User talk:Old Moonraker/Archive 2

People
At this stage, the page on people has been substantially rewritten, enough (IMO) to qualify as a complete rewrite. I was wondering if you would care to have a look at the current page and re-evaluate whether you think it merits deletion now or not. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, along the lines you suggest. --Old Moonraker 17:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Caen Hill
Thanks for your comment. I got a response from Wilts library services refuting the claim that the name came from Napoleonic PoWs and stating that the name predates them by several hundred years & probably gets it name from Richard of Caen, Bishop of Salisbury in the 12th century, who rebuilt Devizes castle in stone.

I've also put a merge tag on Caen Hill & Caen Hill Locks & would welcome your comments on this.&mdash; Rod talk 07:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your fine contribution
As the Tony Church article had been slated for deletion, I appreciate your contribution to his article. He is more than deserving of an article on this website. Cheers!--Drboisclair 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind comments. I hope to get back to him in due course to do a little more.--Old Moonraker 20:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Spellin' differences between US English an' rest-of-world English
I'm more than pretty sure "complexion" is British and "complection" is US, so I'd appreciate it if you put it back the way I fixed it. Peace. (MuzikJunky 05:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Reply on article talk page. --Old Moonraker 06:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Graduate
Actually, the form "was graduated from..." in the passive voice is perfectly reasonable and I believe used to be required standard English. I suppose it is a bit archaic looking now though. Badgerpatrol 09:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I've just checked OED (1989 edition) and although transitive usage died out in the UK in the 1840s (last citation 1844) it remained current for much longer in the U.S. The reasoning "I've never come across it" is never valid on Wikipedia, even if I am Old Moonraker! --Old Moonraker 10:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1844! Blimey, I must be getting old! ;-) In fairness it's a form very seldom seen and I suppose it's better to defer to modern usage. All the best, Badgerpatrol 11:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to special relativity
Your style reversion in Introduction to special relativity also reverted my content edit in the article at Common misconceptions. Please correct and reinstate my edit in Common misconceptions. Thanks. Edgerck 10:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

oops! wasn't you. Sorry. Edgerck 10:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Image:Below Pontcysyllte.jpg
is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Image:Under Pontcysyllte.jpg with rock-solid licence uploaded in its place :) --Old Moonraker 16:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oxted Line
I have reverted your edit. User:Pickle UK has done some good work on producing a map of the railway lines in Kent, and it is now on MANY articles. Having a modified one on a single page is not acceptable. Please can you liaise with User:Pickle UK on this, we just need ONE MAP. Canterberry 23:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do wiht me, it was Clem Rutter. As the Oxted lines are only aprtly in Kent, I was only hlaf inclined to use the map on the page, but it adds so much more to the article IMHO as it palces them in context. I know very little of graphics works so congratualtions to Old Moonraker on undestanding how to edit it and add to Wikipedia. Presuambly Clem Rutter had kept the focus of the map on Kent udnerstandable as he made it for the new [[Transport in Kent

]] article. Hope that clears things up. Pickle 01:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mod Caisson lock Geni.png
Any chance you could change the copyright tag on this per GFDL standardization?Geni 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --Old Moonraker 12:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No I meant change to  .Geni 17:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK --Old Moonraker 18:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wood Who?
Thank you: yes, was a joke, and sorry if my comment on the reference seemed harsh. You'll see I worked it out in the immediately following edit. Cheers. AndyJones 16:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ephesus
Thanks. I coudn't see them so I reverted myself. I'll try again later in the day. Miskin 16:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome!
Hello! Thank you for the welcoming message. I already feel like I belong here, after about 1 week of editing experience. Thank you for sending me to Introduction, it really helped me a lot! Now it feels like I can become a pro at this. :) (Although you're probably better than me) Yes, thank you for telling me about William Shakespeare; I just figured out how to use my watchlist and I saw you editing. I'm sorry if you feel offended that I was watching you. Oh yes, and thank you for telling me about your thread on the talk page; today's the first day that I discovered talk pages as well! Thanks again!--Romeo in love 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Graduable brake valve.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Graduable brake valve.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at Possibly unfree images if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Slambo (Speak) 11:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Replying on original page — I am contacting the creator and will try and fix licence. --Old Moonraker 11:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Court Marshall/Martial
No problem. It's a lot easier to spot other peoples typos, and easier to pick holes than actually write articles. Regards --Yendor1958 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The poor energy article
As noted, Hallen, after totally screwing up the energy article, is now going to actively prevent anybody from writing a summary of science-based energy. I really see no alternative but to get him banned from editing the thing. Otherwise we're never going to be left alone to write it. I'm open to suggestions. S B Harris 22:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert Stephens and spelling of first wife's name

