User talk:Old Moonraker/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Sounding Line

Now, now, OM, you're no fun! Whatever is the point in reading some stodgy old mess like "Sounding Line" if you can't add a little humor to sauce it up a bit, eh? Seriously, though, I was going to delete the edit fairly quickly after I'd had my bit of fun, but plum forgot. I got started in the first place because I really was, at that moment, very interested in learning how a lead line worked, and the sounding line page wiki took me to was a difficult read for a landlubber. I mean, I guess it makes sense and all, but I found it difficult to fathom - pun intended - how these things worked... it just didn't deliver for me in a concise manner that I could quickly wrap my head around. Feels like it was lifted right out of some 1940s textbook or some such. I have come to rely on wikipedia for answers that, more often than not, quickly bring me to an "aha!" moment, and this particular writing did not. I still don't really understand to my satisfaction how the lousy thing works, so in my frustration, I decided to at least make it...unique. Thanks for the note, didn't mean to mix it up, as it were. AlbertRLee (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)AlbertRLee

Isn't there a bit of a contradiction here? Not to defend the article as one of Wikipedia's brightest and best, but if readers come to the page "interested in learning how a lead line worked" but find it stuffed with references to Britney Spears, cookery and demotic poetry they won't learn much. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Winnie-the-Pooh

Hi. I tried to add an important piece of information to the Winnie-the-Pooh page about a sequel to The House at Pooh Corner that is coming out soon. It has been 80 years since A. A. Milne published the last stories, so this is very big news! It should listed somewhere as it is going to be part of Pooh history now. It is an authorised sequel commissioned by the trustees of Milne's estate. Please can you tell me how I can add this information without it being considered as promotional material? I linked it to the official website for the book because it has all the information about it that is currently released. Thanks. Amy Dolman

Assuming you still work for the publishers, I'm afraid you are going to be up against the WP:COI policy. However, the information I placed in the article last January (this paragraph) seems to cover the topic, and can be updated next month. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Updated. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sleeve valve

I've re-added the ref to Max Bentele. It's genuine AFAIK and is either a direct quote or a comment to that effect. AFAIR, it was in his autobiog, "Engine Revolutions", which is on my shelves somewhere. Quite a relevant comment on sleeve valves from someone who made a career out of reducing reciprocation and vibration sources in favour of pure rotation, so IMHO it's worth keeping. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'll be looking out for the ref in due course. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ref added. Fortunately it's almost the first page, so it didn't take long to track down. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Axminster 177 NPseries.jpg

File:Axminster 177 NPseries.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Axminster 177 NPseries.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Axminster 177 NPseries.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Beaumont Cut.png is now available as Commons:File:Beaumont Cut.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Pilgrims Way Titsey.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Pilgrims Way Titsey.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Kingsway London ca 1900.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Kingsway London ca 1900.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fusible plugs and the English passive voice

(Now there's an unlikely heading!)

I note your concern about using English passive voice, but it seems appropriate in this case (although this may be force of habit!) As we are discussing a scientific process that was undertaken by representatives of an institution (we don't know who 'they' are), in the past, the construct seems appropriate here. Your subsequent amendment has made it consistent once more, and the whole section is much tighter after our efforts. However, I won't be upset if you decide to re-write it to avoid the passive voice, indeed, I will be interested to see the results :o)

By an extraordinary coincidence, just before I edited the article I received a phonecall from my son, newly at university, asking for advice. He had to describe some workshop procedures using the third-person past tense and wanted clarification on how to do it!

EdJogg (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No: happy to let it stand in this instance, for the reasons you suggest. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Jude Law

Ack! I apparently came in behind you and had posted my change before I saw your edit summary on the last edit you made. I won't be upset if you revert or change it. I do have building serious issues with the other editor, however... Sorry! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology not necessary: my first reaction was to use the full quote. The other editor should be careful what he/she wishes for! --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I was thinking the same thing when I read the full quote and decided to use it. I suspect it might be a bit discomfiting. Such is life. As odd as it sounds, coming from a dedicated night owl who has once again been up all night - To sleep, perchance to dream. Cheers. Wildhartlivie (talk)

Edit clash

Sorry, I thought I had changed ford to Ford, but was confused by an edit clash.--Charles (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification:happens to us all!--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey... um, Jude

I noticed you didn't object to my removal of yet another review of Hamlet in Great Britain. I was already concerned when he added the last two reviews, since he was quite selective in what he put in to start (picking the one good sentence out of a generally unfavorable review). At present, I think the section for this one appearance has undue weight. But then, no review for the New York run of the show has been added. The New York Times review is quite scathing, but it is the single most prominent review opinion for Broadway theater. What do you think? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is one of WP:RECENT, which is the same as your point about undue weight. A heavy trim is needed, with just something representative from London and something from New York. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to tackle that or do you want me to do it? I think he takes things better from you thn he does from me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I liked the production a great deal, so I'm a little reluctant to edit for that reason: I would need to make sure that no opinion creeps in and that the balance, reflecting the sources, is fair. I will try only if other editors oversee the effort! --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Made a heavy application of the blue pencil. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Afterthought: I did see a blog post, from someone whose husband had seen the show, describing this as "Hamlet for Dummies": I'm left wondering if this is why it appealed to me! --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Crimean War

Yes I have references (besides other articles in Wikipedia, that is), I will add them tonight, it might take some time. I'll probably add the references first and then only re-add my changes. I was just trying to correct an unbalanced view - which was supported by a single, biaised, source.

