User talk:Dubmill

Welcome...

Hello, Dubmill, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 七星 (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strawbs

Hi Dubmill, thanks for your contribution to the Rod Coombes article. I notice that you've inserted a 'the' in front of Strawbs. Be advised that the band name is simply Strawbs (see the article). I will remove them. Best Witchwooder (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Witchwooder, Thanks for the clarification of the reason for your reversion of my edits. However I do think there's a problem with this. Firstly it had never occurred to me that the band was properly titled simply 'Strawbs'. I was not a particular fan of the band but nevertheless they were quite prominent in the 1970s and they were always referred to in speech (eg by the public and radio djs) as 'the Strawbs'. I would think that carried over into references in papers like Melody Maker and so on. The problem for me is that, while the title of the article 'Strawbs' seems fine (and reflects how the band's name appeared on record sleeves and labels), that usage in the general body text seems odd, because it doesn't reflect how people refer (or perhaps referred) to the band in speech. Perhaps this is a US vs UK thing. In the UK I'm pretty sure that people always talked about 'the Strawbs' but perhaps that was never the case in the USA.

That is my opinion on the matter and I would request that you give it consideration because I do think there is an oddness to the way articles referring to the band read if they omit the 'the' in the body text (discographies and titles are clearly a different thing). An article is supposed to be actually read. It is not just an assembly of 'correct' words. Cheers, Dubmill (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dubmill, I see what you mean - a similar case in point is Pink Floyd; often referred to as "the" Pink Floyd. Some band names seem naturally to require it whereas others don't (e.g. REM, U2, Snow Patrol). I bet the band Editors suffer from the same problem! I think you'll find though that wikipedia articles mentioning Strawbs do so consistently without the "the" which is correct according to the band's website and many album liner notes. Best Witchwooder (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a search on "the Strawbs" and found that many articles DO refer to them as "The Strawbs" - Doesn't make it right but it does give the lie to my statement in the previous paragraph! Best Witchwooder (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at the Strawbs article and placed a message on its talk page about some issues that may need addressing. I have also added a mention on the 'to do' list on the Musician Project page. I hope you will find the comments helpful. --Kudpung (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Down Hall on Jade Goody article

My apologies, I changed your edit without properly realising what you were saying. I agree with your wording. Would you consider stating your opinion on the talk page of the article? I think your point could actually be the deal breaker here :). Sky83 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW apologies if it sounded like I was calling you or anyone else in that section an idiot. Sometimes I really need to read back before I hit save. I do think though that Down Hall are either using the address given to them by the Post Office (their postcode will refer only to the building) or the county they pay their rates to. Either way, it was the idea of insisting on something other than the venue's stated address, (and basing that insistence on "original research") that I had in mind.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malvern Water

Hi Dubmill. Thank you for your excellent copy edit of the Malvern Water article! This article is part of the new ProjectWiki Worcestershire that will be launched sometime soon (this week hopefully) when all the members have finalised the draft project page. I will post details here when the project goes active, and if you would like to apply your superb editing skills and/or contribute to other articles and tasks within the scope of the project, your expertise would be most welcome. --Kudpung (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dieppe Raid

Hi Dubmill, thanks for your note on my talk page. I do appreciate your efforts in trying to improve the aforementioned article, but with all due respect, I did not see the advantages that you profess were inherent in your submission. I noted that you made reference to Germans rather than the Luftwaffe while the distinction between "paratroopers" and "paratroops" seemed moot; the remainder of the edit revolved around "brushing" up language what is colloquially referred to as "wordsmithing" (in Britspeak). Whenever a major edit such as that occurs which does not involve factual or context issues, there is a tendency to apply the WP:BRD brush which I was reluctant to use, as I could see the reasoning behind many of the edits that you proposed. Since the edits are now in question, let's revisit the article with that in mind and use the article talk page if necessary to continue the work of improving the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks again for the reply. I have NO, repeat, no interest in this article as it only popped up on my watchlist as the scene of a previous skirmish between editors. As to the individual edits, there were numerous "author choices" that you made in an effort to deal with readability and comprehension for the reader. The article, as you have already surmised is in drastic need of editing from that standpoint, and is the product of the "too many cooks" syndrome. I recently made a few edits that were minor reworking of sentence and paragraph structure, explaining in an edit summary what the change encompasses. If you need further amplification as to the reasoning behind the change, I can also provide that. I agree that "paratroops" is a usual unit description but as the type of combat troops was being compared, commandos vs paratroopers, the closer connection was appropriate. See the latest edits for more of the same. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

news

Template:Worcs Mar2010

Route 77C

Thanks for that correction just now - you're right, of course. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I approve of your efforts to provide more details of the history of the 77 route (I would assume in an attempt to prevent the deletion of the article). All these bus routes have interesting histories, and just because those histories have not YET been added to their Wikipedia pages does not mean that the articles should be deleted wholesale as some on Wikipedia seem to be bent on. I am sick of reading complaints about 'non-notable route' from busybodies with no interest in the subject. I am not an expert on buses or bus routes, but I like to read about the history of different bus routes and bus operators etc., just as I like to read about all sorts of things, and this is being taken away from me by the deletion of these individual bus route pages. And to what end? Just to provide a purpose in life for Wikipedia busybodies. Dubmill (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of London Buses route 77

