Wikipedia

User talk:OwenBlacker/Archive 1

< User talk:OwenBlacker
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful


Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Sam [Spade] 00:50, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That damn sauna dispute

Thanks for the links, but I have read those pages... :o)

My comment about enumerating your problems stands, I genuinely don't understand what it is that you find objectionable in the article. I do sympathise that you may find it uncomfortable to read, as the content is about a subject that you seem to find distasteful and I don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with what seem (to me) to be baseless objections.

I genuinely do want to try to resolve this issue to everyone’s satisfaction. I'm about to log off, I'm afraid, but (irrespective of whether or not Exploding Boy does or not) I really am more than happy to try to address issues you have with the article. — OwenBlacker 00:55, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

I'll probably try rewriting it in a day or 2, as I hinted at. That should give you an idea if you lack one. I'd also reccomend reviewing my numerous criticisms, none of which were addressed to my satisfaction. Sam [Spade] 00:58, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have reviewed your criticisms already, thanks. Whilst it may be late at night here, I am capable of reading the pages carefully, particularly when the discussion is becoming somewhat heated and calmer heads are required.
Looking yet again at your objections, they do all appear to have been addressed, to me. If you are still unsatified with the replies, perhaps you could try rewording the objections, taking into account the comments that have been made in reply to your original posts.
That said, if you're gonna draft a new version in a couple of days, it might be worth mentioning that on Talk:Gay bathhouse, so that everyone just shuts up and leaves you to it, so we can dicuss the two versions once you have done, as it's doubtless gonna be easier to understand your objections when we can compare the article as it is now with a version you consider to be more NPOV. I'm certainly happy to put this discussion on pause until you've done so.
In that regard, I'd be very grateful if you could post a message here once you've done so, in case I don't notice the edit on my watchlist. Would you mind? — OwenBlacker 01:08, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
I've replied on my own Talk page, as it seems silly spreading the discussion across two pages. Unless you'd prefer that we keep them separate for easier notification? Your call, feel free to mention it in any response you make on my Talk: page. Good night! :o) — OwenBlacker 01:12, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
Heh... Your rather a quick learner, eh? I sense that you've done this before? How is it that you are familiar with the wiki so fast? Sam [Spade] 01:19, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*blink* I've been using Wikis for years, mate! Just only been lurking on here until recently... :o) — OwenBlacker 01:22, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thats what I was thinking. Anyways what I Like best is when we keep the conversation all on one page, like this. Then you can cut and paste the whole convo to my page when you want to say something, or sometimes start a new thread. Sam [Spade] 01:28, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Seems fair to me... OwenBlacker 07:41, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe this is the point where bygones should be bygones, and Sam should switch his vote to an abstention? I mean, since the vote has raised so much ire and all. TheCustomOfLife 22:50, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

what vote are you refering to? The FAC vote is over, bath house lost, raul decided it. An article w that much debate simply cannot be FA material. If its any consolation, an article I have had a great deal of involvement w is prob about to lose its featured article status (Political Correctness). Sam [Spade] 23:10, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It didn't help that you stalled the vote for as long as you did. TheCustomOfLife 01:12, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Quite. "That much debate" would usually tend to mean a relatively large number of people objecting to the FA status, rather than one user blocking it for reasons of personal taste, rather than anything relevant to the quality of the article. At the moment, I see no reason why the article shouldn't be renominated as FAC. — OwenBlacker 07:50, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I do. It'll again receive the electronic filibuster treatment. TheCustomOfLife 14:05, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough, if there are other objections (which means it's hardly filibustering, tbh ;o)
Could I ask you, please, to enumerate your concerns, either on Talk:Gay bathhouse or on the FAC archive page, so that we may address them? Thanks. — OwenBlacker 14:44, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
Sam's tactics were filibustering. From the Wikipedia definition:
A filibuster is an extremely long speech that is designed primarily to stall the legislative process and thus derail a particular piece of legislation, rather than to make a particular point per se. The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where senate rules permit a senator or a series of senators to speak for as long as they wish on any topic they like.
I mean, there is a time limit here, but the sentiment really is the same.
I don't want to get into this debate. It's very circular. I was just voicing my support/opposition, if that makes any sense. However, if you wish to quote me over on those pages, you may. TheCustomOfLife 23:42, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I know Sam was filibustering; I meant that if they're actual objections, then it wouldn't be. If you have any specific issues, please do voice them (here, if you'd prefer not to do so there); otherwise, I'm not sure I see the point of voicing your opposition — we can't leave an NPOV header there indefinitely, surely? :o) — OwenBlacker 23:45, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
No, I totally understand. My objection is a personal one and I will not stand in the way of the article becoming featured. I mean, I don't like many things, but if an article was well-written (like this article is), why object? Featured articles are encouraged to be controversial...it ensures interest, and interest is key. TheCustomOfLife 01:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough (sorry, too much indenting messes with my head). I'd be interested to know the nature of your objection, if you don't mind sharing...? Thanks for contributing to the debate, either way :o) — OwenBlacker 01:27, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

