User talk:Old Moonraker/Archive 4

Radiation Hormesis
Thanks for your positive comments regarding my contribution to the Radiation Hormesis article. I was hoping to remove the NPOV tag from the article today, however Pdbailey strenuously objects to my edits and choice of references. Have a look at the talk page. I would like to remove NPOV tag, but this maybe difficult given that Pdbailey declares on his user page that he is firmly opposed to Radiation Hormesis - I doubt that there can be much agreement over an article that conflicts with Pdbailey's strongly held opinion. I have no opinion either way myself, as any editor should, I'm just trying to fairly reflect the debate going on in the scientific community. --Diamonddavej (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Was reading the discussion when you posted here. If the article covers the wider debate about the topic in balanced way then it can't contravene NPOV and the tag should be taken down. I'm inclined to wait to see if User:Pdbailey adds the Iowa study you mention (although of course there are many studies supporting LNT from which to choose—was that one designed to isolate any radiation hormesis effects?) in which case any last justification for the tag would certainly be lost. I  haven't the knowledge or training to add much of benefit to the article: my earlier contribution was inspired by the Horizon program you mention and was taken from the my addition to "Chernobyl disaster effects" here. This has a little more detail from the broadcast, but is decidedly weak on substance and for this reason would (quite properly) not survive long on the more considered Radiation hormesis page. However, I will continue to watch its progress with interest. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page intervention
That's ok, no-one should have to put up with abuse, especially not from someone hiding behind an anonymous IP address. James086 Talk &#124; Email 13:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrongly accused
I recieved a notice from you about my supposed adding of a spam link to the welding page. I was not aware that I added a spam link or any link for that matter. Would you write me something on my talk page with this link included. I tried to look at the difference, but could not find it. 138 (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the edit and this: Welding Fume Extractor is the external link I consider to be spam. "Click here to download a product brochure" looks like spam to me. Perhaps you missed that bit, further down the page, when you reverted my deletion?--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So, your all butthurt about my revert? Though I agree that link is useless, the text about fume extraction is still valid and should be included in the article. 138 (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to be reading the diffs. I removed the spam edit, left the text. Don't forget WP:CIVIL, do read about the keeping spam out of Wikipedia policy. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Allright than. 138 (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dew pond
Hi Old Moonraker

Your information about the Dew pond on Beeston Regis is wrong. The reinstated pond on what is known as the Back common is not stream fed at all. You may be getting it confused with the pond on the part of the common that is on the southern sine of the A149 coast road. I happen to live not 300 yrds from the Dew pond. The watercourse known as Sheringham Loke runs alongside the Dew pond but in no way feeds the pond in question. I hope you will now replace the photo and text you removed from the Dew pond article.

Regards Stavros1 (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Centre of the image below is the approx centre of the reinstared pond (The small rond circle in the middle). As you can plainly see there is no stream to the pool

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=nr268ey&ie=UTF8&ll=52.939389,1.221285&spn=0.000663,0.001483&t=k&z=19 RegardsStavros1 (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link—we are looking at the same pond. I'm sure that with your local knowledge we can sort this out. Follow this link: 52.93951°N, 1.2215°W, select "MAGIC tool" as your resource and view at 1:5000. This is a monochrome map and the resolution is not good, but you will see a "drain" flowing north-westwards across the north side of the common through what is now the pond. My big problem is not with the watercourse, which is very plain, but with the pond, which as yet is not on the map or, as you say, Google earth. I am indeed relying heavily on your local knowledge! --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Further discussion taken to the article talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

hEY
I sometimes think that editors on this site dont receive enough praise. You seem like a great editor and I just wanted to drop by and say that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.199.112 (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

