User talk:OwenBlacker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HeartofaDog (talk | contribs) at 00:41, 12 November 2007 (sorted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

InfoBox Bishopric of Speyer

Thanks very much for creating the former countries info box for the bishopric of speyer. I have one issue though with the information you have provided, the image of the coat of arms. The coat of arms you provide is certainly the coat of arms of the city of Speyer. However, it is the coat of arms of the independent city of Speyer. The bishopric had its own coat of arms which can be found in other city coat of arms today, such as Bruchsal and Dielheim. Here is the coat of arms of the former town of Horrenberg

.

The only evidence though that this is argent cross on blue is the coat of arms of the Bishopric of Speyer is the description of these town coat of arms from the German Wikipedia sites. I do not know if we should consider this an authoritative description. Based on that information I created a graphic of the Bishopric coat of arms by modifying on of these city coat of arms images to just leave the cross on blue. However, because of the lack of authoritative information and my own unsureness of the intellectual property issues for using such an image, I have not uploaded it to wiki.

Do you have any evidence that you have the correct coat of arms? Do you think I should upload the coat of arms graphic I created?

imars 06:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I found a source with the correct coat of arms. Website for the See of Speyer So I went ahead and fired up Illustrator and made a coat of arms. A happy end. imars 12:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SBS membership renewal request—Project in great need of contributors

The summer has passed (unless you live in the Southern Hemisphere), and for most people holidays are over. Therefore, it is time for work again. Not that work ever stops in Wikipedia, but I believe we can at last get over the stage when slow progress can be taken for granted. Like yourself, most members of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization have been away during most of the summer (and some of you have been away for much longer); this lack of contributors has almost led SBS activity to a standstill.

A couple of members have stayed, however, and things have greatly improved in the project. There is a renovated and functional main page; the talk page has organised archives and a dedicated page for archived proposals; the Guidelines page is in a very good shape and I am preparing a further set of guidelines to be proposed for adoption by the project and incorporation into the page; the Documentation page has been again updated and a potential restructuring is being planned; the Templates list is the operations centre for the ongoing removal of antiquated and redundant templates. The Offices page is the only one that has yet to be improved, but there is a proposal for that one as well. Even a new SBS navbox has been created and added to the project's pages, easing navigation between the different parts of the WikiProject, while shortcuts have been created for the three most basic pages.

And the project itself is not the only thing that has been improved; the headers system has been cleared up and rationalised during the last six months, and a new parameter system is being inserted into templates like s-new and s-vac in order to successfully adapt succession boxes to more tricky cases of succession without large, clumsy cells or redundant reasoning. S-hou has also been improved and /doc pages have been added to most of the headers' pages, as well as to many proper succession templates' ones.

Despite all these breakthroughs that have made SBS a better, more functional and more user-friendly WikiProject, things move excruciatingly slowly as far as the adoption of proposals and correction/improvement of succession boxes in the mainspace are concerned. As has been mentioned, this is due to the utter absence of all but two of its members. I completely understand that a few of them might be unwilling to resume work in SBS, and some of them might even have left Wikipedia altogether. However, we are certain that there are people intent to continue improving Wikipedia's succession boxes and helping others to do so as well. If you are one of them, please return. And even if you cannot help at the moment, but want to contribute at a later time, please let us know by renewing your membership. You can do that very easily by removing the asterisk next to your name in the member list in SBS's main page. The deadline is 31 October; members that do not renew their memberships until 23:59 of that day will be removed from the list, as these members will be assumed to have left the project for good.

SBS is a project highly capable of doing some serious work in Wikipedia. These potentials are seriously undermined by the unavailability of helpful hands. I hope you shall consider this message seriously before taking any decisions.

