Dhmellor

Am I a poet? No, I am a biologist, so my command of the English language is poor at best! Emoscopes ^Talk 15:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Thanks for your edit to Lundy. I think your source may be a few years out of date, though, as theBlack Rat has recently been eradicated on Lundy, in order to protect the nesting seabirds, especially the Manx Shearwaters. See [1]. Regards --MichaelMaggs 20:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mitchell is something of a spoilsport, but well done indeed for finding him! Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks once again for your encouragement. I have a rough draft of the earlier history section now which I hope to upload soon. I was hoping to find a photo or two that cold be used and received some advice at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Old Photos. If you can help at all I'd appreciate it. Ben MacDui (Talk) 22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your edits are fine by me. Bits of the article struck me as if they had been lifted straight from a holiday brochure so needed toning down slightly. Nunquam Dormio 20:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for uploading File:Barnhill-by-Ken-Craig-1-.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bouônjour! Well, the Pierres de Lecq are certainly uninhabitable, but the Minquiers and the Écréhous certainly have habitations, but none are these days inhabited day-in day-out year-round (as far as I know). They may well be nearby - but to suggest that they are nearby and uninhabited is misleading. I think the wording of "nearly uninhabited" to convey the sense of intermittent occupation is far from the best possible wording, but I reverted to the less misleading wording. What the best wording might be, I'm not sure. Man vyi (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well it's certainly clearer. Thanks. As to the state of the buildings - the weekenders certainly spend enough money on their cottages! Man vyi (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

An editor questioned the workings of this at the talk page of Scarp. Its existence wasn't cited and I can see no sign of a reference to this parliament in Haswell-Smith, Murray (1966) or Thompson (1968) and nor are there any obvious ghits. I have removed this for the time being. You added the information back in 2006 and any information about its provenance will be greatly appreciated. Ben MacDui 08:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi MacDui. Thanks for alerting me to this - as it happens, Scarp is not on my watchlist, so I'm grateful to you. The source is an impeccable one - it's already included in the bibliography, but I have now added a direct reference to it in the footnotes. Regards Dhmellor (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good to see you back and many thanks for your prompt reply. Ben MacDui 08:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jura, Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barnhill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorted - thanks. Dhmellor (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dhmellor,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Dhmellor for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Ishdarian 10:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

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) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jura, Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lagg. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Hi Dhmellor! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at British Post Office scandal that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the message Ghmyrtle. My edit was simply to delete the repetition of this sentence 'On 27 January 2024 Post Office chairman Henry Staunton was dismissed by Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch, who said that his departure was about more than just the Horizon scandal, but concerned the governance of the Post Office more generally.' I don't think anyone would maintain that that sentence should be used twice, so my edit could never be the subject of a dispute. Best, Dhmellor. Dhmellor (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate that, but you seem to have had a longstanding tendency to mark edits as minor when they are not - I may have chosen a poor example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Dhmellor. I see that your addition to Elgar was deleted. Please see WP:IPC -- before we add information about a new development in popular culture to an existing Wikipedia article, we need to cite sources that not only show that the item happened/exists and is relevant to the article, but also that the information is so *important* to the article that a general reader learning about, say, Elgar, would need to know it. This is governed by not only WP:IPC, which says, that the sources cited must "establish the significance [of the information] to the article's subject", but more generally WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. For example, did the film win Best Picture at the Oscars or BAFTAs? Was it the most popular film of the year? Did the film spur reexamination of Elgar by scholars and the public? Also, future events (like an upcoming film) should be viewed with even greater skepticism: see WP:CRYSTAL. I hope that helps. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Ssilvers. As I'm an infrequent contributor, I do appreciate your taking the trouble to explain this. First, this film is a major event - it is 'significant'. It's Bennett's first original screenplay for forty years. Sir Nicholas Hytner is a former Director of the National Theatre and one of the most distinguished theatrical figures in the UK. The leading actors are household names. So Schrocat's suggestion in the revision history that 'given the number of planned and announced films that are never actually completed, it's best to wait until it's at least in post-production' is in this case ridiculous. It is happening, and is being filmed on location in Yorkshire as I write. As for verification, I used the BBC, because most people regard it as a reliable source, but there are several others: https://www.westendtheatre.com/225412/news/new-alan-bennett-film-to-be-directed-by-nicholas-hytner/, https://deadline.com/2024/03/the-choral-ralph-fiennes-jim-broadbent-hytner-bennett-movie-1235864099/, https://www.screendaily.com/news/sony-pictures-classics-takes-worldwide-on-nicholas-hytners-the-choral-starring-ralph-fiennes-and-jim-broadbent/5191799.article, etc etc etc. Finally, although it is not intended to 'spur reexamination of Elgar by scholars and the public', this film is a development which anyone interested in Elgar would be most grateful to be made aware of. All of that said, I take the points that you make, and as a result I have moved my contribution to the article on The Dream of Gerontius itself. Dhmellor (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply