This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Old Moonraker, you provided me with some help when I was first getting started on Wikipedia and I was hoping you might be willing to look over some revisions I proposed to the Black Mesa controversy section in the Peabody Energy article. I would go forward with the revisions, but as I have a COI with the article, want to make sure I get feedback from experienced editors. Thanks again for your time. JamesClyde ( talk) 16:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Railway signalling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Audit Office ( 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) 10:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the new information about "The Papers of Sherlock Holmes": It is not an advertisement, any more than any of the other books listed in this topic are advertisements. However, I did remove the website link to the publisher. I was simply interested in adding the title to all the others already there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damarcum ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Old Moonraker. I was about to revert the blog citation of JZCL. As much as I appreciate JZCL, but if we would begin to cite private blog posts we would get into big trouble.
Inawe 21:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Your review was impressively painstaking. Your thoroughness and scholarship is appreciated and respected. Andrew Davidson ( talk) 09:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC) |
That was my first one seen through to promotion, so I needed to take it slowly. Thanks for the assurance that I got it right! --
Old Moonraker (
talk) 09:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
On 30 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter Street (carpenter), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that carpenter Peter Street secretly arranged to dismantle a theatre in Shoreditch, north London, for material to build the new Globe Theatre in Southwark? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Street (carpenter).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
The efforts and care that you use in so many areas of Wikipedia are much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 18:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hi, the change was not poorly referenced. I believe I added it to the edit summary - you might want to check that before removing things without asking. I definitely added it to the talk page of the article. For your information, the note I put on the talk page is
Why did somebody remove my additional information on this article? He did go to Ratcliffe College - as stated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratcliffe_College
Please stop removing stuff without checking first. --Ray3zor (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC) -- Ray3zor ( talk) 09:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I only read wikipedia but i needed to message. On the Charles Dickens page a user has just made biased, defamatory edits against him. The words... ALLEGATIONS OF Anti semitism and racism... need to be reinstated, and his page needs to be watched. Thank you. 178.155.132.158 ( talk) 12:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi again. First, let me say how sorry I am over your experience on Dickens page as mentioned above. IMO you must of been doing something right if accusations of bias come from both ends of the spectrum. Thanks for your efforts anyway. Next would you please take a look at the info about the 2007 "Nich Nick" (I think Mr Thaxter told me that was how the press referred to it at the time) revival here Nicholas Nickleby#Theatre adaptation. It reads, to my eyes, as though the full length version was performed but the info about this production on the page for the play states that is was the shortened one. I wanted to check with you before making any changes.
On an unrelated note you beat me to warning the IP that just messed around with the Oscar Wilde article "Good job"!! I wanted to check if you were aware of the {{ subst: uw-selfrevert}} warning. That is the one that I usually use (at least the first time and that is its drawback as it only has one level) for an IP that makes the nonsense edit and then reverts it. Please don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with the warning you placed I just wanted to make you aware of this one in case you didn't know about it. Have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 17:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Gosh I only just caught up with the fact that Mr Thaxter passed away Jan 30. Thank you so much for adding a note about that to his talk page. I can't tell you how many wonderful stories he shared with me about various performances and actors (including Tony Church who acted here in Denver for several years) and I count myself lucky to have corresponded with him. MarnetteD | Talk 04:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Pooh Shepard1928.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 11:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi OM! I took Greenblatt out of the biography page because of the explicit subjective nature of his treatment. He admits that his technique is speculative, and I want to stick with more objective sources to remove any potential conflict down the road when I take the article to G or FA status. I doubt I will do much more on the Dickens page unless they stop the BS edit warring, but I meant what I said when I wrote that the page is a disgrace to Wikipedia. The readers deserve more than that mess. Tom Reedy ( talk) 14:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
You are a great asset on WP, and seem to have the ability to be where you are needed most... happy editing... Johnfos ( talk) 03:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
Regarding your recent edit, I was hoping that you could specify what has "failed verification" since you did not provide much in the way of an edit summary. The content in question was already there before I got involved with the article several months ago – all I did was clean up the text and reformat the citation as part of a general overhaul of the article – so I honestly have no idea which parts of it do or do not appear in the work cited. Fortunately, however, the tag you used suggests that you yourself are familiar with (and perhaps even have access to) the book, so I imagine that it would be relatively easy for you to identify the unsourced material, which would be most helpful toward resolving the issue. — Apo-kalypso ( talk) 07:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Gonystylus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal Botanic Gardens ( 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) 11:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem for me is that the article still invokes the support of Fowler for the ise spelling, even though he himself clearly came down on the side of ize for words on the Greek root. In this case the work referenced, A Pocket Fowler, is not written by Fowler. I could comment on the correctness of writing something that's the opposite of what Fowler himself wrote and then using his name to sell it, but I won't. Accordingly I have modified the name of the work to include the word 'Pocket', and added, higher up, a note on Fowler's actual position, as well as that of Horace Hart (who was The Controller of the Universe after all: see http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/oxford-university-press/some-account-of-the-oxford-university-press-1468-1921-hci/page-2-some-account-of-the-oxford-university-press-1468-1921-hci.shtml). I have not bothered to reference the 1st Ed. of Fowler's, but linked to the page on Fowler's, as this seems to be the general practice on other pages referring to it. I also changed 'most other reference works' to 'many reference works': Unless there is a referenceable analysis of all such works in this regard, 'most' must be opinion, and there is no reference work identified earlier in the paragraph for these/this to be other than.