Thank you for your time. Waltham, The Duke of 14:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template: States of the German Confederation / Flag

Hello OwenBlacker, the German Confederation didn't use the flag of the Reichsflotte. The Reichsflotte was established in 1848 by the provisional central government of the National Assembly in Frankfurt, after the Revolution of 1848 took place. Indeed the Reichsflotte used the black-red-golden flag with the coat of arms in the left upper corner during the years 1848 until 1852. During that years the German Confederation was inactive. The dominant member states, especially Austria, always opposed the use of the black-red-golden flag. After the German Confederation was reestablished in 1850/1851 one of the first actions had been the disestablishment of the Reichsflotte in 1852. After that year the black-red-golden flag wasn't in use. It was certainly no symbol of the German Confederation. Blinder Seher 12:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox (Imperial Abbey of) Schönthal

I have removed this again - let us discuss it before we get into a revert war. I have set out briefly my reasons for objecting on the briefly on the talk page, but maybe it would be better discussed on the appropriate Wikiproject page, as you say that this is a project policy. HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 16:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion here as this article raises a couple of more general points. HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 17:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organ

Copy from cs:Wikipedista diskuse:JAn Dudík

Similarly, I've just reverted your bots edits to another article. You should probably set it not to remove interwiki links; they're much more often right than wrong. — en:User:OwenBlacker, 20:43, 18. 9. 2007 (UTC)

But there are two articles: en:Organ (music) and en:Pipe organ. I only wanted to make interwiki correct, because both articles linked to the same in some languages. If it is wrong, please add correct interwiki to both articles and I will repair it in all other. JAn Dudík 20:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Abbeys / Former Countries infobox

Some more points about these, as there is no discussion happening on the project page, and no-one seems to be applying these infoboxes except you. For clarity, let me underline that I am only concerned here about Imperial abbeys, not about other HRE states.

I appreciate the effort you've put in to adding these boxes, but if they are be of value then it has to be done as accurately as possible.

I don't think you have a leg to stand on regarding the application of these boxes to articles which are not about the abbeys themselves. But I have every intention of finishing what I started, and writing articles for all of these religious houses, so if you will wait until I have done so, the problem will solve itself. Will you accept that as a working compromise?

In the meantime I will remove the boxes from the articles where they are misplaced, ie, Thorn (Netherlands) and Stein am Rhein - I think anyway the data in the infobox for that last one, taken presumably from the German Wikipedia, relates to the reichsfrei status of the TOWN, which is of course a completely different entity from the abbey.

Another point relating to all of them is the same point as the discussion you've already had re the Bishopric of Speyer. You are adding the arms of the towns of the same name, whereas the monasteries all had their own arms, which were different - the town arms often draw on the abbey arms, sometimes very closely, but are rarely if ever identical.

Also, when you are working on these articles, please don't reduce the size of the font in the lists of abbots, as in St. Blaise's. It makes them almost illegible. Nor do you need to link every single date - only the most significant ones, like foundation and secularization, need linking.

I have a couple more points to make about the infobox itself, which I will probably raise on the Template talk page. Regards, HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 11:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted to see that you do compromises! I say this because I've had some bizarre experiences with editors who think it's a dirty word. I'm happy to meet you halfway.
Yes, I am planning to fill out the gaps in articles on Impl abbeys - I've been plodding away at it on and off for quite a long time, but quite close to finishing now - just the awkward ones left. I'll start with Thorn and Stein a. R., although when I last looked there was v little inf on the abbey at Stein.
As long as you're aware of the issue with the coats of arms, I'll keep quiet about it - although I hope you won't mind if I take out the town arms if they're wrong. Sometimes it's easy to sort out - St Blaise's Abbey arms are the same as the town arms but with the stag headed the other way, for example, so the image just has to be flipped round, but of course they're not all that easy to do, or to find out.
I see your point about the lists - (e.g.) a double column in a slightly smaller typeface, or something similar, should work fine. (The only difficulty would be if there were a long comment on a particular name, but that seems not to happen very much with medieval German abbots, and if it does, it could equally well go as a footnote instead). All best, HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 14:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox query

OK - I've done a start article on Stein am Rhein Abbey at St. George's Abbey, Stein am Rhein but have come to a halt applying the infobox. I haven't (yet) got a firm end date, just a date range - 1521-1526 - and the box doesn't seem to like either that or 1520s as an end date so is refusing to display properly. Any ideas? (infoboxes and I have not been on close terms up to now). thanks HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 17:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's there but not quite right - would you take a look? HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It is certainly happier with definite dates, but unfortunately we can't use this version as the dates don't apply to the abbey, but to the town.

