User talk:DesmondW

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

DRG Class 44[edit]

Desmond, Mittelgebirge has 2 meanings in German. It can mean 'low mountains', but it also refers to the Central Uplands (usually die deutsche Mittelgebirge). In the context of the above article, I have looked at the original on de.wiki and I agree that it is more likely to be the former, so "hilly regions" is fine. Just thought you'd be interested in the alternative meaning. Regards. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! Mittel translates closer to average, median, or medium rather than middle (e.g. Lebensmittel) and www.Leo.org translates Mittelgebirge as low mountains. It is one of the cases where the same word has slightly different meaning DesmondW (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ireland's fjords[edit]

Do you have any reputable citations to support your writings within three articles last May 3rd that Carlingford Lough and Lough Swilly are fjords? — O'Dea 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There are many; J B Whittow "Geology and Scenery in Ireland" 1974 for one. The glacial nature of both is beyond dispute, however Killary Harbour apparently lay on the very edge of the glacial region and there have been questions about its nature.DesmondW (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I will try to find a copy of that book if I can. Meanwhile, can you point to any reputable source online that I could look at? Your statements now in Wikipedia are propagating all over the internet in Wikimirrors, so they can't be cited. I was taught that Killary Harbour was Ireland's only fjord, so I apply scepticism towards possible claim jumpers or wannabes. I notice you say "the glacial nature of [Carlingford and Swilly] is beyond dispute"; I don't dispute that, either, but a drumlin is also glacial without being a fjord. Perhaps the definition of and criteria for a fjord have been refined by geographers in a way that now includes Swilly and Carlingford. Tell me if you know a credible online source about Ireland having three fjords instead of one. Thanks. — O'Dea 16:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your very reasonable response, I have been burned before. The glacial field covered this country from the north, of course, and Killary was at the southern edge whilst Strangford & Carlingford were engulfed by ice and have many other glacial features such as Cym valleys, the Mournes are also marked with many glacial features. You mentioned drumlins and will know of them in county Down, so you may know of esker ridges, such as alongside Clonmacnoise, also glacial in origin. The northern third of this country was heavily scoured by glacial effects. So far as web references go how about <http://books.google.ie/books?id=lvSN6DbnkyQC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=carlingford+glacial&source=bl&ots=4jIN9Xwa8I&sig=9GxPB_K6udFkTULrYa4asA1ArNg&hl=en&ei=AVk3TYj9J4XNhAfT46WeAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=carlingford%20glacial&f=false> (apologies if I haven't mapped this link correctly)
The key point is not that Carlingford & Strangford Loughs are glacial fjords which is undisputed, but that Killary Harbour has no valid claim to be the only one and may not even be glacial at all. Killary Harbour's claim "the only fjord in Ireland" is completely specious. DesmondW (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I must add that it (Killary Harbour) is one of the most beautiful places I know and has no need of hyperbole. DesmondW (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Your statement creates many difficulties. 1. The link you provide leads to an account of Carlingford Lough, saying that it experienced glacial action, but without using the word "fjord". There is no mention of Lough Swilly as a fjord, nor any dismissal of Killary. 