There's also still a referencing error, as the reference for Cambridge's preference for ise leads to the Pocket Fouler. I've not changed this as I don't know what the preference reference was originally to. Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I knew this one because I have made the same mistake! -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 16:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello!
The link http://www.topmarks.co.uk/stories/gingerbread.htm was added by me to The Gingerbread Man and Gingerbread man because the other link for the story is dead (for the first article) and because I thought a link to the story would be appropriate (for the second article). Oct13 ( talk) 01:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Good catch. I've updated the file description on the commons. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
When you roll back an edit from a primary and authoritative source, you put yourself in a trap. Waiting for an Obituary may never end, (most assuredly one will be published in this case, but many noteworthy folks do not have such posted.) The more appropriate question is "Who are you to be making this edit?" Unfortunately, Wikipedia is living in a past that it helped destroy. Encyclopedia Britannica is ceasing publication while attempting an "on-line version" A Look at Encyclopaedia Britannica as it exits print, as well as the vast majority of primary source Newspaper reporting outlets. The "authoritative" list of sources is becoming smaller by the day. What makes Larry Magid of the Contra Costa Times of Walnut Creek California authoritative? What makes the nephew of a man who's humor and charm are no where to be found in this microscopically small view of the life of a man who's contribution is amazing by its depth, but gets less coverage in Wikipedia than Britney Spears who's contribution will be remembered in 100 years only through vague cultural references. This is because, much more is "published" about Britney, but it unfortunately mostly vacuous drivel.
But, worse, you irritated me while I was grieving, and that is honestly offensive.
Powelld ( talk) 16:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the book's already been published--I have a copy myself, just bought it on Saturday. HangingCurve Swing for the fence 12:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
It may look like spamming, but it was not meant as such. As you said yourself, self-published books are "... largely not acceptable..." per WP's guideline for self-published works. As I read that guidleline, I found no direct prohibition ... and the guideline did say "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.".
I would like to point that a number of the WP articles wherein the book is used as a reference were created and largely written by me a number of years ago, and came directly from the book's website:
Many of the other WP articles wherein the book is cited were created by me and the book is directly relevant to all of them:
I hope this clears up the misconception (in my opinion) that I was spamming. mbeychok ( talk) 17:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Old Moonraker!
I declined the speedy deletion of
Akhil. page has been vandalized, not eligible for speedy. Regards,
decltype
(
talk) 10:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
They'll block me no matter what. That's all they do. This is vandalism. Check your facts. Do some research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanFamilyAttorney ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
i hate you
Sooooooooooooooooooooooo you read it incorrectly. Looks like you can't read a diff any better than I did. I removed nothing. Keep trolling, you might find something. Oh well, Wiki civility is definitely in its death throes. Mugginsx (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I was confused by your edit on Roman roads piping Via Domitia to link to Via Domiziana. I had posted the "Disambiguation Needed" note on Neapolis and I had checked the article for Via Domitia which runs across the south of modern France and couldn't find a Neapolis that seemed to fit. I also went to the link for Statius which refers to the Via Domitiana which redirects to Via Domiziana which is a good fit for Naples, so I was confused. It seems that Roman roads had an error in it and Via Domitia should be changed to Via Domiziana rather than piped. I don't have much knowledge of ancient Rome so I could be very confused. What do you think? SchreiberBike ( talk) 02:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Old Moonraker, you provided me with some help when I was first getting started on Wikipedia and I was hoping you might be willing to look over some revisions I proposed to the Black Mesa controversy section in the Peabody Energy article. I would go forward with the revisions, but as I have a COI with the article, want to make sure I get feedback from experienced editors. Thanks again for your time. JamesClyde ( talk) 16:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Railway signalling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Audit Office ( 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) 10:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the new information about "The Papers of Sherlock Holmes": It is not an advertisement, any more than any of the other books listed in this topic are advertisements. However, I did remove the website link to the publisher. I was simply interested in adding the title to all the others already there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damarcum ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Old Moonraker. I was about to revert the blog citation of JZCL. As much as I appreciate JZCL, but if we would begin to cite private blog posts we would get into big trouble.
