User talk:Old Moonraker/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Weblinks

Hi - just added the ocelot website to the swindon page and it said you removed it...i understand the guidelines but it is a listings site for people to find out what is on in swindon...i don't understand the problem ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.23.209 (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Two arrived at once. The other one — "want to get your business noticed?" — was a much more egregious example of WP:SPAM and didn't stand a chance. Please read WP:ELNO to see why "Ocelot" is also regarded as an unsuitable link. If you still think I'm wrong, take it to the article's talk page for a wider opinion.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Old Moonraker! I´m sorry about the 2 links! After reading a bit more about the guidelines for external links I understand why you removed them. But I still don't understand why you deleted also the professional article which I linked to at the Boundary Scan page!? You can find the same link on Joint Test Action Group and I really think that it should be at Boundary Scan as well! By the way: What about all the other external links on these 2 pages? In my opinion there are promotional as well! What do you think? Just try to understand how to meet the criteria... —Preceding unsigned comment added by I.baerschneider (talk • contribs) 10:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I accept that the link added to Boundary Scan is not in the same WP:SPAM category as the other one, but I still think that it fails to comply with WP:ELNO. However, I won't make a fuss should it be returned. The external links on Automated optical inspection and Automated x-ray inspection are actually references and I can't delete them without finding replacements, although one of them is 404 file not found and could be tidied. I hope that clarifies a bit. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I meant the external links on JTAG and Boundary Scan. What about them? Thanks for your help! --i.baerschneider (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Strictly applying the policy of removing links to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" would mean deleting the lot. I've confined myself to trimming two: one obvious case of self promotion (We are boundary scan") and one foreign language site. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

About the table for William Shakespeare

Thank you for you opinion about the table, even though I think it should be in. Feel free to sign my guestbook! :) Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 22:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that I am the only editor to reply on this: I'd rather there were a decisive verdict, one way or the other. The policy is "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place", which can be found here. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Geography not your strong suit?

It is physically impossible to shorten a railway that runs northwards by resiting its southernmost terminus southwards. Check a map for the Looe Valley Branch line. The clue is in the article in that the quarter mile marker is now within the current station. It used to be a quarter of a mile from the southernmost end. 86.133.11.175 (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have the map. It is out of copyright and I can post it here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I now accept that the article was originally badly worded. Your rewording is an improvement and I now understand the point the original failed to make. That the article was improved was the goal that we all share. 86.133.11.175 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Estate (Wilde)

Hi Moonraker

You seem to have quite a knowedge of Oscar Wilde, I added a quote to Fourth Estate it is well sourced I think, I knew it from memory but have sourced it, and I think relevant, but could you please maybe give it a check? I am sure the wording is fine unless any remaining stupid typos but if you think it could be better said. Thanks. SimonTrew (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not me: I just tried to get a few references together. The knowledgeable editor on Oscar Wilde was User:MarnetteD. Back to Fourth Estate: your addition is certainly relevant and topical, the format follows the others and the copyright in a short, cited extract isn't ever a problem. The essay from which the quotation is taken was first published as The soul of man under socialism in The Fortnightly Review, no. 290, Feb. 1891, pp. 292-319. according to the British Library Catalogue. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

---

just very new to this so forgive me if I put this in the wrong place. How do I reply to you? You told me my article on Cowden was inadmissible. Fair enough. But I have now added content to PRAED STREET JUNCTION and although not sourced from any publication, it is from my own personal experience as I worked on those trains for many years. So is that information acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metnumberone (talk • contribs) 14:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly not, but it's not written in the first person so let's see what happens. The policy of verifiability is the first of the five pillars and considered quite important. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Phebe (As You Like It)

You reverted my correction of the character Phebe's spelling. The name is spelled "Phebe" throughout the Folio. As it is a name, and not one dreadfully obscure or difficult, I see no advantage to modernizing (or is it antiquing) it. The spelling "Phoebe" only makes the entry less accurate. Apemantus67 (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like using "Googlehits" to support an argument, but in this case it favors your spelling over my "classical" version 28,000 to 18,000. I won't be arguing if it should be changed back. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't backdate tags.

If you must put a fact tag in then please note that the rest of the planet is in April and not March. 86.143.182.140 (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not me. Can you give a link? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Minories

Simple! I aim to drive you mad.