2. You reject entirely Killary's claim to be a fjord as "specious", an excessive dismissal which casts doubt on your seriousness and knowledge. 3. You say the glacial field came from the north and that "Killary was at the southern edge", but this is pure ignorance: the whole country was covered in ice: see this map and this one. 4. You repeat, "The northern third of this country was heavily scoured by glacial effects." But the whole country was affected by glaciation. 5. You talk distractingly about cwms, drumlins, eskers, and the Mournes in a scattershot pile of irrelevant details: I'm only talking about a fjord. Are you waffling because you can't sustain your claims about Lough Swilly and Carlingford Lough? 6. You didn't mention Lough Swilly once, and dragged in Strangford Lough as a new candidate, ex nihilo and previously unmentioned. 7. You cited nothing to tear Killary Harbour down off its pedestal as a "specious" pretender. 8. I searched in Google for the phrase "Ireland's only fjord" and found 43,300 results. Then I searched for the phrase "Ireland's fjords" (implying more than one) and had only three results, but they were copies of each other, so it was really only one result—on the entire internet—and that single hit was only a blog. 8. The Encyclopædia Britannica describes "the fine fjord of Killary Harbour". 10. The Lonely Planet guide to Ireland talks on page 424 about "Killary harbour Little (or Little Killary) ...its shape mimicking the larger-scale fjord further north". On page 26 it talks about "Ireland's only fjord"; on page 411, "Killary Harbour, the country's only fjord"; on page 421, "Ireland's only fjord". 11. Fodor's guide to Ireland talks about "Killary Harbour, a narrow fjord (the only one in Ireland)". 12. If you'd like something meatier, more academic, in 1987 the Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom carried a paper entitled, Hydrography and the distribution of phytoplankton in Killary Harbour: a fjord in western Ireland. 13. Or how about the 1984 paper from University College, Galway, Fluxes of organic carbon in a fjord on the west coast of Ireland. 14. Earlier, above, you maintained again that "Killary Harbour apparently lay on the very edge of the glacial region" but the ice dropped drumlins out into the Atlantic at Clew Bay and scratched the bedrock out as far as the Aran Islands. 15. The fact that Killary was a fjord was part of the academic curriculum when I studied geography. So was the fact that it was the only one. With fifteen problems like that, I am forced to withhold my trust from an unsupported claim that there is more than one fjord in Ireland. — O'Dea 00:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear, you completely misquote me and have gone off on a rant.
I do not say that Killary is not a fjord, merely that it is not the only one in Ireland.
Having studied the subject I am surprised by you overlooking all the obvious features, and quoting from derived sources like "Lonely Planet" is exactly what promotes the myth.
Let me quote from an original source, Whittow: "both Lough Foyle and Lough Swilly, the one a structured downfold... ...the other a true fjord, ice eroded and overdeepened between the steep walls of quartzite which flank its shores."
and again "Carlingford the 'Cairlinn fjord' is named more aptly than its neighbour Strangford (Strang fjord)... ...The Pleistocene ice-sheets, in the form of the Carlingford glacier, scoured out the floor of the trough at its narrowest part but as in all true fjords the entrance to the lough is marked by a shallowing of the sea bed."
Of Killary he has much less to say and merely mentions eroding but does refer to it as "Killary Fjord". DesmondW (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I am guilty of under quoting: from Whittow "There is little doubt that Killary is the finest fjord in Ireland." DesmondW (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit @ Carlingford Lough[edit]

