User talk:Old Moonraker

Moonraker

Are you by any chance a fan of James Bond,Roger Moore, or the movie Moon Raker? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's this one. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quirk of the language

If you aren't too exhausted after dealing the wall of text above I thought that you might like this. I stumbled on this US/UK series Episodes while trying to avoid the oppressive heat this weekend. The fact that it exists has lead to WikiP having an article titled List of Episodes episodes. The bureaucrats at the Department of Redundancy Department are completely befuddled as how to deal with this :-) On another note, when someone says something like "I have two twin daughters upstairs" does that mean they have four girls? I know that my English can be atrocious as a) I'm a yank and b) my schooling was in the era that proper usage was phased out of the curriculum but this has always sounded weird to me. Thanks ahead of time for correcting my notions and have a nice week. MarnetteD | Talk 04:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a treat to have civil, non-controversial comments on my talk page, for a change! A typical judgement on my editing from a couple of threads above: "You have proven yourself ignorant, impolite and proprietorial. I have my eye on you now; I will be reporting your actions". The contributor's section header was "Misuse of talk", which seems apt.

My grammar is not only weak, but also about a century out of date! This is because most of what I remember of it comes from compulsory Latin, which (possibly unwisely) I managed to drop after a few years. There's no flexibility in Latin grammar (at least as we were taught) and, even now, I need to adjust my attitudes to some perfectly acceptable modern usages.

Treat or not, though, I'm afraid you have just brought back to mind one of last year's great TV disappointments: Mangan and Greig taking time out from their stage work, The Norman Conquests and Jumpy, respectively, to offer what I hoped would be a reinvention of their clever performances in Green Wing (loosely, Scrubs but with extremely childish grown-ups), with the bonus of two top US script writers. All this in my one of my favourite comedy contexts: showbiz metafiction (I actually enjoyed, for example, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip and couldn't understand its adverse reception. I see that Sorkin is trying again, with a newsroom setting this time, and I'll be looking out for it here.) In Episodes, however, they didn't seem to connect and, looking at it again, I think that in GW the point was that they weren't a couple but in the Episodes episodes (catching, isn't it?) the characters they play were.

Actually, I'm bracing myself for another possible disappointment: I booked to see Mangan (with Lisa Dillon) in an off-west-end show tomorrow, on the strength of the casting and the reputation of the venue. Only later did I find out that the title, Birthday, refers to Mangan giving birth on stage, with Dillon helping during labour. I should have been paying more attention: the venue has been complaining recently that its audience is too rich (not me) and too smug (?) and needed shaking up a bit!

All the best.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who did they play in Conquests? Those plays have a special spot in my heart because I remember how my jaw was on the floor for the first several minutes of the second play as I realized what was being done to my perceptions of events of the first one. The first two episodes of Newsroom have been interesting although I don't know whether everyone has hit their stride yet. Too rich and smug :-) I can only wonder what the audience thought of me back in June of 1980 when I went to see Leonard Rossiter and Prunella Scales in Frayn's Make and Break at the Theatre Royal Haymarket. In the previous week I had been on some of the walking trails southeast of Paris - then I had taken the night train and ferry to London and spent the day wandering around seeing some sights and in seeing their names on the marquee I new I had to buy a ticket. I was wearing bib overalls, a blue and gold rugby shirt and Chuck Taylor tennis shows and my seat was in the first row of the Royal Circle. I wouldn't get to a hotel with a shower until two days later when my hitchhiking got me to Exeter. I hope the "birth" isn't too graphically real. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pytheas

As you've edited Stonehenge recently, you might want to look at my recent posts to Talk:Pytheas. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember calling for this same material to be removed from the Stonehenge article, which it was, and it seems equally inappropriate on Pytheas. I've added a note on the talk page there as well.--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimapia

This is a list of what links to Wikimapia: -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.wikimapia.org

much appreciated if you could help reduce it based on the EL noticeboard disscussion :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

>5000! This looks like a case for a bot request. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst that may be so, some of the links will need to be manually reviewed. , What do you think I should say in the Bot Request? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, I've never considered one before now. I imagine that talk pages (article and user) would be exempt, which probably wouldn't be too hard to script, and the one link from the Wikimapia page itself, of course. Still leaves a lot, if it is decided to go down that path. On the other hand, accept that WP:IMPERFECT applies and just let things take their course, picking off the offending links as they come under notice. It would take a while but in that way the most edited, and so presumably the most viewed, pages would be fixed first. Not a lot of help, I'm afraid. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More on Pytheas

Hi. There is a little more on Pytheas discussion.Dave (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I have replied, very briefly indeed, there. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further on Wikimapia

This appeard to be the OpenStreetMap position on geo-code capture from Google (and by extension WikiMapia)

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_don.27t_you_just_use_Google_Maps.2Fwhoever_for_your_data.3F

Basicly the OSM Community position is that capturing GeoCodes from Google (and by extension WikiMapia) isn't permitted unless Google says so. I've not found anything in the Google's Terms to say the allow GeoCode capture from their imaging (and by extension WikiMapia).

US and UK rules on factual database rights differ, so I am not bringing this up as a 'copyright' problem as such. However, the use of Google(or Wikimapia) derived coordinates would in my view create potential problems for some downstream users, which although the coordinates in the relevant articles have been added in Good faith, is not in my view consistent with the aims of 'free' content project.

If you want to argue for 'geocode' capture being a form of 'fair-use' , feel free to raise this on the relevant noticeboards.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wasn't my point; in fact it was a completely new suggestion to me. I weighed in in support of your "unreliable user-generated content" contention. However, now you mention it, your new issue seems to be valid as well: anything that diminishes Wikipedia's availability as "free content" is deprecated. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where would be the appropriate place to bring up a copyright issue like this? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For once, I'm ahead on this one! See my last at the noticeboard. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stoppard

Ah. I added that interview and edit myself. I could be wrong but I certainly remember it being mentioned. I'll give it another listen. Do you know that that is why the IP deleted it? Best wishes Span (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were not wrong. More at your talk page.--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pigment Database

What was wrong? Didn't see the coloured squares? Harjasusi (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, saw that thanks. Saw the linked page title The Art of David Myers as well, which made me remember the list of links to avoid: item 11 is "personal web pages". --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be argued that the Leica Camera page is polluted with commercial links too, let's go & delete them, shall we? Harjasusi (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation but that won't be "we" in any sense that includes me; see "there are other articles just as promotional as this one" for more.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Panel Article on Wikipedia

Old Moonraker,

You keep on deleting my content but please note: I added this 3d wall panel item like this :

There is a new type of eco friendly 3d wall panel made out of the fibrous residue of sugarcane. This fibres of crushed sugarcane stalks, remaining after raw sugar is extracted from the juice of the sugarcane by shredding it, is now the raw material, called bagasse, that forms the base of this easily installed eco friendly product. The raw material used for these 3d wall panel is 100% recycled, compostable and is therefore 100% biodegradable.

Then someone from Wikipedia ( RichardMills65 ) asked ME to ad more info so I added :

These panels are manufactured by WallArt 3d wall decor and more info about them can be found on http://www.3d-wallpanels.com

This domain was changed by a company with at .co.uk domain and later a Chinees company selling MDF wall panel (not the kind refering to in the article), they both changed the URL so I changed back to what written there at 1st and asked and aproved by Wikipedia :

There is a new type of eco friendly 3d wall panel made out of the fibrous residue of sugarcane. This fibres of crushed sugarcane stalks, remaining after raw sugar is extracted from the juice of the sugarcane by shredding it, is now the raw material, called bagasse, that forms the base of this easily installed eco friendly product. The raw material used for these 3d wall panel is 100% recycled, compostable and is therefore 100% biodegradable. These panels are manufactured by WallArt 3d wall decor and more info about them can be found on http://www.3d-wallpanels.com

Would you please have me change back as before ? Since the link is the link to the actual company who are only producer of this 3d wall panel made out of the fibrous residue of sugarcane so it is not SPAM.

