User talk:Old Moonraker/Archive 3

Fenton Photo of "Charge" Survivors

Just a quick note to thank you for posting Roger Fenton's original photograph. I think it very important that we see such work as originally presented, untouched. Thank you for providding us that. Best. Sir Rhosis (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to comment. I fear it may not last here in its original form: this image from Fenton was "touched up" a week after the upload. I was contemplating reverting to the original, for the very reasons you give, but I was afraid that a minor edit war might result. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Encouraged, I have now reverted Image:Fenton cannonballs crimea.jpg to the historical state.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand if one needs to highlight or lighten a photo to bring a specific person out, but these guys are not known individually to the public, rarely to historians. I think the only person ever identified in the photo is Col. Doherty (sp?). Oh, well, hope it stays the way you've presented it. Did you know that there is another photo of the group (the guy sitting on the ground is actually visible) on Roger Fenton's page? EDIT: Did you change the one I just mentioned? I relooked, it has the photo you uploaded. I would actually consider leaving that page as it was, because the photo there is different than the one you upl;oaded. It was taken from a slightly different angle, a few moments before or after the other one. Sir Rhosis (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The men's names are listed on the Library of Congress site (which I cannot access at present—either the link or the site is broken). As you noticed I did substitute the image on Fenton's page, because it's such a good example of his work, but I accept the point that the angle of the shot is different. It would be a step away from how this started, but if you think both photographs important then the best reproduction, that displays how he has managed to capture the mood and character of his subjects, should be on his page as photographer, with the alternative here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I will leave it to you. I can appreciate the effort to restore his original work so the public can see it. That is most important. So leave as is. Sir Rhosis (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Charge of the Light Brigade

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Will try to do more (there's a lot to do) - have just been re-reading Cecil Woodham Smith which is what prompted me to have a look at the enty. Cenedi (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to your additions. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Glad you are looking at this - what you suggest would be fine! (I was sorry I missed the radio discussion to which my contribution referred)

Johnbibby (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The broadcast is available online (use the link in your edit) for seven days. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell

The Bzuk Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Awarded for your sterling work in battling trolls and other vandals; back to the ramparts! Keep up the good work! Bzuk (talk contribs) Bzuk (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

Thanks: just a bit of gnoming in between all-too-few substantial additions. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, I appreciate it. In response I read the "we're hiring" advert on your user page, and the more formal explanations of the requirements for the post, and I came to the conclusion that I haven't the judgement required: an unfortunate tendency for kneejerk reactions being a principal disqualifier. Again, thanks for considering me. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Source of River Eden

Do you have a grid reference for the source? Is Titsey a part of Limpsfield parish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 12:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Horrible and embarrasing error: it's Titsey parish. This is indeed combined with Limpsfield parish from the point of view of church administration, but not civil administration, which is what counts here. Correction will follow forthwith. Well spotted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Grid ref added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Concrete

I had dimly recalled seeing on TV that a Brit rediscovered the formula for concrete, so I cribbed some text from the Concrete article. Then when I looked at the John Smeaton article it played down his contribution. Worse, later on in the Industrial Revolution article mention is made of a Joseph Aspdin inventing cement. That's why I altered my own edit to be less specific. I'm not an expert on the history of concrete, but I think the situation needs clarifying. Aipzith (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, with acknowledgements to your suggestion. Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

It will be interesting to see your proof that Dawkins Senior was not a conscription-evader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You inserted it into the biography of a living person. You have to prove he was. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins Senior is probably dead and cannot sue for libel. Nothing is said about any action that Senior saw.

Nothing is said about his being killed or injured. No specific area is mentioned. There were few Axis troops in Kenya in 1941. Contradictory statements have been made about the time that Richard Dawkins left Kenya, 1943 and 1949. He would normally left with his father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:HenryV.jpg

Image:HenryV.jpg which you retagged, appears to be used correctly to me. I did added a bit more information regarding its use and changed the article link from a redirect paged to the actual article page. If you feel I am in error, would you kindly explain your reasoning? Thank you. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• As I understand it (and my grasp of the issue is not as strong as it might be) the "Fair Use" tag attached to the picture stipulates that it must be used

• for identification and critical commentary on

• the computer or video game in question or

• the copyrighted character(s) or item(s) depicted on the screenshot in question.

