User talk:Dabbler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Wine-Dark Sea image

No not at all. I was trying to add a few images and have found I had used a "smaller than usual" setting. So having put a "very large" sizing - realised my mistake and am in the process of putting up a revised set of images and bringing the sizes back to normal. We have just tripped over each other I think. By the way I like all the work you and Ivankinsman have been doing on this series. It is much more in keeping with the notability of the literature that they used to be. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Wine-Dark-Sea cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:The Wine-Dark-Sea cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Old Marlburians

Hi. I agree with you on Hallus and White, but perhaps there's a case for Hugh Pym, who seems to meet the General notability guideline, viz., he's received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, as defined in the guideline. Apart from being a journalist, he's the author of a book on Gordon Brown. Xn4 13:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Moore

I quickly checked the BBC site, including news as well as Google News and there's no mention of his death. You're wise to suspect that it was a hoax. It's not the first time I've seen a bogus reference to someone's death in a wikipedia article. Autarch (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trampoline/Trampolining

Hi Dabbler - not sure if you noticed but the history piece you recently reverted from trampolining because was repeated in trampoline introduced a subtle issue. As the editor reworked the trampolining article pre-revert there was a clear implication that Griswold was 'inventor' not Nissen. Quite a gob-smacker if true. Do you have a view on this? I'm trying to do some research into Ted Blake at present that might lead me to contacts who could resolve but wondered if you had a view. DaveK@BTC (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The West View site with its History states that they worked together and that apparently comes from an article on Griswold. I don't know much more than that. Dabbler (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
OK - I'll see what I can find out in my researches elsewhere. In the meantime the original editor who made the changes has not come back on them. DaveK@BTC (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lafontaine

Articles are not kept on the basis of maybe being referenceable. Any article can be redirected to another topic, with no advance discussion required, if references aren't already present. And furthermore, all of the content in the Lafontaine article is already present in the parent topic's article as well; the redirect did not result in the "loss" of any information at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The township article doesn't have enough references, certainly, but it does have some, whereas the separate article on Lafontaine had none at all. The general practice for Canadian geographical articles right now is that there should always be an article about the municipality, whereas an unincorporated community within a municipality should only have an article if there's sufficient referenced content to warrant subdividing the municipal-level article. We never upmerge municipal-level articles to their county; that would result in overly long and unmanageable articles. And I don't think one single half-sentence that got missed warrants jumping down someone's throat about "deleted" content, either. Though YMMV, I suppose. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)