It's a personal objection to the subject matter and not to the article itself. I should have clarified that and separated the two from the beginning. TheCustomOfLife 01:29, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. Do you not think that sexual material should be included in the encyclopædia? Anyways, I'm off to sleep; ¡Hásta mañana! OwenBlacker 01:31, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
Well, to a point. I don't know. I know I wouldn't write for them...not really by choice, but because I'm a total virgin and don't know jack about sex and positions and whatnot. Again, I chalk it all up to a lack of experience, and maybe my personal view on bathhouses will change. I don't think so, but never say never. TheCustomOfLife 01:34, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, could be. I dunno, some mores tend to change as one gets older and becomes more sexual, some don't. It's hardly important, I think — different strokes for different folks, innit. — OwenBlacker 01:53, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
Oi, mate, I thought you were going to bed. It must be pretty late by now. Not that I'm doing anything important, either. Just watching an Edge of Night rerun. TheCustomOfLife 02:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I've not been sleeping well recently (and Wikiholism ain't helping]] ;o) — OwenBlacker 10:28, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
It's been the exact opposite for me. If anything, I've been sleeping too much. Just this morning I woke up at 9:30 and could barely keep my eyes open. After a valiant thirty-minute struggle, I went back to bed and slept until 11:00. TheCustomOfLife 16:28, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Lol, I did something similar myself. Feeling a little better for having called in sick and slept most of today — OwenBlacker 22:09, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Good for you.

I decided to stop the indentations again...or at least start new ones. Are you sick? If you are, I'm sorry to hear it and I hope you get better. :) TheCustomOfLife 23:05, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Karpinski

From the BBC article you provided me on my talk page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3810791.stm): "She said her successor had told her that prisoners were like dogs."

She was never told to treat the prisoners like dogs. Another person told her that prisoners were like dogs, or that they should be treated like dogs. She was never, however, told that SHE should treat them like dogs, nor was commanded to treat them like dogs according to the BBC article you gave me, and the BBC article referenced in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse article ([1]). From that article, it says: "Gen Karpinski was in charge of the military police unit that ran Abu Ghraib and other prisons when the abuses were committed." I also saw on TV yesterday that the reason she says she is a scapegoat is that although she was in charge of the military police unit that ran the prison, she was NOT in charge of the interrogation unit which is said to have commited most of the "crimes", according to what we know, and according to what she has said. Again, the quote that is all over the news:

"He said they are like dogs and if you allow them to believe at any point that they are more than a dog then you've lost control of them."

"He said they are like dogs...", NOT "She was told to treat them like dogs".

I have written this very quickly and I hope I didn't miss anything. Thanks for asking for more detail, but try to check the references yourself and figure out why I did what I did. Always good to question other people's edits though.

Dgrant 03:12, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's the quote I remember. Ok, you're right, fair enough; I retract. Thanks for checking it out, though. :o) — OwenBlacker 09:47, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

A section of my own!