I hope you understand and otherwise : please check all history on this item and you will see all is written is true ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.90.59 (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a spamlink, not a reference, and adding it four times is edit warring, which can result in a block. Three times deleting a reliable source, taken from the journal of the American Chemical Society, to make way for the spamlink is vandalism.--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you are not replying to the actual case, you are replying to why I was blocked, I was talking about that, I was explaining that we have been ASKED to AD the extra information that later has been changed, and deleted and changed and then finaly changed back to it's original content that was there from the beginning, that is why I ask you : please check the history ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.90.59 (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sthène

Sorry you felt attacked, I was refering to the use of sources which actually prove the opposite as to what they are represented as which was not what you were doing. Agathoclea (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

love's labour's lost

i did include a reason - didn't you see it? 46.11.112.223 (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet

Ah, I was wondering if Blue Apple's Hamlet merited a place on the main Hamlet page by virtue of the fact it was the first professional performance by someone with Down's Syndrome? (82.17.99.223 (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Don't ask me: get wider (and perhaps better informed) views from the regular contributors at Talk:Hamlet. Is there an article that includes the attainments of Downs patients? To me, that would make a better fit, but Down syndrome#Society and culture also looks a bit general for that sort of addition.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I suspect it might be something to add to the 'Tommy Jessop' item on the Notable Individuals of Down syndrome#Society and culture, but I can't seem to find an edit button on that page so I presume it's locked? Or is that just because I'm not registered? I'll also try Talk:Hamlet... (82.17.99.223 (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry: that page is locked; I hadn't noticed that. Just add {{edit semi-protected}}, with the exact text of your proposed addition, to Talk:Down syndrome. I'll be watching Talk:Hamlet. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agincourt odds

Just spotted the edit on my watchlist. On reflection my feeling is the IP may be correct. The sentence is comparing the bare numbers of 12,000 French to 9,000 English and that would be a ratio of 4:3. Odds is normally couched as a betting term indicating the probability of an eventual result, but that would give rise to a need to assess the make-up and potential strengths/weaknesses of the two sides. As the French army had a high proportion of mounted knights the 'odds' would have been far greater than 4 - 3 in favour of the French. Could I suggest you at least reconsider your revert. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 21:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's more on the article talk page to justify: "betting" isn't the primary usage, according to the reference. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gallon

Could you just read the article about litre? It is written that it isn't a SI unit. So we have to write the same for the article gallon. When you say It's not a metric unit, SI or otherwise, you must know that a metric unit is included in the SI unit. So please undo your edit because it is very ironic that this sentence is written on the article dealing with litre although this unit is the closest to cubic meter than all units. And we can notice that litre is more an "international" unit than gallon.
Nezdek (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct: I do know SI was developed from metric units. Now, what's the connection to gallon, please?--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SI unit is the only unit worldwidly recognized. So we have to show that, like the litre, it is not the international unit. That's all!
Nezdek (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The litre is officially and internationally accepted as a subsidiary unit within the SI system, according to Non-SI units accepted for use with the SI from the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, the international body overseeing the system. Why does that affect the international status (or lack of it) of the gallon? --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SI is the system of unit which prevail worldwide. So every unit must be compared with this system, like the litre AND the gallon.
Nezdek (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the litre is part of the SI system, so that's ok then. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someway the litre is effectively part of the SI unit. That's why I think absurd that the article about gallon doesn't insist on the fact that it is not part of the SI system and on the litre article, it is written. Now what do we do? You write on the article about gallon that it is a non-SI unit? That would be better that it was you who write than me.
Nezdek (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary: there's very little danger that the anyone would think the that the gallon (ca ninth century) was part of SI (introduced 1960). Contributors to gallon who have reverted you may reconsider their position if just one WP:RS turns up, declaring that such confusion does exist. With the litre it's different: there are two modern reference books, cited in its article, which specifically explain the relationship between that unit and SI. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The gallon is a unit of volume and in the SI system the unit of volume it is the cubic meter. I really don't understand what is the trouble. About the thing that the gallon was part of the SI system, I have never heard about it, and the added sentence won't give the feeling of that, because the same sentence is written in the article about the litre and I don't feel it was previously in the SI system. The first paragraph is to be a brief summary, so here are the major elements, not developped. So, is it all right?
Nezdek (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my troll proximity warning has now begun to flicker gently. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are doing.
Nezdek (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so scared of letting me write this? This is absurd
Nezdek (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Macbeth er sorry The Scottish Play question