 * This discussion transferred to Talk:Robert Stephens --Old Moonraker 17:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fusible plug.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fusible plug.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not replaceable—reply on image talk page.--Old Moonraker 06:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see the update at Image talk:Fusible plug.jpg. —Bkell (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You found one—great!--Old Moonraker 08:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and Brudenell fix
Thanks for fixing the inline web citation for James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan. I'm still new and haven't figured out how to format citations (and a few other things). This is my first "user talk" comment - I hope I got it right!

--June w 12:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC) (ps - thanks for the signature tip!)

Talk:The God Delusion
Thankyou for moving my post on this page down near to yours, funny that we both thought similar things at the same time. I still don't agree with the people that responded will be reposting on that page shortly.
 * In an ideal world I'd support your suggestion for a purge (or even deletion) of that section, but it just wouldn't stay dead! I may come back to the discussion as well. Best.--Old Moonraker 07:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
Just wanted to let you know I've posted the above MrZaius  talk  14:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've requested a block too, on WP:AIV--Old Moonraker 14:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Both accounts now blocked. Back to some useful work! --Old Moonraker 14:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference
Thanks, I knew something wasn't quite right, but didn't know how to rectify it. LorenzoB 15:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pleased to help. It took me a long time to work it out as well! --Old Moonraker 16:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gillian_Lynne_as_Claudine_1954.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Gillian_Lynne_as_Claudine_1954.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 11:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Image withdrawn from page. As an "orphaned fair use" image it is likely to be bot-deleted automatically. I haven't the inclination to explain why an image of a dance performance from 1953 is not "replaceable".
 * --Old Moonraker 11:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gillian Lynne as Claudine 1954.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes
Is it possible that you could give a peer review of this article? I'm working on it becoming FA in status, and any tips and hints you come up with would be gratefully received. Post comments on this page: Peer review/SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes, or alternatively, WikiProject Trains/Peer review/SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes. I hope that you are able to do this. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific 15:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be following the article's progress with great interest (and adding anything I can: see Talk:Bulleid chain-driven valve gear re valve gear image) but as far as I can see Bulleid Pacific is far more knowledgeable than I am. --Old Moonraker 15:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that, I'll wait until the end of the year for the Talk:Bulleid chain-driven valve gear, as I cannot get anything that is not on copyright. Still have a look at the article, as people who may have less knowledge will be reading the article, which makes your contribution especially valuable (I'm not trying to offend here!).  Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific 21:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Knight Errant citation.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Knight Errant citation.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the bot obviously doesn't read the "what links here" pages. WP:FUC requires links, not the image itself, to talk pages: "images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion".

--Old Moonraker 08:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: John Normington
Hi

Sorry, I didn't realise why my changes were deleted at first and I redid the amendments before I got your comment. I also did not know about the requirement for amendments to be verified (though it makes sense). Unfortunately I cannot give any links to verify my amendments as I know from a non internet source. However, it is likely that obits will appear in the theatrical press (eg 'The Stage') later this week.

