User talk:Olborne

Welcome!

Hello, Olborne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

TheRingess 06:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whites in Zimbabwe[edit]

Olborne. Allow me to welcome you to Wikipedia, as well. You say that whites were 5.4% of the total population in 1969. Check your facts on that, (see white supremacist view). As an aside, in the 1960s many white residents were expatriates rather than settlers. In reality, I doubt that white settlers ever exceeded 2.5% of the population. Bob BScar23625 13:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have scurrilously inferred that the edit I made was motivated by racism. This is is an outrageous slur and pure intimidation. My only motive was statistical. The article said there are 270,000 whites, and another article says the population was 5 million. The former is 5.4% of the latter.

Please read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you do not think you will be able to comply with them, please consider whether Wikipedia is a suitable environment for you to work in. You should note that while political bias is accepted in academia, Wikipedia requires a Neutral point of view. Olborne 15:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olborne. The total population of Rhodesia in 1969 was around 6m, giving whites a demographic share of around 4.5%. I do not recall anyone previously claiming that the figure went over 5% at any time. But, you may be right. All the best. Bob BScar23625 16:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olborne. Point taken - you probably are right. If you are interested in Whites in Zimbabwe then I am happy to engage with you. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 17:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in the issue. I just made a correction to a mathematical error I found in an article I reached through random browsing, and that was why I was so upset that you immediately inferred that I was a racist Rhodie. Olborne 18:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olborne. Your use of the term "racist Rhodie" suggests to me that you are interested in the issue. No matter. If you want a chat then my e-mail address is on my User page. Bob BScar23625 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just pay enough attention to the newspapers to know a piece of relevant terminology in this field. The same applies to hundreds of other matters. I've read a reasonable amount about Zimbabwe in recent years because I follow cricket, which is one of the main things that gets the country into the news. Olborne 21:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olborne. You have probably seen the article Zimbabwe Cricket and the associated articles on Zimbabwean cricketers. Those articles are not well developed at the moment, and I keep thinking about taking them in hand. Bob BScar23625 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might have a look at them sometime, but I can't make any promises. Olborne 00:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Take care. Bob BScar23625 08:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olborne. You may have noticed that there is some discussion on Whites in Zimbabwe about the Gregory Lauder-Frost case. Have you any thoughts on that?. Bob BScar23625 13:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People by language[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 19#People by language

Please confirm whether you meant your previous discussion to apply to the 3 remaining languages, as they received only 4 days of comments, instead of the full 7.

--William Allen Simpson 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you respond to the canvassing of the above user, I would urge you to note the ongoing discussion of this subject here. This is not something to be quickly swept under the carpet. Deb 21:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Padstow[edit]

Hi Olborne, just noticed your 'revert' of my compromise suggestion on Padstow. I agree that Cornwall is part of England but, by definition, that also means it is part of the United Kingdom. Since there are categories for ports and seaside towns in the United Kingdom, it seems clear that Padstow fits in to this category. Therefore I do feel Padstow should be in both. Now, if you don't feel there should be categories for both England AND the UK, then that is another discussion, but while both categories exist, Padstow belongs in both. What do you reckon? Cheers, Duncshine 11:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have seen that all resorts do sit in the sub-cats. My apologies, I've corrected my own error. Duncshine 14:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and structures in Italy[edit]

Could you tell me why you are replacing this with Category: Houses in Italy, when villas, and palazzi etc are clearly not the same thing at all, also are they no longer mansions? - so why has that category been removed from so many Itralian buildings. [1] etc. etc. etc. Giano | talk 22:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All residences are types of house. "Mansion" is subjective, and I am going to nominate the category for deletion. Olborne 09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701[edit]

If the Wikify tag is "not acceptable", then the article needs some kind of related tag. That article is a mess! Repeat links, choppy info, the works! ~ clearthought 18:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag you would be looking for is surely cleanup, but I don't think it makes sense to put that on an article about a current event, which is evolving rapidly at present. I suggest waiting for a while. Olborne 09:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralston Hall[edit]