I think it is important to check other languages' entries, and unfortunately I don't speak many languages other than English and French. So I can check more Biritsh sources, as well as French sources, but maybe someone can see what the Russian, Turkish and Arabic sources are saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.72.196 (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Started adding first references, will continue tomorrow as it's time to get to the pub!

Thanks for the update. Please, when you re-add the changes with the new references, take care not to delete any existing, referenced material. I found the "causes" you added quite persuasive, but the tricky bit is to integrate your changes to show also the points of view of the historians already quoted. You will also need inline references, not just additional works in the bibliography.

Finally, the standard (but absolutely not compulsory) "get an account" exhortation from the management is here. Good luck! --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Titanic Pumps

Hi, try Geoffrey Marcus's 1969 book on the disaster "The Maiden Voyage" if you have access to this publication. Im pretty sure some info on the pump situation is in there. Also, if you have access, thumb through some other well known published works on the Titanic. Some of the authors are Wyn Craig Wade, Walter Lord, Charles Pellegrino, Robert Ballard, Don Lynch others. I've seen the situation portrayed in some of the Titanic movies ie "A Night To Remember"(1958), ?"Titanic"(1953), ?"SOS Titanic"(1979). Koplimek (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions—I'll check on these when I get a chance. Meanwhile I've used the account from the official British enquiry, but it isn't very detailed and doesn't explain how the system was supposed to work. A bit extra seems to be needed. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Logo-cnrs.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Logo-cnrs.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Istcol (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

{{Non-free logo}} added--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Biometrics

May I have a word? (Biospecialist (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

To expand the note I left in the page history, the relevant part of WP:ELNO is "Links to sites that require payment or registration". A link that only leads to a log-in page for some site's registered users (currently offering access only to "webmail for nuts") seems not to be of great encyclopedic value. In fact, the whole of the WP:EL guideline may well be worth your time in reading.

Your later edit to the "in popular culture" section also may be flawed, in that it seems to be opionion: such phrases as "maybe one of the reasons" makes it look like your own reporting, whereas what's needed is a published, separate, reliable source that says all this. Furthermore, WP:UNDUE suggests that we shouldn't go into too much detail with just one aspect of a topic so as to unbalance a general article such as this.

If I'm jumping to conclusions here, and you wanted to talk about something else, please accept my apologies and continue below. In any case stick with it: there's a lot to pick up and nobody objects to edits made in good faith. Best.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

Re GTownJD (talk · contribs), I gave him a bit of friendly advice which was ignored, and followed this up with a {{uw-lang}}. If he does it again, report at WP:AIV. This editing and the failure to discuss it is disruptive. Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Trevitihick

Careful when swapping the images - they're different locomotives. Although the first one was also mis-captioned anyway!

The 1803 locomotive (historically more significant, but less well known) has the smaller central idler gear. It's also the one with the furnace awkwardly beneath the piston rod. The 1804 locomotive (more widely illustrated) has the larger gearwheel and the cylinder moved out of the fireman's way. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That had certainly escaped me: the current image and caption are correct only by accident! I will try to research this to make it clear in the text. Incidentally, are the representations of the gear teeth in the Telford replica accurately scaled? --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't find anything to confirm: seems to have escaped Smiles and Nock as well. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen a clear text description about the gearwheel size, this is admittedly somewhat conjectural, but the difficulties of reaching benath a flailing crosshead to fire a moving locomotive were well recognised and fixed on the next model by swapping ends. The cylinder move for the 1804 Pen-y-darren (shown nicely by the NRM replica) is well-described (from memory I'd suggest maybe Snell's "Railways: Mechanical Engineering" or Hills' "Power from Steam"), presumably inspired by the intention to make the bet-winning run that would be far enough to require firing on the journey. Trevithick didn't see himself as a locomotive (road or rail) maker at this time: he'd tried that and been relatively unsuccessful. His high pressure stationary engines though had already established a good and successful reputation as prime movers for manufacturing industry, being cheaper than beam engines as they didn't require a substantial building to be constructed. He wasn't successful for mine pumps as the beam engine was already well established there, but for anything rotative, such as rolling mills, they were popular.

There are almost no period illustrations of either locomotive (or even the engines), bar some rough sketches (and these are questioned anyway). The only good drawing (described as the "Science Museum" drawing here) was drawn (very neatly) some time afterwards, so could have incorporated features from any engine. However the cylinder / furnace relationship is well known. The drawing is termed the "Coalbrookdale" engine, but that's conjectural from the cylinder layout and the early features of both an external combustion chamber in the return flue outside the boiler barrel and bolted end plates onto an externally flanged (i.e. cast iron) barrel, rather than the wrought iron construction of the Gateshead engine and later (internal combustion chamber and riveted domed end). Most "modern" illustrations simply copy the Science Museum drawing and name it after whichever engine they feel like, whether this be Coalbrookdale, Pen-y-darren or Gateshead!