87.127.ed 19:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Respected and versatile actor: there will obituaries in the national press as well. Thanks for the clarification. --Old Moonraker 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of Image:Token Exchange Ashton.jpg and Image:Waterwheel Al Fayum.jpg
Hi, I notice that you uploaded Image:Token Exchange Ashton.jpg and Image:Waterwheel Al Fayum.jpg and marked both as being public domain on the basis that the Flickr source pages both state "this photo is public". I think you may be mis-understanding what this statement on Flickr means; it is not a copyright statement, it is saying that the photo is publically viewable, as opposed to being a private photo only accessible to Flickr users on the uploader's contacts list. The copyright statement on both, a few lines above the note that it is a public photo, is "© All rights reserved", which is very much not public domain, and unless there is some other basis for using the photo, Wikipedia is violating the photographers' copyrights. I will contact both photographers via Flickr and ask if they are willing to licence the photos under terms acceptable to Wikipedia, but if they aren't, I fear the photos will have to be deleted as I doubt a realistic assertion of fair use could be made in either case. -- AJR | Talk 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC) (updated 23:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Thanks for the offer to contact the photographers. I emailed them at the time of the upload but did not hear back so I hope you have more luck. As you say, there aren't any grounds for fair use. Apologies for the misunderstanding and the resultant extra work. I really think that these are the last! --Old Moonraker 05:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:ShakespeareMonument.JPG
No problem. I'm currently at the Shakespeare Festival in Stratford, Canada, and haven't had time to look in at the progress made since last week, much less do any work on it. I appreciate your helping out. Tom Reedy 22:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Coal
If the question is answered further in the article body, then fix it so it accurately reflects that RealClimate.org is advocating that position. Do not simply revert the edit without correcting the article text to accurately reflect the source of the proposition. - MSTCrow 17:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I understand RealClimate.org is a blog run by a PR company: is that right? --Old Moonraker 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Émilie du Châtelet
Hi I corrected what was needed. Dan Gluck 10:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. --Old Moonraker 10:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just saying hello
As we have conversed on the vackum brake pages, I thought I would come here and pay my respects. I was a sort of railway civil engineer at one time. Not quite an old Moonraker myself, but from an adjacent county.

Afterbrunel 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the greeting. The discussion at Vacuum brake continues! --Old Moonraker 05:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ref on Richard Dawkins
Thanks for adding that so quickly. --TotesBoats 11:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the WP:BOLD deletions on the page: it's gathered too much rubbish along the way. --Old Moonraker 12:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

SR Merchant Navy Class
Just enquiring whether or not you happen to know where to find an image of an un-rebuilt (as opposed to 'unrestored') Merchant Navy Class, circa 1941 to 1956? No worries if you don't, but one does need to be found to replace the one that's there of an un-rebuilt West Country Class. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing striking I'm afraid. The grainy thumb of Channel Packet on this page is described as the "ex-works" picture, which means that the orginal SR copyright passed to BR on nationalisation, which means that it is now out of copyright, in the same way as ex-BR image Image:SR Leader 05.jpg. You should be able to do better. --Old Moonraker 05:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it may have to do for the time being, until someone comes up with something better. Do you know how to download such material?  I roughly know how to upload an image, but not necessarily download.  What do you think about copyright status of some images that are part of the National Railway Museum's archive?  There's a beauty in the Power of the Bulleid Pacifics of Channel Packet on her first public run, pictured at Alresford on the Mid-Hants route that only has 'NRM' as the copyright holder.  It was taken in 1941.  --Bulleid Pacific 11:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've used the image. Although you cannot see the nameplate, it's not as bad as it seemed.  However, I'd love to know who has the copyright of the one further down the page of 35020 Bibby Line...--Bulleid Pacific 14:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks ok, as you say: great job. The outshopping was actually on 18 February 1941, if it's worth adding. --Old Moonraker 15:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Are there any more images you could assist with?
Is it possible that I could tax your research skills for images of the following: SR U1, N1, W, N15x Classes, and the LSWR H15, G16 and H16? It's probably a dead end search, but more than one person means that one of us may be successful. And I added the further information (though not on the article caption, which I'll do in due course) to the licensing of the MN image. Cheers.--Bulleid Pacific 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP's and the KBE
Hello Old Moonraker. I read your edit summary on your last edit at the Laurence Olivier page and I just wanted to let you know that this is an ongoing problem. I think it might be just one editor but they edit through a continually changing set of IP's. I always go to their contributions page and often (though not always) find that they have made the same set of KBE changes on the same actors pages. No they don't read the edit summary and they are particularly obsessed with putting Sir before LO's name everywhere they can. I an not sure whether there is anything we can do about this other than keep checking out watchlist, and their contributions page, and reverting their mistakes. Thanks for your time and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I should have done this, but I'm getting a bit weary. Last time it was Felix Aylmer as well. I don't think we're yet at the stage when we could ask for page protection, are we?--Old Moonraker 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I fear not. My experience of watching how the admins who are working there are loath to protect a page unless there is high volume of overt vandalism going on. I just noticed this edit by SteveCrook leaving a hidden message to allow future editors to know what is going on. It works with most editors, though not all. Hang in there and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 23:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sloppy "undo", dude
You undid my formatting change in Tay Rail Bridge but didn't remove the content I was fixing. Sloppy. Very sloppy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denimadept (talk • contribs)
 * Fixed. Thanks for the pointer. --Old Moonraker 21:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fethiye
We could not understand why you delete the Fethiye page. anyway this page is unusual about fethiye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofethiye (talk • contribs) 12:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. The edit summary was "del one spam", which was perhaps a bit terse—sorry. Have a look at WP:SPAM, Links normally to be avoided and WP:Conflict of interest for better explanation. --Old Moonraker 13:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Surrey
I'm unsure whether the original editor intended the word comprehensive to be used in that manner. MurphiaMan 06:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was trying to fix the ambiguity, not add to it, as you were! If you think I'm wrong it might be better to remove the word altogether rather than revert to the previous, which seemed ambiguous in the context. --Old Moonraker 06:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tee-hee! Yeah, I don't know either. Its obviously very ambiguous then ! The whole section needs a rewrite. I'll have a go when i can put together some verifiable data. MurphiaMan 15:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, that would be the best solution: look forward to reading it. --Old Moonraker 20:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Lock (water transport)
A little severe that revert IMHO. I don't see that WP:NN comes into it. Barry isn't getting his own article here, just a mention in an article. Given that he is probably the best known lock keeper in the UK, using his name in the article isn't grossly excessive.

