User talk:Dabbler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Indian army in WW2[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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

Vuly Trampolines[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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...[edit]

...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![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png 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[edit]

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[edit]

... 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)