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:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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).

Route 77C

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

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Bald

I am going to template him for 3RR. You are right on the line yourself, so DO NOT revert again or you too might be facing a 3RR. The edit is not clear-cut vandalism so I think the 3RR is the approach to take. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Burnley Barracks platforms

Hi, re this edit - are you sure about that? The information which I have has that there is a single track from Gannow Junction to Colne, with no passing loops; and that (with the exception of Nelson, where there is only one platform) all the stations have two platforms with one being out of use, because of the lack of a track at that platform. This photo from January 2009 shows the gap where the second track used to be, and the second platform heavily overgrown. Were you perhaps confusing it with Burnley Manchester Road, which still has two tracks and two platforms? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you are quite right. It WAS Manchester Road that I was thinking of. Thank you for pointing out my stupid mistake. The confusion stemmed from the fact that I was staying very near Burnley Barracks Station, so passed by the entrance to it quite a few times, but when I left Burnley I did so from Manchester Road. I have restored the information about the single platform as it was before my edit. Dubmill (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Joanna Yeates

Hi Dubmill. Thanks for your work on the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Dubmill (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Reality distortion field

The article doesn't exist because someone redirected it to Steve Jobs an hour ago - there's some discussion at Talk:Steve_Jobs#Merger_proposal if you have any thoughts one way or the other as to whether it merits its own article or not. --McGeddon (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on whether the subject merits its own article or not, but I don't think there should be a link to the article when it doesn't exist (ie for the user browsing Wikipedia). If the redirect is removed and users of Wikipedia are able to see the article on RDF, then at such time the link to it from the Steve Jobs article can be put back. Until then it makes no logical sense to me that an erroneous link should be there. Dubmill (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Roy Hodgson

Hi, thanks for your message. I've correct the typo I made in the lead (which I noticed while previewing my edit, but forgot to actually change it) and have removed the incorrect assertion that Hodgson managed Carshalton Athletic. But I'd like to point out that is wasn't me who added this to the article; if you see the revision preceding my edit, the infobox already contained Carshalton Athletic in the Teams managed section. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections. Please accept my apologies for suggesting the introduction of the error re Hodgson managing Carshalton was yours. Dubmill (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Vintage TV

Hello, I've reverted all of the spam edits by 212.188.172.130 made today relating to Vintage TV. I would have used the rollback function, but I could not use it here in most cases because of your subsequent edits to each page. See my message to the editor. Graham87 14:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for having made things more difficult for you by my edits. I guess I thought the content was borderline encyclopedic but now I understand the policy a bit better (re. individual TV appearances) I will be reverting any further edits of this kind that I see. Dubmill (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages and reverting

Hello there Dubmill. You are a great contributor to Wikipedia, though I will like to raise concerns about these edits: ([1]) and ([2]). Please note that, as per the guidelines of WP:USER, all users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages--including IP users. Generally speaking, you shouldn't have reverting back to the previous warnings of User talk:66.35.152.989. True the person using the IP Address was being a troll and egregiously vandalizing Wikipedia, but note that reverting back to warnings of a user talk page is classified as disruptive editing. Don't take this as an accusation, but just some friendly advice to avoid doing it the next time. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   14:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I was not aware of that. I reverted the edits because it appeared to me that whoever blanked the page was probably trying to do so to disguise their activities and the warnings given to them. But I understand now that user talk pages are the domain of the user and therefore they can do what they like with them. Dubmill (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Roy Hodgson

Please check your facts before reverting edits like this - the IP was in fact completely correct. It's quite difficult to pick up errors like that - I only did so by accident. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of the new FIFA rating for England, but this statement refers to FINLAND. Dubmill (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite correct - many apologies. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Synagogue in Potters Bar

I know the term Synagogue mainly refers to a Jewish gathering, but in terms of building there isn't one in Potters Bar.

The problem with the sentence and the title is incorrect as the current Jewish community take services in the "Scout Hut" near Mount Grace School. So there is no kosher Synagogue in Potters Bar.

The reference you provided on my talk page, first line. "POTTERS Bar town centre has a brand new synagogue after an existing facility decided to move." This is false information, there isn't a brand new building, nothing was ever built. The community brought a six bedroom house in Potters Bar for the Rabbi and his family. They don't even use that for services.