Hello OM. I hope that you are well. Would you please take a look at this edit [1]. It seemed to me to remove one of the theories about when they play was written. Perhaps I am in error on this and it should have been removed so I thought I would check with you. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 15:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By coincidence I was reading Katherine Duncan-Jones on this, only this morning.* Her arguments are unlikely to carry much sway with Tom, who doesn't think anecdotal writers should be used as WP sources, but she notes that there are unmistakable, topical allusions to the execution of Father Garnet (May 1606) in the play. Anecdotally again, Katherine D-J suggests that the "close" relationship between the the playwright and the court could have been through "WH", a favorite of the king, rather than with James himself. So far, then, for Tom.

Leaving coincidences aside (which we need to do for any shy at a definitive answer, of course) I think Tom's edits are following the balance of current scholarship, with sufficient acknowledgement to 1603 remaining in the piece even after the prune.

On the rare occasions I have queried one of Tom's contributions he has answered courteously and promptly, and he's been proved right! That doesn't absolve the need for him to let other contributors know what he's about, of course.

I'll be watching developments on the page with interest.

(*Ungentle Shakespeare, ISBN 1-903436-26-5. Entertaining reading, but in a few places marred by conjecture built on rickety foundations; these are usually acknowledged.)--Old Moonraker (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filling me in. So, if memory serves, we've had a Dickens reading coincidence and now a Shakespeare one. I wonder what author will be next :) Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't have been a coincidence had I been keeping up with my reading: she's been "at the top of my reading list" for more than a year now![2] --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

	to say thanks
	Just wanted to say thank you for verifying the Trevithick thing, much appreciated :-) Jefph (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spotting the discrepancy in the first place! --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Man engine

Hello from Germany :

You just sended me a note about an edit I have done on the man engine page. Well, I am the author of the publication on man engines linked from that page and thought it might be appropriate to add my name to it

Regards

Thomas Krassmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.14.178.236 (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Sorry, that was a misclick: I meant to delete the whole link, not just your authorship! WP:NONENGEL doesn't allow links to written works in other languages, only references (we did use Bergwerksmuseum Grube Samson as a reference, for example). The device originated in Germany and German sources are linked for other material (for example, the video of de:Grube Samson). I often look at de:wikipedia for fresh ideas, even on non-German topics, when editing here! All the best.--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sad News