Hi. Long time... Mike H 15:46, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Heya; sorry, really busy with lots of stuff (and was about to log off from WP and go do some actual work. Working from home today, as we have a tube strike, so I can't get to the office. Working from home is great, but means I get distracted so much more easily... :o(  — OwenBlacker 16:14, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
I'm here. Will be for most of the summer. :-P Mike H 20:42, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

BtVS

Category:Buffy episodes is a subcategory of Category:Buffy, and generally you wouldn't duplicate entries in both. -- Curps 02:40, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ah cool; didn't realise it was that clever. Thanks for letting me know :)  OwenBlacker 09:20, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Wikification

Dear Owen, thanks for your message. We evidently have a lot of shared interests, which is why we find ourselves editing the same articles.

  • I was not aware that there was a policy against putting a line between the heading and the text, and also that in the new format it makes no difference anyway. I got into habit of making this change because it looked horrible in the old format, but I will now desist.
  • At TRNC, you put Turkish proper nouns such as Lefkoşa in italics. This is fundamentally wrong as style. Foreign words and phrases should be italicised, but not proper nouns. We italicise comment va tu? but not Paris.
  • On dewikification, I am strongly of the view that wikifying common nouns is ugly and pointless. I think it is also contrary to policy, although I can't cite a policy to that effect. If it's not it ought to be, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. At TRNC, for example, you wikified kilometre, capital, government, democracy, military, airport and June. None of these are technical or obscure terms or specifically relevant to the article. Why not wikify every word in every article?

Regards Adam 02:17, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me (and sorry if I sounded crabby, I had a really bad day yesterday). Fair enough about the headings, it was just one of the policies I noticed a while ago and it's frustrating when people undo things you've taken time over ;o)
I thought the only proper nouns I'd italicised were translations of things that were immediately preceded (or followed) by the English; I'm thinking of the party names and so on — I'd've thought "Temsilciler Meclisi" should be italicised when it follows "House of Representatives" in the text (ergo similarly "Lefkoşa") and also the local name of the country, though I guess we'll have to agree to differ on that one. There's some italicisation I'd definitely prefer to see in the article, but I sha'n't revert your reversion until we're both at least vaguely happy with the balance.
Immediately before posting last night's note on your Talk: page, I took a look at the two most relevant policy pages (Build the web and Make only links relevant to the context) so neither of us is really working against a policy, just a personal preference, hence the disagreement, I guess. My feeling is that hyperlinks should point to dates (because of the dateformat preference thing) and (on the first instance only) terms that might not be familiar to a reader — hence I'd hyperlinked km² and Non-Aligned Movement, for example. Looking at the diff, I am willing to accept that there are a few terms that I really didn't need to wikify, perhaps, but I don't think I went overboard.
I agree completely that wikifying every word in a sentence is not only ugly, but stupid too (and damn difficult to type ;o) but it just feels arrogant (to me) to assume that a reader will know about the Non-Aligned Movement, for example. I tend to try to write things the way I would expect my (13yo) younger brother to want to find them — cultural references and terms for which he might want more information should be hyperlinked, things he ought know (or at least be able to grasp from the context) prolly shouldn't.
I don't think we're massively out of agreement here, I'd just like us to get to some kind of middleground, so that neither of us ends up pissing each other off with our edits! *GRIN*
Thanks again for replying, I'd be interested to read your thoughts on my reply, so that we can each try to get to a place where we can each bite our tongues a little, perhaps, but generally be happy with the resolution. — OwenBlacker 13:10, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Big Bang

Looks like your edit went a bit awry and duplicated most of the article. I've taken that stuff back out but you may want to check your intended changes got in. With all that additional text the diff function doesn't work too well! EddEdmondson 08:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Eek! I previewed it and everything looked fine; how odd. Thanks for sorting that out; it looks like my edits came through fine to me. — OwenBlacker 09:59, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Coca-Cola's nomination as a featured article

I have refactored the article to accomodate your suggestions on WP:FAC. I hope you could provide input on the article as it is now and where it could use work. Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 12:58, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Updated comments on the FAC page; I now support. — OwenBlacker 20:09, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)


Meta Religion Lists

Owen,

I am a Catholic and I am an Anglican. I am not a Protestant and I object strongly to you reclassifying me as such on Meta.