So the sentence on the article is incorrect. Making a note that there is a community would be fine, but there is no validity to the sentence and I have first hand knowledge about the situation, it's best if the sentence was removed. Govvy (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Dubmill (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for removing my test edit from Islington; I forgot to undo it myself. Sorry for adding to the burden!

Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem, cheers. Dubmill (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Sharon Redd.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sharon Redd.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for pointing this out. The only reason I uploaded this image was that it was drawn to my attention that the previous photo on the Sharon Redd page was called Sharon_Redd.jpg but did not depict Sharon Redd. I then looked at the file history for the image and noted that a different photo (the one I uploaded) had previously existed. I assumed that the permissions for the image had been checked in the past, so went ahead with the upload. The image appears on the following web page: http://discovideomix.com/videos/sharonredd.html; however, there is no mention of any copyright information there so I am not sure if the website owner is entitled to use this image or not. In view of this, and because I do not have the time to enter into correspondence with the website owner, I have decided to remove the image from the Sharon Redd page. As regards the file Sharon_Redd.jpg, I notice that, although the photo I uploaded is indicated as being the "current version", at the top of the page the other photo (of Sharon Brown) still appears, even after refreshing the page. I am confused by this as this is not the photo that needs to be cleared for use as per the notice you added. Is this some caching issue (ie will the image at the top of the page update at some point) ? Dubmill (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: After several refreshes, the image at the top of the page is now the "current version", so forget that. The rest of what I said still applies. The image appears on that website but it is not clear where the website owner got it from. They mention working with Sharon Redd in 1988 so quite likely it is a personal photo and they do own the copright. Dubmill (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Always good to see articles being made more concise; and top quality edit summaries make things easier for everyone else. Edwardx (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Dubmill; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Macclesfield may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Flickr RFC

Hi, as a recent past editor, wondering if you might be able to chime in on the Flickr talk page to help resolve an extended dispute. Jakerome (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Streatham Edits

Hi,

What you like improved from my edits?

Thanks

83.244.149.18 (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to talk about immigration and Africans being housed on estates in Streatham, and connecting these topics to riots in Notting Hill and Brixton, and also to some decision made by Westminster Council, you have to have citations supporting such statements. Otherwise it is just your personal opinion and not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The same goes for the statements you made about "countryside" and celebrity actors living in mansions. It may be your opinion that these things are facts but you cannot put them in here unless they are backed up by something in a book, newspaper, or some (not all) websites. I suggest that you look at the Wikipedia help pages, which explain in more detail what is required when making edits. Dubmill (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This is one page you should definitely look at: Wikipedia:No_original_research Dubmill (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Entwistle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Entwistle's playing technique incorporated fingers, [[plectrum]], [[tapping]], and the use of [[harmonics]. He would change his style between songs and even during songs to alter the sound he

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Jb423

I'm not sure what to do about this user. He means well, but he's got a WP:COMPETENCE problem - there's no other easy way of saying it. He's going around making articles worse and needs to use talk pages, leave proper edit summaries, cite things to reliable sources and not overlink. I fixed up Let's See Action so he could have a DYK, just to make a change from all the AfD and CSD notifications he's been getting. The principal problem is I'd like to get The Who to GA status, but I'm not tempted to while he's actively editing it - as soon as I start citing established book sources, trampling over his work, he's going to get upset and probably edit-war over it. That doesn't help the article. What can we do? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know, except continue to monitor the edits he is making, revert them where necessary, and perhaps engage with him more on his talk page in order to point out his misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies and grammar/style rules, eg overlinking and inappropriate capitalization of words etc. etc. The next time I see something of that kind, I'll undo it but also write something polite on his talk page. Dubmill (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning I've given him some straight talking here and here, and he did respond here sometime afterwards. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your attention to detail and quick and diligent copyediting skills, which helped bring The Who to Good Article Status. Many thanks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:HOUND

I noticed that for the past 4 days in a row you have followed closely behind my edits at David Gilmour. While I appreciate the fact that you've fixed several errors that I introduced, I am also feeling a bit hounded: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight."

