Jump to content

User talk:Richerman/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Taj edits

Nice. --nemonoman (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes it reads better. Keep it up! --nemonoman (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester June Newsletter, Issue XVI

Delivered on 3 June 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Rand Fishkin DYK Nomination

Please see my response at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Rand_Fishkin Woz2 (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, on a different topic, I noticed you are interested in Manchester. My maternal family is from the Manchester area. My grandfather was a fireman at ROF Risley and I created that article. Take a look! Woz2 (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and the CEO link. I added it. Woz2 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I looked up the rules. Wikipedia:Did_you_know#The_hook It just says the inline citation must support the hook. In this case, as you noted given the nature of the hook, the web citations meet this criterion. Would you consider giving it a check mark? Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. I guess I'm too impatient :-) By the way, the rules Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Approval say anyone (except the nominator) can put a check or other symbol. The special team seems to jump in at the next checkpoint. Woz2 (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorting out Highs

Thank goodness that some one is watching. Most of the text is well written, but is missing references. Some references quoted seem to have more value as entertainment than scholarship. I commented out a copyvio- text copied from Doug Peacock, and put a few comments explaining my concerns on the talk page, where Doug Peacock (www.cottontimes.co.uk) has made two critical comments. The Highs problem seems to have been around since 1835. Baines has discussed the cases on page 155, and elsewhere. I cannot find the illustration in the online copy of Baines- so it appears that that source is incorrect. I don't believe the text should be displayed until one of us has verified the references as there does seem to be a Pro Highs anti Arkwright/Hargreaves/Crompton lobby that is less than objective.

On a different issue do you think there is in any mileage is forming a Greater Manchester Cotton interest group?

ClemRutter (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Broughton Suspension Bridge

Updated DYK query On June 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Broughton Suspension Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 03:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Cotton Famine.

This is a massive topic of top importance and will be contraversial. I have located some good source material at Spinning the Web, and Cottontown- but each mill I have looked at has a section on the famine and how it affected their workers- it was just that I missed it. A guy called Gerald Schofield has done a lot of the basic work which we can use. The current WP article was a polemic on behalf of Abe Lincoln but initial reading makes me think that this was touch and go and each town saw things differently. I will ruminate a little before I put pen to paper then give it a good shaking. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Badbea

Updated DYK query On June 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Badbea, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 02:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester July Newsletter, Issue XVII

Delivered on 4 July 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Avebury

I've left some suggestions for expanding the article on the Avebury talk page. I've got access to the 2004 Gillings book so I was thinking about improving the article and was wondering what your thoughts are on my suggestions. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Bexley Square.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY (TALK) 01:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester August Newsletter, Issue XVIII

Delivered on 5 August 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) Nev1 (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gunpowder Plot

I've noticed you taking a (welcome) interest in this article. What's your opinion of it? It's obviously woefully undercited, but the more I look at it the more I think it needs doing to it. There's almost nothing about the political background that motivated the plot, we're not told how the conspirators met, or what kind of men they were, there's very little about the events that were planned to follow the explosion, Monteagle's role and his relationship with Cecil isn't properly explained, that Cecil almost certainly knew of the plot for some time before 5 November but allowed it to continue for maximum political advantage when it was "discovered" is barely touched on ... --Malleus Fatuorum 14:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had it on my watchlist since last November (or maybe the one before) and have had a go at it now and again. Your recent edits piqued my interest again so I started adding some references instead of doing what I should be doing getting on with some work for my employer. The reference I've been using for the recent edits is a really good website as it uses stuff from the government archives, yet it was just in the "external links" before, although it looks like it's been used already. There are some nice illustrations there too which we could probably use, although they use them "by permission of the British Library etc" so I don't suppose they'd be too pleased. I've just ordered a book I came across on Google books called A companion to the folklore, myths & customs of Britain By Marc Alexander, which I can see being useful for a few articles as well as this one. I also found one called The Powder Treason by Michael Dax which looks useful. There's certainly a lot to do on this one - maybe it could be your next shot for a front page FA for November :) I've no doubt we'll be seeing the Moors Murders there soon. Glad to see you got rid of the trivia section too - I was thinking of doing that myself. Richerman (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we've left it a bit late for an FAC before 5 November, but that gives us plenty of time to get it ready for next year. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you fancy helping out at Gunpowder Plot? I've taken it upon myself (Malleus is helping also) to kick it into shape, and noticed you'd commented on the article's talk page. There is a lot of work. Right now I'm just working through the story, I haven't really organised any kind of structure. Hence not all the conspirators are yet biog'd. Parrot of Doom 16:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


NowCommons: File:Crabtree TOV.jpg

File:Crabtree TOV.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Crabtree TOV.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Crabtree TOV.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

That was a mis-click, I did not mean to revert that at all. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

River Irwell

Bit of a spike on this article, due to the recent flooding. If this weather continues we might see a rise in activity. Parrot of Doom 13:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

Nice job! Thank you very much! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help out.Richerman (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Rochdale Town Hall

Updated DYK query On January 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rochdale Town Hall, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ferret

