User talk:Owain.davies/Discussion Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Lustleigh edits

OK - you don't agree with some of my editing. However have you looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style? In general articles of this type focus on the historic and then come up to date in that sequence which was the format I was adopting. Equally you may wish to check out WP:NOT - articles very rarely have such a focus on local current events. Wiki is an international encyclopedia - for example a band local to Lustleigh will be interesting within the area - however if I were a Lustleigh resident looking at a wider audience I'd prefer the page to look a little less informal and "folksy" and more like an encyclopedia. You may find it useful to look at Guide to layout, Guide to writing better articles and Avoid trivia sections in articles.

Whatever you feel about this I will at least place relevant Wiki links within the article in order to bring it in line with so many other well written and researched articles --Herby talk thyme 12:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK & apologies if I was a little harsh too and particularly if my edits left the article not making sense. I doubt two Wiki editors will ever see eye to eye completely over an article. In my view the POV aspect could be reduced. I confess I do not see the village amenities as being encyclopedic or in line with most of the other village articles which I have looked at.
As to the bells (a signficant feature given their history and provenance) - why do you feel they should be further down the article? Certainly in time as the page develops they may well warrant their own page but for now maybe not.
As and when I get a chance I will try and get some more Wikilinks in but I assure you I will not radically alter the article without posting on the article talk page first - hope this is ok - regards --Herby talk thyme 17:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ambulance edits

Very impressive work, well written. --Badger151 02:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And I heard some talk about that RDS thing, but never saw anything solid on it - i don't suppose you have a reference? --Badger151 04:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see ambulance as a featured article, eventually. Toward that, I wrote out most of the history section, and cut large portions of the USA section, turing them into their own page (Emergency Medical Services in the United States, which presently needs a lot of work, but one thing at a time). Next on my personal to do list are to add a bit to the "design and construction" section, and to add a section about the motorcycle/donkey-pulled/etc ambulances seen in lesser developed areas, but if you have the time, feel free to get started, if those topics intrest you. Other things I see that could use work are the US section, which needs to be repolished, and the section on France might be able to be spun off in its own article. The "costs" section is also lacking, but I really don't know much about that subject. And one of the difficulties, of course, if the length of the page; I haven't come across a solution for that, yet.
Incidentally, I didn't see your replies until just now - if you leave messages on my talk page, via the 'discussion' tab up top, the system will let me know that I have a message waiting. Best --Badger151 03:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. I saw that you did work on the "Intermediate technology" section of the ambulance article (under Design and construction). I appriciate the nature of what you added, but in doing so you changed the purpose of that section, which was about ambulances designed and built under the principles of intermediate technology. By all means be bold, but at the same time, please be careful about what you remove. Many thanks, --Badger151 02:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT

I know WP isn't a social networking site but I thought it might be nice to say hi seeing as I haven't seen or heard of you in over ten years. If you like, come join the Portal:Kent and WP:KENT as we are just starting up. Take Care. KevinCarmody 19:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's

I'll be picky - "It's" is short for "It is" as such the awb correction was good --Herby talk thyme 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ambulance

Hi, Owain - I do agree that there has been a slow creep over the past several months in the style of English used on the Ambulance page, however, I think that if you reflect, and take a look at the page history, you will find that:

  1. from the begining, the page has been written in US English. Armor appeared before armour, -ize has consistently appeared, but I have rarely found -ise, truck appears instead of lorry, &c.
  2. If you take a look at the page as it existed at the time of your first edit:[1] you will see that, where there are differences between US and UK English, most of the page uses US conventions.
    • All of "History" was written in US English (I know because I wrote it, and I wrote it that way in keeping with the rest of the page).
    • "Design and construction" is in US English: note the use of the word gasoline, not petrol.
    • "Appearance and markings": note the word favor, not favour.
    • "Private ambulance companies": I don't see much that falls specifically into only one variant of the language, but I do see that perhaps half of the section is about US phenomena, and I see the mention of a Commercial driver's license, which according to the Wikipedia page is a US phenomenon (I gather that UK’s PCV license is somewhat equivalent, but the point remains that the US term is used).
    • "Military ambulances" has something of a split personality, using armor but armoured - if you look back through the history, however, you will see that the US spelling appeared in the article first.
    • What follows is the discussion of services in different countries - sections you quite appropriately removed and spun into their own pages. Looking at them nevertheless, I see that the US section (whose height takes up 2 and 1/2 screens on my monitor - almost twice as much as any other country’s) appears to be written in US English - I note the use of color rather than colour. France's section doesn't appear to use anything that isn't used by both variants of the language, though I admit that my knowledge of the intricacies of the differences has its limits. The section on the UK is written in UK English: I note the use of recognised rather than recognized. The section on Germany uses therefore, with the e at the end - I honestly don't remember which style this falls into, though I think it is US. Norway's section uses organizations, which I also take to be US spelling.
  3. There appears to be some confusion regarding the type of English to be used on Wikipedia, so I cut and paste from Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ#General (you'll have to scroll down to section 3.10)