Inawe 21:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Your review was impressively painstaking. Your thoroughness and scholarship is appreciated and respected. Andrew Davidson ( talk) 09:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC) |
That was my first one seen through to promotion, so I needed to take it slowly. Thanks for the assurance that I got it right! --
Old Moonraker (
talk) 09:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
On 30 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter Street (carpenter), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that carpenter Peter Street secretly arranged to dismantle a theatre in Shoreditch, north London, for material to build the new Globe Theatre in Southwark? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Street (carpenter).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
The efforts and care that you use in so many areas of Wikipedia are much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 18:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hi, the change was not poorly referenced. I believe I added it to the edit summary - you might want to check that before removing things without asking. I definitely added it to the talk page of the article. For your information, the note I put on the talk page is
Why did somebody remove my additional information on this article? He did go to Ratcliffe College - as stated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratcliffe_College
Please stop removing stuff without checking first. --Ray3zor (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC) -- Ray3zor ( talk) 09:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I only read wikipedia but i needed to message. On the Charles Dickens page a user has just made biased, defamatory edits against him. The words... ALLEGATIONS OF Anti semitism and racism... need to be reinstated, and his page needs to be watched. Thank you. 178.155.132.158 ( talk) 12:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi again. First, let me say how sorry I am over your experience on Dickens page as mentioned above. IMO you must of been doing something right if accusations of bias come from both ends of the spectrum. Thanks for your efforts anyway. Next would you please take a look at the info about the 2007 "Nich Nick" (I think Mr Thaxter told me that was how the press referred to it at the time) revival here Nicholas Nickleby#Theatre adaptation. It reads, to my eyes, as though the full length version was performed but the info about this production on the page for the play states that is was the shortened one. I wanted to check with you before making any changes.
On an unrelated note you beat me to warning the IP that just messed around with the Oscar Wilde article "Good job"!! I wanted to check if you were aware of the {{ subst: uw-selfrevert}} warning. That is the one that I usually use (at least the first time and that is its drawback as it only has one level) for an IP that makes the nonsense edit and then reverts it. Please don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with the warning you placed I just wanted to make you aware of this one in case you didn't know about it. Have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 17:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Gosh I only just caught up with the fact that Mr Thaxter passed away Jan 30. Thank you so much for adding a note about that to his talk page. I can't tell you how many wonderful stories he shared with me about various performances and actors (including Tony Church who acted here in Denver for several years) and I count myself lucky to have corresponded with him. MarnetteD | Talk 04:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Pooh Shepard1928.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 11:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi OM! I took Greenblatt out of the biography page because of the explicit subjective nature of his treatment. He admits that his technique is speculative, and I want to stick with more objective sources to remove any potential conflict down the road when I take the article to G or FA status. I doubt I will do much more on the Dickens page unless they stop the BS edit warring, but I meant what I said when I wrote that the page is a disgrace to Wikipedia. The readers deserve more than that mess. Tom Reedy ( talk) 14:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
You are a great asset on WP, and seem to have the ability to be where you are needed most... happy editing... Johnfos ( talk) 03:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
Regarding your recent edit, I was hoping that you could specify what has "failed verification" since you did not provide much in the way of an edit summary. The content in question was already there before I got involved with the article several months ago – all I did was clean up the text and reformat the citation as part of a general overhaul of the article – so I honestly have no idea which parts of it do or do not appear in the work cited. Fortunately, however, the tag you used suggests that you yourself are familiar with (and perhaps even have access to) the book, so I imagine that it would be relatively easy for you to identify the unsourced material, which would be most helpful toward resolving the issue. — Apo-kalypso ( talk) 07:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Gonystylus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal Botanic Gardens ( 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) 11:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem for me is that the article still invokes the support of Fowler for the ise spelling, even though he himself clearly came down on the side of ize for words on the Greek root. In this case the work referenced, A Pocket Fowler, is not written by Fowler. I could comment on the correctness of writing something that's the opposite of what Fowler himself wrote and then using his name to sell it, but I won't. Accordingly I have modified the name of the work to include the word 'Pocket', and added, higher up, a note on Fowler's actual position, as well as that of Horace Hart (who was The Controller of the Universe after all: see http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/oxford-university-press/some-account-of-the-oxford-university-press-1468-1921-hci/page-2-some-account-of-the-oxford-university-press-1468-1921-hci.shtml). I have not bothered to reference the 1st Ed. of Fowler's, but linked to the page on Fowler's, as this seems to be the general practice on other pages referring to it. I also changed 'most other reference works' to 'many reference works': Unless there is a referenceable analysis of all such works in this regard, 'most' must be opinion, and there is no reference work identified earlier in the paragraph for these/this to be other than.
