User talk:Old Moonraker/Archive 20

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for adding this; I'm sure I wasn't the only one who thought to themselves "just one, is that all?" as they read it, then found that it was, indeed, just the one! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

April 13th anniversary for your perusal
Based on our mutual editing on Oscar Wilde's article over the years I wanted to leave you items that I learned during a specific bit of research (in the city of Leadville and the Denver Public Library) that I did a few years ago.
 * 1) It was on this day in 1882 (a Thursday) that he delivered his speech about art in Leadville, Colorado
 * 2) His train left Denver early in the morning and made its way though a light snow (3 inches on the ground by the time he got there) to Leadville.
 * 3) He experienced mild altitude sickness and was whisked away to his hotel. He recovered fairly quickly
 * 4) That night he delivered his lecture on the stage of the Tabor Opera House (Ellmann mistakenly calls it the Tabor Grand in his biography. Tabor had built two opera houses and the Grand was at 16th and Curtis in Denver and Wilde spoke there on the nights of April 12 and 15) and this building still stands today
 * 5) After the lecture he was taken to several bars in Leadville and they finished with a banquet in the Matchless Mine where he drank many of the miners under the table. They then referred to him as "a bully boy with no glass eye."
 * 6) Early the next morning he got back on the train which carried him to Colorado Springs for his next lecture. Oh to be that young and be able to party and travel at that pace again.

If you've seen the film with Stephen Fry they got almost everything wrong about this visit. Leadville was a town of as many as 500,000 50,000 (one zero to many in my original post - I have read that 50 thousand was the number of officially registered inhabitants but, due to the transitory nature of mining towns, it is likely that there were twice as many as this number) at the time. It was not a tent city, rather it had electricity and phones among other amenities. He arrived by train not burro and his lecture was not delivered in the mine. Having said all that I do think the film imparts the spirit of what his visit there meant.

Here are a few pics form the time
 * 1) Here is a panoramic view giving an idea of how big the town was. I have a copy of a slightly better one that was also a stereopticon one with snow on the ground but they have changed there catalog numbers and I couldn't track it down.
 * 2) The Clarendon Hotel where his rooms were. The Tabor Opera House is to the left of it. The hotel no longer exists.
 * 3) The Tabor Opera House . You can see the edge of the hotel on the right. The wood covered walkway between the two is there so that Horace Tabor could be visited by Baby Doe (who lived in the hotel before they were married) without the townsfolk seeing her and reporting to Augusta.
 * 4) Looking up Harrison Ave from the Opera House . Of note are the telephone poles with multiple crossbars due to the fact that each phone in town had its own wire!

Well its roughly 9pm your time so you may not see this until after the anniversary so I hope that you find some of it of interest. Cheers and have a nice weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 20:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I just remembered a couple other things I wanted to impart. As I went through the microfilm of the newspapers of the time it was also interesting to read items unrelated to Wilde's trip. There were several paragraphs about how all Missouri was mourning the loss of their favorite son Jesse James. There were a couple mentions of no one knowing the whereabouts of Charles Parnell. Since I had seen Parnell and the Englishwoman back in the 90's I wondered if this was one of those times that he had disappeared to be with Katharine O'Shea. There was also one advert for "Dr Price's Baking Powder". This Dr Price was Vincent Price's grandfather and the "Six Degrees of" connection is that Vincent played Wilde in the one-man stage show Diversions and Delights back in the late 70's - a play that I saw more than once. Well I have taken up a lot of your time so once again I'll finish by sending my best regards. MarnetteD | Talk 02:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, my apologies for not replying sooner, but I've been away (to coincide with the end of the Easter school holiday); I can edit WP while I'm away, but it's not comfortable and I'm even more likely to make mistakes than usual!


 * Until your note I had imagined that the more out-of-the-way destinations on Wilde's itinerary were, perhaps, prompted by some mischievous tour agent, attempting to generate some controversy and publicity through the contrast between the material and the audience's expectations. I see now, though, that the Leadville community would have been more apt and receptive that I had thought. Prompted by your note, in a much lazier response than your hard work researching in Leadville and Denver, I found these anecdotes about the visit, from comedy writer Sam Jordison.