I hope your new interest in double-checking my edits has nothing to do with this, but since you had made 2 edits in total to that article at that point, and now you are checking my work there everyday, I cannot help but feel that you are doing this out of spite.

• 21 October 2013: here you copyedit the exact passages I was editing just 17 minutes prior.

• 22 October 2013: here in your first edits of the day you copyedit the exact passage I had edited just 6.5 hours earlier.

• 23 October 2013: here in your first edits of the day you correct my edit from 9 hours prior. Again, I appreciate that you fixed an error, but the closeness with which you are following my work is unsettling.

• 24 October 2013: here in your first edits of the day you correct my work on a passage I edited just hours earlier. Yes, I missed the redundant word, so I appreciate the correction, but the way you are doing it is giving me the impression that you are following my work with the intent to cause me distress.

Further, I am in the process of a major copyedit at David Gilmour, which I intend to enter into the GOCE copyedit of the month contest, so I would greatly appreciate it if you would just allow me the space that I need to edit the article without your constant supervision. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are mistaken. The way I use Wikipedia is as follows: I log in and immediately check my watchlist to see which pages have been updated. I added the Dave Gilmour page a long time ago so any edits made to it will come to my attention immediately. The first time I ever came across you was when I noticed that you had edited "The Orb" in the Gilmour infobox to be "the Orb", which I undid. You reverted my edit and explained the rationale behind your edit. I accept that you were correct and have no issue with that. Since then, I have been making more edits to the Gilmour page because the topic piqued my interest again (I nade a few edits to it previously, a long time ago). In all cases, my edits have been sincere, aimed merely at improving the wording in minor ways. If you check my edits on the Gilmour page, you will see that they are not confined to passages edited by you. Furthermore, I defy you to say that any of my edits were unjustified. In some cases you have made further edits, modifying mine, and I acknowledge that the changes you made were an improvement.

I really don't see why this is a problem. I think it is unreasonable of you to accuse me of "hounding" you, although I can sort of see why you might have gained that impression. To reiterate, my edits were focused purely on the material. I like to copy edit, as clearly you do, too. If I see something that appears wrong or not quite right, I see no reason why I should refrain from editing it. I am free to make edits as I see fit, and the idea that other users should steer clear of editing a page because one person wants to make edits in order to enter a contest seems absurd to me. However, and only because I don't want to get into a fight with you, I will agree to your request and not make any more edits until you have completed your work for the contest. But I will come back to the page and make further edits to it at a later date if I think it warrants it. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. If I do make edits in the future, you should not assume there is any malice behind them, because there genuinely isn't. All I am interested in is clarity of wording and absence of mistakes. Dubmill (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not at all absurd, it's a basic friendly request. Forget about the contest, even if I weren't intending to submit the copyedit your editing so closely behind me is not good practice. It's annoying in the least, and distressful in the worst. I do not need you to watch over my shoulder, not at David Gilmour or anywhere else and I am politely asking you to stop following my edits. My point here is that you have looked over and corrected my work there several days in a row. The article is not even GA yet, so if I leave an error or two until I return the next day to the article it's not a big deal. As it stands now, the article is in very poor condition; I promise it will be improved when I am done. To be clear, your reversion of me there last week was your second edit ever to the page, so it's a bit strange that after I reverted you it's now one of your top daily priorities to double-check my work there. Anyway, I really do not want a conflict with you, so please just give me space and stop double-checking every edit I make. You're edits are far from perfect, but I doubt that you would appreciate someone logging-in everyday to "correct" your mistakes. I repeat: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, I am NOT watching over your edits. Have I edited any other pages you have edited recently? As I said, after that initial back and forth re "the Orb", the Gilmour topic piqued my interest. Over and above that, when I edit something, or see it edited, minute differences of wording become interesting to me, so it stimulates me to go back and see if more changes are warranted. That is why I have been going back to the page -- to see what changes have been made. The wording is interesting to me. To repeat, if you look at my edits, they have not been solely confined to the passages you have edited. I admit that I have repeatedly edited some passages you have edited, but it has been because I saw something amiss or something that could be slightly improved. I accept that you have been unnerved by it but I assure you that no malice was intended.

