User talk:Old Moonraker/Archive 18

George Bernard Shaw article

Hi! I did read the page, and I have posted in the Talk section. People come to articles for many different reasons, so the article should reflect that and the opening should reflect sections of the article. I gave the article on Alexis Carrel as an example. Ironically the talk there was the opposite of Shaw--people argued to remove "eugenicist" from Carrel while people argue to insert it for Shaw.

Please consider that my attempt is not to slur but to promote a better understanding of the world eugenics movement at the start of the 20th century. I explain all this in the Talk section. Kris (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for the reply. Continuing on the article talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference to the three revert rule (you guessed I am somewhat new to Wikipedia editing.) I guess I have to go out and find other people to make the changes for me like those who wish to keep this information out of the introductory paragraph. I think I made a clear argument that this is following the guidelines of what needs to go in the opening--controversial information needs to be included, it is a major heading in the article, it is a reason that draws people to the article (whether you like those people or not) and that contemporary sources associate him with it. I think it is important we understand what Shaw and others like Carrel were thinking, for they were not evil people and did not have the intentions that the Nazis distorted eugenics into. --Kris (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that rounding up support to get around the three revert rule is a good idea: more at WP:CANVAS and WP:MEAT. I suggest instead that you look at WP:UNDUE and WP:RSUW, which explain the project's policy on undue weight. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate what is turning into a litany of accusations against me. I can no longer ever edit the article, now that people have 3 times undone my work. I find that frustrating and I see nothing else I can do except ask someone else to look at it. This is not about finding some dupe to make edits but about others knowledgeable in the subject expressing their opinion, especially when discussing something as subjective as "undue weight." I thought you took the high road by allowing the edit in a better form, to be broader rather than restrictive in knowledge even though you didn't agree with it. I have made the a clear and strong, resourced case as to why this is not undue weight. I cannot help if others with weak arguments and different motives have hacked their way through this topic before. --Kris (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I was happy to hold back my reservations and let your amended edit stand, while asking for others' views. They were against it. Your second point is very apposite: this particular section has been severely "hacked about" in the past, mostly by those seeking to attack socialism in general by linking Shaw to the nazis. It has been a struggle to keep the article balanced and neutral while the mass audience of Glenn Beck is trying to do the opposite. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

May I apologize--I thought I could never edit the article again, missing the 24 hour business, so I now I understand what you thought I was up to by recruiting editors. I appreciate what has been your kind guidance regarding the ins and outs of Wikipedia editing. Don't get me wrong, eugenics is evil, as is slavery, but it appears that the fans of Glenn Beck have prevented us from learning the history as some hide while others exaggerate people's involvement in the movement instead of understanding it in context.--Kris (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ephesus

Hi Old Moonraker, thanks for your message. Although Historvius allows user contributions, it is a professionally edited site with content that is continually checked for accuracy. Therefore I believe it does provide a relevant source of information that can be useful to people looking to find out the more practical side of Ephesus. However, although I feel this is relevant, I will leave the final judgement to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.20.61 (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying here but no, please don't do that! A wider view, from contributors who specialize in this topic, is available here; try them for the definitive answer. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, great, I will discuss further on that forum! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.20.61 (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Request to Delete a Wikipage

You requested to delete the Bioscrypt Inc. wikipage stating promotional reasons. What part of the article do you feel is promotional? The article is written while including facts, good or bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhinavcambridge (talk • contribs) 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was any such article and I haven't asked anybody to delete it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

suggested addition to Earl of Oxford page submitted but queried.. it is not an alteration but an addition to the foreign travel section...

According to Edward Webbe's Rare and Wonderfull Things, published in 1590, Oxford travelled further afield than generally thought. 'One thing', he writes, 'did greatly comfort me which I saw long since in Sicilia, in the cite of Palermo, a thing worthie of memorie, where the right honourable the Earle of Oxenford a famous man fo Chivalrie, at what time he travailed into forraine countries, being then personally present, made there a challenge against al maner of persons whatsoever, & at all manner of weapons, as Turniments, Barriors with Horse and armour, to fight and combat with any whatsoever, in the defence of his Prince and countrey...so that al Italy over, he is acknowledged ever since for the same, the onely Chivallier and Noble man of England...'. If Oxford indeed travelled to Sicily and this was known among the literati,together with knowledge of his suspicions about his daughter's paternity, this may have been in Robert Greene's mind when he published Pandosto in 1588. Greene's popular novella concerning a falsely accused queen obliged to abandon her daughter, who is then brought up by shepherds in Sicily, in turn inspired his younger collaborator and rival, that 'upstart crow' William Shakespeare, to write the Winter's Tale, which is also partly set in Sicily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendy hardacre (talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's usually helpful if all the discussion takes place in the same place but, while we're here, may I ask two things? Did you re-read your post? At the time of my reply it wasn't showing any request at all. Secondly, did you read the guidance note: "specific description of the request...verbatim copy of the text that should replace it"? --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes

Hi, please review the material before you revert it so carelessly. CNBC was being used as a reference, not Facebook. See Bank Transfer Day. Please restore, thanks. :) USchick (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I see: we're quoting CNBC, which is quoting Facebook. Thanks for pointing that out. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter who CNBC is quoting as long as they are reporting the story. Same with Fox News [1]. Are you questioning the news source or their choice of subject matter? USchick (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would I question what stories Fox News chooses to run with? --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would you revert an edit that was properly sourced by CNBC? USchick (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Radiation effects on skin

Hi

Do have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radiation_burn#Blood_vessel_damage and my notes at the foot of the page. The Radiation Burn article is vey misleading when it comes to Beta radiation burns in reactor accident situations

Blood vessel damage can result in the loss of full skin thickness AFTER two months. This was seen at chernobyl and predicted by our colaboratibe research programme. That is why John Hopewell and I were invited to the IAEA Advisory Group Meeting as the UK delegates.Dr John Wells (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"I predicted" is WP:NOR, which has no place in the encyclopedia, but thanks for the warning. What's needed for the correction is is the addition to the article of another WP:RS carrying the information. If one of your published works is the best authority to use, add it to the talk page, asking for another contributor to assess the material before adding it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Twelfth Night

So, what you are saying is that Sartre, a highly-educated man of the theatre, had never heard of Twelth Night and that using the name of the same country was pure coincidence? Maybe, he had never even heard of Shakespeare.Intelspy (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive my alteration to your post: it's generally considered bad manners on Wikipedia, but I didn't want your unusual orthography in my index—I've let your text stand unchanged, of course.

I suggested that you needed a reference for saying that there was a link to JPS's tale of political assassination in Illyria—geographically, modern-day Albania or Serbia—and the eastern Adriatic seaport in Twelfth Night. I don't know how many examples of "Illyria" exist in the real literary world, but Wikipedia alone has 905. Why are you assuming that, of all these, JPS meant the one in Twelfth Night? Even when you do find a reference that states this (which was all I asked), we would also need to consider WP:TOPIC: "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information".

Furthermore, why are you suggesting that JPS had never heard of Shakespeare? That, too, looks like speculation.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Section link at Maser

I've undone your revert here. Please look at my edit again. I made the link into a section link (it's the same article). This means that on clicking the link, the entire page won't reload. To explain: MediaWiki automagically treats an article link like a full URL link, even if it's to a section on that same page. An HTML anchor (i.e. section) link by contrast means that on clicking, the browser will immediately jump to that anchor (i.e. section) without reloading the page. For people with fast connections, the delay with full page reload is little, but for people with slow connections, it's quite noticeable.

Next time, please take the time to actually look at what you're reverting. Please do not revert simply because an edit was performed by an IP editor. Thank you. --213.196.210.71 (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Feeling better yet? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What's your problem? You reverted a valuable edit and all you have to say in response to a polite notice and explanation is a snarky comeback? Get laid, dude. --213.196.210.71 (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

November 11 - Jonathan Cape page

Got your message re adding a link to this page for Jonathan Cape. I've put a question up as suggested on the talk page.

Many thanks, Jbro68 (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads up". Replying there. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem - have put the item up at the [Editors page] for their suggestions. Thanks Jbro68 (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I see the first reply accepts the external link as equivalent to the company's own page. I'll be watching the responses with interest, but probably won't add anything myself; this is supposed to be a second opinion after all! --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the proper etiquette on how long to leave an item up for discussion, but I've put the link back up using the revert option if that's all OK now? Thanks again for taking the time to review, Jbro68 (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Leave the discussion in place: a bot clears it away automatically in ten days or so after the last comment. It's certainly sufficient time to restore the link to the mainspace page (☹). Thanks for the notification. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Nov 10 - His Dark Materials