 * Your panorama of Leadville reminded me of a cycling trip through the Rockies I made a couple of years ago; one of the things I remember was the clear, bright air but on the itinerary was the abandoned mining region near Lethbridge and I can now imagine how the scene would have been a century back, very different from the picturesque present. Although this was in August, I can also attest to the propensity for snow at the higher altitudes!


 * I haven't seen Fry's film—I don't often go to the cinema—but it seems to be a fashion for movie stars to appear on stage quite frequently now, it's almost as good to wait for them to try a stage appearance in London. Most are successful; for example, although Cate Blanchett pulled out of Through a Glass Darkly here, leaving it to Ruth Wilson, I'm looking forward to seeing her well-received shot at Groß und Klein next week. Not all make the transition so well: Stephen is remembered here for Cell Mates, which he abandoned three days into the run, ostensibly through stage fright.


 * You remind me that degrees of separation work vertically, as well as horizontally: I'm indebted to Stephen Fry for the knowledge that I am a direct descendent of the Emperor Charlemagne!


 * All the best.


 * --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your reply and the link to the blog - it prompted me to fix my population number. I well remember the to-do over Fry's disappearance at the time. I went through Lethbridge many years ago on a trip that would wind its way through the spectacular Canadian Rockies from Calgary to Grande Prairie and across Brit Col. to Prince Rupert. I hope you don't extend your user name to "Holy Roman Emperor Old Moonraker" as that is both an eyeful and mouthful :-) Cheers and I remain happily jealous of any stage performances that you get to attend. MarnetteD | Talk 20:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Arabic gum
There is no Arabic gum (disambiguation) to move here, so I have declined your G6 request. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Baffled! I was on the page when I used the WP:TW script to make the request. Twinkle doesn't work, unless it's on the page in question. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

recent Kent article edit
I noticed that someone has, on April 15, added a paragraph to the the Kent article's "History" section that talks about a Wm Maren who conquered the Kent coast around 1066 and stayed on. The paragraph then goes on to detail the changing of the name Maren into the eventual Merriam which, while interesting to me as a Merriam, doesn't seem particularly relevant to the Kent article. It's also got no sources at all, so I don't know if there is any validity to any of what the paragraph says. It was done without logging in, so I don't know if there is a way to contact the person who made those changes to find out more about their sources.

I am not a wikipedia writer or editor so I don't have any idea what the procedure is for this but you seemed to have the largest recent contribution to the page so I thought I'd ping you and see what to do. ValerieDeBill (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alert. I'm surprised to find my name in the top five of the contributors' list, but I'll be pleased to have a look at this anyway. It might not be for a couple of days, so a more committed contributor may have beaten me to it by then! All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have put a couple of cite needed tags on for the present.--Charles (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've scratched around looking for a source for this tale. This is usually quite fruitful: for example the Talk:Kent question, although only an insignificant point, threw up some material I thought I knew, but didn't! Here, though, I failed to find anything useful at all. I've deleted it but, of course, it can always be put back if something new comes up. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Globe Theatre
Hi. I don't think that your change from "the majority of the foundations lie beneath 67—70 Anchor Terrace" to "the majority of the foundations lies beneath 67—70 Anchor Terrace" is correct. It's not the majority that lies, it's the foundations that lie. I'll be happy to fish out my copy of Fowler if you don't agree. Best. --GuillaumeTell 21:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Peters (pp24; 335) boils this down to formal or informal: A "heap" of foundation stones she would treat as informal, with the plural verb, and "American usage and usage commentators mostly run with the plural". I take from this that the plural usage is either an Americanism, or informal, neither of which applies to this BrEng article. She adds that if the concrete noun is "countable" such as the majority of people, the plural verb becomes more acceptable; if it's a "mass noun", the verb should be singular. Any help?