Mayalld 06:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sincere apologies for appearing too severe: perhaps I should have put the reasoning on the article talk page rather than trying to cram it into the edit summary. I stand by the assessment, however: mentioning one individual lock keeper by name, even a locally well-known one (where WP:IDONTKNOWIT could well apply) is too much detail for an encyclopædia article covering all the locks of the world. Best. --Old Moonraker 09:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: Congratulations on your highly notable "drop lock" addition, BTW—I hadn't heard of one of those, either! --Old Moonraker 09:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Patrick Stewart
Hi. I noted the US Army's request for the picture credit, but in your edit it appeared twice, once in the cation and once at the end of the article. I've put it back to the footnotes again. All the best. --Old Moonraker 20:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. Please see the Talk: Patrick Stewart. Taric25 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply thereon.--Old Moonraker 22:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Lord Cardigan
Thanks for your attentiveness. I discovered your edit upon going back to undo my revision, with the intention of re-looking at Woodham-Smith's book, which I first scanned yesterday after reading Errol Morris's blog in electronic New York Times about the mystery of the cannonballs in the famous two photographs by Roger Fenton "The Valley of the Shadow of Death": which photo was taken first? the one with the cannonballs on the road or the one cleared of cannonballs. I am surprised at the apparently low number fatalities to the troops in the Charge considering that over 500 horses did not survive it. Is "Cecil" a woman's name? I had thought Cecil Woodham-Smith was a man. -- Phaedrus7 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I hasten to add that the mention of Lord Lucan getting the nickname "Look on" at Balaclava has disappeared. And just as well, since according to Woodham-Smith this nickname originated at an earlier skirmish. You might be interested in co-ordinating all the entries relating to Charge of the Light Brigade, as with the number of fatalities and so forth. -- Phaedrus7 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your considered reply to my rv. Here's another account of Fenton's two pictures, but it doesn't determine the issue. On Wikipedia I moved it from The Charge of the Light Brigade to the Siege of Sebastopol, with a note on the "Charge" talk page.


 * Cecil's maiden name was Fitzgerald, of a "distinguished Irish family", possibly explaining why she allows herself such an extended diversion into Lucan's actions during the Great Irish Famine in chapter six.


 * I'll reinstate "Look On" at some stage, — I think I can track down the proper origin. Thanks for pointing this out. --Old Moonraker 22:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at The Reason Why again and find that, according to Woodham-Smith, Lord Lucan received the nick-name "Look On", not at Balaclava, but earlier at the skirmish at the Bulganek stream the day before the Battle of Alma, Sept. 19(?); see pp. 177-178. This should be corrected or amended appropriately. Also, Woodham-Smith at p. 249 reports: "Some 700 horsemen had charged down the valley and 195 had returned. The 17th Lancers were reduced to thirty-seven troopers, the 13th Light Dragoons could muster only two officers and eight mounted men; 500 horses had been killed." It is difficult to conceive that this report would be so at odds with the casualty numbers given in present Wikipedia accounts. Might this discrepancy be explained or reconciled in some way? I appeal to your expertise. -- Phaedrus7 15:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No particular expertise: I decided to expand the article after I looked it up and found it a little lightweight.


