User talk:Old Moonraker/Archive 7

Scaled Vector Graphics (SVG) not realiable?

In a recent edit you replaced an .svg with a bitmap file (I can find the edit, but I can't imagine it matters). I sometimes think about making my (high res) bitmap contributions into SVG, but this makes me wonder... can you give me more information about the problem and where I can read more? Is it just on wikipedia for files stored on wikimedia? PDBailey (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't do it! Here is a claimed bug fix for the issue, but it hasn't worked. Here is an incomprehensible diagram drawn in .svg and posted to Commons. It renders perfectly well in Inkscape but the result is as you see. Only when I converted the .svg to .png was it fit to use: see here. I wanted to delete the original version, but it seems from the page history that another .svg-contributor is using it as an example to show the developers. Having said all that, it may not be relevant to your query about .bmp, about which I know even less—sorry. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(See WP:REFB#Inserting a reference)

Thanks for the reference. I have begun correcting the pages that I messed up. Quebec99 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries: it's a trivial thing! --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree! It is not trivial to continue screwing up pages, when I can be correcting them instead. Thank you for taking the time to let me know. Actually, I got another notice from someone else the same day. Quebec99 (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Peculier

You changed Church of England to church:sociology of religion here, as (I presume you mean) the term pre-dates the post-reformation C of E. I appreciate the point, but the link leads to a description of the word church, basically. How about a link to History of the Church of England, which uses the term for the body from the 6th century? Wouldn't that be better? And do you know if any other church organizations have peculiers? Or if they do, use that term? Moonraker12 (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion: that link sounds a lot better. I will change it, with acknowledgement to you. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! ...but, no relation? I thort we wus orl related! Moonraker12 (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not since the bicycle [1] !--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

:D Moonraker12 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

GAR for Optical fiber

Optical fiber has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --A. di M. (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Genetically modified organism

[Moved down the page] Sorry for putting it non-related part (I did not want to trash your page with small matters). Thanks for the information on minor/major editing. The fact is I do not set myself "check" on whether the editing is minor or not, the "check" is there by default and I am just completely paying no attention to it. Thanks for the reminder. DenisRS (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; I've done it myself while editing on auto-pilot. Have you seen the comment on Talk:Genetically modified organism#56% mortality rate among rat pups?--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt; I replied there to Tim with links and references to Nature Biotechnology articles and scientists' reviews. DenisRS (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't argue with Nature, but I see that it's only on the letters page. The information is very interesting and I hope the references can be sorted out. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jacqui Smith

Would you read the comments on Sky86's talk page before blocking me? It's one thing that you Britons seems to be ganging up on me and using my inexperience against me but it's quite another thing to stifle the freedom of speech, my speech. I stand by what I added to Jacqui Smith's page, regardless of whether you gutless wonders like it or not. Jacqui Smith did do a Chamberlain, I explained why with a link. She did it because a muslim lord threatened her. I gave a link to evidence of this. Now cut out the crap will you? Dutch91310 (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You would do better by making your points on the article talk page rather than by leaving personal attacks on the talk pages of the many editors who have reverted you. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Erskine Childers

Thanks for the kind words. I think your last rewrite was good, although some parts I might add to slightly. Not sure if there are any further pictures I can think of in regards to seafaring, that aren't covered by rights or copyright. Will let you know if I come upon any others. Cheers. ChildersFamily (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; I'm building on your framework! Will get round to Paris conference, then the important London negotiations, then I'm done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! PeterSymonds (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding SimStagecraft to Stagecraft page

Hello Old Moonraker,

thanks for your concern! I didn't know if to feel 'bitten'. IMHO SimStagecraft is a nice simulation to practice stagecraft at home: connecting dimmer packs, sound tables, microphone, MD players, CD players, etcetera.

Do YOU think I should (citation) 'stick' to add the link?

Thanks you very much, Bilderbikkel (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Conflict of Interest policy is here. This is very strongly worded ("trying to distort Wikipedia") and you were certainly not guilty of this, although "pointing to their personal pages" is mentioned. Perhaps reading the external links policy, here, will make things clearer than I can manage. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Winnie-the-Pooh

NOT TO ADD TO THE CONTROVERSY BUT: I have a copy of a Punch Magazine which pre-dates the book publication of Winnie the Pooh in book form --Thus, the first appearance, or at least an earlier appearence of Pooh text was in Punch Magazine and not in a book. According to Minette Hunt, E.H. Shepard's granddaughter, Shepard's sketches of Pooh were not based on Christopher Robin's bear, but on Growler, the much-loved bear belonging to Graham, the artist's son and were first published in a Punch Magazine cartoon in 1914. Since Shepard was a staff artist for Punch when he made the Growler/Pooh art it may not matter. The earliest of Milne's Pooh collection I've found so far is "Vespers" which was published in Vanity Fair Magazine in 1923, also before the first books. Maybe a way out of the confusion is to distinguish from the publication of Milne's "Collection" of Winnie the Pooh stories and verses and the adaptations in book form that followed the earlier publications in magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telelegal (talk • contribs) 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything that can be given a strong, reliable provenance and is relevant should be included. Discuss it on the talk page first, otherwise be bold! --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Old Moonraker.

This will probably sound like I'm trying to dump something on you, but it's more a case of being aware that 'fools rush in'. The Pooh article talk page is already one long slanging match, and I'm puzzled by a bit that I can see you edited, so rather than comment there, I'd like to run the problem past you.

