en User talk:Old Moonraker Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Old Moonraker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

British Rail Class 33

I think the retouched lead image of the British Rail Class 33 has rather overcooked it, particularly the grass. Could you have another go with something in between? (I'm watching here) Tim PF (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. This was the software's selection and I'm not sure that I can do better manually: my own efforts couldn't draw a balance between the green of the grass and the green of the loco. I did label it a "trial", so I suppose I should have another go. There will be a pause, in case it's prompted someone else to do better. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, second try completed: awaits upload.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's really any better (or worse) than before. I think the easiest thing to say is that the first trial was too bright (or too light), but the second seems to have messed up the hue (referencing HSL and HSV).

If you look at the front of the loco (where the warning panel is to be), the second has substantial red blotches (and indeed can be seen on the ballast and elsewhere); I think I can see traces on the original, but it gets amplified a bit on the first, and becomes far too noticeable on the second.

The colour is generally better on the first, but I think there's a problem with the Brightness or Lightness or Intensity or Saturation (or a combination thereof), which I think is less of a problem with the second.

There's also a problem with both pictures losing definition, mostly in the background where it doesn't matter so much. It can be seen worst at the bars to the telegraph pole, which have almost disappeared, but have broken up into the separate constituent colours.

Try again tomorrow, although I'm not sure I'll get a chance to comment until Sunday. Tim PF (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Tried this again: it's a more modest alteration again but, as before, not a startling improvement on my last. Not uploaded. I'm now inclined to give up, either to let someone else have a try, or even make way for a rv. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Frizer

I know the Marlowe website has a copy of his death certificate with Frizer mentioned; in case you wanted another look at it, David Riggs' The World of Christopher Marlowe also has excerpts from it in it, along with other background information about it. I'm trying to track down the copy our group originally used so I can get the page citations - stupid library, giving other people what we need, haha - but I thought you might be interested yourself as well. Wordforteens (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that: the page number from Riggs now added. Everything's beginning to look a lot better! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"A hereditary" verus "An hereditary"

I reverted you at Peerage but could easily be convinced. Let's discuss over there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Replying there. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Wiltshire

Hi Old Moonraker, I've noticed all your edits towards anything Wiltshire based and I'm suprised why you haven't joined its project! But of course, you don't have to. I have sent an invite out to see if some members could improve anything in scope of Wiltshire. Thanks! Jaguar (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this is an invitation to join WikiProject Wiltshire.

You may be interested in joining WikiProject Wiltshire. WikiProject Wiltshire aims to improve the standard of all articles relating to the county of Wiltshire, which includes every subdivision around the county including major landmarks, roads, SSSIs, settlements, history and other related articles.

You can help by:

Creating new articles.
Expanding and cleaning up articles.
Referencing articles and lists.
Adding photographs.
And anything else!

For more information, please see the project page. If you have any questions you can leave them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wiltshire.

Thanks for the "heads up". Some of your contributors (and former contributors) are very knowledgeable and productive and, in comparison, I don't think I have a lot to offer the project, but I will carry on watching it with interest. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Big Hill

Didnt' know people from Wiltshire knew where Field BC is. Big Hill edits. The actual figures for the CPR railgrade is 1200 feet in 3.5 miles. I originally went off the mileage profile for distance but that does not account for the steep hill. I also read it in Turner, Lavalee, and on line. I changed it back to 3.5 and you changed it back to 10 miles my original wrong figure. Doing the math, the [bank] grade is 1200 feet in 3.5 to make it 4.4 percent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Even people from Wiltshire may hire a bike and cycle from Lake Louise up the trail converted from the narrow-gauge railtrack ("The Tramline Trail"), cross Lake Louise Drive and onto the closed-to-vehicles section of "The Great Divide Highway". This crosses the CPR track near to the summit and runs parallel for a while, passing some of the old Big Hill bridges. Sadly, to carry on to Field cyclists have to use the fast, new Highway. When cycling back to Lake Louise they become very aware of the distance and grade. All this is original research, of course, so I have used as a reference the 1:50,000 map I used for the journey. The figures are from that. The map was available on Amazon.com, so presumably you should be able to get it from Amazon.ca as well. For an instant check, you may like to use the "ruler" feature on Google Earth. The distance from Field to the summit is ten miles. Please check out the sources before changing it to 3.5 miles again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I went back and checked the figures and was SHOCKED, SHOCKED to see it is actually 1200 feet in 3.5 miles. Bloody steep in anybodys books and the wrong place to build a railway. I have never cycled that route tho did hear the CPR had a small train to bring the guests to the Hotel at banff. Anyrate, I will rent the bike at the top of the hill and cycle down, getting a ride back up. Too many bloody hills in this province.