    • Should I use American English or British English? - People contribute to the English language Wikipedia in every possible variety and dialect of formal written English. The English language Wikipedia particularly welcomes contributions from editors whose first language is neither American English nor Commonwealth English. Still, it is generally good form to keep usage consistent within a given article. The official policy is to use British (AKA "Commonwealth") spelling when writing about British (or Commonwealth) topics, and American for topics relating to the United States. General topics can use any one of the variants, but should generally strive to be consistent within an article. See Wikipedia's Manual of Style for a more detailed explanation.

      (Emphasis is mine)
    • I also note:

      Disputes over style issues - In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If it has been stable in a given style, do not change it without some style-independent reason. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

      which you may find at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Disputes over style issues The first major contribution was probably that made by User:Cdang in several edits between 19 August 2004 and 30 Septermber of the same year; Cdang added much of the section on French EMS, which as I have already said, is difficult to assign to any one type of English. The first moderately sized addition that chooses between UK and US English that I can find is User:Mathknight's addition of "Military ambulances" on 13 January 2005; Mathknight clearly and consistently uses armor, not armour.
  4. Because of this, I have consistently used US English, as far as my understanding of it allows: I wrote the entire "History" section in US English, The work I did on "Design and construction" was written the same way, as was the work I did on “Appearance and markings,” (which you expanded on quite nicely, as I believe I commented at the time – as I look in more detail, though, I note that you overlooked the presence of colored in that section, not to mention the style of the bulk of the rest of the article, and used UK spellings in your additions. As this added a sizeable block to the article, this may be why you thought of the article as being largely UK English.)

If you look at the edits that I have done on the Ambulance article, I believe that you will find that, where I have changed between one style of English and another, I have done so only for consistancy, and generally only as I came across the discrepincies; I made the last series of edits upon first discovering that some sections had drifted, and later in determining that many of them had done so.

I also wish to point out that in your haste to attend to UK English, you undid User:GunnarRene's edit of 27 March, and my edit regarding civilian vehicles, which is necessary if the reference to Dean King's book is to be valid.

Finally, I must object to your statement that you wrote or rewrote 75% of the article. You have added about as much as I have, and I know that I haven’t written half of that article. I find your proposal otherwise to be highly insulting. Yours very sincerely, --Badger151 05:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Owain. I'm sorry it's taken me some time to get back to you. I gather that it is important to you that the ambulance page be written in UK English, in spite of the history of the page and the policies of Wikipedia. Your actions in following this desire have caused and will continue to cause me minor inconveniences, and I am left with something of the feeling that you hijacked the page in changing it over to UK English, but I will not engage in an edit war with you over this. There are some users who do take the versions of English very seriously, though (too seriously, in my opinion), so in the hopes of enabling you to avoid future difficulties, I hope you will allow me to offer some advice. Please do review the Wikipedia policies on the use of UK and US English. I think you will find them to be as I have described above, which is different than what you proposed on my talk page. Please also be careful to consider the entire page when determining which style of English it is in. Best,--Badger151 04:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Lustleigh edits

This is what you wrote on my Talk Page:
Thanks for your clean up on Lustleigh article, but i think a couple of your cuts were a little harsh. I've put a couple of them back in, because i think their removal got rid of some useful information and background. Being absolutely succinct is not always desirable! Thanks.