Hi OM. Just was this sad news [3] about Bob Hoskins. He has been so good in so many different things. I wish I could have seen him on stage. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a quick look at his page here, and the enormous list of movies he's been in—many more than I had imagined. I don't remember him on stage much; the National records only two appearances and there is nothing at Stratford, although he was in the RSC's 1976 Aldwych season. (This was a tenpenny bus ride for me then, but I was spending most of my spare cash going to the Stratford season, to the enormous detriment of my "normal" social life!) The performance to have seen would have been his Bosola, opposite Mirren, in The Duchess of Malfi, director Adrian Noble, at the Roundhouse in 1981. Totally unreasonably, I was avoiding productions there since Nicol Williamson's infamous Hamlet of a few years before, so it was my loss. Much later I had overcome my reservations and was dragged from an audience there to become an on-stage diner for the opening scene in an RSC Winter's Tale. Nothing really eatable, though; I vaguely remember breadsticks, but they may have been prop. The performance itself? Well, the RSC was going through a bad patch just then and very little else from that evening now seems memorable. Sorry, that's a long way off the point, but bringing it all back to mind is good for me!--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As ever thanks for sharing your memories. I know I linked you to the John Thaxter story about the Duchess of Malfi performance that he saw (it is still in my sandbox if you want to see it again but here is the link to the poster of Hoskins and Mirren [4] to refresh your memory. They were also wonderful together in The Long Good Friday and then 20+ years later in Last Orders (film). I've been reminiscing about some of my other fave performances. His Iago opposite Anthony Hopkin's Othello is a treat and the TV version of Pennies from Heaven is an all timer. One early series that is available on DVD is Thick as Thieves. It was made back in 74. It also stars John Thaw. As Britcom's go it is probably middle of the pack but the chance to see both men so young is interesting. Perhaps my favourite performance of his early years - and still one of my all time fave Brit series - is Flickers. Made in 1980 it is about the early years of filmmaking. Bob Hoskins and Frances de la Tour are a treat together. They light up the screen and have scenes that are every bit as good as anything that Tracy and Hepburn did in their time. Regarding breadsticks - how would one tell the difference between the real thing and a prop heehee. I always appreciate your time and your responses. MarnetteD | Talk 23:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare editions

OM, I want to begin standardizing the Shakespeare edition used for the Shakespeare pages as I work on them. So far I see Internet Shakespeare Editions and PlayShakespeare.com. Do you have any thoughts about this? (It appears that the WP:WikiProject Shakespeare is moribund.) (And I also see you were consulted on my conduct unbecoming to a Wikipedian!) Tom Reedy (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be broadly in favor of this; quite often I've come across minor variations in line numbering between an article here and my editions. Standardization would be welcome and your suggestion would achieve this. A clickable link to a reliable site would also save some scrabbling in the bookshelves behind me, and my usual edition is very unwieldy! Of the two, Internet Shakespeare Editions would have my vote, because it names its editorial committee, drawn from university academics, and it's broad in scope. I'm assuming that if a contributor needs to take an example from a particular edition, for a particular reading, that wouldn't be a problem.

Ultimately, as it seems highly likely that you will be doing most of the the work on this, the choice is yours.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OM see the conversation on B's talkpage and chime in if you feel so inclined. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bicycle Shaped Object for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bicycle Shaped Object is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle Shaped Object (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borax

Hi Moonraker,

I added an entry about yet another use of Borax, that is to bait and kill indoor and outdoor ants. This is widely recommenden home remedy - just mix one part Borax and one part powder sugar, and sprinkle where ants congregate. Works like a charm.

I also included an external link to a commercially made version oif that mixture sold inder the brand name Terro. I had my doubts about including it, as it might seem as a product advertisement. So if you ik the link is inappropriate, I understand it, bu why did you remove the general information bout Borax being ant bait and killer?

I have resored it, but without the external link.

Best --Nicholas Crestone (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The active ingredient in "Terro" is sodium arsenate [5] Now, what we need is a WP:RS to support your new version. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And one that distinguishes borax from Boric acid: I had forgotten the previous deletion, made because the wrong compound was given.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wells

Hi there,

I've added a link to the Google Books page on the book, which includes details about Wells as a character in the book. I hope this is acceptable; I just happened to be reading the book and was surprised it was not mentioned in the article (considering the book itself has an article, I figure it is of relevance).

Thanks for your concern, 75.154.69.218 (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is explained in an in-line note to editors; did you read this? There has to a separate, reliable source that explains the significance of the novel to the topic of the WP article, i.e. how significant is the novel to the question of Wells; that's not the same as your reading the book and being surprised that it wasn't in there, which is original thinking and not allowed. Just adding more details of the novel and replacing your entry isn't good enough. Try the talk page for a second opinion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By coincidence, I did one this morning: the original contributor added a work he/she considered important, but didn't add a reference demonstrating the importance. I found one and stuck it in. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]