(after experimenting some more) The problem is specifically with the year-end field - it will take an "xth century" start if it has definite year at the end - sadly I don't have this inf for SaR. Will think on it some more. HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(We've crossed messages) What i meant was that the dates you give in the infobox relate to the town of Stein, which was also reichsfrei, but completely independently of the abbey, so it has entirely different dates.HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 18:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: recent edits to Hosts file

I wanted to inquire about your recent edits to the Hosts file article—some of the em dashes that are present in the article had spaced added around them. Did you mean to replace the em dashes with en dashes, or to include hair spaces — like these — around the em dashes?

Thanks! —Mike Trausch Fd0man•Talk to me 05:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you’re not watching my talk page, I have posted a reply to your comments there. —Mike Trausch Fd0man•Talk to me 18:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "cleanups"

Please don't change the titles of sources when you do your "cleanup" edits. It is very important that accurate information about our references is given. Also, please don't add those ugly commas between cite numbers. I really don't have time to go around cleaning up after your cleanup edits. Everyking 07:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a consensus for it. I may be the first one to complain, but that's not a consensus. There's no instruction or agreement anywhere for people to put those commas in, and until I looked at your edits I had virtually never seen them used before. So don't add them to other people's work anymore. Feel free to add them in your own writing if you like, but don't force them on the rest of us.
As for changing titles, you've definitely done this. [1][2] You changed uppercase in titles to lowercase. Stating the names of the sources we use is not a matter of editorial discretion; you should report the name the same way that the source gives the name. Everyking 08:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I will continue to fix your "fixes" whenever I see them. Everyking 19:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation moved to User:OwenBlacker/Usability as a request for comment.

I have no objection to your other cleanups, which appear helpful. I only reverted all the changes the first time I saw them out of sheer annoyance; after that I was careful not to. Anyway, since other people are commenting on the issue, I will defer to the consensus about this stuff. Everyking 04:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're removing quotes from reference titles? Everyking 09:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the examples there use quotes. I have never heard of a system of referencing where article titles were not quoted. Everyking 15:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are four examples on Wikipedia:Citing sources of references used with quotes. There are no examples without quotes. Furthermore, all the examples on Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style use quotes. Please quit removing them. Everyking 15:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a case here of you removing quotes after I asked you not to. I ask you again to please stop. It is extremely troublesome to have to go around adding back these quotes. Everyking 11:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the examples use quotes, so it seems to me that's a pretty strong endorsement of using quotes. We're not talking about just a generic link to a webpage or something, we're talking about links to press articles. Everyking 19:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --Ronz 20:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring, especially when you have a conflict of interest

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Energy switching services in the UK‎ . Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --Ronz 20:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation continued on User talk:Ronz and WP:COIN — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

km2 and fr icon learning curve

Hello. I was just wondering about those two changes you made. 1. How does that km2 method work, 2. I don't see any difference between Template:Fr and Template:Fr icon (with icon), what is it for, what does it do?--Tallard 06:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Newsletter n°1

Bonjour and welcome to the first WikiProject France newsletter!! It should become a monthly special of our project, but until the next issue, here are some points to consider for the month:

It doesn't seem like a lot, so I hope we will still have enough problems for nexts months issue. Salut till the next issue, ChrisDHDR (17:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Template:Rhenish College

Something in this template has caused problems with the sorting of Burtscheid Abbey and Buchau Abbey in Category: Imperial abbeys, in that it is apparently causing them to appear out of alphabetical order. I don't know enough about it to spot what the problem is, so have left it alone after a couple of initial attempts, but could you please sort it out before adding the template to other articles? Thanks. HeartofaDog (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's OK now. HeartofaDog (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OwenBlacker&oldid=170859557"