In reply to those comments I’ll talk about just two paragraphs.
EXAMPLE 1
You changed this paragraph (containing my edits):
The graveyard contains the remains of Lustleigh residents, although the graveyard is now full. With the exception of those with family plots, new burials take place at the graveyard on Mill Lane.
back to this:
The church graveyard contains the remains of former Lustleigh residents, although the graveyard is now full, and with the exception of those with family plots, new burials take place out at the new cemetery on Mill Lane.

Comment 1. The paras are headed The Church so ‘’’church’’’ graveyard is redundant so I removed the word “church” as any good editor would.
Comment 2. I don’t object to “former” going back in.
Comment 3. The word “new” was there twice in the final phrase which is regarded as bad writing. So I stand by 2 out of 3 of my edits in that para.

EXAMPLE 2:
You changed this paragraph (containing my edits):
The line grew in popularity from 1860 to the 1930s and thereafter went in to decline. This led to diffculties with finances and, despite a significant summer tourist trade, usage was not sufficient to cover costs. This coincided with the rise of the private motor car.
back to this:
The line grew in popularity from 1860 to the 1930s and thereafter went in to decline. This led to financial difficulties (with no initial business plan having been undertaken) and despite a significant summer tourist trade (and featuring in many contemporary guide books to the region), the local usage through the year was not sufficient to cover rising costs. This also co-incided with the rise of the private motor car, leading to a decline in passenger number, and the branch railway consequently saw a decline in fares.

So now that para is wrecked by wordiness, rambling and bad sentence construction. I could go on and on about your other reversions but I haven’t the time. I hope you can realise that your writing skills need polishing by someone else (which is what I was doing). Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Police Car

Hi Owain, thanks for asking for a new assessment for the police car article, however the article is already a B class, and higher ratings (Good Article Class is what you should aim for next) are handled here. Articles can't be rated as GA by the wikiproject alone.

The article is shaping up nicely though! Might I suggest some in-line citations/footnotes for references? Also perhaps move some of those pictures from the very top of the article and indsperse them amongst the main prose? Let me know if you have any questions about nominating an article for GA, there are instructions on the GA pages that hopefully will be clear enough :) thanks. SGGH 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Greetings! Thanks for the contact. The Emergency medical services in the United Kingdom isn't too bad' in the wider scheme of things; it's mainly cosmetics and formatting that need addressing.

For example, it could do with an infobox pegged to the right outlining key data and statistics, the Ambulance Trusts of England need to be put into tabular format (say like as found here), the images are poor quality (I know this is sometimes difficult to amend), there is nothing on the history of the services, and most importantly, there are no references throughout the entire article.

I'd be inclined to help, given that this article is now linked via every settlement of the UK that has an infobox, but I'm afraid the topic is not one I'm familliar with.

Does that help at all? Jhamez84 14:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Newport infobox

Does anyone know how to edit the infobox? Ambulance services here are provided by Isle of Wight Primary Care Trust, not South Central Ambulance Service.Owain.davies 21:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't fathom it either. Presumably it's some kind of autogenerate setup - too clever for its own good. I've asked at Template talk:Infobox UK place. Tearlach 23:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Defibrillation

You're welcome. With regard to the medulla oblongata, I think it's an esoteric point in the context of a discussion about defibrillation. Yes, the sinus node is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, but I think you overstate the case when you say the sinus node is paced by the medulla oblongata. Just my opinion. I also have a comment about the manner in which your sandbox version defines defibrillation. I prefer this definition (and not because I wrote it but because I think it's correct and I can source it with an authoritative reference)

Defibrillation works by delivering a therapeutic dose of electrical current to the heart of the patient, thereby depolarizing a critical mass of the heart muscle, which terminates the life threatening arrhythmia, and allows a coordinated heart rhythm to return.