 * I should add that I was the perpetrator of the original infringement; this was a case of "c/e self"! --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm off to bed any minute now, but I'll pursue it again tomorrow. --GuillaumeTell 23:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, it still looks very wrong. Does the sentence: "The majority of people believe in God" look OK, or do you think that "The majority of people believes in God" looks better? --GuillaumeTell 21:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would still use your second construction, but your first she allows, as a late twentieth century exception to the correct practice: " 'The majority of people who have a church wedding' ... is acceptable". It's an example of her "countable" nouns. It's not something that I would normally take issue with—I wouldn't want to go around picking up nice grammatical points in WP articles generally—but this time it was my own mistake! --Old Moonraker (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. When you recently edited Royal Naval Reserve, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Erskine Childers and Distinguished Service Cross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

American and British English spelling differences: yse, -yze: typo in wikimarkup
Thanx for fixing that. Graham.Fountain | Talk 09:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No trouble! --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Bleach
It has taken me a while to get around to it, but I have started work on the article on "Bleach", as you suggested. It may take some time, but hopefully I can make it more coherent. Silverchemist (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is badly needed, and it's beyond me. I would wish you good luck, but I can see from your previous, knowledgeable contributions  that "luck" won't be needed! Thanks for the update. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A question
Greeting, elderly non-relative! I'm wondering if you can enlighten me on something. I was reading up about Devizes Castle (the old one) and came acros this photograph of "the Norman gateway in Northgate Street". I can't find any other information about it (nothing on google, or even on an OS map): Is there a Norman gatehouse there? Or was there one once? Do you know? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's definitely Northgate Street, as Northgate Brewery and the brewery tap are in the background. It's definitely meant to be the castle gatehouse, more in line with the depiction in the town coat of arms than any architectural reality. As you imply, Northgate street is some distance from the castle. As far as I can see it's a plywood (C19 equivalent) replica made to adorn the route into town on the occasion of the Prince of Wales's visit to the yeomanry barracks on 24 May 1893. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They had another one, less elaborate, outside St James's Church on the way out of town, in the direction of the barracks .--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is quite interesting. It is worth having your page on my watchlist OM as it gives me the chance to learn something new from time to time. Thanks to you both. MarnetteD | Talk 14:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Most of the interesting stuff is in the incoming messages from others! --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Confirmed: "The Royal Visit to Devizes" from The Bristol Mercury and Daily Post, 22 May 1893: "[HRH] will be driven…by the Northgate entrance to the town. At this point a very handsome castellated arch has been erected in the style of the ancient gateway…" --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh; so it’s just a cardboard replica? Sapristi nocks! Now you mention it, it does look a bit too clean to be 700 years old. But it seemed to be in the right place; the map on the heritage webpage has a north and a south gate in the outer ward wall (I’m assuming the two rows of dwellings there are High St and New Park St/Sheep St).
 * Anyway, Thank you for that, and for the other picture (I missed that one!); and for taking the trouble to confirm it.Moonraker12 (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings
Greetings Old Moonraker. I noticed you appended a caution to the talk page at User talk:J341933‎. It appears to regard the edit at Historical Jesus which I had initially reverted. I did append a caution as well upon reverting the edit and essentially agree with your rational that the content requires wp:rs verification. The user inquired on my talk page and I extenuated the comments you are welcome to review. Subsequent the discussion I elected to remove the caution deeming AGF the best approach. I hope you'll consider withdrawing your own caution and let's observe this account in hopes that they are sincere. Cheers to you. My76Strat (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So that's why, when I looked to the user's talk page to see what you had written, I didn't find anything. I hadn't realised that you had been there, and this wasn't a deliberate RV of your action. Had I noticed I would have done the same, but including a little more context.


 * The user has a history of inaccurate edits, with the related user warnings now deleted from his/her talk page (as, of course, is permitted). In the circumstances I think a level 2—"stick with the sources"—is mild. Having previously, and wrongly, restored one of the suspect contributions, please accept that I have given the matter some consideration!  --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes that is reasonable. Prudent really. I am glad our editing paths intersected and I do respect your diligence and dedication; which is evident. And I agree with you. Tell me aside; do you like music production as a broad topic? My76Strat (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no musical ability whatsoever, but now (perhaps) I can work out the significance of your username—thanks.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Quotations and logical quotations (re: Orwell)
Hi Old Moonraker -

Thank you for your initial contact. I appreciate your explanation about the rationale of using the British/logical quotation style (which to any half-literate American will look completely incorrect), but it's something I've always wondered about - and it's been a constant source of frustration with the site. I've often wondered why Wiki articles so consistently had this same quotation issue, and now that you've explained that it's actually intentional - and part of the site's own style - I'm perhaps even more confused. From what I understand, Wikipedia is an American creation (at least according to Wikipedia). Why, then, would you choose to use the British quotation custom as your official style? Especially given that your English-language pages will inevitably serve much more in the U.S. than in the U.K., as the former has about five times the population of the latter. That difference is even more skewed if you include Canada, which (according to Wikipedia) also uses the American quotation style - and that's even if you throw in Australia on the U.K. side of the argument.

I know it's not your fault specifically, but in any case, it makes no sense. It makes the editors and contributors of Wikipedia look like morons. We are not in 2nd grade anymore - we should be able to use correct grammar and punctuation, should we not? Millions of people use Wikipedia use every day, which means millions of people get conditioned by and accustomed to an improper (for Americans, at least) style. There are more than enough problems with the way supposedly educated people speak and write - must you add to it?

(Although I admit to seeing the irony in the fact that the pages I was recently editing - Orwell, "Animal Farm," The Clash, etc. - were all British.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossarian82 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This particular issue has been the subject of discussion since at least 2004. If you have the time and patience, it's here. Good luck! --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Original research
Please be cautious about inserting original research into articles. We need to stick to what cited sources say. I've made some changes to some of your recent edits to Helen Duncan to remove the original research content. When you get a chance, please review WP:OR. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This was mainly a style issue to comply with the WP:DATED policy, as noted in the edit summary, and original research wasn't required. I'm not a regular reader of The Scotsman, so it's lucky that its website still carries the story I cited for the source. It's a WP:RS. I have added a quote to the citation, but the issue is so trivial that there's no need to fiddle with the article text again. As there was already a discussion about this on the article talk page, where three weeks  passed with no other input, your participation  there, as the editor who originally raised the point, would have been useful. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind: the article text doesn't reflect the source and has been tweaked to match it more closely. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks much better now. Thank you for fixing it and removing the original research/synthesis which didn't match the source. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Got there in the end; I have to say that I wouldn't have got this far without your doubts. My main interest is to prevent the article from becoming, once again, an unqualified "last witch" story, rather than a "purported medium" account, and perhaps Psychic News World would have been a little partisan on that point. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I had come to the article through investigating the sockpuppet that had been promoting Psychic World - hence our differing perspectives. Glad we solved it. Happy editing. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ramapough Lenape Nation
about your change on this page. "Noted Scholar" Herbert C Kraft is not 'puffery' It is written as so in the references provided. He has received awards from the State of NJ for his work, published many books and recognized by Nora Thompson Dean of the Delaware Lenape for his research. "Professor Kraft became emeritus professor of anthropology at Seton Hall" http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/14/nyregion/herbert-kraft-73-archaeologist-who-studied-reign-of-the-lenape.html "Herbert Kraft, professor of anthropology at Seton Hall University and one of the world's foremost experts on the Lenape Indians." http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/24/nyregion/way-before-the-turnpike.html

Ramapoughnative (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Answering on user's talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Ramapough Lenape Nation". Thank you. Ramapoughnative (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Answering on discussion page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Adam's Bridge
Re your edit to Adam's Bridge (changed 3 lines to 4 lines in the gallery): On my computer I was not losing any of the text with 3 lines. I guess that just shows the slight difference between computers—a difference in fonts, display settings, etc. Perhaps because of differences in skin? (I use Modern.) Anyway, it is something to keep in mind when making galleries. Perhaps, if the text is nearly 3 full lines in one skin, one ought to consider that it could be more in another skin. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to be quite a rare problem—first time I had seen it—and quickly fixed. I tried the three-line version in "Modern" but the over-run was still there, so it must be something else. My display font is mandated by the WP skin in use, so it doesn't seem to be that either. Anyhow, no biggy! --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

ExRat
Who is ExRat and why does he keep undoing what I add to the Schroth page?Schroth (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * User:ExRat seems to be an experienced editor—nearly 19,000 edits—but all contributors are normally expected to use an edit summary to explain each edit they make, and this wasn't done. A standard-form reminder of this, for their talk page, has been made up; see here. It's easy to use: just copy and paste it, for the basic version. However, on Wikipedia there's often two sets of guidelines that contradict each other and this is no exception; an unofficial essay exists, suggesting that this procedure shouldn't be used for experienced editors who are at fault: see here.


 * Schroth is a disambiguation page, which means that it's a quick way of finding the article you want if, perhaps, you only know the surname of the person you are looking for. So, there should only be blue links on the page (and only one per entry, so readers know where to click). More here.