Your note faults the phrase "At the very least it appears", but you reverted it to "It appears". Am I to understand that the problem was my adding "At the very least" to the beginning of the existing sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danguyf (talk • contribs) 11:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the question here. The problem was that the way something appears to you, or to any of us, is of no consequence on Wikipedia: a WP:RS has to describe the issue in those terms, or else it's original research, which isn't allowed. This was an automated edit (for which, of course, I take full responsibility) which merely reverted the change. Perhaps the existing text was also unreferenced—this may be worth another look. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

So I took another look, and you "appear" to be right—thanks for the suggestion. Added two references and tightened the material accordingly. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Removal of sourced information

[2] You apparently removed sourced information from an article. You had previously tagged [3] the reference as "failed verification". Did you read the reference? If so, please explain. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It had been tagged for a month. A rough (very rough—part of the movie isn't in English) transcript from YouTube: "What we have of the mortarboard, essentially, used to be [indistinct], then the Koran, placed on top of the head, then tied, what does it look like? Indeed, a mortarboard." YouTube isn't, in my opinion, a reliable source to write that academic caps are based on this tradition. Even if it were, in context, the interviewee is trying to establish similarity between islamic academic tradition and western, not precedence.

The NYT article is easier to assess: "Our mortarboards, tassels, academic robes and rituals of the oral defense of a written thesis can all be traced back to them." Again in context: the article There's good in Pakistan's madrasas is dealing with government intervention in the curricula at these establishments. The relevant sentence appears as an aside at the end. Is it a throwaway claim by the interviewee from Jamera Ashnafia madrasa (boys 10–12 years, not a university) or is it an editorial insertion from the famously thorough NYT?

Personally, I'd be embarrassed to take "tying the Koran to the head" to WP:RSN, but the NYT source is worth a second opinion.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The youtube stuff is junk. The IHT is not; it's part of the NYT company. [4] History of the article indicates that the youtube stuff was stuck in the middle of content sourced to IHT. Apparently at some point the editorial was added to the NYT site and the original IHT page made to redirect. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There are five of these on the planet

Why is it not acceptable to share an external link to very rare steam engine on the steam engine Wiki? Personally I feel if I am looking for info on a topic, any link associated with the topic is helpfull. Specially if it is something rare. http://aboutsteam.com/index.php/old-engine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.137.134.130 (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you look at the link I suggested? Here it is again, in case you missed it: "Links to social networking sites ... chat or discussion forums/groups" aren't allowed.--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Arcadia

Old Moonraker -- FYI, my edit wasn't a test edit or an experiment. The change was made because the article had the wrong opening date for Arcadia on Broadway. I know because I saw the play during its opening week. I reverted the change myself because I could not find corroborating evidence one way or the other online -- web sources cited anything from late February 1995 to late March as its opening in NYC.

Not me: you reverted this yourself! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference now added.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Linear No-Threshold model, removal of quote from Dr John DeSesso

Hi Old Moonraker,

I would like to discuss the removal of the quote from Dr John DeSesso. I fully agree that his statement was published in a peer-reviewed publication, but my point holds: this is just a single expert's opinion, and there are thousands of such opinions out there. What's so special about this one? There is a risk that this section could explode with individual (peer-reviewed) opinions and editorials.

So I feel it would be best to limit this section to statements by public organisations, and use other public statements and reports, e.g. "The Australasian Radiation Protection Society's Position Statement on Risks from Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation".

Let me know what you think, Regards, ConradMayhew (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the matter here. The basic argument is perhaps an over-simple one: removing reliable sources, based on a contributor's own view of their worth, is a value judgement that contravenes the WP:NOR policy. At the very least the deletion should be discussed.

AFAICR de Sesso was added for balance in the piece, but I do acknowledge that the editing taking place at that time could be a bit piecemeal, perhaps measuring by weight ("exploding", in your term) rather than quality. Eventually this arrived at an uneasy compromise among contributors, but it did not produce a considered and carefully structured article. There has never been a proper strategy of editing, planned out on the talk page, and if anyone now has a well-considered plan for this they would have my support. I'm not really happy with the state of the article and if someone else could take a fresh look and bring it up to standard that would be welcome. What might help is an informed overview from a universally acceptable source considering the merits of both sides of the argument, rather than a series of findings of individual statisticians or experimenters. The Higson paper you suggest could go some way to achieve this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I am a newcomer here (I just started contributing to WP:en, but my home wiki is WP:fr), and I didn't know about this implication of WP:NOR.