--BozMo|talk 09:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See BozMo's Talk: page and m:Talk:List of Wikipedians by religion for follow-up to this. Unless BozMo wants to keep it all on this page, in which case feel free to move the item hither. — OwenBlacker 19:46, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
don't mind where but it seems all reasonably sorted anyway. thanks for help. --BozMo|talk 20:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: Dashes

Hehe. Thanks for the kind words.

Yeah, if you look at my list of contributions, an awful lot of them include (or consist only of) typography fixes! I'm a stickler for proper punctuation and typographical usage. Most people don't even know that different dashes exist, much less know how to use them... ...sigh... -- tooki 03:38, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know. I feel sorry for all those people who just don't get typography *giggles* — OwenBlacker 07:46, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
Ahhh, ha ha ha, I just saw that you are also a fan of Eats, Shoots and Leaves — my mom sent me a copy for my birthday (which required her to recruit a vacationing British co-worker of hers to send me a copy from England to the U.S., about 3 months before the book was released here in the States). I was so glad to read that I'm not the only one who cringes when he sees "FOR CAT'S AND DOG'S" and the like! -- tooki 02:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It is indeed a fanatastic book... :o) — OwenBlacker 12:32, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler

Discussion moved to Template talk:Spoiler. — OwenBlacker 08:56, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Numerals/ Words

I think that the use of numerals should be curtailed in formal writing. I only find them appropriate for measurements, dates and indications of large quantities (as in "220 persons," etc.) -- Emsworth 18:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but every style guide I've ever seen suggests words should be used up to and including ten, but numerals beyond that. I can't find an appropriate entry in a quick glance at Fowler's Modern English Usage, but the Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests the same, as does The Economist and The Guardian. I'd quite like to revert the change, if that's ok? — OwenBlacker 19:15, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, newspapers follow the practice of using numerals for numbers less than ten, as recommended by the Associated Press Style Guide in the US, to save space. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends using words for numbers up to one hundred. Several other sites suggest that numerals should not be used whenever the number can be written out in words (obviously, this would mean that numerals should not be used up to one hundred, and also for other numbers such as three hundred or ten million). See: Numbers in Writing, Gude to Punctuation (Univ. of Sussex). -- Emsworth 19:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's as maybe, but most newspapers over here tend to use numerals over ten and only over ten and the the Wikipedia Manual of Style does suggest the same. Someone else mentioned the same thing further up on your Talk: page too. I need to go offline now, but can we take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and try to get consensus? :o) — OwenBlacker 20:07, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
A debate on the matter has already begun. It has been proposed that the Manual of Style be appropriately amended. -- Emsworth 20:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:History of Wales