Generally speaking, 'stunning' the myocardium is not a good thing, and has ramifications beyond using electric current to depolarize the many isolated wavelets involved in VF. A 'stunned' myocardium may have wall motion abnormalities, for example. So the idea is to terminate the arrhythmia, with as little myocardial stunning as possible. As for ICD v. AICD, I know that AICD (automated implantable cardiac defibrillator) was first, and old habits die hard, but ICD (implantable cardioverter-defibrillator) is more descriptive of modern devices. In addition, the "Big 3" device makers (Medtronic, Guidant, and St. Jude Medical) all use the modern term ICD (even though the URL for Guidant ICDs contains the letters aicd). So AICD is somewhat of an anachronism. It's not a big deal, but that's the reason I prefer to use ICD. The trivia? Yeah, it's widespread on the Wikipedia. I just think the idea that everything has a use "in popular culture" is a strange way to look at the world! :) Best, MoodyGroove 21:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Just noticed that you reverted the spam on AED, been there, done that. What is it about this article that attracts so much spam? Its not just one company either. Weird, huh? By the way (I saw the above comment), re: sinus node pacing/rate, the WP article, Electrical conduction system of the heart is really well-written and undertandable, even for non-professionals. I was an ICU nurse for 12 years and cardiac stuff is really cool. Perkinge fibers, bundle of His, etc. all made me wish I was a nineteenth century anatomist so I could have some obscure body part named after me! --killing sparrows (chirp!) 06:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Emergency

I see you are planning on replacing Emergency with an article. Just to let you know, I have been doing an admin coaching assignment on Emergency too, and just thought you could grab some more information out of mine to include in your final copy. You can find it at User:Extranet/Admin coaching/Assignments/Emergency (also posted on Emergency's talk page). Extranet talk 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Emerlight.gif

Hello, Owain.davies. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Emerlight.gif) was found at the following location: User:Owain.davies. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Abdominal thrusts and choking

Just a quick note to say that i have added my support to the merge!


Regards

Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 17:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You deserve this...

The Barnstar of Life
The barnstar of life is hereby awarded to Owain.davies for a particularly fine job of creating and editing the article emergency. The Transhumanist    20:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How about taking it all the way?

You've done such a good job on emergency, I think it has the makings of a Featured article. If you are interested in improving the article to the Wikipedia's highest standards, please read Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates.

I look forward to watching you take this article all the way to the top. The next step is Wikipedia:Peer review. Good luck. The Transhumanist    22:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hazard, Vulnerability, Risk and Disasters

Owain, I am basically OK with your edit of the intro to natural disasters. There is, however, still confusion of terminology between Hazards, Vulnerability and Risk. When you are writing about "the degree of potential loss" your are referring to the what the literature defines as Risk (see emergency management). For instance, an impact hazard on an uninhabited planet is not a disaster nor is an impact hazard a disaster if it can be counteracted before it develops into a disaster, by relocating the population at risk or by reducing the risk through the use of, for instance, technology. Consequently, the article should be renamed to Natural hazards as it deals with hazards and not disasters. I might be splitting hairs here, but it is relevant in order to achieve the encyclopedic tone that we are aiming for. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 08:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ironic?

Quoting your userbox, it says that you'll view extraneous apostrophe's with "extreme prejudice": so whats' this?

It is one of 13 Ambulance Trusts providing England with Emergency medical services, and is part of the National Health Service, receiving direct government funding for it's role.

You might have copied the same text a few times I believe. Poojean 19:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Choking

Doesn't look as though we're going to get this user to see sense. I've added merge tags to both articles, left a message on DXRAW's user talk and the wikiproject talk, and proposed on the abdo thrusts talk page that we leave it another week to see what happens. Hopefully that should keep everyone happy! --John24601 08:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally managed to get this done with some help from a friendly admin! We now need to work on getting the abdominal thrusts section in Choking up to scratch. --John24601 09:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Med-stub

The image that you have added is called caduceus and is the symbol of trade, not medicine. The medical symbol is called Rod of Asclepius (only one snake). Please find a more suitable image. Until then, I'll revert to the Star of life. --Eleassar my talk 10:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on! This image is just too big (and unaesthetic). --Eleassar my talk 16:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I've temporarily replaced it with a smaller and similar image (just nicer) till consensus is formed. --Eleassar my talk 16:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Preview

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Ambulance, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. If you're worried about losing your edits, do what I do. I copy the entire contents of the edit window to my clipboard just before I click preview (or save for that matter). Your edits the article are really good, by the way. Thanks for making Wikipedia better! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 19:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

AWP

While I don't disagree with the "How to" removal of large parts of the AWP article, I do disagree strongly with you deleting the cherry-picker article and replacing it with a redirect. Wikipedia is not paper - when a good subarticle exists, it should not be deleted just to be integrated into the general article. That would only apply for rather trivial subjects. Cheers. MadMaxDog 07:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Answered your comment on my page. Cheers.MadMaxDog 07:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ambulance photo