There's also still a referencing error, as the reference for Cambridge's preference for ise leads to the Pocket Fouler. I've not changed this as I don't know what the preference reference was originally to. Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I knew this one because I have made the same mistake! -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 16:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello!
The link http://www.topmarks.co.uk/stories/gingerbread.htm was added by me to The Gingerbread Man and Gingerbread man because the other link for the story is dead (for the first article) and because I thought a link to the story would be appropriate (for the second article). Oct13 ( talk) 01:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Good catch. I've updated the file description on the commons. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
When you roll back an edit from a primary and authoritative source, you put yourself in a trap. Waiting for an Obituary may never end, (most assuredly one will be published in this case, but many noteworthy folks do not have such posted.) The more appropriate question is "Who are you to be making this edit?" Unfortunately, Wikipedia is living in a past that it helped destroy. Encyclopedia Britannica is ceasing publication while attempting an "on-line version" A Look at Encyclopaedia Britannica as it exits print, as well as the vast majority of primary source Newspaper reporting outlets. The "authoritative" list of sources is becoming smaller by the day. What makes Larry Magid of the Contra Costa Times of Walnut Creek California authoritative? What makes the nephew of a man who's humor and charm are no where to be found in this microscopically small view of the life of a man who's contribution is amazing by its depth, but gets less coverage in Wikipedia than Britney Spears who's contribution will be remembered in 100 years only through vague cultural references. This is because, much more is "published" about Britney, but it unfortunately mostly vacuous drivel.
But, worse, you irritated me while I was grieving, and that is honestly offensive.
Powelld ( talk) 16:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the book's already been published--I have a copy myself, just bought it on Saturday. HangingCurve Swing for the fence 12:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
It may look like spamming, but it was not meant as such. As you said yourself, self-published books are "... largely not acceptable..." per WP's guideline for self-published works. As I read that guidleline, I found no direct prohibition ... and the guideline did say "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.".
I would like to point that a number of the WP articles wherein the book is used as a reference were created and largely written by me a number of years ago, and came directly from the book's website:
Many of the other WP articles wherein the book is cited were created by me and the book is directly relevant to all of them:
I hope this clears up the misconception (in my opinion) that I was spamming. mbeychok ( talk) 17:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Old Moonraker!
I declined the speedy deletion of
Akhil. page has been vandalized, not eligible for speedy. Regards,
decltype
(
talk) 10:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
They'll block me no matter what. That's all they do. This is vandalism. Check your facts. Do some research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanFamilyAttorney ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
i hate you
Sooooooooooooooooooooooo you read it incorrectly. Looks like you can't read a diff any better than I did. I removed nothing. Keep trolling, you might find something. Oh well, Wiki civility is definitely in its death throes. Mugginsx (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I was confused by your edit on Roman roads piping Via Domitia to link to Via Domiziana. I had posted the "Disambiguation Needed" note on Neapolis and I had checked the article for Via Domitia which runs across the south of modern France and couldn't find a Neapolis that seemed to fit. I also went to the link for Statius which refers to the Via Domitiana which redirects to Via Domiziana which is a good fit for Naples, so I was confused. It seems that Roman roads had an error in it and Via Domitia should be changed to Via Domiziana rather than piped. I don't have much knowledge of ancient Rome so I could be very confused. What do you think? SchreiberBike ( talk) 02:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |