User talk:Old Moonraker/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Tom Stoppard and The Coast of Utopia

Thanks for the good faith and the advice - you're absolutely right and I've added the link to the Coast of Utopia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenchieAlexandre (talk • contribs) 23:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

My mouth and foot

I truly didn't mean to imply that you were in any way a creepy talk-page watcher. Sorry - sometimes what I think I've written isn't what I've written at all. Haploidavey (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No harm done: the context rescues the post from any suggestion of ad hominem.--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

G.K Chesterton External Links - reinsertion request

I would be grateful if the link to the G.K. Chesterton Discussion Forum http://gkcforum.org could be reinserted in the list of External Links. The Forum is not a personal site, has no commercial purpose and solicits neither donations nor subscriptions (unlike some sites currently included in the list). The Forum exists solely to promote and facilitate the dessemination and discussion of information and thought concerning G.K. Chesterton, something that I would hope to be relevant to the purpose of Wikipedia itself. I appreciate the efforts of all involved in maintaining this and other Wikipedia entries.

Thank you for your time.

GKC Forum Admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.224.131.251 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see the policy about WP:FANSITES is quite specific: links to "chat or discussion forums/groups" are to be avoided, and I won't be reinstating this one. This is, of course, only one editor's opinion and the external links noticeboard is monitored by editors for whom this is a "specialist subject"; they may feel differently. As far as the invitations to subscription sites: these are also forbidden—and I may try to find time to review these—but the WP version of "two wrongs don't make a right" is here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and succinct reply. Having studied the rules more closely it's clear why discussion forums, in potentially lacking factual content, would be inappropriate to link. In the apparent absence of an immediately compelling justification for removing links to other Chesterton societies, would you have any objection to inclusion of the long established (1974) UK based Chesterton Society? http://gkchesterton.org.uk/

Regards, GKC Forum Admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.224.131.251 (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This needs more careful consideration, perhaps informed by WP:FANSITES item 1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Take it to the experts at the external links noticeboard. Had I seen this as a new addition I wouldn't have removed it, but I would have thought it wrong. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios on Eugenics

The two copyvios in the article are detailed in the report Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 January 10 with diffs, as indicated on the article talk page. You have removed the notice apparently without reading the comments I added as you requested on the talk page, where you made no comment, and without looking at the report. Please self revert and wait for adminsitrators to deal with the copyvios. This is how understood copyvios are dealt with, from the instructions on the copyvio page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the copyvio report before making reverts as you just did. I followed precisely the instructions in the case of unambiguously identified copyvios. Now please self-revert, as I requested. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Full reply on article talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Garonne source

Please, have a look at this application: http://www.icc.cat/vissir2/ And at this one: http://www.ign.es/iberpix/visoriberpix/visorign.html

According to it, please take note of this facts:

• The source "Aigualluts" (Trou de Toro? no such name in Spain, nor Spanish, Aranese, or Catalan for that place) is at 2.000 m.a.s.l., and the indicated source (Salterillo-Barrancs ravine) is at 2.300 m.a.s.l. The junction Joéu-Garona is at 800 masl.

• The Ruda-Garona river source, at Ratera-Saboredo cirque is at 2.600 m.a.s.l. (42°36′26″N 0°57′56″E). The Ruda-Garona junction is at 1.270 masl.

• Furthermore, The Ruda-Garona runs for some 12 km before joining the “Garona de Beret” stream. The Ruda Valley is the natural head of Arán (Garonne) Valley.

• The Joèu (from Aigualluts to Las Bordas) runs for 11 km.

• Furthermore, the Joèu provides 2,16 m3/s. of water to the Garonne, wich before joining the Joèu carries 17.7 m3/s. .

• Further more: possible sources, higher than Aigualluts: Estanhots de Horno, (42°38′17″N 0°42′28″E), source of Nere river.

Lac deth Tuc de Podo, Colomers Cirque (42°35′55″N 0°55′57″E), source of Aiguamog river.

Why so should be Aigualluts considered the Garonne source? Please, will you have a look at this and correct the article?

My contribution to the article with this info has being delete without an apparent or reasoned reason. Why?

Regards.--EfePino (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply on article talk page.--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help. Regards.--EfePino (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No serious input from me: you have done all the work. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Judy Buxton Greeks.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Judy Buxton Greeks.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Image falls within the broader definition of "not replaceable" in WP:NFC#UUI. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

British railway signals

Ummm, there were no deletions whatsoever.217.28.0.111 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right: the byte count remained unchanged. So: to assist other editors and avoid confusion about your motives, please don't forget to explain what you're about in the edit summary—thanks. I will, however, be reverting "feather", but trying a ref and fixing the easter egg in the process; how did you derive fleur de lys? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: The byte count was reduced from 15,730 to 15,370, so something was deleted.–Signalhead ^< T > 19:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Missed that: thanks! --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Fleur de lys removed as uncited. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I was using my iPhone and accidentally hit rollback.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; I know I've done the same. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Silbury Hill addition

Hi - thanks for the message on my talk page. I have tried to insert a small piece of factual information for the reader on the Silbury Hill entry but this is getting blocked. I am simply adding my name to those of previous archaeological excavators at Silbury Hill who are cited in the article and I would be grateful if this could be permitted.

Fachtna McAvoy Fachtna mcavoy (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The talk page discussion seems to be settling around the relative merits for inclusion of yourself and Jim Leary. As EH gives you prominence on the web page there doesn't seem to be any reason why we shouldn't do the same. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to your "Shakespeare in Love" edit of my edit

I don't mean to be rude, but I felt that I did act within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I cited Mr. Haase himself and a press report corroborating his statement about a planned lawsuit against Miramax regarding plagiarism on the part of the authors of Shakespeare in Love from his 1981 Off-Broadway musical Star Crossed Lovers. I did not offer an opinion as to whether or not there was actual plagiarism, which would be outside the context of the article. I feel I acted within the guidelines, and would like to know what you found objectionable. If it was merely the notation about Twitter, that could have been removed without losing the substance of the point, namely that Mr. Haase also jumped into the fray, as it were. 96.253.42.251 (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the matter here. It was indeed your use of Twitter as a source that drew my attention to the contribution, but using People is also deprecated on Wikipedia: see here. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Abecedare seems to cite good reasons for being able to use People at the same link. There is no violation of neutral point of view in the article in question, merely reporting that Mr. Haase was planning to sue at the time. Again, I repeat that if the Twitter link is troublesome, I shall not repost it again, but I see no reason here not to include the article in question. 96.253.42.251 (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backoffbugaloo (talk • contribs)

The original WP:RSN discussion was two years ago, so it probably wouldn't be considered forum shopping if you raised the matter there again.

If there proves to be a consensus for inclusion, would you consider some more context, to make it of some value to readers? A google search didn't enlighten me as to the circumstances of the story, no explanation is offered for the basis of the claim and the musical itself seems obscure: it doesn't feature at star crossed or on IBDB, for example. The fact that Haase called the office of a famous lawyer but was fobbed off doesn't in itself make the story of encyclopedic value. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The musical is actually far from obscure, though there is little Internet coverage of it. In brief, in terms of similarities, the show is also about Shakespeare writing the world's most famous love story, Romeo and Juliet; in the musical, this is done at the command of Queen Elizabeth I (you'll recall the wager from Stoppard's screenplay also involves the Queen's command), and he's aided by the story's four previous authors, who come to life as ghosts when Shakespeare opens their books. In the course of the show's plot, there is court intrigue surrounding backstage politics at the theater, which finds an obvious parallel in Stoppard's screenplay as well. I could go into the production development history, but I won't. Suffice to say that it is better known than the Internet gives it credit for. --Backoffbugaloo (talk) 6:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And that is most readers' (mine included) only source. I think that, between us, we have certainly established the need for context; your expansion, above, is the sort of stuff that would need to go in. You would need to "say where you got it", of course: specifically, someone authoritative who has noted the similarities. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Nippur

I see you've now twice undone links to http://pleiades.stoa.org/places/912910 from Nippur, once citing clause 10 of the external links policy. Pleiades is an NEH funded site to establish stable URIs for geographic entities drawn from historical geography. It's appropriate for wikipedia to link to these. Full disclosure, it's hosted at NYU and I'm a professor there. Sfsheath (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC) I thought I would also add that there is certainly original content there in the form of the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World reference and the further scholarly bibliography. Sfsheath (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that user-generated content ("join us in using, creating and sharing historical geographic information") isn't regarded as reliable and such links are to be avoided. Second opinion available at WP:RSN. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Severn bridge

The bridge was dismantled in 1967-1968. This is verifiable by watching the movietone news clip linked in the article. If som eother book states 1970, then it's wrong. But I don't plan to argue, this is precisely the sort of thing that drove me away from editing in the first place. 121.213.212.105 (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

See verifiability. Another contributor has modified the entry, combining the sources. Any better? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Oxted Mills

Hello Old Moonraker - please contact me re Oxted Mills Rosmore (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have turned on my email: see left. Are you sure I'm the editor you are looking for? I've only contributed to Haxted Mill. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Received; I see that you have an interest in both Haxted Mill and Oxted mills. Give me some time to think about it, but the real expert on mills in the area is Mjroots. All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating update, thanks. Presumably the Wheatsheaf (TQ386523) is the "Oxted Mill" shown, perhaps imprecisely, as "demolished" in the WP article. Just dragged my 1:10560 map off the shelf but it didn't have the detail to show the extant millrace you noticed. The ponds just upstream seem to have been fishponds, belonging to St James's Priory, rather than millponds. Today's "Oxted Mill" on the map (TQ390519), about a third of a mile downstream and with a decent millpond, must be is "Middle Mill" in the article—the ref shows the address as "Spring Lane", which is correct. The article's Tidy Green Mill (TQ400529), Tidy's Green on modern maps, can still be be identified on the ground from its foundations. It is on a different (easterly) stream from the ponds, joining at TQ389519. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what the problem is here. Grid refs for mills being discussed would be useful. This 1940 OS map may also be of use. Suggest any inaccuracies are raised at talk:Medway watermills (upper tributaries) for discussion. If any mill's entry can be expanded from other sources, please feel free to do so. Mjroots (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've made a few updates, based on Alderton's book and other sources. She doesn't suggest that "The Wheatsheaf" was the mill; the mill was just to the south. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition to the River Eden article. Mjroots (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

feedwater pump

A steam engine has a low pressure circuit, after the condensor and a high pressure circuit, after the boiler. This is not "original research" but simple thermodynamics. Any pump between these two circuit has to overcome the pressure difference. Here is an example:

http://www.steam-boilers.org/boiler-pump/boiler-pump-2.html

Eur (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I know that, you know that, but what we imagine we know doesn't cut it; it needs a reliable source for inclusion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Computer simulation - link removed

CryoVision is a good example of a 3D simulation, so what if it was developed by a company? Is the problem in the format of the link or in the fact that it was developed by a company? maybe you have better idea on how to present it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.25.208 (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no ideas at all. If you post a link to a software company, it shows them in a better light if the link actually works, so that others may judge. Meanwhile, the policy about commercial links is here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing on this. 1) what do you mean with "the link actually works"? - the link didn't work? 2) according to the rules you've mentioned I may ask whether the link acceptable on the Talk page of the article - do you think I should do this, or is bringing commercial examples definitively excluded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.25.208 (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Better luck this morning: both your links are now working. "Avtech Scientific attaining the vision/our fields of expertise" is beyond doubt WP:SPAM.

But did you see the CryoVision page with all its 3D pictures? Don't you think its on the right place there? One can remove the second link, and leave only the link on the simulation?

I dislike encountering spam on Wikipedia, so you may prefer a second opinion from some other contributors: call at WP:ELN. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The Winter's Tale by Shakespeare - edit to add Guthrie Theater 2011 production with notable updating.

Thanks, Old Moonraker, for this: "Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to The Winter's Tale. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Old Moonraker (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)" But did you have to eliminate all of my first attempt at editing? Was nothing worthy of adding? Was the strengthening (updating) of the leading women's roles notable? Weirwilliam (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Bill Weir

I note that your posting was just after the run opened (and congratulations on the reviews), and this informed my WP:SOAP comment. At the time I invited further comment on the talk page. It would probably be better to keep the discussion in one place but, in summary, what is it about this staging that makes it significant and notable in the context of the work's 400 year production history? You might find a perusal of WP:RECENT useful here.

