User talk:Dabbler

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


Moved contents to Archive 3


Review request on Bangalore Theological Forum[edit]

Dabbler, would you be able to have a look at Bangalore Theological Forum, I had cited other sources but someone has put a tag on notability. Request your advise.Meher Mansion (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You may like to ask the editor who posted the Notability tag on the page if he has any specific comments. I am not sure why he put it there. It is undoubtedly a specialised journal and you have not yet expanded the article to discuss why it is important, but the Notability guidelines do not require content, they require references to demonstrate that the journal is Perhaps you could look for some other references which cite the journal to show that it is a notable resource for theologians. Just some ideas. Good Luck, Dabbler (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Kilt[edit]

kilt An obsolete or dialectal preterit and past participle of kill.

(Source: Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia)

The British manner of speaking predates modern English spelling and conjugation.John Paul Parks (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Note the descriptive word "obsolete" in the definition. Wikipedia is written in modern English which even in archaic Britain (and I speak British English like a native) does not use the word kilt for killed. The only time I think I have ever seen it used was in a cartoon of American hillbillies. Dabbler (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Dabbler. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

Snowflake macro (Unsplash).jpg Happy Holidays
From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol

Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.

So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 00:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Riddle of the Sands[edit]

Hi there, why did you consider the See also 'not relevant' to a fictional book? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.34.113 (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, please direct me to the relevant MOS for citing a published edition of the subject? Many thanks80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The book is a primary source for itself. Primary sources are strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. If you can provide another secondary source which says that the book was an influence on the Normandy Invasion or is in some meaningful way related to the Normandy Invasion then please provide it. Otherwise it is arguable that you should list all such invasions from Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain in 55 BC onwards. Just because there was an invasion it does not follow that it was in any way related to the book which is the purpose of the See also section. There is a section referencing invasion scare literature such as Buchan's Thirty Nine Steps in the article with more relevance than a military operation more than 40 years after the book was published. Dabbler (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks, will need the precise MOS if possible - what we have here is a Penguin edition, first published 1952 (my copy is the 1955 edition) where the publisher provides an introduction of two paragraphs on the inside front cover. Without seeing the MOS, it seems reasonable to me that the publisher could be described as a secondary source as they did not write the book. I can add more details and a quotation of the relevant sections in the cite or add a passage in the body of the article?80.229.34.113 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The new link you have posted is great. On topic and very relevant as it offers the reality compared to the fictional suggestion of the book. Dabbler (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Discovered while 'prospecting' around H G Wells' The War in the Air and plans to invade the US.80.229.34.113 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Image of the Monument of the Unknown Soldier[edit]

I am very sorry to inform you that I have deleted the image you recently added to the article, Rifat Chadirji. The image in question was uploaded as a non-free use item and has limited fair use provisions attached to its use. I sourced it and uploaded it because I wanted to include it in the article The Monument to the Unknown Soldier and was required to write a justification for its use in relation to that article. If the image is to be included in any other new articles, it would be necessary for someone to write a new justification for its use for every associated article. It is not easy getting non-free use images through Wiki Commons' onerous copyright provisions - and my fear is that if images are not used correctly, they will be deleted permanently, and by implication unavailable for use in any article at all. I am sure that you understand about these delicate copyright provisions.

Incidentally, I am very grateful to you for adding the free image of Khaled al'Rahal's Unknown Soldiers Monument to the article. I have not had any success gaining copyright permission for suitable images, and one that I had previously uploaded to Commons was eventually knocked back (somewhat surpringly since it is currently in use on the Arabic Wikipedia), just days before you added your image - and without question your image is far superior and looks great in the article. Thanks again BronHiggs (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I admit I was pleased to find the image and used it without reviewing the full copyright details on its page. I remember the original monument from when my father worked in Baghdad in the early 1960s, so it is quite nostalgic for me. However, I don't have any pictures of it to uplooad.Dabbler (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
You are indeed fortunate to have seen first hand some of Iraq's mid-20th century art and sculpture. At any time in the future, if you feel up to writing a justification for including the image on Rifat Chadirji's article, there is no obvious reason why Commons would reject it. Ths main thing is to stress the scarcity of the image (not difficult since it was removed 15 years ago) and ensure that the destination article includes some type of commentary about the image that would not work so well in prose alone. This might require a little bit of tweaking to the article to establish a link between the prose and the image. You might be interested in looking at this article from an online magazine which shows how Chidarji developed the idea for the work: http://isqineeha.tumblr.com/post/59363871467/before-monument-to-the-unknown-soldier Best wishsed BronHiggs (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)