Incidentally, the fact that I made only one edit to the Gilmour page before is not relevant. Also, whether my edits are perfect or not is not relevant either. I am aware my edits are not perfect, which is why if I see improvements made to them (as with some of your edits), it does not bother me.

Regarding the quote from the Wikipedia guideline about users tracking other users' edits, this is not applicable. I have not been tracking your edits. I'll admit I have been tracking edits to the Gilmour page. It just so happens that most of them have been made by you. It's not the same thing at all. And, once and for all, my tracking of those changes was motivated only by my interest in clarity of wording and correcting minor mistakes. Why should I leave something if I see it's wrong or could obviously be improved? The bottom line is I have as much right to edit that page as you do.

Anyway, I can see you are upset and, while I do not think I have done anything wrong, I apologize for causing you distress. It was not intentional. Dubmill (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• FTR, on 23 October, in addition to editing my work at David Gilmour, you tweaked my work at the Who 2.5 hours after I made the edit. So that's confronting my work at two different pages within hours on the same day. You say this was not intended to hound me, so I'll WP:AGF for now. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you are now assuming good faith on my part with regard to this entire episode, I should point out that I have made quite a few edits to the Who page recently. These include ten edits on the 19th of September, followed by edits on the 24th, 25th and 28th September, and on 1st October. Not that the number of edits I have previously made is relevant, but I am mentioning it because you cited my lack of recent edits on the Gilmour page as evidence of bad faith on my part.

As regards the edit you made (to the Who page) that I tweaked, you changed the construction slightly, breaking up a long sentence into two and changing the word "achieved" to "earned". Having given the matter some thought, I was of the opinion that "achieved" was somewhat better than "earned" but neither was satisfactory. Therefore, I altered the wording to a completely new construction, which replaced both your edit and the wording that was there before your edit. I think the new construction is better, because it avoids the need to use an unsatisfactory verb ("earned...hits" or "achieved...hits"). Subsequently, you went back to the page and made an alteration to my new wording, which I think works even better (replacing "several further" with "a string of"). This, to me, is a good example of collaborative editing. As I said to you before, I don't mind my edits being changed if they contain mistakes or if the new wording is better. Dubmill (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hinkley Point C

Thanks for your contributions to the Hinkley Point C page. There is a regular problem on this page with anonymous users deleting sections they don't like. So this text:

"is a controversial proposal for"

Is being deleted by anonymous users, the latest appearing yesterday: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.108.89.237

The same user is presenting opinion in this addition: "Hinkley Point C, however, will provide baseload electricity, which solar can not due to storage problems, [27] so comparisons between the two are somewhat pointless, especially since the soon-to-be closure of UK power plants.[28]"

As an experienced Wikipedia editor, I wonder if you advise on the correct way to deal with this. It is quite tiresome rolling back edits, back you will see from the History these are anonymous editors and difficult to engage in discussion.

I noticed these edits and it is not clear to me if they are part of some kind of clandestine marketing/propaganda campaign aimed at changing public opinion on both the Hinkley C project and nuclear power in general. Alternatively, there could be people making edits who simply live locally and favour the project because it will bring employment. The last edit arguably has some justification in that the project is not exactly a "proposal" any more and is to go ahead. Obviously, it is still controversial, because nuclear power is controversial in itself, but the passage perhaps needs to be reworded to reflect the fact that the project is currently going ahead.

I am not sure if the claims made re. nuclear power versus alternative energy are correct. The problem is I am not an expert, either in the subject matter or the use of Wikipedia, so I am not the best person to go to in order to combat what does appear to be some sort of campaign to make pro-nuclear edits to this page. Nevertheless, I will do a bit of reading in order to find sources that could be used to rebut these claims. Dubmill (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you about re-wording rather than rolling back, so I've suggested 'controversial project' and suggested they move that discussion to the Talk page. I edited the contribution on 'other costs' to make it less opinionated but without deleting... instead, suggesting a new section might be appropriate regarding the closure of old power plants.