Well, in the case of "Minories", we simply don't have a rhotic vowel, but a clear consonant /r/ between two vowels that's pronounced even in RP. (Or so I assume.) Technically, [ɚ] is an "ar-coloured" vowel, while [ər] is a vowel followed by an ar.

I've been inconsistent in my use of <ɚ> vs <ər>, so it isn't you. Per the IPA key that was approved as a side project to the MOS, we should always write <ər>, unless we're specifically explaining the local pronunciation—that is, use <ər> whenever we're linking to the key. But I've always been afraid of sparking edit wars if I push that in non-rhotic place or personal names. <ɚ> looks so much like <ə> that I figured people wouldn't object, whereas <ər> would be pushing their noses in it. Actually, I've been pleasantly surprised, and Brits seem to be much more accepting of alien transcriptions of local names than Americans are. (Try transcribing New York <njuː> York, as we really should, and people have a shit fit.) So I've been using a bunch of half-baked criteria for when to use which. If I have to write one <r>, either because it's between vowels (like Minories) or because of a rhotic vowel we don't have a symbol for, like /ɑr/, then I make them all ars. It would be weird to mix the two. Also, an ar at the end of a word is pronounced even in RP when the next word begins with a vowel, so in such cases it's easy to argue that the <r> should be written. But if it's a park in central London, I usually won't try pushing it.

And then of course I check the article history to see if Old Moonraker's edited it recently, and if so, I do just the opposite :) kwami (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks. I've seen "rhotic" in edit summaries before, but nobody explained! --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Superstition

Oh, sorry, I assumed it was vandalism... weird... 24.79.137.132 (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where is it said that naming someone Amna is bad luck? How is my deletion of that horribly manufactured sentence considered vandalism. I'm going to get rid of it again if you don't convince me that it is worth keeping... 24.79.137.132 (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. 24.79.137.132 (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault: I cross posted. Now reverted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Outing

Hey, do you still live in Wiltshire and if so which town? 94.197.175.208 (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no outing! Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hamstone

Hi There - I get the whole "innapropriate link" thing, however I thought that these two links were worth adding. Hamstone only come comes from ONE location, Ham Hill in Somerset. There are only two quaries on the hill - in other words apart from these two companies there are no other sources of Hamstone in the world! I felt that a link to their sites did indeed, seem appropriate. Granted, they are both commercial companies and both sell other products as well as Hamstone. I'm happy to take your advise on it, but there are plenty of links to commercial sites all over Wiki - Do you think it would be better to create pages for both the companies instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuildArk (talk • contribs) 10:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, please don't take my advice: this is a collective project. For example, another editor has now used one of the unlinked external sites as an inline reference.

Ham Hill, Somerset has its own page with a brief mention of the quarries: this could be expanded. Perhaps the need to reconcile between the mineral extraction and the SSSI? It's also perfectly legitimate to make notable companies the subject of articles, provided the work is supported by objective and independent sources.--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Compound locomotives.

Hello,

The extract you deleted was not verbatim and the book is out of copyright in any case. The information added contributes to the body of knowledge on Wikipedia. Gerard Vuillet only wrote one book AFAIK and there aren't too many editions extant. Let us not lose the data please.

Regards,

Perry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.94.112 (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not write something yourself, rather than delivering chunks from old books into Wikipedia? See WP:NPS. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation Discussion

You might like to look at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_7#Locomotive_designer_and_railway_engineer_categories. Globbet (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads up". --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ian McKellen

As part of the GA Sweeps project I have reviewed this article and reluctantly concluded that it should be delisted until concerns over referencing and the lack of broad scope are addressed. Comments have been left at Talk:Ian McKellen/GA1 suggesting ways in which the article can be improved. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't disagree with this assessment. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare's religion

Shakespeare's religion is now in a more balanced state than it was before as each of the three positions now gets a reasonable exposure. What would you think about putting in a separate section on Protestantism as well as the one you have put in on Atheism? That would just involve moving material around to give sections on Protestantism, Catholicism and Atheism. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

Coincidence: I was thinking about this earlier today but decided that it could stir up the slightly precarious equilibrium among contributors. It's a logical development and a sound proposal. I'll definitely give it another look, but at this stage a fresh eye would also be good. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15