I saw your post. If you take a look at the thread a couple above your post in the talk page, you'll see that we are already aware of the problems. Therefore, if you want to join in the discussion, you'd be welcome.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You're doing a great job with pruning this article. I'm beginning to become just a little bit optimistic that we might be able to make something decent out of it yet. An awful lot of work ahead yet though. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Courage mon brave! I think I've taken out most of the crap and even kept with the American spelling (behavior for God's sake!). It needs to be less US-centric now. As you say - a long way to goRicherman (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I really, really, want to see it more focused on the science – the genetics, use as laboratory analogues, sight (an interesting topic in its own right, as apart from their horizontal pupils (which are very hard to see) ferrets have dichromatic vision, unlike our trichromatic. The unusually high frequency of albinism and its effects, hearing, social interactioon with other ferrets given that polecats are solitary animals, intelligence ... the list goes on.
I'm considering dumping that American Ferret Association colour classification, as it's very specific to the States, not used anywhere else. I'm not happy about that import regulations stuff either. What do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't realised it was US specific but, if so, that sounds like a good idea. The import regulation stuff could certainly be shortened to a couple of sentences too. I was an animal technician for most of my working life (shock horror!) but I don't have the reference books any more. I'll have to see if I can get hold of some of them such as The UFAW handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals They used to have a copy in the library here at Salford many years ago. One of the reasons they were used for research was that they are an easy to keep carnivore, although I don't think they're used much any more - at least not in the UK. Richerman (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps surprisingly they're not uncommonly used here in the UK as lab animals, because in many ways their biology is like ours. They catch our human flu, for instance, so they're great subjects for flu research. I was just reading a New Scientist article on sound location, in which ferrets were used because they hear just like we do. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, New Scientist - I try to get a copy every week if I can - and they have a good online search facility. I keep flirting with the idea of paying for a subscription so I can have access to the full online articles. As for the ferrets hearing like use - I hope they hear better than I do these days :) Richerman (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
When I was googling somepoint late last year, I came across a NZ site which referred to three basic colours (presumably polecat, white and sandy). The USAian list is definitely far too complex for an international article and if we include one categorisation, we would have to mention others. On vision, Another NZ site indicated that some ferrets see into the IR spectrum which. I think it was scientific research funding by their pest control people as they were wondering why their observations with IR cameras weren't that succesful.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Ha, I'll bet that confused them a bit. You think you're sneaking up on them in the dark and you're really shining a searchlight! If you can find it again it would make an interesting addition Richerman (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This must have been what I saw. So it was only a small study at master's level but the results were published [1] in a peer-reviewed journal.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've found some more bits about their vision so I'll add something in. Richerman (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Heaton Park

Hi Richerman, I see you did a lot of work on the Heaton Park article. I've just added a new section in reference to the proposed Goals Soccer Centre at the St Margaret's corner of the park. I don't know if you've got the article on your watched list, but I thought I'd drop you a line here to make sure you saw my contribution and ask you to cast your eye over and edit if/where necessary. I've written a brief bit about my contribution and my views on the proposal on the article's Discussion page. I'll keep an eye on the Discussion page for any comments you have about it. All the best. Jack of Many (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

London Road Fire Station

Hi thanks for taking a look at London Road Fire Station, Manchester. I was wondering if you have any suggestions for further improvements please? I would like to get the article to good article if possible. However, I'm not sure of the standard required (despite being here years, I have never really actually taken an article to GA) and dont really know what direction to take the article in next. Pit-yacker (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you would need to add more about the facilities the station had when it was in use, although I don't know how much more there is to be found. I used to work at UMIST a few hundred yards away and always thought it was an amazing building. I worked there from 1976 until 2005 and so the station was still in use for the first ten years I was there, although I think it was used for training by then. We used to see the fireman who were training there in the Bulls Head occasionally. It would make a really good hotel if it could be developed sympathetically. I'm sure I read somewhere that the ventilation system that took the smell of the stables away from the accommodation was quite revolutionary for its time. I think there were ventilation shafts built into the structure. The best person to ask about GAs is Malleus as he has done some GA reviews. Richerman (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice one

Pure genius! Just to let you know your one liner wasn't missed amidst all the other banter! Geometry guy 01:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Canning

Do you have anything from the London Daily Advertiser, either at the end of April or start of May 1754, along the lines of "Mob (as it may be reasonably believed) hired for the Purpose" [destruction of anti-Canning witnesses] ... "Must it not appear an extraordinary instance of the Girl's Innocence"... ?

Its in relation to the first day's proceedings of Canning's trial, where a mob formed outside the building, ready to kick some heads in? Parrot of Doom 22:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't find anything like that but I did find the following:

Whitehall Evening Post or London Intelligencer (London, England), Tuesday, April 30, 1754; Issue 1282.


