User talk:Old Moonraker/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Old Moonraker. 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.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Tom & Jerry

Hi, why don't you look before you leap? There never was a link - I just reverted my own edit, then added a request for clarification. It's all in the ES. So please don't accuse me of disruptive editing - ever, Thank you.--Kudpung (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply, including diff, on article talk page; in the unlikely event that anyone else is interested they can go and see for themselves. It wasn't an accusation: my "but I may have misunderstood" was in itself an appeal for clarification, which you may now, somewhat belatedly, have supplied. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Moonraker. There never was a link to undo - look a bit further back in your famous diffs. If I want to revert my own perfectly correct improvements, I will, and I won't be attacked by you for doing it, especially when I follow up immediately with further edits that clearly improve a reader's experience of an otherwise catastrophically messy article, by adding a link where there never was one in the firs place. Guess it's time you reflected on the quality of your own edits instead of trying to dampen the enthusiasm of others.--Kudpung (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Lawrence

For details of Lawrence's election to Royal Society see http://www2.royalsociety.org/DServe/dserve.exe?dsqIni=Dserve.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqCmd=Show.tcl&dsqDb=Persons&dsqPos=2&dsqSearch=%28Surname%3D%27lawrence%27%29 Plucas58 (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems conclusive. When I said "prove me wrong" in the edit summary I meant at the article, but I'll do it if you like.--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Old Moonraker. You have new messages at Redrose64's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Moonrakers (no, not them!)

Hello, old non-relation
I've just come across this; have you heard of it at all? I can't make up my mind if it's a laugh or a bloody cheek. (speshly this bit!). Wodjuh fink? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: It's here, too... Moonraker12 (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheeky buggers, but imitation is, of course, the sincerest form of flattery. I've just dive-bombed Slaithwaite#History with a couple of {{fact}} tags to see if they can find a decent source for their claim, but I doubt it: their canal wasn't built until at least fifty years after the term was recorded in Wiltshire. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I’ve added a note to the Slaithwaite page (here); I don’t want to come over as some kind of tag team, but I thought I should declare an interest, seeing as I brought it up.Moonraker12 (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an idea we could steal back: a moon-lantern festival on the Crammer in carnival week. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That'd be good! I really like what they've done with the idea; I'm a bit hacked off no-one down here thought of it first Moonraker12 (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

not me!

How did that vandalism come under my ip address? I swear I didn't type that trash !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.167.27 (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"This is stupid" (albeit with a couple of typos) was the verdict from someone posting from the IP address you are using. As the script has it: "[if] you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself". Check here, if you like. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Egg and

Discussion continued at Talk:Francis_Bacon#Botched_move. Ty 21:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but now there's some community oversight—and a good chance of having it done properly this time—there's no need for anything more from me. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question request for mediation

I have filed a request for arbitration on this question, naming you as one of the interested parties. Would you please sign your acceptance? Otherwise, let me know and I’ll remove your name from the request. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the opportunity but I have, through frustration and exhaustion, largely withdrawn from this. You know my views of course and I wish you success for this latest venture to achieve a rational solution. I am very glad that editors such as yourself are prepared to carry on where I have given up. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Dickens edits

Hi Old Moonraker, Spanglej suggested you might be interested in my proposed edits to the Charles Dickens article, which I've outlined in the Joseph Grego - Victorian Era Exhibition 1897 section. Any suggestions? Ta Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but I've avoided the article after being accused of racism for attempting to moderate the tone of "Dickens, as Commander in Chief of India calls for mass murder of all non-whites, blot it (the non-whites) out of mankind and raze it off the face of the earth". Someone else has since managed to achieve a sort-of balance in the section, but I'm not tempted back. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Kane

You will want to revisit your latest reference, which is garbled in some way. The Bonaventura link has nothing to do with "London: J. Milan. OCLC 220661928" I suggest you separate the two references rather than confuse them. I don't see why you are moved to obfuscate a link to the original text in favour of a republished version not available online. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the link, but I cannot replicate the error you found. The 17-page text document starts “A New System of Military Discipline for a Battalion of Foot on Action; With the Most Essential Exercise of the Cavalry Adorned with a Map of the Seat of War and A Plan to the Exercise” by the late Richard Kane, Governor of Minorca and a Brigadier-General. London: Printed for J. Millan, near Whitehall, 1745. Seems to be the same work as I'm citing, but that is to ignore the strong possibility that I'm missing something. Even if not, but there is a clearer way of presenting the reference, please let me know. While on the subject of references, Sloss's book seems to be a self-published work, which is deprecated as a reliable source. It's only a technicality—the sort of thing upon which the WP:RSN would need to adjudicate—but articles on the topic in such academic periodicals as Bulletin of Hispanic Studies (University of Liverpool) (one of which cites her book) would be more in keeping with the WP:RS policy, if you have access to them. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've switched the link to an online facsimile from Google Books, rather than the text transcript. Should clear up any possible confusion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Wiltshire

Hi, I don't know if you spotted it but Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiltshire has been set up.— Rod ^talk 09:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for letting me know.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Usage of apostrophe on G.K. Chesterton

I noticed your recent edit on that article. I also note that the MOS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#possessives), seems to permit the previous usage as one of three acceptable. Maybe if the usage you implemented is preferable, the MOS should be modified. I don't pretend to be a maven of English usage - just a thought. Mamalujo (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The MoS isn't directly challenged by The Cambridge Guide to English Usage: the book acknowledges that usage is "developing". If a WP article has grown up with an established usage, even if "wrong" according to the source I cited, I wouldn't touch it; it's just when "drive-by" edits change a previous, significant contributor's election to their own. The deciding factor is always internal consistency: for example H. G. Wells gets the 's treatment whereas Richard Dawkins and Charles Dickens are always without the final s. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)