User talk:Blueboar

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

Welcome to Blueboar's talk page... I am away from my computer right now, and can not respond to you. Please leave a message at the sound of the beep.....

(Please note that I regularly delete messages after I have read them. If you have posted a message for me, and no longer find it on the page, it means I have seen it. I do not archive old messages. If you need to retrieve something posted on this user page, you can find it in the page's history.)


Leave Messages and Comments below this line[edit]

NPOV help request[edit]

Would you be willing to take a look at please? Reminiscent of FRINGE run amock in all but name. This involves three articles, one of them a book on aspects of the last 50 years of American history. Harmony being the strength and support of this as of all institutions, I'm standing aside from incipient edit warring. Bn (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: red links in navboxes[edit]

Blueboar, would you accept a revised red link guideline that requires a minimum of three blue links to existing stand-alone articles or lists, with at least 50% of all included links being blue, coupled with the clarification of the existing "succession" and "complete set" exceptions? Personally, I think that would be an extremely reasonable compromise, and if I can get 10 committed supporters, I'm ready to start lobbying previous !voters (not a violation of WP:CANVASS) in favor of compromise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Not really. As I stated before, I think that Navboxes should be for navigation to existing articles, and so (generally) should have no redlinks at all... I agree that an exception can be made when it comes to incomplete "closed sets" (where we have a reasonable expectation that a "missing" article will be written). But otherwise redlinks are nothing but article creation requests/wish lists... and that isn't what Navboxes are for. There are lots of other, more appropriate venues for requesting articles. Blueboar (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
BB, I understand where your coming from, but would you consider a strategic vote here? In the absence of such a compromise, I think we're going to have a new anything-goes standard for red links in navboxes. So, yeah, it's not your first choice, but is it better than the alternative that's likely to get majority support otherwise? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
If I were the closer on that RFC, I would do so with "no consensus". There is definitely not a consensus for an "anything-goes" standard. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

New World Order[edit]

You just restored a talk page section that did nothing other than attack the article without suggesting any positive changes. Why? I left a message on that IP's talk page if you didn't notice. If I made a mistake, I apologize, but please explain to me what it is. I don't see the advantage in keeping a random anonymous editor's personal thoughts which don't help us improve Wikipedia. Dustin (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

We are supposed to WP:Assume good faith... even with comments that we suspect are nothing more than non-constructive rants. I would have supported deletion if the editor had vandalized the article itself... but we are quite a bit more relaxed when it comes to talk pages. By returning the comment (and repeating your request for him to be more specific) I have given the other editor a chance to redeem himself, and turn his rant into something more constructive. Summarily deleting a comment, without any attempt to engage the other editor in discussion was just as non-constructive as the initial rant was. By summarily deleting you simply reinforced his preconceived negative opinion of Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand your concern. I wasn't trying to assume bad faith, but I did think the discussion thread was unhelpful which is why I left a message on the IP's talk page so I was not trying to be unconstructive. I'll leave it as is, though, and I appreciate the response. Dustin (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
How do you know it was unhelpful? For all you know, he may have a valid concern but simply does not yet know how to express it properly. You didn't even give the guy a chance to explain. WP:Don't bite the newbies. Blueboar (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed comments[edit]

The comments removed at the Village Pump was me passing through and reverting the revert by an Admin of a block-evading sockpuppet. Ogress smash! 22:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent years RFC[edit]

As an editor involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Recent years, I wanted to make sure you saw the RFC that I placed there regarding the guidelines. Your comments are of course appreciated. agtx 19:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC notification 1 August 2015[edit]

Hi. Since you participated in an earlier discussion on the same issue on the same page, please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#RFC: “Common selection criteria” ambiguity. If you choose to reply to this notice, please do so on my Talk page. (Don’t worry, my IP address is static.) Thanks! — (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem[edit]

  • Hi Blueboar, What should I discuss if the level of grammar displays that.? Please enjoy your reversion, may you realise any time the value of the grammar. Face-smile.svg Justice007 (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

a selection had been made naturally available[edit]

In discussion at WP:AT I had commented that I had said "Possible options for this could include: *Nelson Mandela, Charles Darwin, Margaret Thatcher, David Beckham, Thomas Edison or Justin Bieber" and had continued "An extremely wide range of other examples could also be used but I think we would benefit from presenting something that is more representative of the naming conventions policy."

In this context where I had done my best to open up about other options did you have to make an assertion so as to imply the other editor as being wrong?

I really hope that this can be food for thought. Even the smallest thing seems to be a battle. GregKaye 18:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Objection has already been made to adding more content to the list. I also support a view that there would need to be a very good, practical reason that related to real world situations for adding further content. GregKaye 04:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Pilgrim's Progress[edit]

I was working on Robinson's article a few weeks ago, so if I could find the book (which I know I have), I'd help now, but I don't know where it is. Therefore, could you also do me a favor add some material to his author article about Pilgrim's Progress in the pertinent section as well if you're going to have the book in hand? Something like author rationale in the preface, overall description from the dust jacket, stuff like that. MSJapan (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning examples in articles on generalized concepts[edit]

Hi, Thank you for contributing your views on the Village Pump. I don't understand why giving examples in music articles about generalized concepts is problematic. If generalized concepts, like Resultant tone, Helmholtz resonance or Distortion (music) were just theoretical concepts that acoustic engineers and music theorists did experiments on in the laboratory, then the articles could just explain the physics, acoustics or electronic principles behind these concepts, and then the articles could end there. However, in each example given, there are practical applications for the generalized concept. Resultant tones are used by pipe organ builders to create the sound of very low pitches from pipes that are much shorter than would not normally be required (and the article discusses this practical application). Helmholtz resonance has number of practical applications in music that are discussed in the "Applications" section of the article (e.g., production of sound on guitars and violins, djembes and ocarinas). The distortion article explains the theory behind distortion (signal clipping, vacuum tube saturation, etc.), but it also discusses how the distortion sound is used in music (the article names notable guitarists who first used the effect, notable songs, and mentions genres associated with the effect: blues, rock and heavy metal). It seems in keeping with the goals of the project that articles on generalized concepts could contain links to practical applications of these concepts. I would be very interested to know if there is a policy or guideline on whether articles on generalized concepts should or should not mention practical applications of the concept. I look forward to hearing your views.OnBeyondZebraxTALK 01:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Statue of Henry Sinclair[edit]

Here it is [[1]] Dickie birdie (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Honorary President of Clan Sinclair is this fellow [[2]] Dickie birdie (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)