Several persons were taken into custody that made a riot at the Old Bailey Gate and were committed to newgate.William Moreton Esq recorder, recommended to all persons who were concerned in the most pathetic manner, to consider the dignity of the Court of Justice, the necessity of keeping up that dignity , and that the magistracy of this court should not be treated in such a manner as to lessen the weight of the Civil Power. After the court adjourned there was so great a mob at the gate of the Session-House threatening Sir Crisp Gascoyne, that Mr. Sheriff Chitty, with a number of Constables, escorted him as far as the Royal-Exchange

That'll do fine actually, its just so I don't have to write what happened in the prose - breaks things up a little. Thanks for that! Parrot of Doom 15:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


I'm working my way through Moore's description of Canning's trial, but it's difficult. Moore doesn't present things chronologically - she regularly goes off on a tangent, expanding into minute detail little bits and pieces of the trial. Her book isn't a narrative, its almost a criminal investigation of the entire affair, and is therefore hard to follow.
What do you think might work better - trying to present the trial chronologically, or just merging things together and forming a rough guide to what happened? Parrot of Doom 20:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like the rough guide will be easier and I'm sure it will work just as well. One thing I noticed last night was that one of the pamphlets being advertised about the trial after it was all over was written by Henry Fielding. Do you think that's worth a mention? Richerman (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
That's entirely expected, as Gascoyne wrote his own publication about the trial in the months before Fielding died, presumably while he was too ill to respond. If you have access to the scanned versions of these documents in pdf format, what I've done in the past is upload them to commons in the .djvu format (see Dick Turpin for two examples).
I had similar summary issues on Dick Turpin, as Barlow was a fine source but so detailed that it was a bit hard. I'm hoping that other online sources will help to clarify matters, and give me a direction so I can summarise things. Right now the article waffles a bit, but once I'm at the end of the Moore book I'll re-read it a few times and cut out things that aren't important. Parrot of Doom 21:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
'Fraid not, I've just seen the adverts for them in the papers and unfortunately the Athens T&C's say you can only use them the account for own research. I'll send you that email shortly, as soon as I finish installing some updates to Outlook. Richerman (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Philips Park, Prestwich

I wonder if there's some scope for adding a little to this, and Drinkwater Park. It seems the Forestry Commission has been given control of the entire area (search their site, plenty of info), and is busy making big changes. They've completely rebuilt all the roads (bar the odd one or two), and are also building a mountain bike course, which of course I've had the great pleasure of testing each day ;)

I think that over the next few years there is going to be a lot of investment down there. There's talk of reclaiming Rhodes Farm Sewage works, which is this big area of nothing, currently fenced off and inaccessible, and I've seen a tender online from the FC for uplighting the 13 arches railway viaduct. I need to take some better photographs for both articles anyway, but I thought I'd make you aware of what's going on. I think the eventual aim is to open a green corridor from Manchester, up the Irwell to Ramsbottom, and up the Croal to the West Pennine Moors. I've got my fingers crossed that some of this will include the restoration of the MBB canal around the old Chloride works. Parrot of Doom 20:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's on my to do list to add some of this stuff to the Drinkwater Park page at least but I was waiting until they finished it. I've been watching what's going on with interest for some time as I walk the dog in Drinkwater park most weekends. Actually I spent about 18 months clearing the area of litter. I took about 150 black bags to the tip before it began to look half way decent and now I usually go and pick up what's there at the weekend. I was really intrigued by what they're doing at the old sewage farm site near Buckley lane. The council landscaped it all and then the Forestry Commission took over, dug it up and did it all again. I'm not sure what they're going to use it for - I've seen something on the signs about a bicyle proficiency training area but it looks as if it could be used for a car park. They certainly need one as there's nowhere to park in the Forest Park other than at the Agecroft Road end, and that's only open when there's football at weekends. I did hear that it was a magnet for car thieves when it was open all the time - too near Kersal I suspect. I didn't know about the mountain bike course. Richerman (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
You'll find a bit at the end of the Drinkwater Park article about the green corridor. There was a big story a couple of years ago about making the Forest Park into Manchester's version of Central Park - a bit of a strange comparison I thought but I like the sentiment. Richerman (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I love it down there. Despite the industrial history its all so undeveloped and untouched. There's loads of scope to create something really special for Manchester - I think that's maybe why the FC want to uplight the 13 arches - that would make the area much more visible when going clockwise around the M60, and would doubtless increase the number of people going down there. If they open the Rhodes Farm sewage works, well that's a pretty big area to explore. Hopefully they'll create a plantation down there. Parrot of Doom 21:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Plantation? were you thinking of some kind of herbal cultivation perhaps? Actually one thing I would like to see is Waterdale Meadow being kept as a meadow and not being allowed to get overgrown with scrub. Icidentally. have you any idea what those pipes are that they've sunk into the ground all over the place? They stick up out of the ground with a blanking cap over the end and appear to have some sort of valve inside. I wondered if they were maybe test points for methane. Richerman (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Plantation as in trees :) It wouldn't be unusual, I discovered a potato plantation the other day, while studying a 130-year-old map of a paper mill :) It was right outside the entrance! No, a tree plantation would smell nice, look nice, make some cash for the FC, and reduce noise in the area. I would imagine the pipes are vents for the mines. Plenty of mining around there, Agecroft is just around the corner and that was active until only recently, I wouldn't be surprised if the two Agecroft pits go under Drinkwater. If you look on old-maps.co.uk you will find hundreds of bell pits and mineshafts all over the place. Parrot of Doom 23:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Your input is requested

As you have recently edited Andy Martin (American politician), I am writing to request your input at the article talk page, sections Vexed and disputed are the ones which outline the current issue. Many thanks in advance for your time. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Film colorization

