User talk:Old Moonraker/Archive 9

British English

Hi--Please stop changing my edits to British English. As English usage is based on dictionaries and the OED controls in the UK, usage in articles should reflect this. The -ise ending is used in every day writings, I understand, but has never been accepted as proper by the OED as it's a rather recent creation. The more official writing should reflect the proper endings. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.208.41 (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply on contributor's talk page--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

My only objective is to have Wikipedia use proper English, which when dealing with British English should be the OED. This is neither arbitrary nor capricious. Further, editing a page to appear authoritative is inappropriate; the link lacked a citation, which was why it was deleted. That said, I realize now that you are insistent on vandalizing my edits, regardless of their validity, and I shall refrain from getting into an cyber-editing war with a teenager. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.208.41 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In the unlikely instance that anybody would be bothered to follow the link, above, to read the reply I need to point out that User:67.84.208.41 has now deleted it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, I agree 100% with your edits. The OED does not control British English (though it does reflect it, usually accurately). The anon editor was obviously reading the original Fowler publication which did have some weird rules on -ise and -ize depending on Greek origins. This might have been OK when most educated people knew Greek, but most modern users of British English (including many teachers of the subject) now use the -ise ending even when the root is Greek. Language changes (as you correctly record) and there seems little point in insisting on a long-forgotten rule from a long-dead grammarian. Dbfirs 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, I appreciate it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Cairncross

You might check my latest post on the Shakespeare discussion. Since you had raised earlier questions about Cairncross' reliability, I have provided some important information in that regard. Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've taken the opportunity to correct a statement disparaging Cairncross that another editor attributed to me. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Stewart and Waiting for Godot

Regarding your edit summary [1], the source states IM's recollection, but Stewart definitely stated in the post production talk in Newcastle that the director originaly envisioned the roles reversed, but left it to them to decide, which they did indeed do over email. But I obviously don't have a reference for that. I just thought I would point it out. MickMacNee (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. My version would indeed have to have come from McKellen, because Mathias's preference was based on his experience in their former relationship. More confusion: a source I didn't use has that they were going to alternate the rôles on successive nights. As the piece is about Stewart, rather than the production, I thought it was a bit off topic and left it out. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely remember him mentioning switching idea, which didn't go down too well. It's a while ago now. MickMacNee (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Genius

Thanks buddy let me take a look. What I was planning to do is tie in Galton to the classical concept of genius, thus linking the articles together. The previous editors saw them as linked and I think they are. Galton at some point resorted to the concepts inherent in his native language and the main one was genius. I do notice however that these articles are in fact a set. The other articles were in much better shape and frankly I was amazed that this one had received so little attention. I'll be back in touch with my evaluation.Dave (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm ready for the next step. See discussion of genius. I can only work on this sporadically today so be patient. No great rush is there?Dave (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If Galton's the man, then he should be given some space. No rush: I still haven't finished a biography I started at the beginning of December! --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Schrödinger's Cat

Hi!

 Thanks for the bailout, and for the information. Take care.

Ronaldomundo (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Useful for me too: I've now figured out how to do it without involving an Admin. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Nobiliary Particle"

Thanks, O.M., for asking that the incorrect title of the article, "Nobility Particle", be replaced. I'd never heard or seen "nobility particle" used before I read the article (I suspect that the wording was invented by a self-taught writer in English, though with the current push here in the States to replace adjectives with nouns, I really don't know). Just how does one go about correcting titles of articles? Firstorm (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's really a move of the existing page to a new page with the new title, using the "Move" tab at the top of the window. As far as I remember the software leaves the old title as a redirect, but nonetheless we should go on to search for links using the old name and change these as well. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"[W]e should go on to search for links using the old name and change these as well." Largely completed, thanks. Firstorm (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Darwin

Hello Old Moonraker. I thank you for your addition to On the Origin of Species and have added to your sentence. Would you mind taking a look to be sure your or Dr. Fedigan's viewpoint is still represented? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Now only an academic point, as the material has been deleted for WP:TOPIC, which I do not oppose. While it's fair for your edit to emphasise that the subject remains an issue in scientific as well as feminist (I hope I'm not misrepresenting Hubbard in this) writings, using Fedigan's statement, noting support among modern social scientists for that aspect of Darwin's writing, to introduce again the opposing point of view—"thus"—seems contrary to any logical construction of an argument. Thanks, though, for taking he trouble to explain your thoughts here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Now taken to Talk:On the Origin of Species --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Sly

I'm helping the new ed. with the article. Probably even a character as minor as this will have been the subject for published discussion, since it is Shakespeare. He needs some help with the idea of research and plagiarism too, if he started the way he did for a class assignment! DGG (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up. There will be a lot of literature on this because, although a minor character, he is the vehicle for one of Shakespeare's uses of the frame play. Example source: Aspinall, Dana (2001). "The play and the critics". The Taming of the Shrew. London: Routledge. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-8153-3515-3.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

4 days is over, so why can't I edit it?

I am so interested in RMS Titanic, so I wanna edit it. Can I edit it already? I'm a registered user and so on. Please and thanks =) Japee (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the "plus ten edits" part. Now corrected. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Can I edit it now? please. Japee (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I count ten edits: should be OK now. Last resort, if you're still waiting, is to get someone else to do it. Method is described here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Fedigan source

Greetings, Old Moonraker. Your citation of Lisa Marie Fedigan was transported to the Descent of Man. I hope you approve. But the book for 1998 seems to be missing when I look for the source in her publications. Could you kindly provide an ISBN in the References section? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. I'm glad that this was resolved. The reason you couldn't find the work may have been my original fat-finger typo in the inline ref: sorry. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! -SusanLesch (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Much Ado About Nothing

Hi Old Moonraker,

I noticed that you reverted my edit of Much Ado About Nothing. Why don't words in quotes get wikilinked? I have not come across such a guideline before. Where might I find it?

Neelix (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point: I should have linked it. It's here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

pascal

Talk:Criticism_of_atheism#Blaise_Pascal

Noted, thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I think that the introduction to the first quote should be fixed to ensure the quote stands on its own, since it was evidently confusing and looked out of place. Perhaps something like 'pascal... discusses the human condition in itself without God in saying'. Would you be comfortable with this?

Thanks for raising the matter here, but my comfort really doesn't count for much! It's the community view that counts. This is particularly true in the case of high-profile and closely monitored articles like this one, so we should be discussing this on the article talk page, not here. I will certainly be following any further discussions there. Having said that, I can see that alterations along the lines you suggest could well work. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token d67fd7b4afa12ca6bad633c2a0132ef7

TUSC account

British English it's yet not all

Yes I use automatic translator. Yes my English is bad. Well and what? So help me please with the language, but do not delete entire text. Indeed I have written it for something and explained why I do so, on the page for discussion. As far as I understand, Wikipedia is not a reference book on the English orthography but the collection of the competent information.VicDim (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Competent information? Possibly so, but I couldn't tell because I couldn't understand it. Making your points on the talk page, where someone might step in and, if they think them valuable, put them into the article, is a good step. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)