User talk:OwenBlacker/Archive 7

This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from User talk:OwenBlacker for the period January – December 2011. In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do not make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the User talk:OwenBlacker page. If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the User talk:OwenBlacker page and then add your comments there.

Archives

June – October 2004 October 2004 – May 2006 June 2006 – July 2007 September – December 2007 January 2008 – February 2009 February 2009 – December 2010 January – December 2011 January – December 2012 January – December 2013 January – December 2014 January – December 2015 January – December 2016 January – December 2017 January – December 2018 January – December 2019 January – December 2020 January – December 2021 January – December 2022 January – December 2023

Hi, I've reverted your edit as the hatnotes are indeed supposed to go before any maintenance tags - the idea being that if someone is at the wrong article they need to know that before worrying whether it's in need of any maintenance. See Wikipedia:Lead_section#Elements_of_the_lead. Cheers, PamD (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord. I've been "correcting" things wrongly for ages! Thanks for the correction (even though it looks uglier this way round, imho ;o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For our first official recruitment drive! Starting on Wednesday the 9th of February at 12:30pm. We would love to have you!

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just saw some of the accessibility improvement you made, one back in 2008, and one yesterday. You're doing a great job. :-) My guess is that you are a web developer interested in accessibility. Though I admit your LinkedIn profile helped. Slightly.

Did you ever considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility? You'd be a great help there. More specifically, I plan on deploying a few scripts that improves usability and accessibility, like a new script for collapsible navboxes. Help from a pro would surely come in handy. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Hanseatic League is full of errors. I suggest correcting them. Whoever invented an idea that Kraków was part of Prussia, Sweden or Livonia...I corrected the countries and the cities in the main article, perhaps you should update this in the template as well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know the cities you mention were not in those states; these were the names of the subdivisions of the Hanseatic League, not some arbitrary grouping made my modern Wikipedia editors — see File:Extent of the Hansa.jpg, for example. Accordingly, I've reverted your edits. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, how do you see Krakow, Torun, Wroclaw etc on that map? Gdansk yes, but the others, no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but those are the closest Circles to the cities, perhaps? Either way, the Circles in the list pre-date my involvement in the article (and I created the template from the article). I'd suggest someone find a source for the Circles (I will have a look around in a moment; I suggest you do the same), so we can find a definitive — and accurate — list. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a general comment on the Hansa article, I notice that while there is a lot of information about the formation of Hansa, its political development and allegiances, its geographic structure and its demise there's very little, if any, information on ... what it actually was and did. So it says that it "was an economic alliance of trading cities " but what did that mean in practice? What differentiated these cities from non-Hansa cities, other than some kind of vague promise of military support? How did they promote or conduct trade? How did they enforce membership rules? Etc. In other words, very is very little about the actual economics of the Hansa, which after all, was the whole point of the organization.

I read a bunch of books on this subject long time ago so I'll see if I can remember/dig up anything. I know there's at least one exhaustive "classic" work on the economics of the Hansa out there but can't recall more than that at the moment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tudor dynasty#Move?. OCNative (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	You did say you'd never had one, after all... and yet you're so clearly deserving! James F. (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Imperial election TOC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice your interest in linguistics and diacritics and thought you might now how to research some background information for an article footnote.

The diacritic in Ulstèr in the Scots language is getting some official support, so it seems likely there will be a consensus to include it in the lede for Ulster Scots dialects.

Are you aware of who proposed that diacritic, and what it means? If we can find out, it might be helpful to footnote the lede with an explanation.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I know very little about Ulster Scots, sorry. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind response, and your assistance with my userpage. (I have been offline for a while.) I am glad to see an unregistered user at Talk:Ulster Scots dialects uncovered a piece of online research that answers my question.[1] --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; glad you got the information you needed, at least :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the white-on-red improvement you made on the script-userbox. Looks nice. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I was looking at the userboxes on my user page and couldn't read the text very easily, so I figured I'd change it :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you are involved in "Template former country". Perhaps you could help us out. There is an issue over the suitable template for "Serbia" in WWII in the Serbia under German occupation article. It was rump territory under German military administration after the invasion and dismemberment of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. It had a puppet civilian government that had hopes of achieving a degree of autonomy but never did. Some editors are anxious that it should not be presented as a state when it was not and are concerned that the use of the wrong template may imply this. Can you suggest the correct template to use here? Thanks. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you edited this article before and are a reviewer, would you mind looking at this [2] and weight in? I've presented all the sources and rationale in a concise and short format, easy to read. Won't take much of your time. Thank you. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Let me know if I can contribute on any articles you feel need urgent review and feedback. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article can once again benefit from your involvement. The issues at hand (which I've described in the article's talk page as well as on the individual talk pages of some involved users): three users (Jan CZ, Yuriy Kolodin and Sephia karta, who are all very active on all Abkhazia-related articles) insist that a local newspaper source from July 2011 [3] about Vanuatu's recognition of Abkhazia trumps the August 2011 [4] comprehensive analysis by an independent and highly respected NGO watchdog Transparency International (TI) that Vanuatu did after all annul and withdraw its recognition of Abkhazia. Obviously, TI's analysis is more valuable here due to later date and more comprehensive review.

Here are diffs: [5], [6] and [7]

Another issue - a user (Night w) stated that a state cannot withdraw its recognition, can only annul it. I've shown that in international law, recognition definitely can be withdrawn - here's from eight (8) legal experts on the issue [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]

I've previously addressed the whole de facto vs. de jure states and recognitions, with multiple sources listed in the talk page.

Other minor issue was about using bold vs. italics for Latin terms, and British English spelling vs. American English, which we fully resolved with Night w. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello OwenBlacker! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I made an edit request on the talkpage mentioned above. The template is protected from editing and after leaving the edit request, I began to wonder if I should have used rather a more formal edit request that raises a flag somewhere. You seem to have been active wrt that template, do you have an opinion? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think I'd put Berlin in the capital field and add a comment in brackets or as a footnote to explain. If you want to highlight the edit request, though, add a call to {{edit protected}} at the start of that section. :o) -- OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. In fact there was a comment in brackets, but this was objected to.. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenBlacker (talk • contribs) 15:04, 30 November 201 (UTC)1

Category:Vampires in film and television, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Od Mishehu (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]