River Eden
I've put the map into the infobox. Hopefully that will resolve the problems. Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works fine. Thanks for changing Haxted Mill as well. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference for that info on the machinery in Haxted mill? Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's from the museum handbook, no ISBN or publisher details.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
I did not realize that he was reverting vandalism. However, I will point out that the editor I rolled back is a Grawp sockpuppet; hence the reason I did that (contribs don't show the number of bytes...). -  Jéské  ( v^_^v  Karistaa Usko ) 06:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary: keep up the good work. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dew pond book
Hi Old Moonraker, If you have not seen a copy I can highly recommend `Dewponds in Fable and Fact` by Alfred Pugsley (MA,BSC, BSC(Econ.) has chapters on construction, theories and what others have written about Dewponds, he is very scathing of the books by A J & G Hubbard. Palmiped (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hubbard is the only volume on the topic I own and I don't disagree with Pugsley's opinion: the work is a little slight, a lot of it is conjectural and some of what isn't has been overtaken by later work. Thanks for the recommendation. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pugsley writes acerbically which makes for an interesting read. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?sortby=3&sts=t&tn=Dewponds+in+Fable+and+Fact&x=43&y=9 Palmiped (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already ordered one: how's that for wielding influence? --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the books rubbish lol Palmiped (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pugsley arrived. He seems more convincing than the Hubbards and it looks as though the article text needs to be adjusted accordingly. Later today, unless someone does it first. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done. I have a copy of Edward A Martin Dew Ponds History observation and Experiment 1915, Martins main aim with his book is to disproof the Dew theory by experiment, he favours rain and hill mist/fog without any proof. He has a section on construction with cross section diagrams of ten dew ponds. The book does not read as well as Pugsley but worth a read. I was going to add about chalk puddle being used but cannot get the wording right, who states that Marl was used? --palmiped | Talk  18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll get back on the marl question, but I think it's being used in the older, less precise sense, as suggested here or here: as Old Moonraker this is definitely the sense I would understand, but that's WP:OR and not admissible! I'm a bit puzzled about how chalk alone can be used, as it's normally very porous, but if it were well puddled, or of the "chalk marl" variety, that would explain it.--Old Moonraker (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Martin in 1915 quotes from an article in The Field December 14 1907 that a Sussex farmer born middle of last century (1850) tells how he and his forefathers made dew ponds

“''The requisite hole having been excavated, the chalk was laid down layer by layer, while a team of oxen harnessed to a heavy broad-wheeled cart was drawn round and round the cup shaped hole to grind the chalk to powder. Water was then thrown over the later as work progressed, and after nearly a day of this process, the resultant mass of puddled chalk, which had been reduced to the consistency of thick cream, was smoothed out with the back of a shovel from the centre, the surface being left at last as smooth and even as a sheet of glass. A few days later, in the absence of frost or heavy rain, the chalk had become as hard as cement, and would stand for years without letting water through. This old method of making dew ponds seems to have died out when the oxen disappeared from the Sussex hills, but it is evident that the older ponds, many of which have stood for scores of years practically without repair, are still more watertight than most modern ones in which Portland cement has been employed''.”  --palmiped |  Talk  19:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply on Talk:Dew pond.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Beeston Regis Dew Pond
Having now done some local research on our Dew pond in Beeston Regis, mainly by asking the locals. It has become apparent that the pond in question has always been called the Dew pond in what can only be described as living memory. It was used by the locals for refreshing livestock which was pastured on both parts of Beeston Common. It appears that the parish council are responsible for leting it become overgrown to the point were it became nothing more than a boggy, sludge bowl. As for its regeneration it was done as follows. A local contractor with a small JCB pulled all the sludge and boggy material out of the area. The shallow bowl was then carefully re-lined with a clay/chalk lining and for several weeks remained virtually empty apart from a small pool. Gradually over the Christmas period (2007/2008) the pond began to fill from rainfall and by January of 2008 it had become full. The margins of the pond are now beginning to fill with new plant life. Including a clump of Flag Iris that had always flowered in the pit that was the pond and had been carefully rescued and placed back in the new pond. It has now become a fantastic addition to this part of the common and wildlife is returning to populate the regenerated pond. Stavros1 (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Vanadalism
Sorry for my Vandalism, I was just trying something out, as it is late, I doubted many people would see, and I Planned on changing it back, but no this doesn't defend my behaviour.

