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.
Hi Old Moonraker, you provided me with some help when I was first getting started on Wikipedia and I was hoping you might be willing to look over some revisions I proposed to the Black Mesa controversy section in the Peabody Energy article. I would go forward with the revisions, but as I have a COI with the article, want to make sure I get feedback from experienced editors. Thanks again for your time. JamesClyde (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the new information about "The Papers of Sherlock Holmes": It is not an advertisement, any more than any of the other books listed in this topic are advertisements. However, I did remove the website link to the publisher. I was simply interested in adding the title to all the others already there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damarcum (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Old Moonraker. I was about to revert the blog citation of JZCL. As much as I appreciate JZCL, but if we would begin to cite private blog posts we would get into big trouble. Inawe21:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This will be an easy fix for somebody: the statement needing a reference is "according to the gospels", so the primary source, Mark 2:17, would do.--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, thank you. As we both often edit in the same areas I can say, in all sincerity, that I remain in your shadow! In an anniversary-related coincidence, I was just reading Chapter 6, the stagecoach in the snowdrift, but AFAICR this isn't in the play. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, so much, for the gracious complement. I deeply appreciate it. What a fun coincidence. I bought a nice quality copy of NN a couple years ago from The Folio Society and was going to have it with me while watching the play but now I am going to have to read that chapter first and I'll let you know if it is there in some form. Cheers again. MarnetteD | Talk18:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Your memory was correct. We see nothing of the journey to the "Dotheboys Hal" only their arrival. What an interesting chapter in the book. It rings of Scheherazade weaving other tales into the main one. John Thaxter is a theatre critic who was a champion of the play back in the 80s and he shared a fun story with me of how he snuck into a balcony full of props to see the final performance. It would have been a treat to be in the audience for any of its performances. MarnetteD | Talk21:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Richard Wallace
Hi, the change was not poorly referenced. I believe I added it to the edit summary - you might want to check that before removing things without asking. I definitely added it to the talk page of the article. For your information, the note I put on the talk page is
Hello. I only read wikipedia but i needed to message. On the Charles Dickens page a user has just made biased, defamatory edits against him. The words... ALLEGATIONS OF Anti semitism and racism... need to be reinstated, and his page needs to be watched. Thank you. 178.155.132.158 (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry: after a two users made repeated disparagements of my editing on that page—one that I was too lenient towards Dickens (and thus guilty of anti-semitism and racism myself) and one that I was too harsh towards him—I have redacted myself. A charitable view would be that I was getting the balance about right, but the personal attacks were getting me down. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Would like your opinion
Hi again. First, let me say how sorry I am over your experience on Dickens page as mentioned above. IMO you must of been doing something right if accusations of bias come from both ends of the spectrum. Thanks for your efforts anyway. Next would you please take a look at the info about the 2007 "Nich Nick" (I think Mr Thaxter told me that was how the press referred to it at the time) revival here Nicholas Nickleby#Theatre adaptation. It reads, to my eyes, as though the full length version was performed but the info about this production on the page for the play states that is was the shortened one. I wanted to check with you before making any changes.
On an unrelated note you beat me to warning the IP that just messed around with the Oscar Wilde article "Good job"!! I wanted to check if you were aware of the {{subst:uw-selfrevert}} warning. That is the one that I usually use (at least the first time and that is its drawback as it only has one level) for an IP that makes the nonsense edit and then reverts it. Please don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with the warning you placed I just wanted to make you aware of this one in case you didn't know about it. Have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk17:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The Chichester production was six-and-a-half hours, compared with the RSC eight-and-a-half[1]. This must be the "truncated version" referred to in the lede. (I didn't go, because I didn't want my memories of the RSC Aldwych version diluted: possibly a sound decision[2]! Conversely Billington, who slated the original production, seemed to love the shorter revival, according to the external link.)
My edit on the IP editor's talk page was a misclick: The software script offered me a range of responses, including {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} and {{subst:uw-test2}}, in a drop-down menu; my finger lost contact with the track-pad a tad too soon and the wrong warning was created. Do I need to go back and revise it? --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah you lucky lucky audience member (My business cards would read "Professional Member of the Audience" if I had need for business cards :-) so you also got to see it live way back when. It is gonna take awhile to get the "green with envy" outta my system. I don't think there is any problem with your warning. They did vandalise the page with their first edit. I was only mentioning the selfrevert warning on the off chance that you weren't aware of it. They keep changing the layout of the Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace to the point that I thought we had lost the {{subst:uw-error1-4}} warnings a couple weeks ago. Thanks so much for taking the time to add links to the reviews in your reply. I appreciate getting to read them. MarnetteD | Talk23:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You will notice that I have been bold and had a go at enhancing the section a little. Please feel free to alter and fix anything that I have done. I am sure that there were shortened performances before the one we list (I missed one performed in Denver in the 90's because I was living in Ketchikan AK at the time) but I don't know if it is necessary to note that in the article. Thanks ahead of time for checking more efforts. MarnetteD | Talk04:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Gosh I only just caught up with the fact that Mr Thaxter passed away Jan 30. Thank you so much for adding a note about that to his talk page. I can't tell you how many wonderful stories he shared with me about various performances and actors (including Tony Church who acted here in Denver for several years) and I count myself lucky to have corresponded with him. MarnetteD | Talk04:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I've spent the last few hours going over my correspondence with Mr Thaxter and I wanted to share a few of the items that I am very fortunate to have read. However, I don't want to clutter your talk page so you will find them here User:MarnetteD/Sandbox#Highlights of my correspondence with John Thaxter. He also shared some things about his youth and his WWII experiences that I hope show up in The Stage tribute to him. If you are interested here is a link to an interview that he gave back in 2004 [3]. I don't think that his work improving actor and theatre articles here at WikiP can be easily measured so I will simply thank you again for noting his passing. MarnetteD | Talk07:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, immensely, for posting that link to some of John Thaxter's reminiscences; it brought to mind some past shows I had almost forgotten. As John says, the full "Nick Nick" in a day was much the best way to see the work; you were fully immersed in the performance to the exclusion of anything else, and the enthusiasm and support from the audience was tremendous, carrying the whole thing forward.
