User talk:Old Moonraker/Archive 17

WP:3RR
Apparently you are 3RR, too. Mamalujo (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope: doesn't apply to reversions dealing with contraventions of the WP:BLP policy. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the consensus at RSN was that the paper was a reliable source. Mamalujo (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * More or less, but not entirely: "this is a Telegraph gloss ... it did have a Catholic bias" says one editor. It was your unjustfied paraphrase others didn't like: "Too far removed from any statement of fact, for sure ... I fear it is speculation upon speculation" comments another. "Choose the direct quote as it is more likely to carry all the nuance", recommends a third. The real problem, however, was the one of recentism and trivia with which I opened the debate, as in: "the whole passage is not really relevant and adds nothing and should be removed per WP:RECENT". This was the reason for the ultimate decision to remove the passage.


 * Why are you persisting with this?


 * --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ad:Grizzly_bear

 * Ad:Grizzly_bear

IUCN info is about Ursus arctos, not about Ursus arctos horribilis Bulwersator (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW - thanks, I removed also misleading paragraph Bulwersator (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read the two references you deleted as well? Applies to "Brown Bear, Grizzly Bear, Mexican Grizzly Bear" (emphasis added). One of us is missing something: if it's me, please explain. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Common Name/s: English 	– 	Brown Bear, Grizzly Bear, Mexican Grizzly Bear"? Brown Bear is LC according to IUCN (as specie), Mexican grizzly bear is extinct and there is no info about status of Grizzly Bear Bulwersator (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A pointless response from me would be to insert a further reference assessing the IUCN assessment, such as this one, from CITES: "the IUCN Red List has determined the grizzly bear to be of ‘Least Concern’ ". Pointless, because it's merely repeating what the original source states, which you have rejected as not really being about grizzly bears. Googling, I see that Chris Serveen, the IUCN report's co-author, has come under attack for his findings, in case conservation measures in particular areas are relaxed as a result. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, I found this pdf, but IUCN website is not listing Grizzly bear as assessed. Probably this pdf is result of misunderstanding. So - we have one (probably) reliable source that grizzly is LC and more reliable source that it is not assessed (IUCN website) Bulwersator (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To make this even more confusing: "grizzly bears" are subspecies of "brown bears" and synonym of "brown bears" (brown bears (called grizzly bears in interior North America)). Bulwersator (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In this not reliable source they claim that grizzly is assessed by IUCN, here they are using grizzly as synonym. But so far I failed to find RS that IUCN assessed Grzizzly bear subspecies (and search is not promising as entire red list data is available on http://www.iucnredlist.org/) Bulwersator (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Erin Pizzey
Many thanks for helping with the Pizzey article. Your addition is very useful, but as far as I can tell it doesn't quite state the point explicitly therefore I can see the text getting deleted again. Wouldn't the article be stronger if we used one of the BBC refs also? --Shakehandsman (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps our reading is wrong: according to Sandra Horley, Pizzey's successor at CWA, Pizzey left before CWA segued into Refuge, taking HorLey with it as director. You will recall, however, that there was a lot of acrimony at the time and it's now tricky to establish events from the players' own recollections; this one comes from Horley herself, recounted in Hard Knocks: Domestic Violence and the Psychology of Storytelling, Haaken, 2010, ISBN 9780415563383.


 * Your point about the existing refs is valid: at present we have "Pizzey founded CWA" and "CWA became Refuge", but it may be synthesis to combine the two, which is the situation we seem to have at present. I'm going to have another look Hard Knocks and possibly change the WP article to match, subject to any suggestion you may have.  I'm still looking for a definitive and independent source but I remain very reluctant to rely on a piece of casually written local news, penned thirty or so years after the events! --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Taken your point to the article talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Roman roads
Have you seen my comments on the talk page? This was heavily edited by Reddi who as you can possibly tell often relies on very old sources. The version immediately before he started editing is probably better. Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I had missed those, sorry. I've checked now. I can't imagine that the heavy reliance on, for example, Smith (1858) and Smith (1890) hasn't been bettered by more recent research, but it's going to be a very difficult task to unpick the edits now. I haven't the breadth of knowledge to assist: sorry again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Userbox
Hi! Done! (finally!!) It's here if you want to check it over. Thanks for all your help! Xyl 54 (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Encouragement, rather than help: you were the creator, but thanks for the namecheck at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wiltshire. Let's see what the take-up's going to be—"Young" Moonraker suggests incorporating it into the project "branding", which would be good. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Faustus and Mephisto
Hey,