Could you please tell me where to find the sandbox.

24.5.159.169 (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I take it that this also applies to your previous, similar edits to the The God Delusion page last month. Don't forget that Wikipedia is read all around the globe, so if "it is late" where you are, it will be peak time somewhere else. The sandbox is here, or you can have your own private one: the method is here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting
I came here to tell you that one of your reverts was to another bad version, and thus that you should be careful to check what you are reverting to. I've been in other tabs so long now that I've lost the original page... I guess the vandalism will have to remain, unless I can remember what it was.

Bah, I've been through my page history, your contribs, and mine, and I still can't figure out what it was. You don't know, do you? :) Richard001 (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Things like that just make you want to give up on reverting vandalism, don't they?--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Found it; it's fixed. FYI, the overlooked earlier vandalism was buried beneath eight previous edits. I was going to post the link, but I decided not to in case any editor wants to post on all the intermediate editors' talk pages to point out their lack of care. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:113624897 d618485680.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:113624897 d618485680.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 23:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Transferred to Commons Image:Big chute acansino.jpg, license as before. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

World War I
I fail to see how my edit to the article on World War I violates NPOV. It simply states the facts: France and Great Britain may have called themselves "democracies," but people in Algeria, India or South Africa might have had a different opinion on the matter. It is not NPOV to prohibit the inclusion of any information that makes the Allies look less than saintly. As it stands currently, the article only serves to parrot Wilson's propganda, that we were "making the world safe for democracy" when we were really just making the world safe for Anglo-French imperialism.

Furthermore, the article makes no mention of Wilson's pre-existing Anglophilia, which made him predisposed to support the British cause in the war. It also asserts the authenticity of the Zimmerman Telegraph, which many people at the time suspected of being a forgery, created by the British to drag the U.S. into the war to replace the Russian allies whom the British had just lost less than a month before. The article also insists that Wilson was steadfast in his efforts to maintain U.S. neutrality, even though that was not the case; Germany resumed submarine warfare against the United States because they had reason to believe that Wilson was secretly supplying the British with weapons and supplies in direct violation of U.S. policy and law. Had Wilson been true to his word and honored U.S. neutrality, it's likely that he would never gotten the casus belli he needed to pull the U.S. into the war, which makes this an extremely important historical point that the article chooses to ignore.

In short, the article already suffers from serious POV problems, and I was trying to correct them. It's unfortunate that some editors have chosen to prevent me from doing so. This does not help bolster Wikipedia's reputation as a source for reliable and unbiased historical information. I respectfully request that my edit allow to stay.--Antodav2007 (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are POV problems they should be corrected: you are right. The specific instances you offer would certainly repay a re-assessment. However, balancing the perceived POV of the article with the bald statement "although both also maintained vast overseas colonial empires that were ruled in a decidedly autocratic fashion" (or indeed, suggesting "people in Algeria, India or South Africa might have had a different opinion on the matter") seems to me to be replacing one unsourced opinion for another. As I understand it, you would have to reference your addition with a reputable, published author who holds the view. Of course if you start adding the detail I am suggesting, you may run the risk of going beyond the scope of this general article: you may find that the material rests better (or even is covered already) in one of the subsidiary articles. Finally, perhaps I should explain that the edit was made using an automated script from the utility WP:TWINKLE which, although useful, doesn't allow for much in the way of nuance.


 * I hope this helps, suggesting a possible way forward for you to improve the neutrality of the article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Continued at Talk:World War I --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrongfully accused
How exactly is my information regarding Dawkins' marriage to Mrs. Garrison vandalism? Would you like some sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.207.73 (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alleging in the biography of a living person that he is gay and that he has divorced his wife requires sources of the very highest veracity, which I doubt that you can provide. Failing that, it's vandalism. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles Dickens
Please see: User_talk:Stephenb --UC Bill (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted; thanks for drawing my attention. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Amalfi Coast
I tried few weeks ago to add a link to Amalfi Coast section (Amalfi Coast Accommodation Website) because I am really sure that it's an important starting point to discover Amalfi Coast from a tourist view, and especially to discover all beauties not present on official guides: this website is managed from local people. I don't think it should be eliminated also because Wikipedia uses no-follow tag. Lucmarpraia (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Presumably you mean this edit. "Amalfi Coast Luxury Villas and Exclusive Apartments … for our more demanding clients" looks like WP:SPAM to me, and is likely to be blocked by most editors who spot it. However, in case I am wrong about this, please ask on the talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

RMS Titanic
Thanks for your interesting edit. I have adjusted it slightly because what you had written reflected accurately the headlines of the source story, but the headlines didn't quite reflect the quotes from Ballard himself. This was not your fault: it was just a "come-on" trick by the paper's subs (sorry for the pun in this context!). All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) KTC (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Chernobyl
Old Moonraker, you claimed I should have reliable sources before editing an article the way I did, but I think I would know since I'm the one who's making the album which I put a reference link to. If you don't believe me then go to the article about the album and read it yourself and if you're STILL not convinced, then watch the music video. If this insurmountable evidence STILL doesn't convince you, I can always supply voice recordings of myself and the source files of the songs. Corlen (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously I need to change the reason for deletion to WP:COI --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins
Old Moonraker, I agree that Richard Dawkins is a contentious issue but this shouldn't make hime free of criticism. Please read the source. Yes, it comes from a personal site, but for convenience only as the other posted sites (the Network of Researchers in the Public Health of Complementary Medicine, the University of Queensland and the media release it came from) are restricted access and this has been copied to the website for public viewing only. The article is duly referenced in proper academic fashion. As for reliable source - I am a researcher at the School of Population Health at the University of Queensland in the field of complementary medicine and I am currently contracted by Elsevier to compile a book on the evidence base of CAM practice which will be published in mid 2009. I know the evidence of CAM (some works, some does not) but to apply scientific rigour one must await the results - not predetermine them according to bias or subjective opinion as Professor Dawkins has done. The fact that he promotes himself as the epitomy of scientific integrity and then fails to apply it (in an area where work is still very much in its infancy - hampered further by predetermined views such as Professor Dawkins that it isn't worth studying in the first place). If he stated merely that "there is no research" this would be okay, the fact he states "none of it works" despite quite substantial evidence for many treatments - certainly not all I'll admit - is not. As far as I knew the fact it is referenced by reliable sources meant that not a reliable source was not an issue in this manner as it was dependent on content rather than source. Wikipedia should become haven of protected species. For someone such as Richard Dawkins who has so many criticisms levied against him by a broad range of people (I have several colleagues who have refused to be in his 'documentaries' due to his lopsided opinion) yet so few of these listed in his 'encyclopaedic' is certainly not reflective. At least letting people know what criticisms exist - not just 'further reading' so that the page isn't merely a propagandist advertisement for the man.Grubbidok (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the trouble to reply. This needs a wider view, so I have transferred your point to the Richard Dawkins talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Watling Street
Can you please use some references for this article?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to say that I won't, but why me? I was just passing and applied WP:CIT to two existing "bare references". --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Japanese Bridge Hoi An.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Japanese Bridge Hoi An.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 if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Will use Image:Chua Cau inside.JPG instead --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Your message
Thanks for your message, Old Moonraker. It seems that some of your fellow editors have taken against my links and have been systematically deleting them all. Wikipedia's loss, as far as I'm concerned. I only ever add scholarly and interesting articles that will enhance readers' understanding of a given area. I do understand the necessity for vigilant policing, however. All the best, Richtig27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richtig27 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your addition to Michael Billington (critic) was indeed reinstated, albeit as a footnote rather than an external link. Nil carborundum! --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)