Please refrain from using the minor edit tag as you did here at the Carlingford Lough article. If you do not understand how to use the tag I suggest that you read WP:MINOR. I also recommend that you add a clear edit summary. BTW I have reverted your edit. Bjmullan (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

/* December 2011 */[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and apologies for my omission DesmondW (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Leica R8-R9[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Leica R8-R9, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://mcmcchen.supersized.org/archives/433-Leica-R8.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Leicaflex / SL / SL2[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Leicaflex / SL / SL2, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Leicaflex.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Leica r5, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. AKS (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Leica r6, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. AKS (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Headers and capitals[edit]

Hi there. Please have a look at MOS:HEAD ("... for example, headings are in sentence case, not title case"). I made a few changes to your recent edits. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions, I am still learning DesmondW (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Aren't we all? :-) Keep up the good work! - DVdm (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Can you advise me about these CorenSearchBot messages? What I have done is to merge and edit existing articles so any conflict already existed. DesmondW (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do, is to go to the CorenSearchBot's talk page (User talk:CorenSearchBot), open a new section to explain your problem/puzzlement and to ask for advice. You'll find user Coren, who runs the bot, to be a real person and a very experienced Wikipedia administrator. It might however be a good idea to first check whether the text was indeed copied from that site, or perhaps vice-versa, in which case there is of course no problem. Could be tricky, this. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I had a quick look at the sites. In the case of the R8 (this site) it looks like they have copy/pasted from Wikipedia. Not sure about what/when happened with the SL/SL2 (at this site). This might need comparison of their article edit history versus ours. Tricky indeed. - DVdm (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Tomorrow I shall post to Coren's site as you suggested and see how we go from there. I really appreciate your advice!DesmondW (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem. This is going to be a good learning experience for you :-) - DVdm (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Leica R8-R9[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Leica R8-R9. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Leica Camera. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Leica Camera - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. AKS (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, I have contested the sppedy deletion tag - DesmondW (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi DesmondW. This kind of article is often unwelcome in Wikipedia, but of course it's very welcome in Camera-Wiki. (I leave you to join the dots here.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Leica R4-R7[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Leica R4-R7. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Leica Camera. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Leica Camera - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. AKS (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, I have contested the sppedy deletion tag - DesmondW (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Leica R8-R9[edit]

If you want to move a page to a new title, please follow the instructions at Help:How to move a page. Don't just copy and paste the content, it creates a mess for some admin to clean up. Hut 8.5 23:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies and thank you for the link - DesmondW (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers on gliders[edit]

Hello Desmond. On 1 November you edited our article Spoiler (aeronautics) to delete a paragraph which stated that “Spoilers are used by nearly every glider (sailplane) ...” You summarised your edit with “Gliders do not have spoilers, they have airbrakes.” As a long-time glider pilot and aeronautical engineer, I disagree.

The first paragraph of the article Spoiler (aeronautics) states Wikipedia’s perspective on the subject. It states: Spoilers are plates on the top surface of a wing which can be extended upward into the airflow and spoil it. By doing so, the spoiler creates a carefully controlled stall over the portion of the wing behind it, greatly reducing the lift of that wing section. Spoilers differ from airbrakes in that airbrakes are designed to increase drag making little change to lift, while spoilers reduce lift as well as increasing drag. The drag-increasing devices used on nearly every glider qualify perfectly under these criteria for what constitutes a spoiler.

I have reverted your deletion and raised the matter for discussion on the Talk page – see Talk:Spoiler (aeronautics)#Spoilers on gliders. I hope you will join the discussion. Regards. Dolphin (t) 01:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Le Mesurier[edit]

It's not a tautology (heavy drinker of tea, coffee, water, booze?), so please don't do that again. Please also see WP:BRD. - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is a tautology, but if you can't see that then so be it. You cannot be a "heavy drinker" of tea or orange juice, it's always booze. DesmondW (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox camera[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Infobox camera. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Frietjes (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Frietjes Don't be silly, you are the one engaging in an edit war constantly reverting my edits. Film format (e.g. 35mm, 120) relates to the physical size of the medium. Image size (e.g. 24x36mm, 6x6cm, or 6x7cm) is the actual size of the image recorded and a different measure. As an aside, the half frame image size is another variation of 35mm film format (actually these two measures really should be called "Film size" and "Image size"). Clearly "Film Size" is an incorrect description of the image size, and a tautology of film format. I expect you to withdraw your comments and revert your undo. Incidentally, I worked as a professional in the film industry for many years and know the difference between film size (format) and image size, which you apparently do not. DesmondW (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Passive voice... e.g., with Renault Dauphine[edit]

I see that you prefer introducing the passive voice, which is quite curious. Typically the passive voice disrupts and dimishinshes clarity. Unless you prefer this sort of thing: Why was the road crossed by the chicken?  :) 842U (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Indiscriminate changes[edit]

While your enthusiasm to standardize the article Coupé is laudable, in this edit you have changed the title of a source document and the name of an image file in a thumbnail, neither of which should be done. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk)

Apologies, I did not mean to do so. Will you correct these or shall I? DesmondW (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I have corrected what I found; there might be more. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (February 5)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! DesmondW, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (February 22)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sam Sailor was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. -- Sam Sing! 17:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)