User talk:Old Moonraker/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Old Moonraker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Alan David at Victoria, Stoke

Hi. I'm a bit bothered by this edit, in respect of the link you have supplied for "Victoria, Stoke". It would seem to me more likely that the Victoria Theatre, Stoke was intended. Could you check in your source to see if I might be right about that? Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right—thanks. It's my error, not the author of the source work. Will you change it or shall I? Annoyingly, I expanded another actor's page at about the same time, using the same book, and may well have made the same mistake. I can't now remember which page it was, so I'll have to do some research on my "contributions" page.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No need: it was Ken Campbell, and you have found it already. Great! --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've done Alan David. Thanks for your speedy response. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And I've expanded the DAB page entry, as I missed it last time. Thanks again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Historie of Life And Death

I see no copy listed in the catalog of the Library of Congress published prior to the 1638 version. http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=9&ti=1,9&Search_Arg=The%20Historie%20of%20Life%20and%20Death&Search_Code=GKEY^*&CNT=100&PID=sZ8grHsNcLWIVMTPutGK7gZ6XgP&SEQ=20100404133537&SID=1 Where did you find a 1623 attribution? The LOC apparently also has a copy in the Latin also published in 1638. As with so many of his works, it was obviously written prior to his death in 1626, but only published at a later time. In any event, it deserves a listing under his works. A search of the LOC catalog does not reveal a 1623 copy. BibleBill (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the publication of the Latin in 1623 - Bacon, Francis, viscount St. Albans, 1561-1626. Francisci Baronis de Vervlamio, Vice-comitis Sancti Albani, Historia vitae & mortis... Londini: In officina Io. Haviland, impensis Matthaei Lownes, 1623. -- Lat. [6], 454 (i.e. 458) p. 16 cm.

B 1180 H5 Bacon Coll. Gibson no. 147, Pollard & Redgrave STC no. 1156. Along with the LOC copy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BibleBill (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Still think it needs to be cited in his publications though. BibleBill (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one. The 1638 edition is a translation after Bacon's death by, I think, William Rawley. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Old Moonraker. You have new messages at WT:TW.
Message added 09:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Amalthea 09:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Such Tweet Sorrow

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Such Tweet Sorrow, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_8615000/8615432.stm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! This was a verbatim spinoff, following the procedure at WP:SS, from an existing edit by User:Kkgg101 on Romeo and Juliet. AFD requested. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

More (older?) vandalism from 67.230.192.1

Hi:

Since you're the latest user to report something on http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:67.230.192.1, you may be able to clue me: I noticed that http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Clear_Creek_High_School_%28Colorado%29&oldid=352037047 isn't listed in the reports, but (since that address was warned then blocked meanwhile) there may be no need to. Should I still add it to the list, and (if so) what template can (or should) I use?

The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't bother. The system of warning vandals is directed at prevention as much as anything—see WP:VAND#Warnings. As the contributor isn't active at the moment, perhaps we should take the Pollyanna view and assume it has worked, with no further action needed. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello OM, I see that you used a quote by Mark Allan Powell in the Historicity of Jesus article, indicating an interest in the Christ myth theory. If you have the time, then you might want to join the discussion over at the Christ myth theory page. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't find that edit: this is one of the many pages I learn from, rather than contribute to. Thanks for the "heads up": I'll certainly look at the discussion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I mispoke about the edit. I meant the "clarify" tag. Nevertheless, I still think you would learn more about the CMT (Christ myth theory) on its own page than on the HOJ page. You may also want to visit Eugene's talk page. It contains a bunch of good information under the "Christ myth theory material" heading (e.g, it contains a more complete FAQ than the one on the CMT talk page, since some editors on the CMT page didn't like what some well-respected scholars had to say about the CMT).

You might also be interested in listening to this. It's an interview of a biblical scholar (named Bart Ehrman) about the CMT. It's about 10 minutes long, but well your time. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Railway line#Merger

You are invited to join the discussion here. Fayenatic (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Friar Laurence

I really think that Friar Lawrence needs to be moved to Friar Laurence over the redirect so that all relevant articles are singing from the same hymn-sheet, as it were. I'll be happy to do the moving (involving an admin if necessary) and will sort out all the links and so on. Any thoughts? --GuillaumeTell 16:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I just came upon Lord Capulet (!). AfD? --GuillaumeTell 16:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree the rename. Loosely, it was on my list of "things to look at sometime". "Capulet" has adequate cover (including an explanation for the erroneous "Lord") in Characters in Romeo and Juliet, but "AfD" can be an acrimonious process! However I would support this too. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Done the rename and unredirected some of the more prominent instances. I'll think about the Lord Capulet article. --GuillaumeTell 18:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Converted it to a redirect, following a suggestion at WP:BEFORE. We'll see what happens. --GuillaumeTell 17:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Good solution—thanks. I've sorted a few "Laurence" redirects and will look for more over the next couple of days. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusion

I've tried to clarify what I was saying here. Sorry about that. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cross posting: happens to us all. Reply on article talk page, but thanks for posting here as well. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Old Moonraker. You have new messages at Syncategoremata's talk page.
Message added 22:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Syncategoremata (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Replying there. Thanks for the prompt response.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

boiler explosion

Hi, I responded to you on my page, please forgive intrusion. Tomtroszak (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)tomtroszak

boiler explosion

Hi, I wrote back to you on my page... but don't know how to comm. properly... please forgive intrusion. Tomtroszak (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Tomtroszak

OpenPGP Implementations

Hello,

I would like to ask why are you deleting the links to DidiSoft OpenPGP Library homepage? DidiSoft OpenPGP Library is actively developed and has many customers including Citygroup and Lockheed Martin.