Just to avoid giving any false impression: I have been a researcher in medical imaging physics for about 10 years, but I am by no means an expert in radiation physics. I have a strong personal interest in the low-dose debate, so I've being doing some extensive reading, but it's only a hobby.

Based on what I've read, I think you have actually done quite an amazing work: you got more or less all the major players in the field (UNSCEAR, the US National Academy Of Sciences, EPA, NRC and the French Academies), and you've managed to limit this section to these major players. On such a hot topic, this is quite an achievement! To be fair, I think you have forgotten one last major player (pro-LNT), the International Commission on Radiological Protection (UK-based worldwide reference for radiation protection).

As a matter of fact, this is why the paper by DeSesso seemed so out-of-place, as he does not represent any major institution and his google scholar record confirms that he has almost never been cited. Anyway, if you've got everyone to agree on this short list, I'd strongly agree rather than risk putting things off-balance!

As to finding a "universally acceptable source", I don't know whether such a person exists. I know of two reports by the US General Accounting Office which I like especially considering that are 20 years apart. The first one is entitled Problems in Assessing the Cancer Risks of Low-Level Ionizing Radiation Exposure: I guess that at the time, US GAO was still optimistic about finding a general agreement. Twenty years later, the tile was RADIATION STANDARDS: Scientific Basis Inconclusive, and EPA and NRC Disagreement Continues! It feels like at this stage the GAO had more or less given up...

By the way, the second report is actually worth mentionning, as I thing it wraps up pretty well the issue:

U.S. regulatory standards to protect the public from the potential health risks of nuclear radiation lack a conclusively verified scientific basis, according to a consensus of recognized scientists. In the absence of more conclusive data, scientists have assumed that even the smallest radiation exposure carries a risk. This assumption (called the “linear, no-threshold hypothesis” or model) extrapolates better-verified high-level radiation effects to lower, less well-verified levels and is the preferred theoretical basis for the current U.S. radiation standards. However, this assumption is controversial among many scientists. Some say that the model is overly conservative and that below certain exposure levels, there is no risk of cancer from radiation. Others say that the model may underestimate the risk. The research evidence is especially lacking at regulated public exposure levels—levels of 100 millirem a year and below from human generated sources.

Well, enough for tonight, and sorry for this lengthy answer! Regards, ConradMayhew (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

I am familiar with the standards re canvassing. It wasn't canvassing. It was a "Limited posting", was "Neutral" (the posting only asked for contributions and comments), "Nonpartisan" and "Open". I simply posted at the first listed relevant project noticeboard. You will see that a posting at the Catholicism or religion noticeboard doesn't predict what sort of contribution or comments you will get. Is that where you became aware of the issue. You're hardly my partisan on this issue. I've often found that posting on a project page will result in numerous contributors who disagree with me. That very situation happened recently. It might happen here, too. The page on canvassing specifically says that posting on one or more relevant project page is an appropriate notification. Perhaps you ought to read the page. :) Mamalujo (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification of what you were about. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Henry V (play) and common knowledge

Hello,

Dear Moonraker, I hope I get the protocol right because, as I mentioned taking the survey, those of us who are facile with English but who are net neophytes or have trouble conforming to what seem (sometimes) to be arbitrary points of procedure in wiki are referred to the manual of style but there always seems to be something I am not used to doing per the requirements of the digiverse.

Your dismissal of my revision of the Henry V entry seemed a little abrupt, if done with the politeness of a well-written form letter. My source would be Prof. James Sager, Vassar College, Shakespeare authority. But I did not even make any original research in this case. Nor did I mention that Olivier's version is strikingly bellicose when one considers what he omitted from the original play. I was synthesizing earlier mentioned information (the Normandy invasion) and simply showing how the film had a potentially propagandist (shamefully, for Olivier, in reality, though I made no such judgment) perspective considering its time of release and that it involves fighting in France if not with French people. D-Day was not known until it arrived, but anticipated in '44. Do I really need to source when D-Day was? If the material is extraneous, so mote it be. But I don't see much original research, because I knew I could not quote Saeger directly. If you want to say I am guilty of hammering a point home; I can understand. But I refrained from even mentioning the war pressures put on the famous Shakespearian (having my immediate source not available) and don't think I mentioned anything that is not common knowledge-- but worth thinking about. Respectfully Tyewolfe (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)tyewolfeTyewolfe (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's nothing to with procedure or the style of writing, but verifiability. If Prof. Saeger has published on this, if he makes the specific interpretation you have done in your "synthesizing" (contributors are specifically not allowed to do this: see WP:NOR) about Olivier's "shameful behaviour", and if he meets the WP:RS standards (he has published on related topics so he should be OK), then add it. It should, of course, go on the Henry V (1944 film) article, rather than Henry V (play).