 * Lastly, and as you have done, you need to engage with the other editor to resolve the issue, otherwise you may fall foul of the provisions against edit warring.


 * The project has a steep learning curve and, contrary to what some believe, nobody gets it right all the time, so don't be discouraged by this! All the best.


 * --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Coriolanus: an idea map
Hello Moonraker,

You seem to have decided that the map I added to Toby Stephens wiki is promoting something. It isn't. You (and another editor, identified as something of a stalker) also seem to have decided that there's either A) unattributed original research in it, and B) it violates copyright. All the information contained in that map is traceable to verifiable hotlinked sources like The New York Times, BBC, various newspapers, and websites, and all that information is provided in the map. In good faith, that map does actually illuminate a key performance in Toby Stephens' career, and there are several markers that highlight the posters produced for his performance and key things about how that performance was marketed to the public that did impact later stagings, and likely certain dimensions to the film.

Aren't we allowed to describe creative processes on wikipedia?

All of wikipedia is a collection of links. This is a new way of presenting the information - a map - all referenced appropriately.

I'd be grateful for a little more explanation of why its inclusion apparently violates wikipedia's policies. Yes, I did read the link you left on my talk page,

Thank you --AshokaPurr 17:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashokapurr (talk • contribs)
 * As a relatively new user (in terms of contributions) I think you need to read the first paragraph of Wikipedia's mission statement to see why  your sketching with Google maps isn't a good fit with the purposes of the encyclopedia. You will find your creations have no place; the project doesn't exist just to give you a platform. More specific is the WP:NOR policy: there's no place for anything you have created for yourself, and that includes stuff synthesized from other material. You may not described what you see as instrumental factors in the creation of a performance (or whatever  else you are trying to demonstrate on the dozen or so other pages to which to have pasted the link). If there is a reliable source who has examined this (or, perhaps, a dozen of them, specific to each of the pages) the material may added using the source as a reference. See WP:EL for an explanation of how, on Wikipedia, the references and links are treated differently.


 * Finally, please take care to stay on the right side of the WP:CIVIL policy: accusing a contributor who has a detailed knowledge of film, theatre and actors of "being something of a stalker" by editing on those pages is unhelpful. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway
Please do not remove perfectly valid information from Wikipedia,as you did to Anne Hathaway. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkshake6789 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove perfectly valid information from Wikipedia, as you did to Anne Hathaway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkshake6789 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You have to demonstrate the validity; see "[t]he burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

But I am not vandalising the page either and this information is true, reliable and perfectly valid. Milkshake 6789. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkshake6789 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The information I put onto Anne Hathaway is true, reliable and perfectly valid. Milkshake6789 (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hudson_Merry_Wives_Card.jpg
Dear Old Moonraker,

Please stop citing copyright concerns related to the "Merry Wives of Windsor" postcard that appears on the Hudson Warehouse Wikipedia page and elsewhere. My name is Susane Lee and I created both the photograph and all the graphics in the image for the Hudson Warehouse, and have given the Hudson Warehouse complete rights to use it as they please. And I also give the rights to anyone else who would like to use the image as it was created.

If you would like to talk to me privately to resolve this I will be happy to give you my personal email address and cell phone number. Thank you.


 * The material has been deleted once already as a copyright violation; the project takes the copyright of others very seriously, and telling me to ignore copyright concerns isn’t sufficient. Here, however, the image was tagged for discussion, not deletion–there's a direct link to the discussion on the notice, where you may make your point. Alternatively, to bypass the discussion stage, you may release the material by raising a ticket with the WP:ORTS team–procedure here.


 * I do like the poster, BTW: a bold and imaginative treatment of a classic can work well. My favourite production of TMWW (Director Bill Alexander) was in Elizabethan dress—the early years of Elizabeth II's reign that is—and as Old Moonraker that was practically modern dress for me! --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Old Moonraker,

Thank you for your thoughts. I know you are just doing your job. And I am very pleased you enjoyed the poster.

But I want you to know that whoever cited the use of this image as a copyright violation was vandalizing my work. It has happened at least four times in the past month. Two were photographs of mine, one was a poster image of my art work, and one (this one involving the Merry Wives poster) was a poster image with both my photograph and art work. (Just as an FYI -- the written content on the page about this theater company, Hudson Warehouse, has been vandalized in the past.)

