond hope. I will make a comment once I have worked it out. Dabbler (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes on author pages

Since you have over 100 edits at Oscar Wilde, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Vuly Trampolines reduxe

Thanks for the note. I'd actually noticed that late last night, and wasn't too sure what to do with the article; I'd decided to sleep on it. I've just re-deleted the page again. Graham87 03:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the deletion of the page. It believe it meets Wikipedia notability requirements and was not promotional in tone (much less promotional than the Springfree Trampoline page you were also discussing). I believe if you are going to delete the Vuly Trampolines reduxe then there is no excuse to leave the Springfree page undeleted. Better still, is there a way to write Vuly Trampolines so that it is not deleted? Stoddski (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

War of 1812

You seem to have made a small mistake so i fixed it. The article has been tagged for a long time and is in the category Canadian English. To change this there must be a tlak ...that has started on the talk page. Cant just change the English format without a talk as per the talk page banner. You seem to believe it was my edit that change things...when in fact I was restoring the article to the stable version. -- Moxy (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for catching my date mistake on Archive 17 of Talk:War of 1812. Greatly appreciated, somehow I thought the last posting to the Archive was the first. Shearonink (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Awarded for service in the War of 1812 Ian Furst (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thomson vs Thompson

Hi Dabbler, Hmmmm! Can you put in a note, and cite some public or semi-public genealogical database? Alternatively, do you have a copy of any odocument (signed letter, commission, ?) that makes the connection between Thomson & Colibri that you could put in to wikicommons and that we could then insert as an image? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I know of the Admiralty Record of Thomson's service in the Royal Navy and I have asked the National Archive for an estimate of what it would cost to digitize the record. That would list his time in Colibri. Dabbler (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)\:Assuming that the cost is reasonable, that would do it. As a side note, one of my motivations in writing Wikipedia articles about some of these vessels, especially the smaller one, is the hope that someone doing genealogical research will stumble upon the article and get a kick about knowing a little more about the vessel their ancestor served on and perhaps about somethings he may have experienced. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the "Bastard"ly answer

... in Talk:Pownoll Pellew, 2nd Viscount Exmouth#Middle name?!! LOL, what a bizarre story, eh? --Eliyahu S ^Talk 11:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

And thanks for the {{User Wikipedian for}} infobox, too. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 11:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Manx people

Hi Dabbler, I have left a message on the talk page at the article Talk:Manx people. I would welcome your opinion on the issue at hand. Kind regards, ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 12:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks

Hello D. I was going to send a ping thanks for this edit, but, it was such a pleasure to see that you are still editing away here at WikiP that I decided to stop by and leave a longer message. I hope that you are well and thriving on WikiP and, especially, off. Cheers and have a delightful week. MarnetteD|Talk 15:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't given up hope or Wikipedia yet! More of my time is spent on maintenance of articles I have already worked on, not new stuff nowadays. Hope you are also well and will keep an eye out for you. Dabbler (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samuel Pepys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annuity. 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) 08:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

John Buchan

A prominent academic has described Buchan as being anti-semitic, as have many others, why is that not good enough for you? GiantSnowman 13:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on the John Buchan Talk page and the consensus was that there is little evidence from his life or writings that Buchan was anti-Semitic and significant evidence that he supported Jews, Israel and Zionism which might prove that he was not. If you wish to change that consensus, then I suggest that you re-open the discussion there before posting a single fact under the heading Controversy. Dabbler (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You cannot just censor something because you disagree with it. Numerous academcis discuss his antisemitism, that needs to be reflect in the article, just as much as academics defending him. See the section on H. C. McNeile (a GA) as an example of how this should be done on Buchan. GiantSnowman 14:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If you had addressed the issue in the same manner as the way it has been dealt with in the Sapper article, then I would agree with you. However, by dropping one single fact into the early part of the article as a single point of view without considering all the other aspects, I think that you did your cause no great service. Incidentally I have been reading several of the articles in the Google search you linked to above and most of them either exonerate Buchan of anti-Semitism and racism or at worst suggest that he was no worse than most people of his time and class and in many instances better. If you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest that we take it to Talk:John Buchan so that it may be exposed to a wider audience. Dabbler (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Something being incomplete is no reason for removal, and I added it at the very end of his biography, your accusations of WP:UNDUE weight are wholly unfounded. I will re-add with additional sources this evening. GiantSnowman 15:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I've just checked the article talk page - where is the "consensus" that this information should not be included? GiantSnowman 15:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone stated that they thought we could remove the material in the form that it was presented and no one objected. That to me implies consensus. However, if a fair and balanced presentation of the accusations and evidence on both sides was put back in, then I suspect that people would not object ether. Dabbler (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've added additional sources, including defence of Buchan. GiantSnowman 17:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Meat Pie