May I once again apologise for my unwarranted initial edit summary? The production, not its location, is the issue here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Doghurst Mill

Great find! Could you add a short lede to the Crooked River section on the various articles. Give me a shout if you need assistance with the diagram. Does the Crooked River enter the Eden from the left or right (looking downstream)? Mjroots (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Crooked River is actually the Kent Brook by another name in its upper reaches. I'll tweak the articles as you suggest to make this plain. I am struggling with the diagram: see User:Old Moonraker/sandbox if you want a laugh. I haven't given up yet, mind; the next stage is to delete the section marked "Christxxmas", unwanted from the part I copied as as "shortcut". --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems to have fixed it. Still needs tweaking to make all text same size. Those with small writing need the final | before the text removing and they should all then come good. Mjroots (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help: that was really tricky. Mini-ledes next. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

RefTools fixed

RefTools should be totally back to normal now. Kaldari (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks: grateful. Off to my prefs page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

YouTube Links

Thanks for the feedback Old Moonraker; I was wondering if you can help me understand the YouTube restrictions. I created the YouTube video myself, and own the copyright. Do I have to indicate that somewhere on YouTube or Wikipedia or the link itself? Thanks again for your help with this, my first contribution.Painfullybrilliant (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't own the copyright, but I am the creator of the video and I am allowing free use of the video - I believe I uploaded the video as well to the WikiCommons site. Is there an alternative option I have to include in the rainbow article? Painfullybrilliant (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Uploading media files is way outside my comfort zone, but as far as I know if you have an account on English Wikipedia, this is valid on Wikimedia Commons—the WP equivalent of YouTube—as well. Here's the start page. Upload the video and attach one of the free licenses from the drop-down menu. Any video accepted on Commons is automatically acceptable on all other Wikipedias. I haven't done a video, but here's a diagram I made that uses the same licence. Good luck! --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So I guess my question is, since I am the creator and originator of the content (the video on youtube), and I am allowing free and universal use without permission to use my video, is there a special protocol that I need to follow in order to include the youtube link in the article? Aside from the licensing requirements; which it appears I fulfill and meet, I don't find anything prohibiting me from using my own link. Please advise. Thanks again - Painfullybrilliant (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Call at WP:ELN to put yourself in touch with specialists on external links.--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

wikibreak? - but your still editing

I just don't like it:-) Mannafredo (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Apt. I can commute and compute, but it's all a bit clumsy—see User talk:Old Moonraker#Sorry, above. I got back Sunday. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Overhead crane

What was wrong with the book? [1] --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked and read, but the reference did not further explain a rotary crane. Now I do have some pictures on rotary cranes and I could explain in details how it works. Did you want me to do that and show you first? (BTW sorry I did not explain first mistake...)

Reference strengthened with a quote and restored, again: it echoes the material in text. I shouldn't have to do this; you should make the effort to access the work. See WP:Sourceaccess and WP:Offline sources for more.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Without the page number one could spend hours trying to find the information. That said I understand that it is not a requirement. All this aside, I am in Kate State University and looking at the book. I found the picture prior to the reference information very good. This could be helpful for people to understand what exactly is described. Just a though if you think it would be worthwhile.--Rvancopp (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean this image?

Page numbers, as in the deleted material, are a requirement "where appropriate". I take that to mean where the book is more than a few pages long, but it's not specified. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes the book is really long with many pages. What did you think of the old picture of the Rotary crane on page #128 Did you want to post beside the paragraph maybe? (Oops never mind you posted already looks really great.--Rvancopp (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking and looking around and I am not sure if you adding the rotary crane information might not be the best idea. The reason is people could start naming many types of bridge cranes. For example if I were to name a few: Double girder bridge crane, single girder, Top running, under running, I beam, box girder type, Patented track, free standing bridge crane, ridged double girders and single girder, telescopic bridge cranes, Suspension bridge cranes. That’s just to name a few. From my own experience as an expert I can tell you in a case like this a large amount of information could be a bad thing. I think it might be best to be careful that the page does not start to get out of control. I am the Product Manager for North America for the 2nd largest crane company in the world and have been with the company 23 years. Just thought I should say since I claim to be an expert. If you go look at the page crane machine see what you think of that page. It’s messy and jumps topics. I would really like if you and I worked together to try to clean up a few pages in regards to cranes. I travel to Europe all the time and I am in the UK regularly. Maybe I could have us meet our facility in Banbury UK. Just an idea let me know what you think, but your experience and espertise with Wikipedia and mine with cranes could work great together.--Rvancopp (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I have no specialized knowledge: I was only drawn into the topic from history of the steam engine. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Valdalism? What?