There are other features that show evolutionary development. Were the gearteeth square in profile (as per the Science Museum drawing, which seems crude for the knowledge of the period), or closer to an involute? Was the crank arm built-up (per the Telford replica), hand-forged square (per the SM drawing) or with circular webs (per the Swansea replica)

Swansea's replica is enormously crude, especially close up, but it seems to be a genuine attempt to model the features of the Pen-y-darren locomotive (natural enough, given the location) rather than just copy the SM drawing, all on a tight budget. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused: Snell indeed reports the arrangement you suggest, whereas Smiles, whom I have just added to the article, has the opposite. Just about to RV Smiles in the article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Smiles isn't always WP:RS outside of personal and commercial biography. He just wasn't interested in the artisan side, although sometimes his asides are hugely significant (Complaints of drunkenness about B&W's on-site engineers are amusing, but there's one case when it leads to a detailed description of just what the chap allowed to break and required repair, which is a significant description of plant of the period). In particular, "engineering history" just wasn't a serious discipline until much later - just look at the 1806(?) stationary engine in the SM and the unknown changes that Webb did to it during "restoration" in the 1880s. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time for these helpful explanations. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Rainbow

Why did you change back the article about rainbows. It was completely correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verendus515 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please find a reliable source to support your suggestion that they are created by "beings of old magic and have long been forgotten of its powers of magicness" and I will reconsider. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ennoblement

The subsection about ennoblement in Poland does not summarise the Szlachta article but only its subsection "Ennoblement", hence correct use of Main template is to link it to summarised sub-article. --83.10.133.253 (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the lede is: "Szlachta [ˈʂlaxta]...is the noble class in the Kingdom of Poland". Seems to contradict your point. As far as I can see the whole piece is an irrelevancy and the sooner the "merge" proposal is taken forward the better.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wells IP vandal

I'm not complaining or criticising, and it isn't a matter of any great importance, but I was/am a bit puzzled.
Why didn't you post any vandalism warnings on the IP's talk page? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It was one editor hopping across a range of IP addresses. Used WP:SEMI instead. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. As "they" say, (whoever "they" are), "there's more than one way to skin a cat". Thanks for the reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

h g Well

Sorry but but do you deny the reality when it goes not the way you want : i dont think this is neutral.

Where is the position of hg wells in his later life : nowhere , you just want to keep the good story in mind ? No or what ?

Sorry explain me why this important fact : that is really important in hg wells lifes should not be mentionned ?

(revision : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._G._Wells&diff=329232469&oldid=329232279 ) I know this my translation from french but : this fact IS IMPORTANT compared to its all the other event in its life.

--Kalki101 (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In the edit summary I referred to WP:NPS, to keep it brief, but intelligibility was also a major issue. It may well be important, but I couldn't understand it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that he totally changed is mind on technology, at the end of his life.

Can people say h g wells was a pro tech all his life : in fact no: but if they refer to wikipedia it will be yes.

This need to be write somewhere.

--Kalki101 (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added your request to the article talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Still engine

On December 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Still engine, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Authorship Edit

Greetings. I mentioned you here [[1]] as responsible for the edit being proposed for deletion. If I am mistaken, my apologies. if the edit was yours, you might explain your reasoning. You may also want to participate in the following edit proposal. In any case, Happy Holidays. Smatprt (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was mine. Thanks for the "heads up", and the seasonal greetings. Replying on article talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Moonraker, you're missing my point. If you look at the Vertue engraving of 1723 (not 1725), you will see that a pen is included. That's 14 years before you say the first rendition of a pen occurred. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I hadn't picked up on that part. I can fix the article today. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Rethought: reply on article talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

British English

Hi - you recently added a reference and altered the text to state The Oxford English Dictionary applies the term to English used "in the whole of the British Isles", but "esp[ecially]...in Great Britain", reserving "Hiberno-English" for "The English language as spoken and written in Ireland". Would you mind, if you have the time, to transcribe a little more of the entry, especially that surrounding "in the whole of the British Isles". We've been having a discussion here and your entry would resolve the discussion. Thank you! --HighKing (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My citation was from the 1989 edition, which I had on CD ROM. I have now switched to an online subscription, which (for these entries) is the September 2009 Draft edition. The new text is is a lot shorter—I hope this isn't an indication of general dumbing down in the new edition of the work—and I can't add any more, sorry. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste from the 1989 version (found it still accessible behind the updated version) to avoid transcription errors:

British English: "the English language as spoken or written in the British Isles; esp. the forms of English usual in Great Britain, as contrasted with those characteristic of the U.S.A. or other English-speaking countries."

Hiberno-English: "The English language as spoken and written in Ireland."

"Whole of", albeit a distinction implied in the quote, is absent and I need to correct this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, with acknowledgement to User:HighKing for noticing the error. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15