I reverted again. For one thing, the fact that it contains unref'd assertions is absolutely no justification for adding more unref'd assertions. For another, the claim about French and Italian pastry cooks *is* ref'd-- adding the English to it makes it unref'd and probably less accurate. PepperBeast (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we were both involved with over enthusiastic reverting. I was not too concerned about the deletion of English from the development of pastry section but thought that the removal of UK from the lede section about the popularity of pies was rather excessive given the wide range of pies available there and took the remark about the lack of references to refer to that as well. As the other countries had no references too, I thought that unnecessary. Dabbler (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

RV POV comment

Hello Dabbler, I am not clear why you removed the last part of this sentence "This novel references actual events as any historical novel ought." from a couple of the Patrick O'Brian novels where the plots depart from chronological time. POV means point of view, right? All eleven books in that portion of the series of 20 that make no reference to a specific year include this same sentence, unless you are rapidly removing it. (6 do link to years, 11 do not, 3 do) These are historical novels. Anyway, POV makes no sense to me as to the reason for changing that sentence. Besides cutting out the back end of the sentence, do you have a better idea? I clicked to watch your page so I will look for a reply here. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits to that paragraph drew my attention to the phrase and I admit I had not checked the other articles but I will.

It is a point of view that historical fiction "ought" to contain historical events, the key word is "ought", it is not a fact or law of nature. If it is written down somewhere that a historical novel "must" contain historical incidents, then we should reference that rule, otherwise it is only an opinion. A novel can be set in a recognisable historical period but not mention a single historical incident, for example a Regency Georgette Heyer type romance novel could be considered a historical novel but not mention anything historic just use period detail to set the story in the past. Dabbler (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Georgette Heyer is categorized as a writer of historical romance in the Wikipedia article about her, and not in historical fiction, so she seems not the best example. My remark was meant to be tautology, and in line with the article in Wikipedia on historical fiction, historical novels, and the reviews of this series by O'Brian. Controversy arises in that category (historical fiction) when it is not true to history, so that is not my judgment, which is apparently what you meant by POV. Laws of nature have nothing to do with this point, as genres in fiction change (e.g., historical mystery) as new books are written. The point needing emphasis on the difference in the eleven novels is the lack of mentions of dates, and sequence of voyages taking more years than were left on the historical timeline. The novels, per the writing of others about them, do not deviate from accurate historical detail (the reviews praise the accuracy of the historical detail for those eleven and the rest of series equally). So, this author is for historical accuracy, and that needs to be emphasized, and that is not opinion. As you simply edited out, and did not replace, I will work out another phrase to make the point. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind words, much appreciated. I have had a fair amount of computer hardware problems since you gave me a barn star, so I am too long in thanking you. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Midland silo mural.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Midland silo mural.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. B (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Patrick O'Brian

Thanks for your improvements to Patrick O'Brian. You copy edited the statement that O'Brian said about himself in the 1994 book of essays, to be firmer, more trustworthy than the words I left in (a mix of my own and what was already there). I wrote something on this in the talk page for the O'Brian article, when can one believe his direct words? The mixture of true and false statements he put out to give himself his new life as O'Brian, and not Russ, were made by him. A couple of paragraphs in the Horowitz article http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/10/18/specials/obrian-comesin.html show some true, he did lose his mother at a young age, some false, he did not attend the Sorbonne. What is the reason to rely on his statements when fame and so many reporters were pressing on him in his seventies? I do not know the answers to my own questions, but I would be more satisfied if someone came up with a British or French military record of his role in either the French resistance or some other arm of British military intelligence. I did not read about the previously undisclosed early life until this century, so I was not so upset as many were when the information was first revealed. It seems a logical story to me. A young child with a terminal illness, that strains a marriage so much, that many break on that account. The ones that do not break, are often less than before, as parents blame themselves, but do not come out and say it directly -- or did in the 1950s and certainly in the 1910s. It is very sad. Starting a new life after the war, that does not seem extreme either. Unusual, but authors take pen names. He changed his name legally and began again. Also in that Horowitz article is a description of O'Brian by one of his editors, and that sounds a lot like the string of adjectives that Lanchester provides based on stepson Tolstoy's book. Well, I am not sure how interested you are in O'Brian, or how long it will take to fill in the career more than the brouhaha from 1998 that left so many bad feelings, distracting folks from important questions, like is he a literary author, or that skanky term, genre writer? Guess I would not make a good investigative reporter for a topic like that -- I would not have hunted, or if the material had been dropped in my lap, I would consider release after the author died. O'Brian's writing skills are on the page for us to judge. End of rant. What do you think about it all? And more to the point, can that article get a lot better, possibly B level? --Prairieplant (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I definitely take anything O'Brian said or wrote about himself with a significant pinch of salt. He was not above misleading people or allowing people to mislead themselves about his past without any correction. However, I consider the body of his work to transcend any personal failings he may have had as a human being. I have actually met Dean King (before he wrote the biography) and liked him. He was a true fan of O'Brian's writing and I think was upset and disappointed by what he discovered when he first started researching the biography.

I also am one of those who consider O'Brian's work to be more than mere genre fiction, though whether it could be considered high literature I am not sure, I think he is too accessible and story based. In that way he more resembles the great 19th century authors than those acclaimed in these modern days. I think O'Brian would have agreed with that assessment. Dabbler (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Grain of salt accepted. Maybe I should add that other quote from Horowitz, to make Tolsroy's work seem closer too the truth. Will ponder that. The great 19th century writers are considered literature, right? I have never made the distinction of high literature, not sure what that means. I suppose there is the issue of what sort of "high literature" is written by other authors right now. It is funny that you say he is too accessible, when so many critics mention the nautical terms, finding them inaccessible. Story based, is that a bad thing? Ah well, I am not a literature major, so I do not know all the ways books slip into "literature". I wondered if the brouhaha has stopped critics, reviewers, etc. from deciding the merits of his work now, wit some time since he died. Meaning, besides the Tolstoy and King biographies, is anyone writing about these books? I look often for reviews, but have not stumbled on any new ones. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Swallows and Amazons TV series

You asked whether I had a citation for the music in the 1963 Swallow and Amazons TV series. I don't have an actual Radio Times page, but my written out list of credits includes Alfred Elms for the Music. At the time I recorded the episodes (sound only of course) and edited the result down into a 90 minute adaptation. It opens with the Elms semi-nautical theme music, though it's possible this was actually taken from the closing credits (to get the full theme). Certainly all the background music is by Elms.

I would have thought it very unlikely that different music was used for the opening titles; I did wonder whether whoever credited Butterworth was getting confused with the later TV series; the same claim is made elsewhere in Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swallows_and_Amazons_(television_series) and I've amended that.

FYI there is a brief compilation of clips at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb0eb633Cnk

Edit - I've found a credits page at the BFI who have the first episode - http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b695cd584 - but no composer credit. To complicate matters, I've written Alfred Elms in my notes, but more research turns up an Albert Elms who wrote music for TV though his credits in IMDB don't include Swallows and Amazons (probably because their listing for it doesn't credit the music either). Quite probably I wrote this down incorrectly - it's unlikely there were both an Albert and an Alfred Elms - so I'm changing the note to Albert I'm certain it was somebody Elms anyway, and certainly not Butterworth.

I've got a more complete cast list than is in the note but I don't know whether any more detail is wanted, nor am I quite clear about how to make the entries, so I'll list the case here and you can add them if you want to

Captain Flint - John Paul; Mrs. Walker - Mary Kenton; John - David Lott; Susan - Siobhan Taylor; 'Kitty' - Susan George; Roger - Shane Youger; Nancy - Amada Coxell; Peggy - Paula Boyd

Reference http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/2b95a6af119d46fea84b1f83fc2d2a21

RFWilmut (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't doubting your edit, but I think that if we have had incorrect information for so long, to avoid questioning it would be nice to have a reference. I will look at the section and decide whether more cast members are necessary. I know Wikipedians don't think IMDB is a reliable reference because it can also be edited by people just like Wikipedia, rather ironic! Dabbler (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You could just cut the Gordian Knot and remove the reference to the music altogether - it's arguable that it's a bit too much information in the context of the notes. I'm afraid the only ways to get an actual reference would be to go to the British Film Institute and get a screening of their copy of Episode 1, or to go to the BBC Written Archives centre at Reading and look at the Programmes As Broadcast sheet for the day (would cost money to get in).

RFWilmut (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A contact who is one of the Arthur Ransome Literary Executors has confirmed that the composer and conductor was Albert Ems according to the credits at the end of the recording they possess of the series. Unfortunately, that is not a reliable source to be referenced as it is not publicly available. I think we can let Albert stay and see if anyone challenges him. Dabbler (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If I might suggest, the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swallows_and_Amazons_(television_series) could be left as is, but in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swallows_and_Amazons it seems a little odd to credit the composer but only two cast and not the director, and in any case it's only a note with a reference to the other page. You might want to remove the composer and perhaps just credit the director (Peter Saunders) instead. All that can be referenced in the BBC Genome page I linked to above. I'll leave it to you to make any changes if you think fit.

RFWilmut (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have made your suggested changes and fixed the BFI reference which was broken. Dabbler (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Trampoline

Hi Dabbler, I have not used Talk before so I hope I am doing this correctly. Let me know please. I agree with your removing the Trampoline revision that was made recently. It seemed more like an advertisement. If someone wants to talk about safety standards, probably a new article should me created. Otherwise, Trampoline will be too long.Triffis 21:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triffis (talk • contribs)

Hi Triffis, You successfully left me a message, though you should use ~~~~ at the end which automatically leaves a link to your name and the date/time of your post. I could either reply on my own Talk page or else I can post on yours. In this case I have done both. Dabbler (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Church of England

As it happens, I did not have sufficient time to list all the schools associated with C of E. The Rugby School and SHORE SCEGGS (Sydney Church of England Grammar School was founded by the C of E and still maintains that link. P.S. I will research a list of schools linked to the C of E and put it up when I have sufficient numbers. comment added by User:Dark-World25 —Preceding undated comment added 04:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please don't do that - there are 4,500 CofE Primary schools and over 200 CofE Secondary schools: [1]. RichardOSmith (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind then.Dark-World25 (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Ooooh! I didn't know I was being stalked, are you my Big Brother? Thanks for the statistics. Dabbler (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

RichardOSmith (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Dabbler as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 03:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Karen Cockburn

Hi Dabbler. You are right in that I should have explained further. I've copied your comments over to her talk page so we can discuss further there. Thanks. Cizzlewizzle (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Vuly Trampolines, take three

Hello, just in case you don't get the ping (pun not intended!) for some reason, please see this request for page protection re Vuly Trampolines and provide your two cents there,. Thanks. Graham87 11:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "War of 1812". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 14 September 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 06:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning War of 1812, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Thanks for the flashman revert

My submission must have been the dumbest thing I ever did on Wikipedia. WikiParker (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If that is the dumbest thing you have ever submitted, then the rest of your career on Wikipedia must have been pretty stellar. Dabbler (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dabbler. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Dabbler! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

WEG

Thanks for spotting that! Not sure what I was on about. DuncanHill (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem, we all have these weird brain storms from time to time. Dabbler (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

War of 1812

Hi, I've noticed you have contributed nicely to the War of 1812 discussion. Recently an editor has come in and made sweeping changes with no consensus. Would be greatly appreciated if you could join the discussion again, and we could find a way to resolve this. Talk:War of 1812. Charles lindberg (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Common loon copy editing

Thank you for your observation. I never intended for the edit to be interpreted that way; I felt that placing "or divers" in parentheses de-emphasized the interruption the phrase caused. However, after reflecting on what you have said, I understand and agree with you.

I will remove the parentheses and reinstate the commas (which are the neutral choice anyway). Thank you again for calling this to my attention.

David Thibault (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dabbler (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Your extraordinary precision on the common loon is much appreciated! Thank you very much. Adityavagarwal (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello again! I have instead removed the southereastern mention altogether. Planning to take it to an FA, so would you like to say something more on the article or co-nominate (I would be so honoured to nominate it with you) it? Thank you very much! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably safest to remove it as I am not sure how true it is today. Back a while there were problems with loons from all sorts of threats but I understand that they made a reasonable recovery over the last few years. As for the nomination, thank you but I think that you have put so much more effort into it than I have that I would feel unworthy.Dabbler (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

How should one know about the contributions made on an article? Should I count the number of edits made? Not sure... Maybe adding the word count? Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that you have been much more diligent about editing the article, you have responded to almost all the comments , sought out new references and have really taken the lead over the last few weeks. I have intermittently commented and tinkered with a couple of items and raised some questions. So overall, I would rate your contribution to be much more than mine. But let us not fight over giving each other credit! Dabbler (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I just came across this while counting the edits manually... I would ask Jim, as he has expanded a lot too. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Would it?

Hello, Dabbler! I hope you are doing great. Could you suggest if the Yunnan hare has any chance of becoming an FA? Everything seems to have been covered on the article (I know the length might be a problem). Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid that I am no expert on natural history and its articles. So I am not really qualified to comment. I got involved with the Common loon because of Arthur Ransome's book and I don't mind checking out things. However, I am clueless when it comes to deciding what is pertinent in an species article. Dabbler (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah buddy, I understand. I hope you liked Ransome's book! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Dabbler, thanks for the inputs on over-linking, which I have taken note of.Meher Mansion (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)