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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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]