An editor has nominated London Buses route 77, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Okip 08:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation to vote on this. I am tempted but I think I must sadly pass. The problem is that I want the pages to remain, but primarily because I personally find the subject matter interesting. However, I am not sure if they satisfy Wikipedia criteria for notability. That is because I do not find the subject of whether something is notable or non-notable according to the rules of Wikipedia in the slightest bit interesting (unlike the bus route pages that are proposed for deletion) so I have avoided becoming versed in it. I also do not care to get into an argument with people who are high-level experts in Wikipedia but have no interest in the actual article subject, and use the procedures and rules of Wikipedia to pursue an agenda, be it conscious or subconscious. The world of exploiting Wikipedia rules and regulations is hateful and depressing (not to mention boring) to me and I do not care to get involved in it. I will be sad to see the pages go, if they do go, because they are interesting, but it would not be the end of the world, because - ironically in the light of this dispute - the information is accessible elsewhere, although it takes a bit of rooting around on Google to find it (which is where having the information all there on Wikipedia was much more convenient). Dubmill (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not governed by rules but by community consensus. The policies and guidelines are customs not laws. This project is explicitly the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and so your contributions are a proper part of this work and your views have as much weight as anyone else's. If you fail to make your views known then the system doesn't work well as other, unrepresentative views may be thought to cover your views too.

I have exerted myself considerably on behalf of yourself and other contributors to these articles, visiting the London Transport Museum, buying sources and spending much of this Easter holiday working upon the topics. The one thing that discourages me in such cases is when editors who have created articles cannot be bothered to defend their own work. I well understand your position and have no hard feelings but the Lord helps those that help themselves as you can't always rely upon me being there for you.

The Executive Director of the Wikipedia Foundation is visiting London next weekend - see here. I may well attend and would encourage you to do likewise. It would be good that she understands what happens in such cases and acts to protect our articles against casual destruction.

Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the article has now been deleted, despite there being what appeared to me to be a majority, in strictly numerical terms at least, of 'votes' for keeping the article. I'll have to read up on the rules concerning these votes on proposals for deleting articles. I do take your point about the Lord helping those who help themselves. I also note your remark about what I referred to as 'rules and regulations' actually being guidelines arrived at by 'community consensus'. The problem for me is an underlying one, which is that I do not like online communities. They always seem to become too self-referential and dominated by personality disputes. Reading Wikipedia talk pages leads me to believe that a significant number of the more active Wikipedia editors seem to be perpetually involved in vicious disputes with each other, invisible to the average reader. I regard it as bad for my mental health to become involved in such things. Dubmill (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail Contributors

This was not by any stretch of the imagination mischief, I am an avid reader of the daily mail and I noticed omissions in the list of contributors. Ian Hislop has written a number of articles in the Daily Mail, mostly regarding his humourous outlook on British politics - he is an editor of Private Eye as well! Admittedly Brian Blessed has a small contribution but and so probably shouldn't have included him in the regular contributors section, perhaps another section for celebrity one-off contributions should be made? Finally, Janet Street Porter was accidently misspelt, no maliciousness intended. In light of this should my edits be reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave152 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of Googling but could not find any reference to Ian Hislop having written for the Daily Mail. There is certainly nothing archived on the Daily Mail website, although that only goes back so far, of course. I did find statements from Hislop himself indicating that he didn't like the Daily Mail, as you would expect given the difference in their political stances. Not that everyone who writes for the Mail is Tory (Janet Street-Porter is a case in point, also Suzanne Moore), but I couldn't find anything supporting your claim. Can you show anything that proves it? Dubmill (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, he did his work for the daily mail before he became the editor of Private Eye in 1986, as a result I cannot find it in the Daily Mail archives. I may be incorrect and he was actually a correspondant and not a writer for them but I am fairly certain that he has been published there. However as I cannot find any source to back up what i'm saying, I understand if you do not wish to include Ian Hislop's contributions to the Mail in the wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave152 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is a long time ago, you would think that there would be some reference to it somewhere but I couldn't find any. There is often a problem with this kind of ephemeral information not being available through Google, which is so heavily biased towards recent events. If only you could produce a citation. Dubmill (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Konchesky

How in the world is comparing him to a soccer player with a similar play style considered vandalism? 142.157.197.15 (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of vandalism of the paragraph in question recently by people who don't like Konchesky. I assumed your edit was based on similar motivation but took an opposite tack - sarcastic exaggeration of this football player's ability. Fine, put the edit back, but only if you can produce a citation supporting the claim that Konchesky was favourably compared to the other player, and by compared I mean seriously compared, not as a joke.Dubmill (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow so the controversy over his mother has been reported all over British newspapers, but in your expert eyes it's obviously vandalism? 99.226.4.175 (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a trivial incident. Just because it was reported briefly in a newspaper doesn't make it worthy of being put in an encyclopedia. When Konchesky later gets transferred it might be worth mentioning that he was unpopular with the fans at Liverpool, and that this unpopularity eventually lead to his departure from the club. But certainly at the moment it's just tittle tattle. And, more than that, the people wanting to put this and certain other things in all seem to have an agenda fuelled by hatred of Konchesky. I am very much against Wikipedia being used to push a small-minded agenda based on personal dislike of a football player or manager.Dubmill (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for clearing that up I admire your moral stance. 99.226.4.175 (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]