Quite frankly, it seems much easier on Wikipedia for someone to anonymously claim a copyright violation against your work -- and to do so repeatedly -- than it is for you to defend yourself and prove that a work is yours and that the person(s) using it have a right to do so. The fact that I am new to this process makes it even harder.

I have posted a note on the discussion page, and when I am able to figure out how to do your second suggestion I will. I don't want the image deleted, but in all honesty having my work publicly flagged as "has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted" is not much solace for me.

Thank you for your understanding, Susane Lee


 * Put yourself, for a moment, in the shoes of an artist whose work had been stolen and displayed here on Wikipedia without consent, or even (as sometimes happens) claimed as the work of another; then it would be of great solace to see that we were taking action to put the matter right.


 * I'm sure the reporting procedure is easier than it looks, but I do see the point you are making. I've never had to do one, because I attach a free licence (example here) at the time of uploading, so I can't offer any help, I'm afraid.


 * Old Moonraker (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

In our news today
Hi OM. Our NPR station had a report about the excavation work that found remains of the Curtain Theatre. Interesting stuff - I know that it will be some time before it is complete but I look forward to being jealous of you getting to attend whatever exhibit that occurs in the future. Have a nice week on wiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk 17:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Festival of British Archaeology booklet dropped through my letterbox last week; the events start next month and a number of excavations (including, for example, The Rose) will be opened to the public. I had a quick look for The Curtain but wasn't really surprised to see that it wasn't on in the list—I suppose there's a big difference between the Rose excavation, which is completed and stabilized, and The Curtain, which is still a working site. It's aroused some interest here and the disturbance and risk of contamination from making arrangements to accommodate the numbers who might turn up couldn't be worth it. I would grab the opportunity: the enthusiasm and knowledge of practical archaeologists can't be replaced by glossy displays in a "visitors' centre". When I first visited the Sutton Hoo site it was still a bit out-of-the-way and visitors, who had to walk the last mile along unsignposted tracks through the fields, were rare. An archaeologist working on a low-level project there popped out of a hut and was happy to take us around; now the archaeologists have gone and the original, mysterious and other-worldly atmosphere has been destroyed by the "interpretation centre" and associated car parks; I'm glad I got there in time!


 * Personally, I'm going to be avoiding London for the duration: the government here is reviving the your journey really necessary?" approach to non-Olympic Games travellers during June, and that will include me. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I sure can understand staying away from the craziness that will be going on during the Olympics. Thanks for the links that let me add to my learning for the day. Thanks also for your Sutton Hoo story. It reminds me of when I first started visiting the little town of Chimayo NM in the 1970's - there is a great restaurant there whose food has stayed consistently good over the years. The El Santuario de Chimayo was visited mostly by locals. Now the parking lot is paved there are five knick knack stores around it and, worst of all, they were expanding the road to the town to four lanes when I went last summer. Best Regards. MarnetteD | Talk 15:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverted edit - Globe Theatre
Hi

Can you put your full explanation here as you put in too many characters in the summary and the end is missing.

To be honest, it was only for ease of reading, you obviously seem to have a preferred style that you do not want disturbed :¬)

As for the "something; however, ..." vs. "something. However, ..." I cannot see why you would have reverted me on that point. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry about that—I've got an old enhancement which used to allow a longer edit summary—longer, in fact, that the display allows—and I can't seem to turn it off. The points I was trying to make were:


 * There is no link between the tiling of the car park surface and the authorities' refusal of permission to excavate the foundations. The reason is, of course, the listed building, not the tiling, and to combine the three reads oddly.


 * The noun/verb agreement is discussed (with scholarly precedent from Pam Peters) on the talk page.


 * You combined two sentences with different topics: the extent of the messuage upon which the Globe was built and the size of the building itself; these concepts are better kept separate, for clarity.


 * As you see, my hope of cramming all of this into an edit summary was doomed to failure and it would have been better if I had put it onto the talk page at the outset. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain.


 * --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup - apologies for the joining of tiles and excavations, I see what you mean on that one.
 * Pam Peters - which talk page were you referring to?
 * The "however" part though, is still incorrect for me. That sentence is directly related to the previous one, as they are talking about the area the buildings covered. We were guided to use "; however," under such circumstances, pretty much as it is in MOS:HOWEVERPUNC Chaosdruid (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Peters wasn't where I thought I had left it, so it's not surprising that you didn't see it: it's here. Sorry.