You are right, btw, about the "form letter": it's a standard response generated by the WP:TW tool.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo-cnrs.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo-cnrs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Replaced by File:Logocnrs.png. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sundridge, Kent

Fine if you want to change it back, although it appears to be the only Airfield in England in the Category:Airfields apart from military airfields; the category appears to be mainly military airfields not basic (civilian) airfields and overlaps with Category:Military airbases. And there is no link from Sundridge, Kent to any geographic Aviation or Airport category for England. That is why military airfield categories link to airport categories eg Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in Alaska links to an Alaskan category, Category:Airports in Alaska. Hugo999 (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The source says aerodrome; I suppose that would do, but there isn't a Category:Aerodrome! I checked BNC: there the usage does often, but not solely, have a military tang to it. Couple of examples of "civilian" usage: in 1918 "the few existing civilian airfields, including Hendon (London) and Brooklands, were taken over by the military" (Rowley: The English landscape in the twentieth century) and more recently, in 1993, Ipswich Airport downgraded to "grass airfield, for mainly recreational and business use by light aircraft" (East Anglian Daily Times). To fall back on the rather lazy googlehits justification: a phrase search for "civilian airfields" realises 52,000 hits, with 4,300 of these in reference books. I did look at a contemporary ordnance map to settle the point but, although the surveyors always made careful enquiries to establish placenames, that particular building doesn't have one.

My main reason, though, for the adopting this particular usage is size: the establishment is still visible on Bing maps, and it fits into a largeish (42-acre, now divided in two) field! What the establishment wasn't, was an airport. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ref to Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage in British usage for -ise, -ize (-isation, -ization)

I see the problem with the cite ref error, sorry that I missed that when I made the edit. However, I still have a real problem with this reference, which appears, quite erroneously, to suggest that Fowler, in his Dictionary of Modern English Usage, was in favour of the 'ise' spelling. As I say, the first edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage (your ref to the King's English confuses me) is fully in agreement with the OED, and quotes the OED's judgement on this, i.e. it should be ize not ise. The problem is that the book referenced here is not the one to which the link refers. So the article effectively quotes Robert Allen's Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, and then links to the article on Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage. It is a problem that not all Fowler's are actually by Fowler. The issue of whether Eric Partridge approved of Allen's comment is irrelevant. The fact is that Fowler, in the version of the book that he actually wrote, was absolutely clear in his condemnation of ise in this context. Hence, he himself should not be invoked in its support and quoting a book not written by him and then linking to another that was is either sloppy or malicious, as well as just plain wrong. I will, therefore, have to re-visit this issue when I have the time. Graham.Fountain | Talk 15:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, can't remember this. What's the article, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

About this

1) Antonio Gramsci is one of the greatest mind in the history of the humankind and this is widely recognized. His works are unquestionably a "reliable source". 2) You wrote "the original addition to the article contained material from Raymond Rosenthal's translation (...) there are insufficient differences between your version and Rosenthal's to be acceptable". That's obvious: both me and Rosenthal translated the same thing almost verbatim, no alternative. What you said is clearly specious. 3) You cited WP:NPS: "Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other source material". First, I must say that rule is disregarded, as many articles of Wikipedia incorporate material taken from old editions of Encyclopedia Britannica. On the other hand, I just quoted a fairly brief passage, surely the bulk of the article is not based on the text I extracted (this is another distortion of yours). 4) You seem to like Wikipedia's policies. Well, I recommend you this.

I don't aim to fight a silly war with you, but I feel that my duty is to restore and assert the truth. Someone said: "You can fool some of the people sometimes, but you can't fool all of the people all of the times"; well, this time you weren't able to trick me. Goodbye mr. sheriff. --87.17.9.144 (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry: copyright violations are not negotiable, even when they are from "one of the greatest mind in the history of the humankind". The comparison between your version and Rosenthal's were posted to demonstrate the similarities. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CTClub logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CTClub logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Used in Cyclists' Touring Club--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)