Thanks for your WP:ENGVAR edit to the article. If only more editors would put their spelling differences aside in order to do the right thing. If you want to see how lame WP:ENGVAR disputes can be, check out Talk:Propene. The dispute has been going on since August 2008. Another edit war almost broke out this February. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It goes against the grain to write "color" but sometimes a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do :) It does get even more difficult though when another article called Colour recovery is linked to it and that uses British English. Not worth falling out over it though. Richerman (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

ball lightning

Cool! GDallimore (Talk) 12:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like it. If you search on google books for "globular lightning" you'll find all sorts of wonderful old accounts - especially if you just select the books with a "full view". Richerman (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I should have left a better edit summary. --John (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

IPs unblocking themselves

He didn't unblock himself, all he did was add an unblock approved template to his page. His previous block had expired. I've now reblocked him for a month. Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK Thanks Richerman (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit to Edmund Evans

I thought I'd let it sit for a few days to regain perspective and a nice person came along and fixed the prose problems. Thanks so much! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Phew! I'm glad you're happy with it. I saw the section about the article on Malleus's talk page and went to have a look. It's a really good article and, looking at the history, you seem to have done nearly all the hard work on it so I was a bit nervous about changing anything. However, I made the odd little change and then my fingers got itchy and I just couldn't help myself. I find articles always are always improved with a bit of collaboration - most of mine get copyedited by Malleus or PoD. I believe even top journalists have their work overseen, and often changed by an editor. :) I've still got a bit further to go on the Evans article but hopefully I should be finished tonight. I'd never heard of the guy before, although I've seen his work in Beatrix Potter's books - but now I'm a fan! Richerman (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm absolutely pleased. It's so much better having another person find errors and restructure bad sentences. I'm waiting for one more book to arrive, so it has a little more work to be done, and I thought I'd slog through the copyediting at the end. Yes, I've done all the work. Found it as a single sentence stub (through researching something else) and the article took off, but finding sources has been difficult. Thanks again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
And a fine job you've done too! - I think it's pretty close to FA standard now. Isn't wikipedia wonderful? You come across an obscure article on something you know nothing about, you make some edits and put it on your watch list and before you know it you're an expert. I've finished the first pass on the copyediting for now, although I'll probably still make some changes to my own edits when I read them again :) I just have a couple of other suggestions: To my eyes there seems to be too much use of quotation marks - for example, I don't think phrases like "perfected a process of colour printing from wood blocks" or "across the end grain" need the quotes as they are referenced anyway. Also, could I suggest that the name of the gallery section is changed to something else, say "Other examples of Evans' illustrations"? Richerman (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
When I work directly from sources I tend to use direct quotations to avoid close paraphrasing, and then after some time has passed reword entire sections. I didn't want it to sound to peacocky though, hence keeping "perfected a process of colour printing from wood blocks" in quotes. Thanks for the suggestion about the gallery. Yes, Wikipedia is wonderful. I don't know whether you've read the talkpage, but Johnbod has been very helpful as far as my understanding of the printing process itself - which I found somewhat confusing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did see that Johnbod had helped out. I see Malleus has made some edits too now - which can only be a good thing. Richerman (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Even though it's widely believed that I'm an unhelpul, uncooperative, and generally unpleasant sob, I do occasionally try to help. I think it's a great article Truthkeeper. I'm still not sure how his printing process worked though. I had the idea at one point that he drew onto the wooden blocks, which made me think that he used some kind of wax that repelled the ink where he didn't want it to be on the block, but then it talked about engraving and etching the blocks. I know squit about printing though, so it may just be me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Never let it be said....you've helped me out lots of times, In fact, you've got that third sentence just about right now. No, it's not just you - I'm a bit confused about the process too - but then I suspect Truthkeeper is still struggling a bit as well. :) Richerman (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I know nothing either, but it had to have been labor intensive. A separate block for each color, which meant the printer had to understand where the colors went. Apparently, his innovation was to somehow mix colors by printing over and over. A lot of carving and a lot of labour went into it, but as Johnbod mentioned, labour was cheap. Thanks, Malleus for the help (twice today!) and for the compliment. And, as I mentioned on your page, because of you (oh, you awful editor!) the article is much better than it was. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea to add to the talkpage that both of you are confused by the process. I'm a bit concerned the article is getting too technical, which is fine, if Johnbod can help explain the process better, otherwise maybe not fine. Just a thought. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I realise I don't understand how Evans did it. The colour printers that we're all familiar with today also lay down various colours to get their end result, but using up to a dozen wood blocks introduces a registration problem. How did Evans manage to make sure that each matched the other? Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think once you start thinking about it's easy to go a bit mad. Badly printed books do have registration problems and I've seen examples in books from the early 20th century. A good printer - such as Evans - made certain there wasn't a registration problem, I believe by setting the presses in a specific manner - Victorian quality control. Also, apparently Evans carved the blocks in such a manner that colours blended, which really is a way of overcoming the registration problems as well (I think). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm happier with the pins through the paper explanation you've added, rather than Victorian omniscience. That hatching of Evans's does seem to have been a bit of a breakthrough though. It makes me wonder whether Evans was an innovator or a perfectionist? Did he invent these new printing techniques, or did he improve on the ideas of those who went before him? Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thomas Bewick was a master hatcher. The hatchings are easy to see in the images on his page, but keep in mind, the white portions on the owl were carved out - they weren't inked. Evans used the technique but improved it, and added colours. He seems to have been a perfectionist. He seems to have improved the techniques that existed. Am waiting for the library system to find his very hard to get autobiography with the hope it will shed light on his processes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use category tags in your sandbox