I'm glad that actors, generally, manage to resist jumping through the "fourth wall" to deal with a troublesome audience member, but it can be done so smoothly that there isn't a hitch! Patrick Stewart opens here soon as WS in Bingo, and I remember how on one night during the show's first run, he reached into the audience to seize a copy of the playtext that a young student was using to follow the dialog, snapped it shut and handed it back to her, all without leaving character. That particular venue, Buzz Goodbody's The Other Place, with the audience sitting on benches close around the playing area, always created a very direct rapport between player and audience, and just then it seemed a completely appropriate action.
And many thanks for posting memories of your audience experiences. Sadly, I have only enjoyed Nick Nick from the TV recording but it is still remarkable and enjoyable experience. Even though my first viewing was spread over 4 nights I can still remember sitting on the edge of my seat in (almost) breathless awe of John Woodvine's acting in Ralph N's death scene. The DVD shows several scenes of audience involvement early in the play but that fades in acts three and four and I have often wondered if that is the way it was in the theatre or did the recording simply not show further involvement.
On another note one of the reason that I treasure my correspondence with Mr Thaxter is that he helped fill in the gap of my not getting to see the stage performances of so many UK actors that I admire. I have recently read Elisabeth Sladen's autobiography and I thought that I would share this gem with you. In the summers of 1962 and 63 she was enrolled with the London Youth Theatre. Other members included Simon Ward, Kenneth Cranham, Diana Quick, Michael Cadman, Hywel Bennett and Helen Mirren. What must it have been like to be in the audience with all that budding talent onstage. Sladen writes that there was a secret poll among the company about who was most likely to succeed and they chose her. She goes on to say that "I don't remember how well Helen took it at the time, but as she polishes here Oscar every now and then, I'm sure she doesn't let it trouble her."
Hi again. I saw that you had added the full obit from The Stage. It left out some items that were fascinating to me that I wanted to pass along. During WWII he was evacuated to the countryside and never finished school. In spite of that he found work with the government team attempting to break the German codes (though not with those at Bletchley Park) and that is what lead to his involvement with British Telecom. IMO a life well lived and worthy of a biography read by many others. Until that happens I will just consider myself blessed that he shared these with me and I am glad to pass them on to you. MarnetteD | Talk22:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
This was all new to me, so thanks again. Another obit here, but it doesn't add much (except a photo) to the one from The Stage. All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Pooh Shepard1928.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pooh Shepard1928.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi OM! I took Greenblatt out of the biography page because of the explicit subjective nature of his treatment. He admits that his technique is speculative, and I want to stick with more objective sources to remove any potential conflict down the road when I take the article to G or FA status. I doubt I will do much more on the Dickens page unless they stop the BS edit warring, but I meant what I said when I wrote that the page is a disgrace to Wikipedia. The readers deserve more than that mess. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your recent edit, I was hoping that you could specify what has "failed verification" since you did not provide much in the way of an edit summary. The content in question was already there before I got involved with the article several months ago – all I did was clean up the text and reformat the citation as part of a general overhaul of the article – so I honestly have no idea which parts of it do or do not appear in the work cited. Fortunately, however, the tag you used suggests that you yourself are familiar with (and perhaps even have access to) the book, so I imagine that it would be relatively easy for you to identify the unsourced material, which would be most helpful toward resolving the issue. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem for me is that the article still invokes the support of Fowler for the ise spelling, even though he himself clearly came down on the side of ize for words on the Greek root. In this case the work referenced, A Pocket Fowler, is not written by Fowler. I could comment on the correctness of writing something that's the opposite of what Fowler himself wrote and then using his name to sell it, but I won't. Accordingly I have modified the name of the work to include the word 'Pocket', and added, higher up, a note on Fowler's actual position, as well as that of Horace Hart (who was The Controller of the Universe after all: see http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/oxford-university-press/some-account-of-the-oxford-university-press-1468-1921-hci/page-2-some-account-of-the-oxford-university-press-1468-1921-hci.shtml). I have not bothered to reference the 1st Ed. of Fowler's, but linked to the page on Fowler's, as this seems to be the general practice on other pages referring to it. I also changed 'most other reference works' to 'many reference works': Unless there is a referenceable analysis of all such works in this regard, 'most' must be opinion, and there is no reference work identified earlier in the paragraph for these/this to be other than.
