User talk:ClemRutter/Archives/2009/October

Image on Naturism
Your response : Hi. Naturism illustrations. Mike was right I was at Montalivet and my emplacement is outside the area covered by WiFi. Apologies if I was a little rough. As the history shows I have been 'watchng" or policing this article for several years. Images have in the past been a major problem, because quite frankly some editors thought it a great joke to use it as a gallery of tits and bums. When one image appeared- then others followed and for a period of time the article was unusable and brought Wikipedia into disrepute. So I jump in quickly- and though I will advocate more images in most articles- in this case, less is more. I am believe that images should be included to clarify- and in this case the image does not tell you anything interesting extra about the topic of garden naturism. So why did I jump on this particular image. To me it was posed to display a flacid penis. This was placed right in the centre of the image, and arranged for maximum effect. The hat was used to conceal identity to a textilist audience- which would be most unlikely in a genuine naturist context. As the shot must have been taken with a timer; it is highly contrived. In garden naturism, a towel is usually on hand to act as a wrap, in case the door bell goes, or the telephone or you just need to walk inside for beer. The guy looks to be enjoying himself harmlessly on his decking and it is an image I would encourage on other articles, and definitely on commons but I would expect that the model was correctly identified and a geotag would be useful. Back to the point of identification- I reckon that there is enough of the body shown to allow identification in say a police lineout. Photography is frowned upon in naturist sites, and forbidden in most. If you do look through a naturists holiday album, it usually group shots, three quarter length shots and while genitalia will appear, they are never the subject of the shot. In a garden there are obviously no clear criteria but to display such an image sends warning signals. So there are a few of the reasons, and bearing in mind the majoriy of our readers will be textilists- I don´t believe we should compromise the integrity of the article by displaying an image that would cause concern to naturists. However, it may improve the article Deck (building)- well perhaps not. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NightFlyer"

My Response :

Sorry Clem, I didn't realize that you are mentally challenged. Your explaination is lame at best. No one ever uses a hat or something to protect their face from the sun while sunbathing at a Naturist resort .... Correct ? I find it curious that you zoom in on the flaccid penis of the man when the photo was taken far enough away to show the entire body lying on a lounge chair (less his feet) and his immediate surroundings on some kind of patio type deck. The offensiveness of the flaccid penis must have blinded you from seeing the towel he is laying on. Did the voices in your head tell you that the photo was made with a timer and that the person in the photo's real name is Ima Learner ? It looks to me like the subject of the photo is a nude man laying on a lounge chair sunbathing on a patio deck, and not just a flaccid penis. One of the major mindsets that Naturism promotes is body acceptance, which evidently you haven't achieved yet, and your line about enough of the man's body being shown for the person to be identified in a police lineout is absolutely rediculous ! My advise to you would be to get professional help, give up wiki editing, and become a comedian. Have A Looney Day. NightFlyer (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Compound engine
Great to see someone finally get around to separating all that locomotive stuff from the compound engine article! I've thought about doing it myself several times, but never got around to it for one reason or another. It looks heaps better now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here, here! Let me know when you're done with these articles and I'll give them the once-over. Don't want to do it until they're stable!


 * There is a possible problem with this split concerning the article history (and talk page history). I'm not sure whether anything can be done or needs to be done, but obviously some of the history of each page is now missing or wrongly placed. I've seen 'history merges' done, although not really understood why, and wondered whether you ought to find out if similar is required here. EdJogg (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On copying histories, I was just going to lie low! I am leaving locomotives well alone. I am working on Compound Engines. The angle that I am concerned about, is that all Cotton mills after 1880 (barring the rule proving exceptions) were powered by Compounds. As a side effect, there is a lot more to write about the technical details and the economics of the engine building, and their effect on late Victorian society.(phew) --ClemRutter (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll add a note on my ToDo list to investigate, so something might happen in the next few years...
 * I've noticed that the articles are relatively stable at present, but I haven't had a chance to take a proper look. I'm interested, so will try to soon. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That ISBN ...
The ISBN for the paperback version of Williams & Farnie is ISBN 0-948789-89-1. Using my special gifts, instead of correcting your transposition in the Broadstone Mill article I have put in the ISBN for the hardback version. Sigh. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Stockport web site changes like the weather. Is this the right document? Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thinks so, I hadn´t taken a copy. It will do for the reference. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Weston Road get-together.
In real life I invite the neighbours and their kids to let off their fireworks and drink their beer in the garden on November 5th, anytime after it goes dark till whenever. Kent Wikipedians are most welcome to come and join us at 65- though parking can be a challenge. As always it will be a multilingual event and there should be a bonfire too. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer Clem, though we can't make it on this occasion. Be good to meet up for a pint one day, if you fancy it. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 21:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)