That is shocking: on the back of a very small envelope it's 6.5% (E&OE).

Good luck with the ride, but don't do The Great Divide Highway at the end of the Summer: grizzlies feed on the berries along the roadside and regard cyclists as competition but, luckily for me, not as a dietary supplement. Take a break half way up/down to see some railroad technology adapted for highway use: cycle along the Yoho valley road (following the originally intended CPR route) to Takakkaw Falls and see RVs reversing up the grades, which are deliberately built as switchbacks.

Back to the point: are we talking about the same stretch of terrain? The article text has: "ascend 1,070 feet (330 m) in the space of 10 miles (16 km) from Field at 4,267 feet (1,301 m) climbing to the top of the Continental Divide at 5,340 feet (1,630 m) [emphasis added]. Is your source referring to only part of this? This could certainly be added, if so.

I'd like to transfer this discussion to the article talk page to get some other opinions: an overview of my sums would be welcome and there's still a possibility that I'm missing something obvious. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We are talking bout the same chunk, Stephen down to some point. It may not actually be Field hence the discrepancy. I'll remember to slather meself in Gravy aftershave when doing the Yoho bit on a bike, to keep away the Grizzleys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Theatre Project collaboration

Hello! You are invited to participate in the Theatre Project's Collaboration of the Month. This time it's the Theatre article. In the last 30 days, this article received 52,500 hits, or roughly 2,000 every day. Hope you can help!
Nominate an article that could be greatly improved.

Many thanks

Just wanted to stop by and add an extra word of thanks for a job well done on the research for your additions to the actor article. I should also add thanks for your recent work on the Oscar Wilde article to respond to the questions and concerns of another editor. It is always good to see your name on my watchlist because I know that you put in the time and effort to be thorough in your editing. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's good to know that someone's watching, if only to pick up any misjudgements (for example, my trimming back of the OED reference) that slip through! --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

PragmaticStatistic's Charles Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle Google Map

I am very confused by your comments and need clarification.

My Adventures of Charles Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle Map uses coordinates determined by Darwin's book "The Voyage of the Beagle" and links to Google Maps like other maps I have added to Wiki that have been accepted and approved. While my map was created using Wiki coordinates for the locations identifiable by modern names, not all the locations were determine in this manner. Also, the map contains a long list of mammals, reptiles, fish and birds that link to individual Wiki page I got form a Wiki List of Darwin's achievements.

My Google Map does not, as you claim, link to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds. The map was created in Google Maps, is accessed and stored in Google Maps. There are many other Google Maps on Wiki other than mine so I do not understand your eliminating mine when I have several others on Wiki on different subjects have been accepted.

As for your comment about "Links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Wikipedia:Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates." I have no idea what this means. Are you saying there is a way to put all 10 of my Google Maps on Historic Events in an ISBN Wiki library?

As for credibility, my Google Map has received the interest of the Charles Darwin Trust in England, you know the Charles Darwin Family organization, who expressed interest in wanting to collaborate on the project to add more scientific info than I had already included, and The Darwin Trust even Twitted about my Map world wide to its members. I will gladly give you their contact information if you contact me offline.

Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the matter here. I see that I am the third editor to remove this, but nonetheless a further opinion may be obtained at WP:ELN. WP:SPS is also relevant. There is indeed a WP tool to link Beagle's route to Google maps, and perhaps I should have mentioned this before, but space in the edit summary is limited. It's at Template:GeoGroupTemplate. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but trying to put some really great Google Maps on historic events on Wiki is harder than it was to research and develop the maps. It is simply not worth the effort when my blog and Google Maps public exposure is doing well on their own. It is a shame that Wiki can be so tough on me when the research I did on things like all the battles of the Civil War indicate a number of errors on Wiki pages that the editors never caught, lists with civil battles that are not civil war battles because they are Native American wars against US troops, dates stated in the list that are not confirmed in the article, dates in the list that are in the wrong date order, and siege dates listed by their end date rather than their start date. So, my days of becoming a Wiki contributor are over. The only one who looses here are the users who would have gotten a really good experience at reliving history digitally. Thanks for the frustration. Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear that your blog is doing well without linking from Wikipedia. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you remove one, then you might as well ban them all and that would remove a valuable research tool on a wide variety of subjects. These maps do not go to my site, they go to Google just like the World Heritage Foundation's Coordinates Google Map does for their list of historic restorations. You ban my maps, then you must remove the World Heritage Foundation's as well. Oh bye the way, those maps of mine that appear at the top of the page were moved there by others. I never placed them at the top of the page. Since you removed my Darwin edits, I added links for each location contained within the map to the actual Darwin book found on Google Books to make it more credible for you. Have you ever clicked the new edits to see where they go. They go to Google Maps, not MyReadingMapped. Thus, there is no copyright problem. The Google Maps have free access to everyone, my input to it is free to everyone, the Darwin book is free to everyone and the Wiki links within the map are free to everyone. There is no advertising content within the map other than a link to my blog which I will remove if you demand it in order to get it to satisfy you. Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pragmaticstatistic (talk • contribs)

If you are so inclined

Hello OM. I am wondering if, when you have a moment, you would take a look at this thread Talk:Oscar Wilde#John Gray .26 .28briefly.29 Robbie Ross that I started on OW's talk page today. Any comments or suggestions - or indeed additions to the article - that you might have would be most welcome. Let me say that I know you are a busy editor here so please don't feel obligated to respond if you don't want to. Thanks for you time and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 17:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Travelling at the moment and can't muster the concentration required. I'll catch up when I get back. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and I hope that you enjoy the rest of your trip. MarnetteD | Talk 16:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As You Like It

Hello, Old Moonraker. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Othello

Moonraker (?) questions the validity of Collier and the item I posted about Othello being performed at the visit of Queen Elizabeth I to Harefield Place in August 1602. Can he/she please let me know the basis of his evidence as the account of the said visit is, I believe, an extract from actual records of the visit.

Regards Bernard Dennis email: dennis@bernard20.orangehome.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernard Dennis MBE (talk • contribs) 11:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

To put it broadly, you've been had! The forger John Payne Collier slipped a faked document to this effect into the record when the Earl gave him the run of his library. Reference for this on Talk:Othello. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker

I'm not certain if you received my earlier communication?

Please can you clarify the evidence that the work of Collier in respect of his publication of the Egerton Papers (1840) and in particular the reference to Othello being performed at Harefield Place in August 1602. I am writing an article for a magazine and this information is included. I'd like to know the source of your objection. Please reply by email to dennis@bernard20.orangehome.co.uk.

Regards

Bernard Dennis(Bernard Dennis MBE (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC))

Please be assured that I have received your message: I've replied here, on your talk page and on the article talk page. I suggest that you investigate this topic very thoroughly, starting with the source I have indicated, before committing yourself to any permanent medium: Collier deliberately falsified the story of Othello at Harefield. On the other hand, an account of what he did to the Egerton Papers would make a good topic for your piece; try it out on the Collier page here first, but fully referenced and leaving out any original research that you would want to include in the magazine article. Go for it!--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

To start you off, the full reference for Schoenbaum is: Schoenbaum, S (1991). Shakespeare's lives. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 251. ISBN 9780198186182.

Othello

Moonraker Thank you for your reply. I am a Wikipedia 'virgin' and am still finding my way around the talk facility! The Egerton Papers I refer to are, or were, on loan to me by a Chester society and I have now made them aware of the forgery aspect of the contents.

I appreciate your contribution and references. It's interesting that Wikipedia monitors such editing.