 * Building and messuage: I wanted to keep the two separate, because the size of the plot is much greater than would be expected (at least, greater than I had expected before I researched this) from the size of the building, compared with the way we know buildings in the City were generally jammed together. This, IMO, makes it a separate issue. I think I'll expand this, very slightly, in the text if I can find a source that specifically says so.


 * It's a side issue—totally beside the point, in fact—but I've worked out what I was doing wrong in the edit summary. I was using Twinkle for the contribution and this silently adds its own, pre-scripted, edit—in this case "Reverted good faith edits by…", etc.—to the summary. Where my own text witters on to approach the maximum letter-count, the insertion from Twinkle takes it over the edge. I'll try to look out for this in future.


 * --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, an area farmland and open fields, says Shapiro. Added. the clarification was needed, and it wouldn't have happened without your comments. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, at least I helped in some way after all :¬)
 * Yup, using AWB can be even worse, sometimes one only has twenty or thirty characters left after it puts its own blurb in
 * The plural aspects of English English can be annoying, especially as we use a collective plural for things such as bands "Pink Floyd are" rather than "Pink Floyd is". It gets even more confusing when you look at these UK, US, Australian and Canadian examples: Pink Floyd using were; Eagles using are; AC/DC using are ; Bachman–Turner Overdrive using is. Traditionally the Eagles page would follow US English and be singular, but English rules are so silly; after all, how many "ie" exceptions are there to the ancient "I before e except after c" rule, albeit  weird  to think that it is still taught?  Chaosdruid (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Possessive with an s ending
Hello Old Moonraker, please see the comments I left at the H. G. Wells talk page and the changes I've made to the article. I didn't want you to think me rude so I thought I ought to leave you this little message. :-) Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied there.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Possessive of subject and missuse of talk
Hi, Old Moonraker, you removed an image I’d added to the Waterloo Bridge entry, claiming it to be "off topic" on 22/06/2012 and “one panorama too much”. Your opinion was solely supported by the wikkicommons user "Colin" on 24/06/2012, the uploader of the "other" panorama. The user Colin, could well be you, for all I know – this doesn’t meet discussion guidelines.

The panorama, in my opinion, added to the page – being pleasing and adding to the flow of the page (and I can get a bunch of people to back me up too) – unlike your crony/pseudonym. How a view from the bridge mentioned in the topic's title can be "off-topic", I really can't understand.

In order for a deletion to be made, it is common courtesy to inform the editor/uploader of your opinion prior to the deletion (through the user's talk page), so they are given a “right of reply”; normally 7 days. Please remember, your opinion isn't the only one. You do not own the subject, such proprietorial behaviour is frowned upon be Wikipedia.

You have proven yourself ignorant, impolite and proprietorial. I have my eye on you now; I will be reporting your actions.

Bloodholds (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Bloodholds, please ready WP:NPA. If you continue to make rude and insulting remarks against editors, you may be blocked. Colin°Talk 07:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation of TARMAC
Good morning Sir Moonraker

