User talk:Old Moonraker/Archive 14

Fair use rationale for File:Hetchins headtube.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hetchins headtube.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Novaseminary (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Posting this while I was on {{wikibreak}} wasn't particularly helpful, and I see that another editor has waded in to dispute your interpretation. The page history contains two references to expanding the Fair Use rationale for the pages upon which the picture appears, but there's always room for improvement. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not willing to undelete. I see photos of physical objects like I do photos of living people: as long as they exist, and as long as they're not impossible to photograph for some other reason, it's impossible for any non-free image to be used fairly for the purpose of identification. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the reply. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right: File:Hetchins head tube Coventry Transport Museum.jpg --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hope you can help

Hi OM. Would you please take a look? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I despairingly accepted Shapiro's assessment of the SAQ on Wikipedia—"Persistence and the ability to get in the last word, rather than expertise, are rewarded"—when I read it but I'm now taking some encouragement from your FA proposal. In the company of experts such as yourself I have little to offer the project, but I will be following it closely and hoping for its success. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Constance Kent

Thanks Old Moonraker for fixing that cite about Altick's quote from Charles Dickens on Constance Kent. I tried doing it several times but could not succeed, so I figured that if I left it somebody (like yourself) would make it more acceptable in form. JessieLeiman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.46.143 (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help, and thanks for finding it: I had tried and failed!--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Atheism

Firstly, thank'you for Welcome! Regarding my frase on Hume you are right, but, unfortunately, I don't remember where it is and therefore yor deletion is acceptable. Instead, about my distinction between ontology and gnoseology, you see, is philosophically a great mistake to muddle them. By! --Gum375 (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you are right about gnoseology and ontology, but I don't immediately see how this distinction applies to atheism. However "Atheism" is a high-profile page subject to scrutiny from many editors and right now I am content to leave the consideration of your "Ontological arguments" to others. All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Devil and pitchforks

It was always my understanding that "pitchfork" was the term used in ignorance for a trident. e.g. search on Google images for devil+pitchfork. You've given a book reference that I can't check. Maybe the author has made the same mistake? Do you know of any paintings (other than contemporary misunderstandings) that show actual pitchforks?--Farry (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that the paragraph we are talking about deals with the mediaeval period. English church "day of judgement" pictures of the time would use imagery with which the congregation was familiar: the harvester's pitchfork. Example here: two devils tossing the damned with pitchforks. Another here: top right. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the examples.--Farry (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Mykonos vase

I generally self–restrict myself from editing an article if I have issued a Third Opinion about it (see my personal standard #3 as a Third Opinion Wikipedian here), but since you agree that Trojan Horse#Images needs improvement I'd like your permission to improve that section since it does not appear that anyone else is going to do it. (I'm not also asking Perhelion, by the way, because it's only your ox, not his, that will be somewhat gored by the edit.) I'd make the edit suggested in my opinion and also add some text about the other two classical images. You would, of course, be totally free to edit or revert what I put up. What do you say? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestions seemed well-founded and relevant and I'd be very glad for you to take this up, along the lines you indicated: it would be a pity for your research to go to waste. My main concern for the article is to retain something that illustrates the time scale between the legend and the writings attributed to "Homer". I'm not expecting a severe mauling as we agree that any new references will complement, rather than supersede, the reference from the Woods book. My apologies for not getting on with his sooner, but the real world hasn't left me time for WP edits requiring any degree of concentration or commitment at the moment. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand the real world issue; if I don't get them done tomorrow (I probably will, however), then I probably won't have another opportunity to do them for a couple of weeks. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. See what you think. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

At last got round to looking at this—sorry it took so long. The additional artifacts you included definitely needed to go in, and thanks for retaining the alternative dating suggested in the Woods book. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Welding for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Cirt (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Chernobyl disaster

I checked the dashboard for this article and you are the top contributor. I wonder if you are the editor who constructed most of the first sections about the plant and the accident. I am attempting to rewrite the article to include more of the Soviet culture of what one source called "administrative anarchy". It is in this area that my interest lies, and I'm trying to get myself up to speed on the nuclear engineering part of it. I found the discussion currently in the article about the plant and the accident too difficult to understand for lay readers, so I'm attempting to make it clearer for the proverbial high schooler (me too) by using more general language and doing some reorganizing. I'm going steadily through what I think are excellent sources that I'm doing my best to understand them and make the rewrite accurate without it being too jargony. My wife has some background in nuclear energy and I'm asking her some questions, but I have some reservations. I was wondering--if you are the editor who wrote these sections in the article--if you might be interested in working to help rewrite it, or at least be able to make comments. I don't mean any disrespect with my comment about not being able to get what's in the article already. Eh...I'm clumsy with this. I admit it.

At any rate, I'm working in a sandbox, here. If you are interested and able to help, please let me know on the sandbox discussion page. I appreciate your time. --Moni3 (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, not me! I made a few additions to one section only, some while ago. I tried to use one of User:Soxred93's tools to count my contributions there, but it seemed to be broken. Good luck with the re-write. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Update: switched to the "Revision history statistics": tool—much faster and more reliable—and, as you say, I am shown as the top scorer. My only substantial edits have been to "Other studies and claims" so I'm a bit puzzled by this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Bow Street Runners - reverted edit

What specific failure do you find re WP:ELNO? WCCasey (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Item 6: "sites that require ... registration to view the relevant content". --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Registration is not required to access this article. The problem seems to be with the link - I'll see if it can be fixed. WCCasey (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please let me know if you do, as we're paying subscribers here and might save some money! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, JSo9-10 (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Photography book

Is that book by Alma Davenport worth getting? If she's who I think she is, I studied photography under her. - Denimadept (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I only read a brief extract, from Google Books, but I thought it was a bit superficial. Not necessarily a criticism: aimed at a very broad target market rather than a serious academic work.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Spelling on Mary Rose

I'm sorry I didn't FULLY realize that. I was considering it to be British English and checked, but it was marked as misspelled (a red line was under the word). 1Matt20 (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

no probs: I'm still training my spellchecker. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Dolcoath man engine.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Dolcoath man engine.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Image transferred to Commons, out of harm's way. File:Dolcoath mine man engine.jpg. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)