I was looking at Category:Introductory_physics, where I saw User:Richerman/sandbox1. And, I must say, your sandbox does not belong on a list of introductory physics articles. So please remove [[Category:Introductory physics]] from User:Richerman/sandbox1. Thank you. --Humanist Geek (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at a possible rearrangement of the article some time ago and had forgotten about it - I've deleted it Richerman (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!--Humanist Geek (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Beatrix Potter

In that case, do you want to put an 'under construction' tag on it. As it is, all your edit achieved was inserting two bibliography headings into the article, and citing the same book twice.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, point taken, but that I was correcting that when I hit an edit conflict :) Richerman (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury

FYI, he deleted my comments on the talk page of the article [2]. This is unacceptable and borderline vandalism. I appreciate your input on how to deal with this disruptive user. AlexanderPar (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest you're wasting your time discussing anything with him, the guy's a complete arsehole. If he carries on with his disruption he needs to be banned from editing that article. Richerman (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Jadeitite

I would agree that Jadeitite and Jadeite should be merged (I'll add a merge banner for discussion). Gillian Varndell (Curator, Neolithic Collections: Neolithic of Britain and Europe see details at BM is the one who reviewed an earlier version of the Sweet Track article. She said "First remarks concern the jade axe head. It says on Wikipedia that ‘eight c14 determinations of the date of the axe place it at around 3200BC’. Up-to-date opinion has the axe dated close to the construction of the track. I’m not sure what these determinations were done on (I haven’t looked at the Somerset Levels publications for a long time) but another point is that the Wiki entry makes it sound as if a c14 date can be got directly from a stone axe- not so. A good ref. for it is: A Sheridan, D Field, Y Pailler, P Pétrequin, M Errera and S Cassen, The Breamore jadeitite axehead and other Neolithic axeheads of Alpine rock from central southern England. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, 103 (2010) pp. 16-34." and followed it with "Sorry- please see correction to bib. ref. below. Sensu stricto, this rock is now referred to as jadeitite but I wouldn’t go there if I were you; it’s just for accuracy in the reference." I'd be happy for it to be linked to the more detailed article if it is changed in the lead as well.

Any pictures/diagrams would be great as several reviewers have asked for this. I'm going to be away myself for two weeks from Saturday so I really appreciate your interest & continual improvement of the article while I'm gone.— Rod talk 21:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Ship Canal

It's surely a disgrace that our GM Project hasn't got this, one of the greatest Victorian engineering achievements, even to GA yet. Once Trafford Park's done and dusted, hopefully soon, it's right up there on my to-do list, hopefully yours as well, and a few others. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely - I was watching "Country tracks" on the beeb today, which was all about the north west, and it piqued my interest again. I'm just looking up some stuff on google books to get rid of some of those "citation needed" tags. Richerman (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that Trafford Park's out of the way I think that we ought to be looking seriously at getting this to FAC. Are you up for it? I've got a few witches and hangmen to sort out first, and I need to get the books back from the library, but shall we do it? I'm sure PoD would be up for it as well. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly - I'll keep nibbling away at the edges until you're ready. The Willan book is interesting - it certainly casts a different light on it. Richerman (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a big story and a big engineering project, we ought to try and do it justice. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
According to a programme I saw on the TV a month or so ago it's the root cause of the enmity between Manchester and Liverpool. From what I've just read I'm beginning to think it made a big contribution to the Manchester/Salford rivalry as well. Richerman (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
As I said, it's a big story; just a shame that there's only you and me who cares enough to try and tell it. Still, we'll manage. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Re this edit - yes, perfectly! Mjroots (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dont come to my page again

If you ever edit my user page again (OR MY TALK PAGE, don't contact me) I will bring you straight to AN/I consider this your notification because if you violate it I'm not coming back here to notify you about it because I assume you are did it because you WANT to be banned. Go away and dont have any contact with me again.Camelbinky (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You invited people to put amusing quotes on you talk page - obviously you don't share my sense of humour :}. Richerman (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps Camelblinky might work on his writing skills? His user page pretty clearly says, "(feel free to add funny ones you see at noticeboards, article and user talk pages)". He's gonna have a tough row to hoe getting you banned for following his request :) But let's never let facts stand in the way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly :) Richerman (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, s/he can take comments they don't like off their own talk page but this little rant stays on mine for posterity. Richerman (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for James Blyth (engineer)

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Salford from Clifton.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Salford from Rainsough.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Windmills

pretty much every industrial use that was water-powered has, at some time, been wind-powered too (even metal working). I could add a whole host (rope-making?) from Roy Gregory's book but so many are one-offs and might lead to excessive list-making that it might be better not to. Snuff-grinding was fairly common in Holland though.Ghughesarch (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

fighting overly technical articles

I noticed your comments at Brownian motion because I was headed to the talk page there to make a similar comment. So what if I'm three years late, the article still needs help. I'll be there fighting the noble fight, look forward to working with you. Cliff (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night

I've already accepted that my proposed change isn't being accepted. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Dwight B. Heard DYK problem

I've fixed the problem you've listed. Buggie111 (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That was quick - not even had time to notify you yet :) Richerman (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I've left a reply on the DYK page but as it's almost 3am here I need to get to bed. I'll have another look tomorrow. Richerman (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rushbearing

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your input needed...

... at User talk:Kurt-the-parrot-hamster. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night

In removing a link I had added within a quotation in this article, you said in an edit summary "quotations should not have links". If there is some such guidance, I wasn't aware of it and feel I need to fathom it. Could you please let me know where this comes from? Moonraker2 (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)#General points on linking style it says "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." Richerman (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 10:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Suffrage

Hi Richerman - just noticed you removed an image from this article on the basis it is merely advertising, although without taking the trouble to find one of those plenty of substitutes - bit like saying that people who are semi-professional authors, writers etc shouldn't contribute to wiki. There is an underlying hypocrisy to your action as you ask for attribution for your own images and I see you have authored articles in which you use photo's from people who have their own web sites and describe their photography interests. Moving on to the point you make about the image itself it's not appropriate for you to decry in the terms you have the contribution that historical actors make across an extraordinary range of issues, particularly as in some of your articles you're happy to use "historical" images. Maybe a case of "don't do as I do, but do as I say" ? WyrdLight (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I see I'm not the first person to express concern about your advertising. I've absolutely no problem with professionals or semi-professionals contributing to wikipedia - in fact I know some who make numerous valuable contributions for no personal gain. What I do have a problem with is being directed to your website where you are selling your photographs - wikipeda isn't a free advertising space. The reason I said the image was ridiculous was nothing to do with the expertise of the actors, it's because it's clearly a staged, modern colour photograph rather than a contemporary image. And as for "particularly as in some of your articles you're happy to use "historical" images" I've no idea what point you're trying to make. Richerman (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for that. The staged, modern colour photograph is of the same order as many images used on wiki of refurbished, rebuilt, replica objects etc, and it wasn't staged by me or for me. These have a place in education and on the wiki and are not by definition worthless - there are many examples on wiki. Your "emotive" language about the image is inappropriate. I've uploaded many images to wiki which are by that act made available freely to whoever wishes to use them - just as you say "for no personal gain". Your notion of using wiki as an advertising agency is wide of the mark - it's not a stock library, I don't use it as such and it doesn't generate much interest. You don't have to put my details into your your browser - why do it all? I've worked through the wiki issues of conflict of interest - can I ask you whether you merely place your images in the articles you've created and work on; or in a strict interpretation of wiki regs you seek the prior approval of other editors!? I do wonder why I carry on uploading images and attempting to enhance wiki alongside everyone else when these fundamentalist views - thankfully they aren't too widespread. I see you found a picture of the time for the article on suffrage and without doubt I agree that is much better than a modern reinterpretation, but there's a link to website in the picture credits. Interesting - I've a couple of themed educationally approved, not for profit etc mini-sites on my domain. I didn't realise one could actually put a click through link in the image credit - much better than an external link which could be considered spam, maybe.. ; no only joking. WyrdLight (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

OK mabe my AGF meter was malfunctioning somewhat! - I agree the language was a bit over the top and I apologise for that. I see also you have uploaded a lot of images to wikipedia. I don't know what you mean about seeking the approval of other editors for images - there's no policy I'm aware of that suggests that. It was the clickable link to your website that was the reason for my obection. I think one of the other reasons you're running into problems is that you ask on your user page for all your images to be credited to wyrdlight.com. Why not just ask for them to be credited to just your user name or your real name? You could then say something on your user page like "if you would to see other examples of my work see wyrdlight.com". Then anyone can find your work if they look for it but your website address isn't appearing on every image. When I take an out of copyright image from a website I credit the source so that anyone who wants to can check it's being used legally - but they tend to be different websites each time and many of them are not commercial websites, so I'm obviously not promoting anything. The problem with crediting your own website as the source is that it does look like you're promoting it - does that make any sense? Richerman (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The bit about other "editors approval" is that a point of view put to me is that it should be other editors who decide whether your own images should feature on a page - I think that just makes contributing very unwieldy and I think it works better to place an image and then see what others make of it. OK - we had a bit of a spat, but I don't mind positive editing and the Suffrage page is improved by your addition. Yes - I frequently am asked to verify permission for images uploaded to Wiki and to meet those requirements have put a link from my site to my user page which I'm told satisfies this requirement. I understand the concerns about self-promotion. I've just changed the attribution on a number of images to the website and part of this was because of regularly being tasked with proving copyright permission was granted, but I guess I could have worked it as you suggest. All the same it looks as though (I'm no expert on Wiki rules) as you've done above that it is simpler to put in that link on the images I provide. No doubt see you on other pages.

DYK for Manchester Hydraulic Power

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Islington Branch Canal

I just noticed your comment from 2008 on the Islington Branch Canal talk page. I'll see if I can find any info about the new wharf, and add something it I can. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Scout Moor Wind Farm

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Scout Moor Wind Farm. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Workhouse

I just noticed the link you added to impotent poor. One day I hope to be pleasantly surprised when I follow a link like that, but it wasn't today. Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That link was already there I just changed it from a redirect. Unfortunately there are even worse ones such as Outdoor relief. should that even be an article? - it's more of a definition at the moment. Richerman (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it should, but indoor relief is even worse. I'm going to redirect that to workhouse and see what happens. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It's the old problem - you start on one article and end up having to fix ten of them :) Richerman (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Or thirteen :) Parrot of Doom 22:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Salford, 1950s

Dunno if you might find this of interest. You might even be in it, lol! Parrot of Doom 01:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ely, Cambridgeshire

Richerman. Thank you for taking the time to copy-edit the Ely article. Much appreciated. I have a few matters arising which I would like you to consider

  • 1 "... as well an almost complete specimen ...". I changed this to "... in addition to an almost complete specimen ..."
  • 2 Whilst accepting my general tendency to overlink, this edit still raises a number of queries ...
  1. My "... railways in 1845" was intended to indicate to the reader that 1845 was not the earliest British railway by linking railway. I guess this is debatable though I would like you to reconsider this one and revert this change
  2. My "... [Drainage system (agriculture)|drained]] ..." was intended to indicate to the reader specific agricultural drainage. Please reconsider
  3. We write for an international audience and my linking of city status in "In 1974 city status was granted ..." was intended to inform the reader. Again, I accept my general tendency to over-link but again, I ask you to reconsider this change
  4. My understanding of compound adjectives, such as my "... sixteenth-century pottery ...", is that these constructs should be hyphenated. Compare this with "... in the sixteenth century". Consequently, I would like you to review your almost wholesale changes of a similar nature within the article. Of course, I am not an expert on this topic. I have however consulted experts in building this article so your review of this would be appreciated
  • 3 From the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, and at the first occurrence after the lead." which is a what I believed I was following. Your removal of Kimmeridge Clay here breaks that guideline and consequently I would like you to review this edit
  • 4 a few queries as follows
  1. Isle of Ely and St Etheldreda are, I believe fair and reasonable in the body of the article. Please consider reviewing your edit
  2. This, the first occurrence of Danish, explains more clearly what is meant by Danish here and I would ask you to consider reviewing your edit
  3. These all appear linked in the lead and again, I believe I am following the MoS guideline: Sacrist, Alan of Walsingham, nave crossing and Norman. I would therefore ask you to consider reviewing your edits
  • 5 Another of my edits which I thought adhered to the principle of linking in the lead and the body. Please consider reviewing this edit. Incidentally, you appear here to be tacitly accepting that this profession should be linked against the advice of the MoS. I would agree with you that unusual professions should be linked in this way
  • 6 I contend that the following are valid compounds: "... following the fourteenth-century plague and sixteenth-century reformation ...". Please reconsider this edit
  • 7 I was not aware of the principle of not linking within quotations. Thank you
  • 8 I do not accept that your removal of the link in the first occurrence of Scotland within this article to be valid to an international audience. Please reconsider this edit

Once again, I am very grateful for the time you have obviously taken to copy-edit this article. Your other edits are brilliant and remain without need for comment. I urge you to reconsider the edits detailed above.