Regards

Bernard Bernard Dennis MBE (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Promise to get better

Thanks for the reply on what I had posted on Bleach. I am reading and slowly learning. What you sent made me go look at other edits. I am working on roof cleaning and want to play by the rules and build my references to represent all the processes. Not just one bully groups. Any guidence is welcomed. If you see me screwing up please let me knowTexas Roof Clean 04:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Buckalew (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, but sometimes it helps to sit back from your subject, and ask "How would a real encyclopedia deal with this?" "How to" guides are aren't encyclopedic and should be excluded. Askthebuilder.com, to which you regularly link, seems to fulfill this well enough already! I had a quick look at Roof Cleaning and I notice that another editor already has concern that at least one contributor has a conflict of interest—I see that you are writing on behalf of Texas Roof Clean—and anything that seems to be commercial promotion shouldn't get in.

Enough of the "don'ts". Have a look at the welcome page for a more positive take on how to get started on the project.

All the best.

Old Moonraker (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker

I regret that I was not aware of those strict formal COI rules in WP. However, several years ago there were no objections against our self-promoting inserts into the Chapter "Other studies and claims" in "Chernobyl health effects". Perhaps someday someone else will include/update our newer/older entries. Thank you very much for your hint that will save me some work in the future. Hscherb (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the way to proceed: raise the issue on the talk page and leave it to somebody else to do the insertion. It's always good to see WP contributors with professional knowledge, but the circumstances where they may add their own material are limited: see WP:SPS for more on this. You may actually qualify and so eliminate my concerns! --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Stane Street (Chichester)

From Adriank999 Why did you remove my comments on how the Romans planned their roads, it's a perfectly valid idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriank999 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A "valid idea" which "may have been...how the Romans planned their roads", sourced only from your own web page, is original research and not allowed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Number 2

Hello, old man. Yes, indeed, my promotion happened this morning. I was just thinking of letting you know. Many thanks for the congratulations. Moonraker (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Caisson lock article

Hi, Thanks for your advice, I hope I have done it correctly this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy from Bath (talk • contribs) 15:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I still couldn't find a ref for this. The inventor didn't specify; Camden Lock was only a single fall (although at some time doubled for capacity) and at Combe Hay it took nineteen conventional locks to do the job. Is there a ref for seven locks anywhere? I could easily have missed it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I found your message reply by accident, I would have replied much earlier had you left it on my own message page. I have found the page again on the Somerset Coal Canal Society and added in the link to the seven locks that each Caisson lock was due to replace at Coombe Hay. I hope I did it right.Billy from Bath (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC).

I saw that—perhaps I should have looked a little harder!--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Intro To Schrödinger's Cat

Please comment on my suggested introduction on the talk page A2326xyz (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Replying there. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Cambrian Line: thanks

Thanks for this - it beats me why PLeppard (talk · contribs) - who has never made any other edits - would want to remove that bit. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he works for Arriva [1], but the article doesn't put them in a bad light. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Moonrakers; an idea

You may remember we've spoken on the Moonrakers talk page. I was thinking of doing a userbox (it's the first one I've done, so the subject seemed apposite); do you know anything about them? would you have any suggestions for me? I've got a draft or two here. Thanks, Xyl 54 (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea. The photo that you have used is of a mural in Trowbridge; it's been accepted on Commons, but the original painter isn't acknowledged and so, strictly, might not meet the "free use" requirement. For some time now I've been looking for an iconic image for the article but I haven't yet found anything that grabs me, although "rake daddy rake" here and here is quite appealing. It's probably ~~fair~~ free use because of its age, but it probably hasn't the necessary boldness for a userbox. If you do find something please stick it in Commons and add it to the article as well.

Have you thought about raising this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wiltshire?

Good luck! --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Food for thought; Thanks! Xyl 54 (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

More on OP's talk page: New userbox. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the image you posted. It's a nice picture, though the sizing is a bit of a problem (see draft. And I've mentioned it at the project page, here. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right: that's a bit big. The picture could be reproduced smaller if it weren't for the writing around the edge; is it worth my doing another, with the text cropped away, or should I wait to see if the project contributors favour one particular style? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the wording is fine (better in fact); the word "Moonrakers" is clear to read when it’s small like that, whereas the picture is indistinct at that scale. It’s the white space that’s the problem, partly; if the image was narrower it could be a bit bigger without crowding out the central message.