There's also still a referencing error, as the reference for Cambridge's preference for ise leads to the Pocket Fouler. I've not changed this as I don't know what the preference reference was originally to.
Graham.Fountain | Talk13:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I've checked the "Cambridge preference" reference in The Pocket Fowler: it seems OK. ISBN added. The modern editor is clearly shown. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
When you roll back an edit from a primary and authoritative source, you put yourself in a trap. Waiting for an Obituary may never end, (most assuredly one will be published in this case, but many noteworthy folks do not have such posted.) The more appropriate question is "Who are you to be making this edit?" Unfortunately, Wikipedia is living in a past that it helped destroy. Encyclopedia Britannica is ceasing publication while attempting an "on-line version" A Look at Encyclopaedia Britannica as it exits print, as well as the vast majority of primary source Newspaper reporting outlets. The "authoritative" list of sources is becoming smaller by the day. What makes Larry Magid of the Contra Costa Times of Walnut Creek California authoritative? What makes the nephew of a man who's humor and charm are no where to be found in this microscopically small view of the life of a man who's contribution is amazing by its depth, but gets less coverage in Wikipedia than Britney Spears who's contribution will be remembered in 100 years only through vague cultural references. This is because, much more is "published" about Britney, but it unfortunately mostly vacuous drivel.
But, worse, you irritated me while I was grieving, and that is honestly offensive.
It's more offensive to have faked death announcements on Wikipedia; unfortunately this is a very common form of vandalism. The WP:BLP policy is strictly applied, and will continue to be applied, to prevent such occurrences.--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
It may look like spamming, but it was not meant as such. As you said yourself, self-published books are "... largely not acceptable..." per WP's guideline for self-published works. As I read that guidleline, I found no direct prohibition ... and the guideline did say "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.".
I would like to point that a number of the WP articles wherein the book is used as a reference were created and largely written by me a number of years ago, and came directly from the book's website:
Thanks for the clarification. To reiterate: "It's good when experts contribute to Wikipedia". However, the first item of the web page you have been adding is a clickable link
I know that you are trying to make a point, but come now! The website home page has a small navigation bar across the top and the "How to buy" link is just one of the page links in that navigation bar. The only price on the home page is the $35 for a downloadable e-book version in pdf format. The bottom of the home page also lists the 7 free articles available on the website.
The $115 price for a printed, bound copy is not on the home page! In any event, why the red font and the "wow!"? That is really quite inexpensive compared to most other university textbooks. As I said, I realize that you are trying to make a point ... but let's be fair about it. Regards, mbeychok (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Sooooooooooooooooooooooo you read it incorrectly. Looks like you can't read a diff any better than I did. I removed nothing. Keep trolling, you might find something. Oh well, Wiki civility is definitely in its death throes. Mugginsx (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Wrong again. I never removed the map. Please learn how to read diffs. I am not even accused by the editor who inserted the map of having deleted it. The converstation was about the picture of the plague victims. No mention was made of the map. I have no idea about the map. I am not going to bother to look into what you think you are talking about. If you would mind your own business you might have a better handle on what is going on and not continue to make yourself look so foolish. If you do not know how to find an article to created or improve, then keep trolling, you might find something real to complain about. But the best idea is YOUR OWN. i.e., A better deployment of the contributor's time and effort might be in a fix, rather than diverting blame to others. This is my last response to you
I was confused by your edit on Roman roads piping Via Domitia to link to Via Domiziana. I had posted the "Disambiguation Needed" note on Neapolis and I had checked the article for Via Domitia which runs across the south of modern France and couldn't find a Neapolis that seemed to fit. I also went to the link for Statius which refers to the Via Domitiana which redirects to Via Domiziana which is a good fit for Naples, so I was confused. It seems that Roman roads had an error in it and Via Domitia should be changed to Via Domiziana rather than piped. I don't have much knowledge of ancient Rome so I could be very confused. What do you think? SchreiberBike (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
No, the error was in the original link to the French Via Domitia—no wonder you couldn't find "Neapolis" nearby! (It's a Greek-derived name, and the Greeks didn't name many towns in Gaul.) Once that was piped to the correct Via Domitiana (which opens "Via Domitiana in the Campania region of Italy was a major Roman road built … and named for the emperor, Domitian, to facilitate access to and from … the Gulf of Naples" [original empahasis]) the rest was easy. The Via Domiziana|Via Domitiana article might need a tweak, to comply with WP:LEADSENTENCE. Any help? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually there's a simpler excuse, which I've only just noticed: my original contained a typo; this has been fixed, with acknowledgement to the finder, User:SchreiberBike. If I hadn't made the typo, User:SchreiberBike wouldn't have queried it and the misdirected wikilinks wouldn't have been mended! --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
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.