This message follows the deletion of an edit to the TARMAC article. The article is explained by the association of two different words MACADAM which serves as a premise to explain TARMAC. Unfortunately I cannot produce the book of Military Air Command abbreviations because I discarded it a long time ago and I believe that it might still exist in an air force museum that has a copy or a person that kept it all these years. The actual article takes as an example the Wick Airport which is considered as a sub arctic airport where coastal weather made a regular flat asphalt airport is unfeasible, it had to be grooved for water retention over the airstrip that made landing possible. You can also read its history at http://www.hial.co.uk/wick-airport/about-us/ by going at the bottom of the page. It clearly stipulates that it was a grass airfield which was common at the time because there were no jets in service and aircraft (MTOW) were very light. It was bombed in 1940 and rebuilt in 1946, still in grass. It was the very same in northern Canada and across the Scandinavian airfields close to a shore in a subarctic and arctic regions. Suffice to say that asphalt was largely used in the 1940's and macadam was long gone for any purpose. Actually asphalt as been used since the 1800's such as the resurfacing of the Place de la Concorde (24,000 sq. m’s) in 1835 “R.J. Forbes (1958), Studies in Early Petroleum History, Leiden, Netherlands”. The runways and taxiways were made flat so it was very difficult to drain so they had to be grooved. It was only in the sixties that they started to make them convex which is still in use nowadays whatever in asphalt or concrete airfields. It is strictly false to pretend that “tarmacadam” is still in use in Wick. If you take a close look at MACADAM in wikipedia you will clearly see that this process was used for roads and had many problems with stability because of the kind of aggregates used at the time. There is even a photograph taken in 1850 in California and one made recently (sept 98) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fall_Country_Road_%28Macadam%29.jpg that is suppose to support the article but is simply a gravel road while the first refers to a TARMAC construction though the proposed study  http://books.google.ca/books?id=JTg6AAAAcAAJ&source=gbs_book_other_versions do not include even once the words TARMAC nor TAR, simply because the word TARMAC did not exist at the time. It is clear that the process used in the photograph has never been suitable for aircraft to land on, at any given time. Airport TARMAC needs to hold many tons per square foot because the whole weight of any aircraft is transferred to its wheels, so do runways and taxiways. The foundations of TARMAC are mainly three to four foot thick or more depending on the kind of land it is build on. Wikipedia stipulates that macadam was use in the US in the 1800's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt. Though the use of TARMAC comes from TAR and MACADAM it was only since 1902's.  Please refer to TAR in wikipedia. I checked all English dictionaries originating from Britain, USA and Canada at the Canadian National Archives in Ottawa back to Samuel Johnson's “A Dictionary of the English Language” published in 1761 and the Oxford English Dictionary in 1928 and onward and there is only one mention of the word TARMAC being patented in Britain in 1902 way after Mac Adams died (1836) and 50 years after the 1850 so called “Tarmac” of the photograph made in California. The Oxford was referring to TarMacadam Syndicate Limited so it lead me to check their site history http://www.tarmacbuildingproducts.co.uk/about_us/who_we_are/our_history.aspx. It is this company that renamed their corporate entity with Tarmak Limited in 1905. The expression TARMAC was in use at airports when I started in the airline business in 1956 at 16 years old whatever the airport had an asphalt or earth landing strip and apron and the TARMAC was only the apron (or ramp) surrounding the terminals and cargo hangers but had nothing to do with either runways or taxiways. I had to go through an English teacher at St-Paul University to have the possibility to use the Oxford dictionaries at the National Archives and the searches were limited to the words I wanted to check. It seems that the word MACADAM was used for two types of road surfaces, one by the English Empire and one by the French Empire but there is a notation in the Oxford of early 1900's that pertains to the provenance of the word being the French “macadam” which was in use for 200 years before Mac Adams was born. Thomas Telford was the first to use the square bricks covered with gravel to soften the surface instead of irregular pieces of stones but the French started to use square bricks but never covered them with anything in the 1700's and 1800's. You will find this type of street (bricks not covered) in New-Orleans French District, Philadelphia area surrounding the Liberty Bell district, in Québec City and Old Montreal and certainly around France, especially in its southern part. I will be in Québec City next month and will drop by their National Archives to know when the word macadam was use and what it meant. TARMAC and MACADAM are unfortunately used by association of words. You can also refer to http://books.google.ca/books?id=6D4MzfRCs1wC&pg=PA417&dq=tarmac&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G5PwT7WHE-To6wHwwuyKBg&ved=0CGUQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=tarmac&f=false  They were all coal related open pits mines and nothing related to the construction of roads with TAR. The word TARMAC expression in airports has unfortunately been associated with TARMAC roads construction process. I will write to NAV Canada to see if they have copies of early 1900's Flight Supplements and drop by the HQ of the Canadian National Defence Museum in Ottawa to have more information supply. As the abbreviations book was produced by the RAF and rapidly became the world standard in military lingo, I will also write to them in London. I will provide you with the info as soon as I get my hand on it. Most of links provided do not exist anymore or are not relevant or pertinent to your article such as the photographs while other do not pertain to "airports" but only to the process of road construction called Tarmac. The "Airport" Tarmac expression is nowhere to be found and substantiated. Thanks and enjoy your day. Wentwoth Roger, Ottawa, Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by WentRoger (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this background information, but I don't think it's really viable as an inclusion to the Tarmac article itself. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)