The Rake Daddy Rake! image looks good in the article; the Trowbridge image lacks resolution at that size. OTOH it is clearer at a small scale, and shows better what is happening (though the moon is wrong!). There’s a few images on Google, but I imagine there’d be copyright issues with them; I’m not well up on Commons.

And I prefer the map, too. It shows clearly where we are, while the flag is probably unfamiliar to most people.

But we’ll see what anyone else comes up with. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

White space trimmed: specimen result in my sandbox. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Now, to my mind, seems to be a choice from two: the ones where you have included the map. Excitement not running high on project page yet. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Underwhelming response, so far. Give it a week? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Well it's been two weeks, and not a sausage! Still, I'd like to go ahead with it: So, what do you think, Option B or Option C? Xyl 54 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I was just taking another look, reminded of it by the flurry of activity on the K&A page. It could be B or C, with a very slight preference for C. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I can’t decide either!

The Trowbridge image is clearer at that size, and the colours balance nicely; OTOH what you see is pretty much what you get; it isn’t much clearer when you click on it.

By contrast the RDR picture comes up real nice when you click it, and has a further link to the postcard (I dunno if you noticed, but the postcard file has a mistake in the title. I don’t know if it can be fixed or not). An I’m mindful you’ve put a lot of work into the thumbnail.

All in all I’m happy to go with option C if you are

BTW I notice also the one in your sandbox uses a lot less code than mine; does that make any difference? Xyl 54 (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in replying. C it is, then. Stick with your userbox syntax: my short version mucks up the page layout for subsequent items. Fixing page names on Commons is much harder than on WP mainspace and I've already got a backlog (and history) of admin requests there, for example Commons:File:Southwark street plan old Globe.png. I don't want to upset them any more. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

New User, thanks to you

Thank you for your gentle encourgement. At your suggestion I got an account. Until now I was 207.30.62.198 who you called an industrious IP user. One advantage now, is that occasionally from the IP someone else would put some real garbage on the site, and of course that was mixed up with my legit entries. The mature sounding stuff was me, the occasional silliness was some younger and much less mature collegues. I decided to make the plunge and get to be a real editor, particularly after I seemed to have caused an uproar of sorts on the Julius Caesar talk page just yesterday or the day before. One young lady did't like me right from the start, and even more viciously atteched those who defended me. She said the the errors I found were easy to correct and that I should have done them myself, and that it was so obvious that I should think about it. When she then found out that I couldn't have done it that way, becasue it was a semi protected site and IP users are blocked, she got all huffy about how dare I try to edit without regestering. I guess the whole incident made me think I have to do so. It was not an easy decision, I have long wanted to avoid all that, and just help out wherever I can. She did in fact make me feel unwelcom to continue doing that the way I was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tupelo the typo fixer (talk • contribs) 05:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought you could do with a bit of encouragement after the unfortunate response to your suggestion for Julius Caesar. Good luck! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Old Moonraker I Challenge your refusal to allow Google Maps of the American Civil War and Charles Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle that you keep removing

Despite your interpretation of what is allowed on Wikipedia, I now have NINE Google Maps on Wikipedia, of the type you keep removing. As a result, I now challenge you to replace the two maps of mine that you have removed. Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to [2]. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Changed my mind: [3]. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

American and British -ise to -ize ratios

Hello, I was recently checking out the "American and British English spelling differences" article history, and well, although I'm new to wikipedia what those people were adding was no vandalism, yet the truth, I was hoping you could look into it to correct us if were wrong with some factual evidence, as I myself could find none to support either side. Many thanks.

Sincerely,

Trust Meimapro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trust Meimapro (talk • contribs) 14:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The ref now strengthened with a quote. Repeated, deliberate insertion of false information is vandalism. So, for that matter, is calling another editor a "stupid...dumbass", but I'm not complaining about that. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)