Hi! I am one of the other editors of Ralston Hall, and I have noticed that you have taken off the mansion category a number of times. I don't know if you have noticed, but I put a section on the discussion page of the article for us (or whoever) to discuss that. Since it calls itself a mansion, and is a mansion according to the mansion article, I thought the category was appropriate. But I see that house styles is one of your interests/projects here on wikipedia, so I might be missing something. If you believe that the mansion category does not apply to Ralston Hall, I would be more than happy to hear what you have to say and come to a decision. It is just that without a reason or discussion, you cannot keep taking it off. Oh, I just read one of your comments above, and see that you are considering nominating the category for deletion. I think it might cause less confusion if you continue with the nomination, and then if it passes, I think the category will be removed from all the articles (or it can then be removed without question). This will make much more sense to other editors, and then they won't keep coming to you! Either way, let's discuss it. I hope this makes sense, and that you understand that I am just trying to keep the discussion open, instead of just continuing to put it on and take it off over and over. Please let's discuss this at Talk: Ralston Hall. Thanks! DerGlizerndeDiamant 18:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mansions has been deleted now. I nominated it and there was a large majority if favour. "Mansion" is too subjective to be a good category name. Olborne 18:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-categories...[edit]

Hey, I noticed that you've been making so many sub-categories for palaces and royal residences. Well, I came across those sub-cats from Royal Palace, Phnom Penh and I don't really see the need for what you did by recategorizing it. First of all, there is only one palace still standing in Cambodia, any other is probably unknown of or very unfamiliar (such as palaces from ancient periods). There is however a royal residence in Siem Reap and hardly anything besides that. So I don't see the need to make a category for "Palaces in Cambodia" since there is only one main palace, if not the only palace in Cambodia. And I'm concerned about people not being able to see how many palaces there really are because they would have to click on too much sub-categories of palaces. Why make it more difficult? I think the palaces category should be kept simple. And if one particular country has a lot of palaces, such as England, then that is when a sub-category for such should be made. --Dara 00:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really gratifying and motivational response to the hours I have put into sorting out the mess that is Category:Houses and its subcategories, but I will carry on anyway as you are completely wrong in my opinion. If some are in subcategories all should be in subcategories so that there is a consistent system and neat presentation. If the articles for countries with only one or a few are left in the main category the result is not clarity at all, but mess and confusion - the reader can't tell whether a country has any relevant articles at all unless he already knows all the names, and then he has to search for them amongst many others.Olborne 06:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Henry Strousberg[edit]

Just curious, why did you remove [[Category:German entrepreneurs|Strousberg]]. He was both German and an entrpreneur? --Mcginnly | Natter 16:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is also in Category:German businesspeople. The categories for businesspeople are more widely used and I don't think having separate categories for entrepreneurs adds much except inconsistency. Olborne 20:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military brat[edit]

Hi Olborne, I have made a proposal on the discussion that I would like you to look at. Basically it is this. Military brats are the largest subcategory of Third Culture Kids (an article needing a fair amount of work.) I propose creating a new category Third Culture Kids and then creating a subcategory on military brats. This will alert those who are unfamiliar with the term that we are dealing with a scientifically studied definable term. It will let people know that we are not dealing with a mere "slang" term that those unfamiliar with the term might find offensive.Balloonman 17:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Residences[edit]

Hi Olborne,

your category royal residences in Greece is misspelled. You spelled it with three "e". Couldnt move it.--Tresckow 03:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that. I've nominated it for speedy renaming. Olborne 17:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with unsourced statements[edit]

I am preparing a new CfD for the category known as "Articles with unsourced statements" (i.e., articles with one or more fact templates). Given the increasing demand for more sourcing, this cat could quite foreseeably ultimately grow to encompass the vast majority of articles on the wiki. In my estimation that's far too broad to be an effective category. But perhaps more importantly, this cat was reinstated virtually unilaterally by an admin after a successful CfD, after which another CfD was short-circuited with a very arbitrary "speedy keep" only two days after it was opened. I probably will file it this week, after I further research the background of the issues that attend to this situation. Some of the attending issues can be found in a recent exchange at Category Talk:Articles with unsourced statements#This_category_should_not_even_be_here.2C_AFAICS.

Among the various issues involved are: 1) overly inclusive categories; 2) categories that constantly change in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki); 3) the impossiblility of ever clearing such a massive list as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki; 4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are many facts in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a template; 5) administrative truncating or short-circuiting of community process as happened with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements", and what properly is the range of admin discretion in closing AfDs, CfDs and DRVs prior to seven days under the "speedy" criteria; 6) how to properly deal with mistaken or abusive admin procedure after the fact when it is later discovered after having gone "under the radar"; 7) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag fact many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007.

Thought you might like to know about it. Thanks, ... Kenosis 00:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is now up for deletion review at the following location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20 . ... Kenosis 12:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Houses in Sweden[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Houses in Sweden requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch Empire has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Dutch Empire has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palaces in Mozambique has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Palaces in Mozambique has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Gjs238 (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]