Nice work on categorizing the history of Wales. However, I see you removed it from Category:History of England. My justification for this is that the Principality of Wales was part of the Kingdom of England from the late 13th century (de facto; or 1536 de jure), and so Welsh history is part of English history. Is this controversial or problematic? Gdr 13:39, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Heh thanks, does it show I was a little bored earlier and our development servers aren't working? ;o)
Yeah, I guessed that would be something like the justification, it just grated when I read it. As they're both subcats of Category:History of Great Britain, I don't think Category:History of England should be there. The arithmetic, as it were, is England + Wales + Scotland = Great Britain (and GB + Ireland or NI = UK), so it just didn't feel right. Most articles in Category:History of Wales are likely also to be in Category:History of England, it just felt unquantifiably wrong to have Welsh history as a subcategory of English history.
Does that make sense? It might just be me being POV, as I'm certainly non-neutral on the issue, so feel free to see if there's consensus for restoring the relationship.
And thanks again! :o) — OwenBlacker 14:02, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
You might want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject History#Categories which talks about the rationale for when the history of A is part of the history of B. I wrote that section, and it doesn't represent any kind of consensus, so your thoughts would be appreciated. Gdr 14:49, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
Ok, I might just be nicotine-deficient (gonna go do something about that now), but I'm not sure I follow. The only reference that struck me there that might suggest Category:History of Wales should be a subcat of Category:History of England was the chart, which confused me somewhat. That wasn't helpful of me, was it? :o( — OwenBlacker 15:48, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
The crucial bit is the sentence "a geographical subdivision includes the categories for its parts; a historical subdivision includes the categories for its predecessors." Hmm. It's not very clear, is it?
My point is that Category:History of England is representing two categories which confusingly have the same name: the history of the geographical region now called "England", and the history of the political entity known as the "Kingdom of England" and its predecessors. The history of Wales is part of the latter but not of the former.
I'll think about how to improve the wording. Gdr 16:22, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
Aaah, I follow now. I dunno; to me, accepting that things that happened in Wales are part of the History of England just because we were annexed feels a little dubious (and contentious). Hungary was part of the Austrian Empire (before the Ausgleich created the state Austria–Hungary); would we describe something that happened in Budapest as being part of the History of Austria? I guess analogy is gonna be the best way to get my head round it.
Feel free to opine on it now, but I'll try to give it some thought. – OwenBlacker 16:35, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
Well indeed. The history of Hungary is part of the history of Austria-Hungary, which is part of the history of Austria. And vice versa. That's what happens when national histories get entangled... Gdr 18:48, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
Yeah, ok. I think you've convinced me. For now… :o) — OwenBlacker 19:16, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

New Zealand

Thanks for the recent improvements to several pages. But hardly useful to add "people" to "Mana tangata: profiles of well-known Maori" - the word "Maori" is similar to the words "Irish" ("The luck of the Irish") and "Swiss" ("Time is the art of the Swiss") in its usages and is regularly used in standard NZ prose (even in Court of Appeal judgments) on its own as above or after words such as "the", "many", and "all" to mean "Maori people". Kind regards - Robin Patterson 13:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

Thank you very much for your support during my recent run for adminship. I haven't heard from you in a really long time. I wish you wouldn't be a stranger. Email me sometime. Mike H 00:27, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

UEA

To be honest I'm afraid I can't really remember what they were building behind Norfolk Terrace. I was also a Waveney person, but Norfolk was rather more photogenic in the snow, I thought. The biggest change recently has been the overhaul of The Hive / Union House, which they began at the end of last year and should - in theory! - have finished over the summer. I suppose I'll see tomorrow when I head back up for the start of my Third Year... Angmering 16:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Woodford

Hello Owen.... regarding Woodford Green... I understand why you´ve removed the links ..I pondered a lot over this too.. I just wanted to bring all the Woodfords together under one "roof"... this is difficult because Woodford is part of London (E18) and also Essex (IG8)... when I lived in the area ..I refered to it as Woodford Green..but outsiders from the London area tend just to use the name Woodford as they don´t understand the area....

even so I think it would be best to split it so Redbridge >> Woodford>> Woodford Green + South Woodford E18 + Woodford Bridge... what do you think?? greetings from Berlin IsarSteve 15:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, but I'm not sure; I'd suggest that Woodford's one place and Woodford Green's another (with its own article already), so they should be two separate articles, with links to each other. See what Wikipedia:WikiProject London has to say on the matter, perhaps?
(Though I'd say that IG8 is still in London, personally. But that's cos I live in IG1 and get fed up with people calling me an Essex boy… ;o)
Thanks, Greetings back from Ilford! — OwenBlacker 15:45, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon wikipedia

Hello Owen, welcome to the Anglo-Saxon wikipedia. Note that the wikimedia system apparently doesn't support cross-wiki redirects, so your talk page on ang doesn't redirect here automatically. --Saforrest 19:25, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Oops; I forgot you need not to put the colon at the start. Fixed now, thanks! :o) OwenBlacker 22:11, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OwenBlacker/Archive_1&oldid=1238521624"