Just wanted to mention, in light of your, that generally on the project we use the current common spelling, except in direct quotes of various kinds. For instance, the relevant article is at Mephistopheles. Not a big issue; and not one I care particularly about, so not something I'd bother making an argument for; and I don't particularly think it matters in the current Faustus article (there are both bigger fish to fry and lower-hanging fruit in that article). I just wanted to make a note of it for future reference. Incidentally, I don't think there is any policy governing this, and the closest guideline is WP:COMMONNAME, which deals with article titles rather than prose content; so there is definitely room for reasonable people to disagree on this. Anyways, I just wanted to mention it; please don't feel obliged to do anything whatsoever in response. --Xover (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that there are better uses for our time, but where alternatives are possible I feel that it's discourteous to the original contributor to drive-by and change something to a second editor's preferred version, especially where they have made no other offering to the article in question (or, in this case, to any other article here). It's the perceived arrogance and discourtesy, rather than any overriding preference for the traditional spelling, that motivated the edit.--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not forgetting the spelling specific to the play, as explained in the WP article: "In the 1616 edition of The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus, Mephostophiles became Mephistophilis".  --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Paleo Indians revert
1. The sources given are good enough, unless Scientific American is not valid as a source.

2. No one is using Wikipedia as a primary source. Linking to another parts of the encyclopedia with inline citations is perfectly acceptable practice.

I would suggest you look for ways to improve upon the edits of others instead of applying deletionist practices. Thanks. Ladril (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable practice: please read "Do not use articles from Wikipedia ... as sources" at WP:CIRCULAR. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not being cited as a source. The reader is referred to a page which contains references. This is helpful for readers who want to learn more about the topic. This is not the sense in which that guideline should be applied. Ladril (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure: just use the ==See also== section . --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's correct. The 'see also' section is to provide links to articles not already linked that might help readers learn more about the topic. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't know it was your personal page. Thanks for letting me know. Enjoy. Ladril (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Doug's insights are always welcome on "my" personal pages! --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Practicing
Hi, Old Moonraker. I don't believe we've met before, but I randomly saw your edit here at Stoppard's article, which reverted the spelling of "practicing" back to "practising" on the basis that the former isn't a word. Practicing is indeed a word, it's just saddled with awkward American spelling. I totally agree with your change per WP:ENGVAR (Stoppard is British, so his article should follow English spelling rules), but just thought you'd like to know. ;) María ( habla con migo ) 19:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are right: the distinction only applies to "British and Australian English"; it is not widely followed in the US. Citing The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, which I should have checked before editing, instead of relying on my increasingly patchy memory. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Color
Hi Old Moonraker: Saw your deletion of my added link on color. I had no intent to violate the guidelines for links (and don't think I did). I was going to ask you which guideline you thought I violated, since you didn't include it in the message, but then I saw it on the edit of the page itself. You indicated "personal page", which that page is not. It is an externally reviewed (and funded) educational publication (in print, PDF, and the website), by an authority. It provides details, links, and other references, that the current article lacks. I thought it better to add a link than start trying to edit the whole article (perhaps I'll correct parts later). Anyway, I won't put the link back, but I would ask you to reconsider your deletion of it. Thanks. --Mdfpph (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit summary was: "See WP:ELNO #4; 11". This includes: "recognized authorities is meant to be very limited". I could be wrong, so request a second opinion at WP:ELN. I've used UofR websites as reliable sources in the past, but the standard for attaching an external link isn't the same. Footnote 4 (at the time of posting) here should illustrate. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, BTW:It's not a UofR site (It's RIT, which is far better known for Color Science!). I think the site easily meets the requirements for "very limited" on "recognized authorities" and the site is a completely free educational resource, so the link was in no way "promotional". The external links on the steam engine page are promotional links rather than educational links, so your argument, and your editing, make no sense to me. I'd prefer that you simply undo your edit, rather than starting a battle of second opinions.  It's not worth my effort. Thanks for explaining though. --Mdfpph (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem not to have made my point clearly. Footnote [4] on Steam Engine takes a reference from University of Rochester history of steam propulsion; this isn't the same as linking to the University of Rochester history of steam propulsion. Any other promotional links you have turned up aren't relevant to the argument: the Wikipedia version of "two wrongs don't make a right" is here.


 * Apologies for confusing Mark's alma mater with his current employ: I thought one was part of the other. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You made your point clearly. I get the difference between references and external links. What I don't get is your random editing. Have you checked the other external links on the Color page?  Some are dead and some look quite promotional. You seem to have targeted my link and deleted it in far less time than you could have evaluated the website contents.  Why don't you do that with the other "wrongs" that you are now aware of? That's what makes no sense to me.  Regardless, when I have some more time, I will do some editing of the content on the page (there are gross errors) and adding the appropriate references.  I actually created my wikipedia account to do just that. I hope you will see that as more helpful than a link to an educational site with correct information.  Take care. --Mdfpph (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I probably will, but please look out for the homophones. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cute ... I fixed my error. Perhaps you could fix yours now! (the errors on the color page are far more than typos) --Mdfpph (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire section of WW1 article
Hi, the Sinai and Palestine Campaign article is being improved and I wonder if you would have any objections to the section covering it, which is quite small, being expanded to include some more detail?--Rskp (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely none. My last edit was an 🇪🇸 request to fix a typo, found by User:Wogon; this was nothing of consequence. Thanks for asking, though. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)