Basically, I think the intro now contradicts itself in a non-obvious but nevertheless real way. Although it has been edited to specify first appearance of the character in book form, I think it's still in error. It currently states "The character first appeared in book form in Winnie-the-Pooh (1926) and The House at Pooh Corner (1928). Milne also included several poems about Winnie-the-Pooh in the children’s poetry books When We Were Very Young and Now We Are Six."

The problem is this: When We Were Very Young is in book form and was (unless I'm going completely alcoheimers) published in 1924. So as I see it, either the Teddy Bear poem in WWWVY is an item in the Pooh canon, in which case we should have "The character first appeared in book form in When We Were Very Young (1924)..." or else the poem is not part of the canon, and the reference to WWWVY should be removed, or (if we want to have our cake and eat it) some explanation should be added that reconciles the discrepancy on dates. Possibly something like:

"Stories about the character first appeared in book form in Winnie-the-Pooh (1926) and The House at Pooh Corner (1928), although a poem in the earlier When We Were Very Young (1924) is usually considered part of the canon, and further poems appeared in the collection Now We Are Six (1927)." Thoughts? Grubstreet (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The "in book form" addition was a reaction responding to someone pointing out the inconsistency with the 1925 appearance in the Evening News: see Winnie-the-Pooh#Publication, lower down. It probably would have been more accurate to say something like "subject of a book," but more elegantly. I think the mention of the two poetry works was expanded subsequently, making the inconsistency more obvious, but it stems from my edit. Thanks for explaining beforehand: please change it along the lines you suggest. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realised that the slightly stilted edit had not appeared by design but in response to a nitpick. Looking again at my suggestion, though, I find that I've actually forced myself the same way with my own pedantry and heaped one stilt on another. I really ought to be able to find a better expression that obviates the need for "in book form". Thanks for your patience! Grubstreet (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Collection of stories": that's better. Thanks for the improvement.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Stupidity Pictures

Hello. I just saw some of your prose on the talk page of the article on Stupidity. I agree that a pic of Mein Kampf is inappropriate, as that is not instantly recognisable as an item depicting stupidity, particularly to the vast majority of folks who have no clue whatsoever about history or geography, a certain continent comes to mind....., but the pic about the taped together bike lock: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zusammengeklebtes_Fahrradschlo%C3%9F.JPG ?? That along with some others on the Commons category on the subject, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Stupidity, why would that not be OK in the article? Best regards, --Achim (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The bike lock is certainly the most pertinent of the three I deleted, but I'm not sure that it's completely "significant relative to the article's topic" (quote from WP:IMAGES). It's a joke and it made me chuckle—presumably that's why the picture was made—but is it really encyclopaedic in the serious sense? To me it just doesn't seem compatible with WP:TONE: "...written in a formal tone... should follow the style used by reliable sources." According to that instruction, the picture just isn't what Wikipedia's about. However, the WP "rule book" is so vast that you can usually find something that presents an opposite view, such as using a picture to illustrate "intangible concepts", to quote again from WP:IMAGES.

Most of the other pictures in the Commons category, such as Grimaces, seem to be dangerously close to illustrating by reference to "stupid" people, even given carefully-written captions. This isn't acceptable. To me this was the biggest problem with the pictures of people that had been used in the article before. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It's no biggie. I'm not particularly invested in the topic. Stupidity is probably the oldest topic in humour and as such, people purposely portraying themselves or others to be below normal intelligence (minimum 90% of all comedy??) get that point across. I'm not sure what made the author of the bike lock picture upload that one, but I agree it's pretty funny. I also believe that as a species, we're too stupid to quantify intelligence. Nixon was said to have had an IQ of 165, certainly ahead of Obama, Bush and most others and look at some of the stupid crap he pulled! Imagine your mom had Einstein help her with laundry. And he had no clue how to sort stuff, where to use bleach etc. and he destroyed 3 loads of your favourite clothes, towels, sheets, etc.. Your mom would probably conclude Einstein was a complete idiot, starting with that hairdo and also porking his COUSIN and leaving his wife to DO his next of kin?? Meanwhile he's widely acknowledged as the smartest dude ever and bits and pieces of his brain are still floating around various international labs (pickled in formaldehyde), where people are attempting to draw conclusions from their findings, despite the fact that our understanding of the human brain is still sorta iffy - and they're doing this on taxpayer money! I wonder though, if there are ANY pictures that you would find acceptable and would not delete? Anything in the commons category or elsewhere that might tickle your fancy or will you delete every picture no matter what? :-) --Achim (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As part of the editing community here I would try to act with the consensus and each addition would be looked at entirely on its merits. However, nothing in the Commons:Category:Stupidity as it stands seems suitable, but the "bike lock" is the least exceptionable of them. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Practis/ce

Thanks for fixing that and letting me know why. I had always glossed over the verb/noun use and thought it was just a Brit/American thing. Now I have one less way to look foolish in the future :) Have a good day! carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No real credit here, I had to look it up! Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Glastonbury Canal

Interesting stuff you added about the Saxon canal. I actually think it merits its own article so as not to confuse it with the more modern canal. What do you think? --TimTay (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not disagreeing; they don't share a route or anything. It would be a bit short, as it stands but there's a little more material for expansion. My main problem was that I couldn't think what to call it! --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Glastonbury Saxon canal"? --TimTay (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Glastonbury Canal, (mediaeval)"? Probably better with the modern "medieval" spelling, although this jars with the "oldness" of Old Moonraker (talk)

You're the initial author so you get the luxury of choosing! --TimTay (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Selecting "Glastonbury Canal (medieval)", but only subject to nobody else coming up with better. Will have a go tomorrow, unless another editor gets there first. Either way, there's some more material to go in, from the source quoted already. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)