Although this has been tightened since the tag was applied, in that the uploader has added a sentence on the page relating to the video game, there is no "critical commentary" and it adds nothing to the identification of the actual subject of the article, who is already identified with a free image. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

LAS1180

Re [Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LAS1180] -- I don't know the correct protocol for adding my 2c worth, so I'll post it here. I've done some digging in the contributions list of user B15nes7 and there certainly seem to be a pile of questionable edits. One disturbing aspect is that a number of them are changes to detail (like birth dates) that appear to replace correct information by incorrect information but aren't obviously wrong. I also see a whole lot of article renames. Paul Koning (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I noticed the renames and couldn't see the point of them—a redirect page would do the job and be less disruptive. The sockpuppet discussion is here, although there have been no follow-up postings yet. All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your suspicions were right!

Back on January 27th [[1]], you expressed concern to User:unprovoked about not using an edit summary in his UNDOING of something that I added to the article on Charles Darwin. Even though my contribution made direct link to Darwin's letters, unprovoked and several of his friends outvoted me. As it turns out, however, several of these other people were socks. A couple of these socks were also wiki-stalking me. Sad, but true. Can you review my former contribution on January 27th and give me your NPOV view of its worthiness? When you consider that Darwin was previously so ill that he couldn't attend his own father's funeral and couldn't work 1 in every 3 days, he sought treatment from Dr. Gully with some impressive results. Although he didn't get "cure" of his indigestion, he did get some improvement in it, and perhaps more important, I have not found any reference to many of his other symptoms that he had experienced prior to Gully's treatment, including fainting speels, spots before his eyes, severe boils, and heart palpitations. Because this visit took place in 1849, 10 years before his book was published, it would seem that this experience with Dr. Gully and his hydrotherapy and homeopathic medicines was significant. My own article with many direct links to Darwin's letters is here: [2]. Further, I provided even more details in my book, "The Homeopathic Revolution" [3] Dana Ullman ^Talk 14:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. My revert of User:Unprovoked (which was shortly to be reverted in turn) was more out of regard for WP procedures, rather than knowledge of the topic: you are obviously much more expert than I am on the subject. That said, there is no doubt that Darwin did benefit from Gully's treatment, but that Darwin specifically attributed this to the hydrotherapy, rather than the homoeopathy. This is a view with which you may not completely agree! All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely recognize that Darwin was skeptical of homeopathy and said so, though Gully provided homeopathic medicines along with his hydrotherapy treatment, which augmented considerably the results he got. These significant results are the reasons that he treated the creme de la creme of British society. My (and others) additions to James Manby Gully are instructive, especially reference #14 (for details, see pages 46-48). "Gully believed in the value of homeopathic medicines, adding references to his positive experiences with homeopathy in later editions of his water-cure book; stating that 'It is well and wise to observe and investigate these things before laughing at them'."[14] Further, Gully believed in the value of using homeopathy combined with hydrotherapy. I could add this info to the Darwin article, though it would be more likely to be accepted if someone other than I did so. By the way, if you didn't get a chance to see my own article about the Darwin/Gully experience, I hope you do because it is a quite fascinating story...and in addition, Darwin's experiments with "homeopathic" doses of ammonia salts on the insectivore plants is another great story of history and science. Dana Ullman ^Talk 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CTClub logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CTClub logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Theaterette

Nice hearing from you Old Moonraker. Sadly I didn't have a proper (etymology) dictionary by me when I added the information. I would be glad of your assistance on this matter. Though the word is, as you say, quite common in Australia and New Zealand it would be interesting to know where and when the word was first used. If you wish to add a reference I would be greatful, and I thank you very much for your interest. Foofbun (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do, with acknowledgement to you for the original suggestion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry didn't explain too well

Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate and the associated pages. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I see that "Historical context" is an option suggested on the discussion page for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate, and that the "slash" is deprecated. I feel that the long version you have reinstated overwhelms the rather short stub for this work. I am very happy to use "Historical context": neat and accurate. I will try a wider discussion on the novel's talk page (not forum shopping!)--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion taken to Talk:The Riddle of the Sands--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

West End Theatre

Could you please tell me why you keep taking down my posted external links on West End Theatre? All I am providing is a website with videos, pictures and content about these WEST END THEATRE shows. There are links on that page that go to ticket sites that remain on the page, are they to be taken down as well? Are my links not relevant to West End Theatre? Please don't be misled into thinking I am trying to bump up Google Search Engine positions or selling tickets, I just believe that they are perfectly suited to that page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalMediaMatt (talk • contribs) 11:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There's not a lot of room in the edit summary to explain completely: the full policy is here. There shouldn't be any commercial links: this includes your firm dewynters (apologies for referring to you as "noted theatrical printers" before—I see that you have expanded into publicity) and ticket agencies. Two wrongs don't make a right and WP:WAX apply. Don't forget to check the multiple accounts policy; are you perhaps Garrydewynters as well? Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Old Moonraker. But I don't think the show pages I posted are entirely commercial, because that could be said of most sites. Yes the sites have a ticket booking page but so does every official show website. I am not trying to get people to buy tickets, just take a look at the site. On the West End Theatre Wikipedia page there are several URL's that go through to ticket booking and yet they remain. Take a look at the reference part - Blood Brothers, Fortune Theatre & Mousetrap even mention ticket sales in their short description! I am not Garrydewynters and don't know who that is, just thought that Dewynters should be part of the external links as it's a big played in the West End. By looking on that site you can learn about West End theatre and even about the industry. So is there no way to just post a general link to show websites? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalMediaMatt (talk • contribs) 12:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification: I am happy to treat the series of identical postings yesterday from Garrydewynters as a coincidence.

The best place to talk about this is on the article talk page. Here, there's just you and I reading it. There we can get a wider view from other, regular contributors.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

History of Measurement

Yes, no problem. I was a bit unsure where to put Winchester measure. Biscuittin (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply: will get on with it later today. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Winchester measure article. Biscuittin (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Steam engine articles

Many moons ago we discussed reorganising the the Steam engine article. You will probably have noticed that I have very made very few edits there in recent times and it has just got irretrievably confused. This is because I have been working on a series of sandboxes on my user page and have also incorporated what I felt was relevant from the Boiler article. In view of your encouraging remarks at the time, you may be interested in taking a look. As you see, to get a grip on this huge job I have separated the main themes into four articles including a general overview of steam power, Boiler/steam generator and the steam engine in the limited sense of a motor unit:, plus a general history, which could be a continuation of the overview. There's still an awful lot of work to be done, but I think I'm beginning to see daylight. Anyway, if you can find time to have a look, I would appreciate your comments.--John of Paris (talk) 22:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply on John of Paris's talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I really do appreciate your comments. First of all let me say that I have always and especially recently tried to keep up to date with the current article, especially the boiler article. As for the introductory paragraph, Be Bold is a big thing to ask as basically it is a desperate attempt to dodge "flying heat sources and cold sinks" which, whatever one's opinions on steam engine working principles, lead to really arcane definitions being foisted upon us from all sides. For one thing, I'm dead against categorising steam power as "external combustion" along with Stirling engines that as far as I can see, do not have the capacity to store power the way a steam boiler can. What I would love to say is simply that at steam engine has a fire that boils water that forms a reserve of steam that presses on a piston or a turbine blade giving useful power. That as a definition is quite sufficient for me as it gives a clear vision upon which one can elaborate as one wishes. As such, compared to an IC engine the steam engine is a "long" (and complex) process and therein lies its strengths (any stage can be worked upon and separately improved) and weaknesses (difficulty in obtaining adequate power:weight ratio). But if I write such a definition, who will accept it? I know of no source that puts it in so many words so it has to be POV coming from years of OR. However if any sixth-formers retain that simple notion they may have a better idea of what they are looking at when they see a steam engine and maybe avoid the appalling ignorant statements we so often encounter whenever there is question of steam engines. I must say I like the "sixth-former" idea as whether valid or not, it sets an interesting level of readership. And its important to think of the readership; too many editors only see WP as a chance to air knowledge and spout received notions.--John of Paris (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Loco boiler HSE.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Loco boiler HSE.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion

Not sure if this is correct etiquette, but can you provide advice on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Beale? This page is being constantly edited to remove any (seemingly valid) criticism by user Xday... which is curiously similar to the nickname of the page's subject, 'Vox Day'. If 'Xday' is not 'Vox Day' (the subject of the biography) then this person appears to have a prejudicial desire to 'cleanse' this biography of anything critical.

If you agree, what procedure should be followed? If not, why not?

Thanks.

Monoape (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I 'picked on' you because you helped me out a while back - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Monoape. :)

I will reply on the article talk page today. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion on Theodore Beale

User Monoape has asked me to review edits by User:Xday on Theodore Beale, as provided for in the informal WP:3O procedure.

The procedure

I'm not sure the dispute strictly meets the WP:3O guidelines: as yet there has been no real attempt at discussion on the article talk page apart from User:Xday's initial statement of his position regarding the reliability of the online news site WorldNetDaily. More than two editors (indeed, many editors) have reverted his deletions. The opinion of one further editor is unlikely to alter Xday's behaviour. However, if I can help in this I will, but I don't believe that I have the necessary qualification (apart from not having any previous edits on the page) for my view to carry any weight. For this reason, I have changed my mind about putting my thoughts on the article talk page.

The dispute

User Xday, possibly in contravention of the guidelines regarding conflict of interest—I have not seen an instance of Xday denying the suggestion that he is Theodore Beale himself—has made many factual edits to this page. Most of these are cited. In July 2007 Xday reverted an edit by User:Tim Long, offering the justification of WP:BLP and including in his edit summary "...WorldNetDaily is not considered a reliable source." The subsequent ebb and flow of the dispute depends entirely on whether or not WorldNetDaily can be used as a reliable source.

WorldNetDaily

Although the page is maintained by a former mainstream journalist, its reliability has been called into question.[4]. Conversely, it has been cited more than 250 times in Wikipedia.[5]. Given the high standards required by WP:BLP, rejecting controversial material sourced only from WorldNetDaily might be justified. This is to overlook, however, that the disputed material is in the form of direct quotes from Beale himself, making signed contributions (under his acknowledge pen name of Vox Day). It seems perverse that User:Xday is attempting to remove material concerning Beale when Beale himself wrote it.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding the high standard of proof required when articles are biographies of living persons, the fact that the material seems to have been written by the subject himself probably justifies its inclusion. This is the view of many, separate editors who have reinstated the material after Xday has deleted it. If Xday does not accept this consensus view, further action along the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process will be required.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your input. I'll monitor the page and consider Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Monoape (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Steam reverser

Thanks for drawing my attention to steam reverser. Biscuittin (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thannnks for drawing my attention to Hadfield reverser, which I will add to steam reverser when I get round to it (unless someone else does it first, of course).

--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

why revert?

why did you revert my edit? the article is very relevant.--Otterathome (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying here, rather than just reverting. You have replaced the direct link to Uncyclopedia's article on Wilde with a newspaper's filler-piece on satire, which mentions Wilde and Uncyclopedia very tangentially, in one line. If you think I was wrong, please discuss it on the Wilde talk page, for a wider range of views than mine alone. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is not a reliable source, it is the opposite. Using it as a source instead of the news article seems silly.--Otterathome (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, to the extent that a lot of the "modern popular culture" section would go, but this has been rejected on the talk page. Now that you have reinstated the newspaper while (regrettably) leaving the Uncyclopedia reference, I am very happy to leave it at that, pending any more sensible conclusion to the talk page discussions! Thanks again for the constructive dialogue. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Without the newspaper source, there is no real reason to keep it. It is needed as not everything uncyclopedia parodies is notable enough to mention. Oscar Wilde is one of the exceptions where it could be mentioned.--Otterathome (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Bibliographical info is not meant for promotional use

excuse me, in the message -Old Moonraker (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)- you asked me to stop editing both the H G wells page and the Darwinism page that I was enriching with bibliographical information. These essays of mine are kept in Italian libraries and I did not mean to have them bought by people who access the pages. This is no promotional material, this is only intended to help people find books and essays on the topic they are doing research on. I rely on your understanding and support, best regards massimo Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Massimo74"

Thanks for the clarification: I accept completely that the links to your works that you are posting are not for personal profit. It is also a valid point that bibliographies in Wikipedia's articles should contain links useful for further research. I am not, however, in a position to judge whether your works, mostly (but not entirely) written in Italian, are notable enough to include. That is, are they of sufficient distinction to put into an encyclopaedia of global reach? According to the guidelines for links, the answer is a definite no. If, having read the guidelines, you think I am mistaken, please use the remedy suggested: make your proposal for each article on the talk page for that article.

Please also take a look at conflict of interest: It suggests that when posting material relating to yourself you should, ideally, leave it to disinterested parties. Failing this, have your submissions checked on the talk pages before inclusion.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to respond to your view. Please accept my assurance that this is not a personal issue: it's just about preserving the quality and impartiality of Wikipedia. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fens–waterways.svg raster, not vector

Hello Moonraker. I was just reading the Fens Waterways Link article and came across the Image:Fens–waterways.svg image used on there. This at first glance appears to be a vector picture; however on closer inspection, the 304 kB .svg is simply a container for a 228 kB base64-encoded .gif (resolution 648x640)! Do you have the original vector-based .svg still on your hard-disk so that can be uploaded instead—I'm assuming this upload was somehow an accident (eg. using an export-to-image feature?). Many apprecations for having produced the wonderful diagram! —Sladen (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am still new to creating images using Inkscape and my attempts with the preferred ".svg" format have not been successful. For example, when in response to a complaint I tried to replace this ".png" image with its ".svg" version this was the result. As created, the ".svg" had worked well, except for the lettering, and I had tried to turn the text to paths to deal with this. I had the same problem with this image: the original creator had uploaded it as ".svg" but my additions broke the lettering and I had to use the ".png" format.

For my "Fens" drawing I had intended to use false colour on public domain radar images from NASA (tiles N52E000 and N52W001) for the base map, but I found that their vertical resolution is five metres, which is greater than the vertical resolution of the local landscape! In the end I used as outline a 1935 quarter-inch Ordnance Survey map (released from copyright) but the colouring is representative (i.e. made up) rather than a proper reflection of heights etc. To avoid another disaster such as the one above I tested the working copy on some browsers before uploading but, for some reason I cannot now remember, consciously decided to export it to a bitmap: it was probably a problem with the base layer image. I didn't realise that converting back to the ".svg" format didn't have any effect! I am reluctant to touch it again, in case I break something, but I could probably find the ".bmp" version if that's any help. The original is retained, pending developments on the ground that require a new version of the map but, as Old Moonraker, I doubt that I'll still be contributing when this is needed!

I have to say that I probably won't be trying any more diagrams as I can't get the formats to work properly (the truth is, I am rather out of my depth with them) but any suggestions to make this image (and, indeed, any of my attempts) compliant with the preferred format will still be welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• ".png" version now substituted. The file's a lot bigger—I'm probably still doing something wrong.--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Do keep up the work, don't worry about words like "old"! I'm going to follow your lead and try to avoid confusing words here (in this case, trying to avoid the word convert!).

It's never possible to convert between a vector (.svg) and raster (.png/.gif)—what it's only possible to do, is a one-way export in the direction vector→raster. If this export is done [even once] then the "source code" is lost and it's not possible to edit the diagram again.

The secret here is to ensure that an image is never exported, that it spends its entire life in vector (.svg) form, and not anything else. Wikipedia natively reads .svg files, just like it natively reads the wiki mark-up "source code) used for the articles. In this case, the .svg that really needs uploading is the one before anything export/attempts at imports were done (the information has been lost by this point). If you have a copy of the diagram where you can still double-click and edit the text and move the lines around, then this is the master copy to keep and upload to Wikipedia (might be best to delete all the others to stop the confusion!).