Why am I getting messages saying I'm vandalizing pages? This is absurd! I'm citing everything I write. Now you've deleted my contibutions that have been referenced, and it's information I got from a lecture from a doctor....which I cited.

Renee91 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple of contributions using untraceable citations chalked up to Dr Behm could be mistakes but a series of sixteen, as Ian Fleming in Goldfinger reminds us, looks highly suspicious. I couldn't verify any one of them, and I looked hard. However, not all these edits were as counter-intuitive as the one I came across first—in The Hundred Years War "the amount of time actually fought was about two weeks"— that motivated me to check further; who is "Kimberly Rivers", BTW? Another example: one of the books you attributed to Dr Behm in a citation was by Robert A. Birmingham and Leslie E. Eisenberg, also of the University of Wisconsin. Please have a look at citing sources to see how to deploy verifiable citations. It helps reader confidence if your sources are easily accessible to other editors, but this isn't essential: see WP:SOURCEACCESS on this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

hell

if you don't accept Krishna consciousness, you'll remain in material world form millions of kalpas (that means - many millions of years, and many lifetimes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.129.15 (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the immutability of my composite elements, I believe that you are likely to be correct.--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

re> Your edits to Ingram Frizer

I've added back some of the information that I put up originally, considering that a bulk of what was put up - the information on the actual events that happened the night of Marlowe's murder - were taken from a book which was citing the actual coroner's report/"police report" on what happened that night. As for the 'mainstream sources,' these are the most mainstream you're going to find - books and articles published within the last two years. Yes, the conspiracy theory bit is a bit without supporting evidence - but that's because, um, they're conspiracy theories. They have the barebones of evidence and what people make assumptions with. Perhaps rather than removing the information, you could help us add to it instead? Where would you prefer we find more 'mainstream sources'?

Wordforteens (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've read quite a bit about the murder, but so far I seem to have missed the police report. Some of your "facts" are actually incorrect and they all still need sources; please read "all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source". As you got it "from a book" I presume that this will be possible for you. I'm travelling at the moment and can't help, even if I wanted to (but check my contribution history for a sprinkling of such edits as "add refs for recent additions": there are a few). As WP:PROVEIT notes: "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". The burden on all editors is to preserve accuracy, to give proper weight where there are opposing theories, and to do this in a transparent way that gives the readers confidence that they're getting a balanced picture. Your student project has, so far, failed to achieve this.

From the general to the specific: a lot of this has been gone over (in exhausting detail) on the Christopher Marlowe talk pages and to avoid needlessly revisiting settled, old issues it might be worth your while to set aside some time to look over this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Old Moonraker. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Tools/Navigation_popups.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Is this working for you now? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply there. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Frizer

Hello! I haven't yet, but will be reviewing the page carefully in the coming days. Thanks for your concern and interest in my students' project. cm Redcknight (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please hold the thanks: I'm afraid my reaction on their talk page was a little negative. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

IPAc-en conversion

We have a bot converting old IPA templates with an eye towards deprecating the dozen or so templates used now and standardizing Wikipedia. If you revert the changes it will just show up on the bot again. deflective (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the new template because it contains the WP symbol for a sound file—but there isn't one—and I haven't (after admittedly only a casual search) seen any discussion. However, that's not the main point: please don't change my signed talk page comments, for any reason, as it contravenes WP:TPO: "you should not edit…the comments of other editors without their permission" (emphasis as in original). --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Steam Trains

Apologies for adding it a 2nd time without logging in I did not know why it was removed, I would have thought that pictures of steam trains would have been useful and relative to visitors searching Wikipedia for steam trains, the photos on the site are sent in from the public (steam train enthusiast s for example.) Many photos in the gallery are from preserved railways.

I can understand if the site was irrelevant but noticed links to other steam trains sites so I thought it would be fine and potentially useful? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novustek1976 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Not denying the relevance, but it's a commercial link: deeper home page here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20