For the storage, transmission and clean-up costs, as well as trends, there is a very good Wikipedia project on Energy Economics so I've suggested developing those ideas in the Talk page and linking the two projects better. Lancastle (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

References

Reference Errors on 18 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Angry Brigade page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Roy Hodgson

Hi there,

If you don't mind me asking, how can you say he was joking? He said it not only once but on at least 2 separate occassions. Also look at how his tone was reported by assorted journalists, e.g. 'bullish' (in the Telegraph I think it was but take a look on line to see for yourself).

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.5.169.110 (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Having given the matter more thought, I no longer think he was joking, at least not in the sense of saying something absurd to get a laugh. Nevertheless, he was being humorous in a way, because realistically England would never be favourites to win the World Cup, but at the same time he was trying to be optimistic. As it turned out, England failed miserably, but managers are always going to talk optimistically at the start of a tournament. You are right that it was widely reported, and that's because it was briefly newsworthy, but it doesn't mean it is worthy of mention in the encyclopedia. Also, it should not be put in to try to make him look foolish. Dubmill (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Subjective remarks: Why did you say "...and coming close to qualifying for a major tournament for the first time in their history" was a statement of fact? Does "close" here mean Finland was one point away, two points away, five points away, or ten points away from qualifying? Or does it merely mean prior to Hodgson, Finland had never gained any point during qualification round but for the first time in the history Hodgson helped them achieved at least one point, hence they "came close" to qualifying for a major tournament for the first time? What does it mean by "major" tournament anyway? European tournament? World Cup? Olympics? Scandinavian tournament? or merely tournament among countries lying between longitudes 20° and 32° E? This is clearly a subjective remark to help boost Hodgson's name.

Not to mention you deleted a significant statement saying: "Under Hodgson, England saw its FIFA World Rankings dropped to 20th in August 2014, its worst position in 18 years". Your excuse was this was a duplication. However in previous paragraph statements such as "Switzerland had not qualified for a major tournament since the 1960s." were also duplicated from elsewhere in the page. This is clearly another attempt to clean Hodgson's name.

Deletion of spectators attendance. In the "post 2014 World Cup" segment, you deleted "the match was attended by only 40,181 spectators, the lowest turn-out for an England match since Wembley was re-opened in 2007". I really can't understand the thinking process behind this.

So please be more objective and rational next time. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtj182 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Finland: There's a section about it on the page. Had they won their last game instead of drawing it, they would have qualified. 'Close' accurately summarizes it in my opinion.

"Major tournament": That would mean the World Cup or the various regional tournaments, e.g. the European Championship.

Drop in FIFA world rankings: These rankings fluctuate so I am not even sure there need to be repeated mentions of wildly different rankings at different times. But, as I mentioned, there was certainly no need for you to duplicate what was already on the page. Also, that opening section is meant to be a summary, so it is fair to summarize there his overall achievements in previous jobs (e.g. Finland and Switzerland). But since his England career is not yet over, it's not fair to cherry-pick a particularly poor FIFA ranking and put it there as a summary of his England management career.

Attendance at friendly game: Not relevant on a biography page. You cannot assume the reason people didn't want to attend is because they don't like Hodgson's style of management. Obviously the World Cup was a huge disappointment so it takes a while for people to get enthused again, and a friendly against a team like Norway is not a big draw. Had the opposition been Germany or some other big team, the attendance would no doubt have been somewhat higher. Dubmill (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Jack Tweed article

LOL I got an alert saying you reverted my edit but you really reworded it :P Jackninja5 (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I was originally going to revert it on the grounds that it wasn't adding anything that the reader couldn't work out for themselves, but I had second thoughts mid-edit. But I guess because I originally selected 'undo' it still thinks I reverted your edit. BTW I decided to reword it because mentioning that she died 'just a month later' makes sense if you haven't yet specified what the date was, whereas it looks like stating the obvious if it's placed AFTER the mention of the date. Dubmill (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Invitation

Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Dubmill,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Syon House

Thank you for correcting the name of Syon House on the page Brentford. You might not have noticed that in doing so you reverted a recent change by an editor who similarly renamed the page Syon House. Unfortunately he also made several other edits on Brentford which appear to have confused/conflated Syon House, Syon Park House and Hilton Syon Park, as well as removing a perfectly serviceable image of Syon House, as a before/after comparison wll reveal. I feel that all these changes should be reverted, but as a rather inexperienced editor I am too chicken to do it myself. I leave it to your more capable hands. Wellset (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have restored the image and made a few other minor changes. Dubmill (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Wellset (talk) 14:27, 3 April 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) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Elephant & Castle tube station

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to South East England may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

River Ching

Thanks. That is clear now. Sorry for the spurious revert. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ash, Surrey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arable. 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) 09:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dubmill. 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)

What a confusing mess

Hi, Some time ago you posted something about London locations getting in a mess. The mess to my view getting messier. So I have posted a Request for Comment here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_Kingdom#Towns_and_villages_which_are_part_of_Greater_London. Would appreciate any informative input that you can give.--Aspro (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Lea Valley

Hi Dubmill. I've noticed you have made edits concerning towns in the Lea Valley. Southockendon has made several edits to the article. If you can spare the time I would like a second opinion on this before I remove some of the text. Northmetpit (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Some of the wording needs to be cleaned up. At one point it says the eastern side of the valley is 'steep' and looks towards Muswell Hill and Alexandra Palace. That sounds right. Pole Hill, Yardley Hill, and Barn Hill are steep, and from the top of those you get the views mentioned. But then, further on, having referred to the Enfield ridgeway, it says that the 'opposite side' rises gradually into the Essex uplands. I guess one way of looking at it is the general area rises gradually but there are some individual hills that rise more steeply. But the way it is worded currently is a bit confusing. Also, there are no citations, except to a Facebook page, which didn't load when I tried to look at it (not that a citation to a FB page is acceptable). I do like the general idea of the section that's been added, though. It gives a good description, but it needs a bit of cleaning up and citations added. Dubmill (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply which confirms how I felt about the Ridgeway and the Facebook citation that doesn't work. As you said the heading is a good idea but needs tidying up. Another job that needs to be done. Thanks once again. Northmetpit (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

SouthOckendon to Northmetpit. I have a boat in the Lea Valley and came across a facebook user, Mark Lester Cheeseman, who lives in Cheshunt in a conversation about Lee v Lea. He admitted to having a consuming interest in the geology of the valley and was disappointed that Wiki seemed to have no reference to it's formation. When I told him I was a casual editor and could probably rectify that he provided information which I found best fitted into a new paragraph. Knowing that facebook links are notoriously unreliable I included his name in brackets so that I could come back to the subject. I realised the wording (his not mine!) was ambiguous but have been too busy to edit it it into a more readable form at the moment. I am checking all the libraries in the valley but to date I have not found any book I can use as a citation. Been to Waltham Abbey, Cheshunt, Hoddeston, Ware and still have Harlow, Hertford, Epping and others to cover, you can probably imagine it does not happen overnight. If you and Dubmill are happy to let me muddle along I'll get it sorted in time!?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southockendon (talk • contribs) 17:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Jack the Stripper

Jackson is a more recent criminal than the one that perpetrated the 63-64 crimes, and was widely known as JtS. Jackson doesn't merit a stand alone article, and a disambiguation page would be unnecessarily cumbersome. This is a perfectly valid "other use". Keri (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I take your point about Jackson not meriting a stand-alone article. But was he really widely known as 'Jack the Stripper' or is this just an incidental detail in the case? I had never heard of this before. I would suggest it was not central to the case and is therefore non-notable, but you may disagree. Dubmill (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that you have now amended the title of the section. I think that is more satisfactory and makes it clear there is no connection to the main topic of the article. Dubmill (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I re-read the addition and realised that I hadn't really made it very clear that this was intended as an "other use". Keri (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sewardstone

Hello Dubmill, I'm 97RGr and I'm quite new to Wikipedia. I have noticed you have reverted non-user edits on the article for Sewardstone and that you have used the Twinkler to request protection on the article. I would be willing to help you with this matter. People do tend to think of Sewardstone as a London area; the Enfield London Borough is immediately west just across the reservoirs, it is in London's E4 postcode zone, and 'Sewardstone, London, E4' is the postal address of the area and not 'Sewardstone, Essex'. Therefore, I do not believe this person or these people are vandals, they just do not understand that Sewardstone is just outside the boundary, but I agree that something has to be done! Just giving my opinion. 97RGr (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

When rolling back the edits I did not use the option 'rollback (VANDAL)' but the one next to it, which just says 'rollback'. I wasn't aware that using that second option meant I was treating the reverted edits as vandalism. I did also make it clear when reverting this and the previous edits what my reasons were. I think I stated pretty clearly that the definition of what's in London and what's in Essex (and by extension the East of England region) is determined by where the boundaries are. I also acknowledged that both places have the London E4 postcode, while at the same time pointing out that this has no bearing on the administrative boundaries. Sewardstonebury, in particular, is right on the cusp, as it is just north of the boundary, but nevertheless it is still in Essex. As far as I can see from the OS map, there are no houses on the Chingford side of the boundary whose residents could feasibly say they live in Sewardstonebury. Dubmill (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, cheers Dubmill. Hopefully they'll stop the continuous edits. If you need any help with anything by any chance, feel free to message me on my talk page. I'm quite knowledgable on local geography around the North East London and Lea Valley area. 97RGr (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC) OK, thanks. Dubmill (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

order of facts

hello dubmill i have come to your chat page because you have reverted resonable edits. it is true that it blends in with the urban area. there is open land to the south but it conects to the north london ribon development to the west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.244 (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that through its connection to that ribbon development Waltham Abbey is classified as being in the London Urban Area and the London Metropolitan Area. But, as I have stressed countless times now, that is not primary information. These areas are used for economic analysis but they are not local government jurisdictions. As I said before, other articles about UK towns and villages begin by saying what local government district and county the place is in. But you want to disregard that convention and therefore give information that is potentially confusing to the reader, who may not be clear on exactly what terms like 'the London Urban Area' and 'London Metropolitan Area' mean. Why in your opinion should the convention that operates across Wikipedia for these articles just be put aside here? It's not as if I am suggesting the information you want put first should be omitted. Dubmill (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

However this is important infomation as walham abbey is more related to london than essex. historically and because it is an inch of the boundary it is more related to essex but geographically and economically waltham abbey is more london. also the open land you mention is epping forest which is londons landmark forest to the south east the only open land is a strip that runs along to chingford which is east of the lee valley and then epping forest starts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.244 (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I can see what you mean but I just don't agree with you that the link with London is so important that it trumps the convention used on Wikipedia when describing the location of UK towns and villages. If one day they decide to redefine the boundaries and make Waltham Abbey part of an enlarged London, then it would have to be described differently. But until then I think it should be described in the first instance in terms of the local government district and county it is in, not in other terms. Dubmill (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to be like this i will swaped around the facts but kept the london link in the first sentence because it is a london area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.244 (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I would be happy with mention of the London Urban Area and London Metropolitan Area appearing in the first sentence, just not as the very first thing it says. In my opinion, for reasons already given, it should first mention both Epping Forest District and Essex, then follow that with the other, London-related areas. Dubmill (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Was

You use was for too much on your edit of White Hart Lane, it's a bad use of English, you can still visit the site, watch your past-tense, Govvy (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I switched to past tense because the opening description of the stadium says that it was demolished at the end of the 2016/17 season. If, as you say, it can still be visited, and the stands referred to are still standing, it should not say that the stadium 'was demolished'. Dubmill (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You can still visit the site where it was! Don't forget the new stadium is virtually on the same site. Getting to the location shouldn't be past-tense. Govvy (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the bits I changed to 'was' were particular references to stands in the old stadium. Are you saying that when the new stadium is built it will have stands called exactly the same thing and in the same location, reached by the same route? (I do understand that the new stadium is broadly in the same place, but will the footprint be the same, and the access routes the same as before?) Dubmill (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

They are copying a similar blueprint, the stands might be named or have sponsorship but they will be north, east, south, west still. All the main routes are the same, there will be new roads around the site, I think Bill Nickleson Way will be moved but keep the name, Govvy (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, well in that case I'll put it back to the way it was. Dubmill (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dubmill. 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)

Ann Noblett

FYI, I came across this source re the name of the woods where Noblett's was found, "...Anne’s body was stored before being moved to dense woodland in Rose Grove Woods, known locally as ‘Young’s Wood’ in Horn Hill, Whitwell." Londonclanger (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I wondered if it might be an alternative name for the same place, but I didn't bother spending time looking for evidence. Incidentally, I think the WP article should say something like 'Rose Grove, an area of woodland near Whitwell also known locally as "Young's Wood"'. Current and historical OS maps show the wood with the name 'Rose Grove'. The words 'wood' or 'woods' are not actually part of the name. Dubmill (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

All Hallows' Church, Tottenham

Dear Dubmill, I appreciate that Butterfield didn't design the above from scratch but he did undertake a significant restoration. In this, he was in a broad tradition of Victorian church restorers, including Salvin, Scott, Burges and T H Wyatt among many others. As such, I think it is reasonable to include All Hallow's in the category of Butterfield Buildings, in much the same way that Cardiff Castle, again a restoration/rebuild, is listed as a Burges building. I would absolutely agree that, if we had a separate category for Butterfield restorations, it would sit better in there, but of course we don't currently have such a category, and it might be too fine a distinction. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine. But would it not be a good idea in that case to reword the text appearing on the Butterfield category page so it said something like: "Buildings designed or containing significant work by British architect William Butterfield" ? That would then cover the many churches included in the category that Butterfield did not design but which he extensively restored. Dubmill (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

A very good point - which would also apply to many others that I had a quick look at before writing here. I shall take it up at the Categories section, and also raise the wider issue at the Architecture portal. Many Victorian architects, although probably not Butterfield, actually did more restoration than new-build. Certainly Scott and Salvin did huge amounts, attracting rather a lot of criticism in the process. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dubmill. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dubmill. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Murder of James Byrd Jr.‎

Sorry, didn't notice that part of the change. Meters (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I noticed it said 6 October on the gravestone, so I thought I'd check the source to see what it said. Dubmill (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Oval, London

Hello. Don't want to revert you here as your edit was probably an all-things-considered one, but just to flag that User:86.144.43.7 is a sockpuppet with a history of changing London articles from "districts" to "areas" to "parts" to anything. Oval has been described as a "district" for a year and a half, here, and the IP changed it to "area". Will leave it to you to decide if that should stay. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not clear on what the consensus was on the distinction between 'district' and 'area'. Area is perhaps more applicable to places that are not traditional settlements but have developed an identity in modern times. Oval certainly takes its name from the cricket ground, and that was originally called 'Kennington Oval'. The article on Kennington says that one of its main features is the cricket ground, so that would suggest that Oval is indeed a 'part' of Kennington and not a 'district' separate from it (if in fact that is what 'district' has been decided by consensus to mean). I notice that the banned IP also altered the location of Waterloo station to Lambeth (from South Bank). I tend to think that is correct, as the station is not on the South Bank, i.e. right by the river. I think it is more accurate to say it is in Lambeth than the South Bank. Come to think of it, it is usual to say that x is 'on' the South Bank, not x is 'in' South Bank (as if South Bank were a place). Dubmill (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There's been some WikiProject London discussion in the past about districts, but I don't think a clear consensus was ever reached. You may well be right about the South Bank, I was just going with the block evasion guidance that "presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert": the editor has a long history of not meaning what other people mean when describing where a London landmark is, and not explaining their reasoning.

Sorry for the Nine Elms edit, by the way, I missed that you'd edited it outside of the lead. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Birchermüesli

Regarding your question: "As far as I can tell, the evening meal version is what is particular to Switzerland and Germany. But what about Austria? Is it also eaten in the evening there?"

According to my not relevant impressions, Müsli is not even as prevalent in Austria like it is in Germany. Not even as a breakfast. And even the prevalence of Müsli in Germany is rather a recent – during the last 30 years – development, at least north of South Germany. Regards. -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I am British and eat supermarket-packaged Swiss style muesli (no added salt or sugar) every day for my breakfast (with added raisins/sultanas, and served with water rather than milk). It may not be up to the standards preferred by true muesli connoisseurs, but I enjoy it very much and get through a large bag every week. It might even be my favourite meal of the day. Dubmill (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)