yours most sincerely

--Senra (Talk) 13:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Senra, I'll work through the points you made and answer here but, as it will takee some time I'll save it in bits as I go through - of course you are free to disgree and revert any changes you're not happy with.
  • 1. I think my version was improvement but yours is even better :)
  • 2. My test of whether is link is needed is "is anyone likely to click on the link?" so;
    • 1. I see what your trying to achieve but is anyone likely to click on the word "railway" to get to that?
    • 2. Again is anyone likely to click "drainage"?
    • 3. Debatable, but I'm happy to change it back
    • 4. I can't see they could be confused with any other meaning and it appears from the link you gave to compound adjectives that it's only the form "20th-century" that needs a hyphen, if I've understood correctly what they're saying. I definitely didn't like the 'hanging hyphen' in 'sixteenth- and seventeenth-century'. However, I'm no expert either - I just copy edit until I think it looks right.
  • 3. Links may be repeated not must be. As Kimmeridge clay is mentioned twice in the lead I don't think anyone will have forgotten what it means by the first line of the first section. Richerman (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 4.
    • 1. To use an expression I mentioned on Malleus's talk page recently - ok, I'm not precious about those two :)
    • 2. I wouldn't click on 'Danish' because I think I already know what it means - why not put 'Viking' in the text instead? As it says in the MoS - better to explain in the text than make the reader follow a link.
    • 3. Again, I don't think these are far enough from the lead to make them need linking again. On a slightly different point, I've just noticed thst the MoS says you shouldn't have two links together (as in these terms) so that they look like one link.
  • 5. Again, I think if it's linked in the lead it doesn't necessarily need another link. As to your second point, I thought 'surveyor' was a commonly understood word that didn't need linking so I first unlinked that but later went for 'chorographic surveyor' as a better option, with a link to the less understood term. I think the reader would easily work out what it means from that.
  • 6. see 2.4
  • 7. it's an obscure bit in the MoS linking section that I picked up :)
  • 8. I believe it says in the MoS that countries shouldn't be linked. And if you only link that one country you'll probably upset all the Scots as they'll think you're suggesting that no-one has heard of Scotland :) Richerman (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking time to think again or further explain your reasoning. I will certainly learn from this and perhaps others may do too. I have always preferred discussion to reversion. I guess I am on the verge of WP:OWN here but in my defence, (a) I had an off-wiki copy-editor review the article and he responded with nine pages of red ink which I went through (from A to Z!) although looking at our MoS I did not agree with his "south west" rather than our British English "south-west". I guess I did feel a little protective following your edits soon after his. Sorry and (b) I think if I was fully WP:OWN I would have used reversion which I hate so much as conflict can arise so easily --Senra (Talk) 00:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a brief note on the geology section of Ely. Another off-wiki friend, this time a geologist, is re-writing that whole section so I am not overly concerned about how it looks at present :) --Senra (Talk) 00:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec) No offence taken whatsoever and no explantion needed. I believe those those who accuse others of wp:own are usully the ones that haven't tried to get an article to GA or FA. Once you've done all that work I think you certainly should be protective of it. Richerman (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Erm. Be careful my friend. Your edits above did not change meaning but your recent edits ([3], [4]) are most certainly changing meaning. I changed the former but please change the latter. I have the source and coprolite's were the local misnomer. Phosphates they were; most certainly not fossilised dung - see Gallois 1988 which I have in front of me --Senra (Talk) 01:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, in this instance I strongly believe that agricultural phosphate link should stay. I did a lot of research on that couple of words and wikipedia has too much on phosphate to state anything other than agricultural phosphate in this context --Senra (Talk) 01:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The link's fine - I wasn't thinking of removing it. The Coprolite article gives the impression that the ones mined near Ely were fossilised dung so it looks like they must have got it wrong. I wondered why you said 'known locally' - perhaps it needs a bit more explanation. Richerman (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Coprolite (OED. Noun. Greek: dung, stone) does indeed mean fossilised animal dung but in the context of the local agricultural phosphates industry it was misnamed. My issue is sources. There are many non RS on-line sources to this but the authority is Grove which I do not have a copy of. It would be synthesis of me to add the phrase "misnamed locally as coprolites" as my source, Gallois, does not say that --Senra (Talk) 01:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough - it can be frustrating when you know what you want to say but the sources won't let you. I was about to revert it but you got there first. Anyway, I think it's time I went to bed. Richerman (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
On the basis of the above, I will seek out Grove (1976) so that I can clarify why "known locally" is there. It will also give me a source for correcting the coprolite article :) For the record, from Gallois, R W (1988), Geology of the country around Ely: Memoir for 1:50 000 geological sheet 173 (England and Wales), London:HMSO: British Geological Survey, ISBN 0118843958 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) pp. 91–92 he quotes primary sources as Seeley (1866b), Fisher (1873) and Penning and Jukes-Browne (1881) then quotes an analysis by Oakley (1941) and finally Grove, R (1976), The Cambridgeshire coprolite mining rush, Cambridge: Oleander. I do recall, reading last year about this industry, that some archaeology dude mis-named the local stuff as animal dung. I just cannot recall his name. Animal dung stuck, as many local people I talk to still show me their "dinosaur sh*t" souvenirs! (Apologies for mis-spelling your name in a recent es :( --Senra (Talk) 02:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
There's quite a bit about the history here They say that it's an industry name that stuck but some say they should be called pseudo coprolytes. Richerman (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for this. I added a note on the origin of coprolite and changed "Agricultural phosphate" to "Phosphate nodules" as both Gallois (1998) and your O'Connor (2001) both use the term nodule. Great source find by the way. As I said above, I did recall some dude coined the word but could not remember who. On re-reading the OED entry for coprolite, it does indeed mention BUCKLAND 1829. Brilliant! Thank you --Senra (Talk) 09:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, neither Gallois nor O'Connor directly say coprolite is a misnomer. However, I feel justified in introducing this misnaming on the basis that at least O'Connor mentions the Greek derivation of the word meaning dung-rock but calls the stuff animal bone this tacitly saying it was misnamed. What do you think? --Senra (Talk) 09:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The plot thickens! I have just been reading our article on William Buckland who, it seems, coined the word coprolite correctly. We cannot of course directly use a Wikipedia article as a source, but it makes interesting reading. He was studying the stomach contents of dinosaur fossils. Coprolite was then mis-applied to the bones used as a fertiliser. So it was not his misnaming, but the industry mis-naming. You are a better word-smith than I am. Please feel free to re-word so long as "known locally" is still in there which is even a direct quote from Gallois --Senra (Talk) 10:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Coprolite mining is also explained in an earlier article I significantly contributed to: Little Thetford#Economy. And, er, ha ha. I notice that I used O'Connor (2001)! --Senra (Talk) 16:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks a lot better now. I was concerned about calling it mining of 'agricultural phosphates' as it's not really that until it's been processed - but that's not a problem now. My next niggle is about 'Tawdry lace' but I'll take the discussion to the Ely talk page. Richerman (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richerman/Archive_2&oldid=1143264818"