User talk:OwenX

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

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics, and sign your entry by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Thank you.

Click here to start a new topic.

Archives


April - National Contribution Month[edit]

Good day OwenX,

During the month of April, Wikimedia Canada is preparing the National Contribution Month, and we are looking for experienced contributors to organize a contribution day (or half-day) in their region.

Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.

If you are interested in organizing or participating in a contribution day in your region, communicate witht he national team on the project's talk page. The exact agenda of each local event is left to the discretion of the organizer. Help is available for the organization from contributors who already organized these type of days, so don't be worried. If you have any questions or want more information, don't hesitate to contact us.

Amqui (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I am here to improve articles, but you require me to do other things first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siovhan (talkcontribs) 09:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and... rollback[edit]

Greetings OwenX. Thank you for your note. I will indeed review the links you included, but I'm not sure that your statement "overusing the undo/revert buttons for questionable edits or edits that don't justify a revert" is entirely justified, especially if you refer to today's edits, as I'm sure that you will not have found fault with any of the others, which were merely reverting vandalism or wikifying & expanding other articles. Moreover, the edit you disagree with is my reversion of a potentially damaging comment, and one which I considered, and still do, contentious, made on the Warren Buffet talk page (WP:BLP: "...material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.") Likewise, I must admit that I was surpised by your categorical statement to the effect that I was "censoring" anything, as I was only applying what I considered a straightforward and common-sense use of BLP policy. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. As regards you having to go back to February to find [apparent] fault with my editing, with all due respect, I'm sure there are other, more pressing tasks, that need attending at Wikipedia. As for the two examples you provide, both can be fully explained if you were to AGF: the one dating back to Feb. ([1]) was merely to ensure that a series of malicious edits - stating that a living person had died - were adequately eliminated from the article as quickly as possible. Hardly cause for you to criticise my edits in what I consider excessively harsh terms. The second, was reverting a nonsense edit by an editor whose previous edit could hardly be considered constructive. However, to return to your original reprimand for having eliminated unsourced contentious material regarding BPL ("mere mention of the existence of sources relating to clashes between two living persons is not a BLP violation"), I'm afraid I take issue you with you, as anyone could, by what you suggest, claim they have access to sources "proving" the most outrageous and heinous crimes... Regards, --Technopat (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Incident Noticeboard[edit]

I have started a discussion regarding your behavior here [1] on the Indcident Noticeboard. Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.23.30.60.249 (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

RRSP[edit]

FYI I have started a dispute resolution process at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Registered_Retirement_Savings_Plan_and_its_Talk_page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.94.77 (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC) 24.85.94.77 (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Owen, I have made a proposal here to incorporate the Golombek analogy. I don't believe that Golombek or others dispute the benefits of RRSPs in the way that retailinvestor is arguing. I think that the loan analogy is just an analogy. I think it is fine to incorporate it into the article, and recommend doing by quoting Golombek directly, rather than using retailinvestor's argumentation. I have reviewed the links provided by User:24 and find that they do not support the notion that there is a dispute. I think that you are best-placed to try to resolve this.

I hold out little hope that User:24 will ever accept anything other than his/her own version, and believe that he/she is seeking to promote the retailinvestor site. The best I think we can hope for is that he/she goes away as this is someone who is demonstrating an unwillingness to be constructive or collaborative. I could be wrong, and hope that he/she will come around to the Wikipedia way of doing things. Regards, Ground Zero | t 14:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I have no problem with User:24 finding more sources, and you and me doing the copyediting work. His edits are easy to revert if needed, and we can keep the portions that meet the standards. I'm happy with the approach you proposed on the Talk page. Owen× 15:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Registered Retirement_Savings_Plan". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Response to undoing edits[edit]

Undoing the edits was unnecessary, if you have looked at the pages, I've changed "Parent" to "owner", there is a difference between the two. So if you can, please stop with undoing the edits, they are not disruptive. Seqqis (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Seqqis, there is no point to adding fractional ownership data to company infoboxes, especially when done haphazardly as you have done. Not to assume bad faith, but your goal seems to be not to provide complete ownership data, but to publicize one specific holding company. That is not how Wikipedia works. A 5% ownership stake in a publicly traded company is not notable information, and when taken out of context of other ownership stakes in the same company, is misleading and useless. Owen× 19:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Your response isn't a very good one, the edits are not useless. If the company owns a percentage of another company, and it doesn't matter if its a little or near being the parent, the company still owns it. It doesn't have to be 100% ownership to be in the "owner" section of the company infobox. Seqqis (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I also own a percentage of Berkshire, just as tens of thousands of other shareholders do. Are you going to add me to the article's infobox? Please, let's cut the nonsense and limit fractional ownership data to what is actually notable. A 50% ownership portion is meaningful; a 5% ownership is noise. Owen× 02:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
If you do own a percentage of a company, you be a added as a private shareholder in the infobox. Also, I've been adding companies who own partial to majority of ownership in a company in info boxes for a while, and they have been acceptable.Seqqis (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Really? That infobox will grow mighty big once you add the names of all 50,000 shareholders to it. As I said, enough with the nonsense. Owen× 02:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not what I meant. What I mean is for example; in a infobox it would go something like this, Owner(s): Company(45.2%), Company(15%), Private shareholders(40%) Also my edits are not nonsense, if anything you're undoing edits that aren't even invalid to the infobox.Seqqis (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Palenka[edit]

Q codes[edit]

Hi

Your post on Q Codes, whilst the majority is correct, there's much of it wrong. Q stands for "Question", not query. It is a term that was coined in the war when these codes were created. Any pilot will know this. QNH is Question Nil Height, QFE is Question Field Elevation etc etc. QDM is Question Direction Magnetic 120.22.83.167 (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Alas, it is impossible to write an encyclopaedia based on what "any pilot will know", which is why we prefer to use reliable sources. Furthermore, while your flight instructor was kind enough to come up with a convenient backronym to help you remember such things, QNH does not stand for "Question Nil Height". Here is a list of other things everyone knows to be true, and yet, surprisingly, are false. Knowledge is gained by questioning myths, not by repeating them. Owen× 11:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)