If you can get me this earliest copy (the still editable one), I can help you try to fix up the issues with it and make it smaller. Hope that helps, —Sladen (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Separate answer: about the text-rendering. For text, the .svg file contains instructions "use the font Bitstream Vera Sans in Bold and draw Nene in size 12 at position x=404,y=665". For it to look the same you'll need the same fonts as the other editor. Don't worry if it doesn't look the same on your machine, as long as Wikipedia as the fonts in question when it's re-uploaded it'll still look the same when viewed by other people. In the specific case of Image:Indicator_diagram_steam_admission.svg, the only "text" that is displayed is not actually text (it's some shapes with happen to look like letters! :) I'll investigate and find out; I notice here that the text that didn't render is set to "Arial Black" as the font; possibly a font that Wikipedia doesn't know about as it's not standard. —Sladen (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I fought and I fought and went down several wrong dead-ends. I've now managed to upload a versoin of Image:Indicator_diagram_steam_admission2.svg that renders about correctly, and which is still fully editable.

• I think the biggest problem might have been that the text was placed in flowed-text frame which weren't big enough for the text they were containing (*shrug*), so it wasn't getting rendered when uploaded. I did "Text→Convert to Text".
• I hit an issue of the arrow-heads not being rendered; so I duplicated the arrowed-lines, converted to outline and solid filled a copy of the arrowhead black on top.
• The vertical "PressurePSI" wasn't rendering vertically; I gave up and turned it out.
• The text-on-a-path, whilst editable was not rendering. I gave up and also used straight plain text.
• A little black box turned up that wouldn't go away; eventually I copied and pasted the whole lot into a new document that that little box disappeared; you can probably see this going through the revision history.

I guess the situation is that the Wikipedia renderer is deficient as it stands, but that's fixable; where-as having maintainable/editable images is a greater benefit in the long-term... Stressful certainly, and I wasted quite a bit of time—something (other than the arrowhead non-rendering), I haven't encountered before. —Sladen (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts. I've been very aware that some (most) of my drawings aren't editable, which defeats one of the key features of a wiki: the "Fens" diagram, where the route will change in the future, is an obvious example of this. However, I was pleased with the "text along a path" effect of the "indicator diagram" and, selfishly, I would be reluctant to lose it for a what in its case would be a theoretical benefit only. I've gone back to my editable copy, but I can't now explain the choice of the two obscure fonts! There's certainly no "artistic" reason for this.

I will give further attention to the "Fens" illustration along the lines you suggest. I am making slow progress with the satellite image, with its genuine rather than imaginary contours, to use as a base map and when it is ready I will make sure that it is delivered as genuine "svg" and not exported into any other format. Watch this space, but with some degree of patience! That apart, I feel that my venture into making vector images has come to a natural close: retiring, defeated by the technology! --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to find somewhere to raise the (multiple) SVG renderer bugs. At the moment I've left a message at User_talk:User_A1#SVG rendering bugs, as my best hope is to fix the renderer. Perhaps a solution in the mean time, would be to upload the known-good rendering (exported from Inkscape as a PNG) and also to upload the SVG as a separately linked image (but not included in the article). That way there's a known good rendering, and also the means to modify/update it ("run over by a bus" etc) in the longer term (plus having the image online to facilitate debugging over renderer issues). I agree about the pleasing result of the text-on-a-path in the case of the steam-cycle image! —Sladen (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The known-good .png is the one from the article. The failed .svg is on Commons at the moment, but tagged for deletion. The simplest way will be to remove the "delete" tag, correct the description (it's not a conversion: it's a direct upload of a file made as a .svg) and link it as you suggest. At present I'm so embarrassed by it I'm just waiting for an admin to take it away! --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Brian Glover Andrews.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Brian Glover Andrews.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't delete an image from its article, than use "orphaned" as an excuse for deleting it! You can't advise me to get a free image of the subject when he died ten years ago. Not at all constructive or helpful. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Angr has suggested a way the image may be used legitimately and I have adopted it. Thanks for this constructive suggestion, which disproves my previous judgement. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)