If you persist deleting the link I will have to contact the Wiki authority.

Regards Akrachev (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop looking at Wikipedia as a commercial opportunity. Read WP:ELNO then, if you still want to complain, go ahead. How does this link benefit the encyclopedia? For my part, any page addressed to "Dear Customer" or extolling "what our customers say" is SPAM, and not to be tolerated. Persistent spammers will be blocked. I hope that's clear enough. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

OK,

Then isn't http://www.easybyte.com/products/cryptocx.html a SPAM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrachev (talk • contribs) 10:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia version of "two wrongs don't make a right" is here. If it's wrong, be bold and fix it! --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Be well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrachev (talk • contribs) 11:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Charles Darwin

I commented, and then promptly deleted the section (and comment) per your request. Figured I'd let you know here in case you didn't check the page history. BTW, thanks for pointing out the deleted comments earlier! I didn't check Tdbostick's diffs so I didn't catch it myself. :) Jess ^talk _cs 14:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Best solution, thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

SAQ and links

Re Smatprt's position. (a) The position he defends is almost wholly absent from mainstream scholarship over the past century, being recognized as fringe and amateurish (b) That both the SAQ page, as it is eventually drafted, and the various linked pages detailing sectarian angles (Marlowian theory, Oxfordian theory, Baconian theory) exist, where ample space for finessing the fringe material is available. (c) If a precedent is created where, on one page, such as Shakespeare, or Hamlet, a SAQ link is given, that precedent will be used to push for a SAQ link on every page dealing with Shakespeare, his plays, his poetry, and with the 65 candidates. The result will mean seeding every mainstream article with a link to theories that have in themselves no status in scholarship, since there is no evidence for them, indeed they admit it is all conjecture, and no evidence in archives has ever been turned up to support these theories (to the contrary, a large amount of evidence exists disproving each of them). (d) This is a personal interpretation, and I do not mean it as an attack. But Smatprt was asked to work the alternative SAQ page, while Tom Reedy and myself did our version. We have done several hundred edits, and a huge amount of research, to get a version of that page presented which fulfils the stringent criteria for quality wikipedia asks for. Smatprt has done nothing, except a couple of dozen tweaks on his competing version, but in the meantime pushes for links to the argument on a large number of pages, Hamlet, Mary Sidney etc., where he is systematically reverted. I believe his strategy is to insistently create edit conflicts by these intrusions, in order to obtain exactly the compromise (through exhaustion) you suggest. If one page is compromised to allow a SAQ link, then a couple of hundred pages will cop the same link. All this for a fringe lunatic piece of amateurish speculation? Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Not the first time Stephen has crept past the defences and you are right: exhaustion does set in after a while. I'm now sorry I made the suggestion and I will retract it on the original page. However, as he has never, AFAICR, taken any notice of suggestions from other editors I imagine there's little harm done. Thanks for taking the trouble to explain all this here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No trouble at all. In fact just trying to avoid occasions where trouble might multiply beyond powers of management. That a few folks, despite exhaustion, keep in and keep an eye on things and the general picture, is much appreciated from the grunts in the trenches! Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Nishidani's "precedent" argument is completely out of line and is nothing more than crystal ball gazing. Have any examples of this argument been provided? No. Anyhow, sorry you are buying it. And to remind you, I have taken part in numerous compromises - some suggested by you, in fact. Also, Nishi is wrong with his "in the meantime..". Since the SAQ rewrites began, I have not added any links to other articles, etc. I have, however, fought the series of deletions of numerous existing links. I still think these deletions are wrong and will continue to say so. At some point, when some uninvolved editors jump in and provide some guidance, perhaps this will be resolved. Unfortunately, that has not happened yet. Smatprt (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As Old Moonraker, I acknowledge that my memory isn't what it was, so you may well have accepted some compromises in the past (and "the past" does stretch back a very long way on this issue): don't bother to evidence them—I'm accepting your assurance, with apologies. However I can certainly remember welcoming some fresh oversight of the issue of from (supposedly) uninvolved editors, but these have never made any difference to the seeming stalemate. Nil carborundum, I suppose. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

James Cook Arms

Hi, I'm not sure if you've seen it yet, but someone has nominated James Cook's arms for deletion. This is really discouraging. I am increasingly tired of putting in quite a bit of effort to help contribute to wikipedia only to find people trying to knock it all down. You thoughts on this particular issue would be greatly appreciated. A1 Aardvark (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A1 Aardvark (talk • contribs) 12:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I can't make up my mind on this one: The policy against synthesis isn't applied as fiercely for images when produced by the contributor him/herself—for self-made drawings it couldn't well be otherwise. On the other hand the nominator's point that this is only an approximation based on a description also seems valid: the work does seem to differ from the only sourced version I've found. I'll need to give this more thought. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've posted the contrary argument on the deletion page. Does that help? Or is it just obscure rantings? :) A1 Aardvark (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the edit on James Cook, that makes a little more sense.
(Who doesn't know where London is?)
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 09:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the endorsement. My tweak was purely for reasons of WP:KIS and geography: nothing to do with the current to-and-fro on that page regarding the constitutional position. Can you help out with that again? It doesn't seem to have got very far since your last. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan

Hi I have done a WP:MILHIST B class assessment for James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan and left some comments of the talk page. You might want to look at them before it gets to the top of the GA list. Good luck --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Started on your suggestions already. Shouldn't be difficult, except that I'm travelling at the moment and can't get at my bookshelves. The delay shouldn't be a problem as the MILHIST GAN queue seems quite long. Thanks for your interest. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on the GA --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)