 * Battle of Alma and Bulganek stream skirmish, where "Lord Look-on" looked on (albeit under very strict orders to do so): I have used "Battle of Alma" (never "Battle of Balaclava") in the text because the incident was on the march to attack the Alma River positions. Please change this if you feel that I have condensed it too far.


 * The number of casualties: This is difficult to estimate, and I have possibly condensed this too far and will consider improvements. For example, the historian Kinglake gives a total of 475 dead horses, but this total includes the considerable number that were despatched later because of their wounds. The article offers 500. Conversely in describing human deaths the piece (suggesting 107, sourced from the roll on the day) doesn't present the overall total of men killed, including later deaths from wounds: Kinglake's overall figure is 113 men killed and 134 wounded.


 * Saul David is plain that the "195" who returned (from 676) were those still mounted: whatever other doubts over the figures we may have we may certainly discard the assumption that all the rest (481) were killed.


 * I hope this clarifies the situation. Any help in resolving things welcome! --Old Moonraker 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Afterthoughts: I have changed "the Battle of Alma" to "before the Battle of Alma", in response to your suggestion. While it goes without saying that the facts in this article about Cardigan need to be completely accurate, perhaps we don't need too much detail about the events and individuals featuring that have articles of their own (although I notice that the "Look-on" episode doesn't feature on the Lord Lucan page at all). --Old Moonraker 21:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for attending to details and matters of continuity. Yes, I noticed the absence of "Look On" on Lord Lucan's entry. And so it goes. Some topics in Wikipedia seem to have dedicated, defensive editors while others are more laisse faire(sp?) and I was surprised to find a seeming lack of co-ordination among the Crimean War-related entries while not being informed enough to know what they all might be and therefore not qualified to set the record straight.-- Phaedrus7 22:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Am I being perverse is seeing this as a virtue? It may not be a good thing to have a "defensive" editor taking charge of all the Crimean War-related entries and imposing his/her interpretation throughout. The way it is now we have the benefit of of several editors' viewpoints on issues which are not definitively known. Who knows: a new user may look at one of the articles, find it wanting, do the research and make changes (as I did with Cardigan). --Old Moonraker 06:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Middle Ages
Yeah, I actually read up on Wikipedia's policy about British vs. American spellings after I made that edit and your correction makes more sense than my original edit did. -  Bagel7  T's 21:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the trouble to reply. All the best. --Old Moonraker 05:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Image tag
I've reverted your change to Image:Ferry dongan hills 1945.jpg, as I do not see anything at the source to indicate that the image is a work of the federal government. If you have proof of this, please provide it on the image page. Thanks,  Pagra shtak  14:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply on image talk page. --Old Moonraker 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

External links in Criticism of religion
Thanks for the welcome and for fixing the link (I'm still trying to get the hang of this Wikipedia malarkey) - I thought there were others, but I seem to have been mistaken.

Yes, it's controversial, but then it's a rather hot potato of a subject. :) I've done as suggested - been bold and added back a quote.

Thanks again.

Monoape 15:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's see if it lasts! It should do: it's strongly sourced, and the source has a page on Wikipedia. --Old Moonraker 16:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Curious
Why did you chose not to warn Special:Contributions/222.155.57.193 for his blatant vandalism of Negro? I went ahead and did so, but would like to know if I shouldn't. Thanks. --LeyteWolfer 15:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally, I don't warn an IP user with just one vandal edit: I hope that he/she will just go away! There was also a time lag of nearly two hours before I noticed the vandalism: there was a smaller chance of the warning reaching the right person by then. This warning for an IP edit on the same page was for a more persistent poster, now blocked. Any suggestions for an effective form of deterrence welcome! --Old Moonraker 18:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: the IP was from the same range as Special:Contributions/222.155.57.193, probably the same individual. --Old Moonraker 18:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The two hour difference is definitely the most compelling. I saw that someone has labeled the IP as being a sockpuppet of User:Hayden5650. LeyteWolfer 21:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for protection of Eugenics

 * Thanks for the notification. The debate has moved on since my contribution, that leprosy is not an inherited but an infectious disease: seemingly it was counted as such at the period under consideration. Notwithstanding the "boilerplate" appearance of this message, I am assuming good faith and that Canvassing does not apply here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Winches external links spam
Hi Old Moonraker

I hope to make you take part in the discussion on the article about winches - where I do not consider the links to producers as being spam.

Best regards Mads Gorm Larsen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madsgormlarsen (talk • contribs) 16:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I will watch the article talk page with interest. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

SR Merchant Navy Class
As a fellow railway editor, would you like to have another look at the MN article? It is up for FA, and anything that you can find that would improve the article would be incorporated. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations for the recognition of the progress you have made with this article. As I've mentioned before, my level of knowledge does not match yours in these matters.
 * I can find nothing to comment on what's written at all. You will recall that a nice diagram of the valve gear comes out of copyright at the end of next month. I will be adding it to Bulleid chain-driven valve gear, so its probably superfluous here. The image at Steam locomotive (marked for 280psi operating pressure) is from Blackmoor/Blackmore Vale, but I'm not sure it adds anything: I am the uploader and I could trim it slightly to get it centred if you disagree. I would be inclined to target the steam reverser link directly to the paragraph, as it's at the bottom the page.
 * Good luck! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Henry V
Yes, I understand, but the article would also prove that he was involved in the battle - which for some reason seemed to be disputed. I wasn't sure what to do for the best. Deb (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I've seen that user around. Definitely a little over-enthusiastic.  Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Deb 17:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

RoHS Image
You undid my image edit before I could finish. I was in the process of uploading the image when you undid the link change... Ugh! I give up. I'll leave the image off since it continually gets deleted. Prosecreator 21:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry! --Old Moonraker 22:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I think this image is cursed. :) It's been removed several times now. Someday I'll try again. Prosecreator 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Further reply on User talk:Prosecreator--Old Moonraker 07:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

St Mary-le-Bow
Hey, you be bold. Thanks, I like it too. Sue Wallace (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hundered Years War
I'm sorry about the edit. i had made a mistake in my sources. one source had claimed that Edward III was the Black Prince. I had cahnged simply using that and later realized my mistake but you had already corrected me. Thank you for telling me. I am sorry but i'm a very basic user of Wikipedia and do not use the discussion pages or the blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tca achintya (talk • contribs) 07:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Flickr
Hiya, thanks for your message, help is always appreciated. I think I know what happened with those images, I uploaded them because they were "free" but I don't think that flickr person actually took the pictures, I think they just downloaded copyrighted images from the internet and posted them as.. ahem.... "free". Oh well, thought it was too good to be true! ha ha :) btw, feel free to chat any time, most people only contact me to slap my wrists! ;) Sue Wallace (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually
my position would be that is a great idea... these are sisterprojects. I've run into real resentments on other sisters because we denigrate them here... as I've posted about on the WP:VPP this morning. Time people here grow up and support the whole foundation project, and double links (since the proposed icons themselves may not be understood) would be a good way to overcome that, and enhance the experience for our readers. see Village_pump_%28proposals%29. Actually, thanks for the rv... I hadn't realized I was on that page but thought I was on WP:VPP! Ooops! Cheers! // Fra nkB 18:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that the original proposal was for a link to Simple English Wikipedia in "See also or External links", whereas your proposal is for "page wide... 'banner' above our article" (I hope I'm not oversimplifying here). I have to say that I tend towards the original proposal, but thanks for the clarification. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

William Shakespeare
While i understand you concern i can quote many refrences that state other wise the most commmon date that is well know around the world is 23rd April for birth and death but as usual you make an edit on here and straight away you recieve messages from people that think they know it all i thought this was ment to be a place where you can add you input but i guess i was wrong like everything in this world to may chiefs and not enough indians!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.Wadsworth (talk • contribs) 07:31, 23 December 2007
 * It's nice to be able to check on Wikipedia and find the correct information: it shouldn't be on here just because it's "most common". --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)