I'm curious why you felt the need to remove my picture of an air ambulance (Image:Helimed5.jpg) and replace it with another that does not appear to add anything to the article or to be of superior quality to my photo. My pictures been on the Ambulance page for quite a while now and I rather liked it being there! Unless you can give me a good reason for replacing it, could you put it back please.scancoaches 14:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem

I like to tidy up things. IPSOS (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. It's my first. :-) IPSOS (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You deserve it Owain.davies 21:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

British Association for Immediate Care

You recreated the article even before I had finished deleting it (the talk page was still there)! That was fast! :D I had to run some errands, so couldnt reply earlier, sorry about that.

Anyways, coming back to the article, even though it is in a much better shape now, it still does not assert notability, not at least the way it is expected here. As I already mentioned, it has to show multiple (at least two) instances of coverage by mainstream media (a non-blog, non-forum, non-wiki website or even magazine or newspaper will do). The BBC article is fine, a couple of more should get you on the safe side. Plus, it would be best if you can provide any claim to fame that distinguishes it from other similar organizations.

Apart from that, the article still reads like a promotional material for the organization. Sentences like "BASICS members are used to provide extra skills at the scene of major incidents, or for particularly difficult patients" and "The ambulance service trusts provides a high standard of care", appear to be vaunting and thus not neutral. These little details are what diminishes the quality of an article.

Since it does assert partial notability, and because it is under development, I am not slapping any ugly tags on the article. But it clearly needs a lot of work, I will be keeping an eye out. Feel free to contact me for any assistance you might require. All the best, both of you. --soum talk 17:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


Queensland Ambulance and Australian EMS

I think I might do both as suggested. I could write an article on the Australian EMS in a day but it would take me a week to research the citations!

--Sunray Major 10:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fire device image

I answered you on my talk page. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Branston Pickle

Hi, I reverted your cut and paste move of Branston Pickle. Please see Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page. Ask on my talk page if you need any help. Edward 16:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, fixed it. The important thing is to maintain the revision history. Edward 18:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Just out of curiosity, did you attend Chatham House Grammar School? Ryan(talk/contribs) 19:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Suman gol

What's wrong with it? I stated the source in the edit summary when I created the article, and I doubt you'll find anything better out there. Yaan 11:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

{{cleanup}} and {{citations missing}} are not meant for perfectly valid stubs about geographical features, which would be trivial to verify on a decent map. The only appropriate thing to add there would have been {{Mongolia-geo-stub}}, which I've just done. --Latebird 13:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Emergency tourniquet

Hi Owain,

I was looking through the archives of the emergency bleeding control article and it appears that you blanked the Emergency tourniquet article. I think that's probably the correct choice, since wikipedia should not be hosting howtos on tourniquet use, but do you think the content might be helpful somewhere else, like wikibooks? Just curious about what you think.

St.isaac 13:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that Emergency bleeding control is a better place to the put the articles -- in fact, I suggested it awhile ago on the first aid wikiproject. I'm looking over the removed content again, and its not really suitable for anything. Thanks!

St.isaac 16:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ambulance page

Just had a look at the "Ambulance" page - very impressive. --Badger151 21:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about spinning off the history section into its own page, because you're quite correct: it's very big. What's stopped me has been the idea that it seems a peculiar subject for a page, but now that you've suggested it, I'm now thinking that it might not be too peculiar. Perhaps more importantly, I'm not sure what should be cut - the section (like most of the article) contains little that is extraneous. Perhaps the biggest difficulty would be in coming up with a condensed version to keep on the main Ambulance page. Thoughts?
Also, so far I've only been able to find safety data on US ambulances - if you happen to stumble across non-US info, and don't feel like adding it yourself, could you pass the web-site/article title/etc along to me? --Badger151 18:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking very quickly, I think the section on the EMS page looks good - but what really excites me is the short note you put at its top, directing the reader to the Hx of Ambulance Care on the Ambulance page. Perhaps that's the answer: a page on the history of Ambulance care, not just the ambulance itself, which would cover the history of both the ambulances and the care their crews provided. Of course, it's also almost 3am here, so this could just be sleep-deprived, blathering idiocy on my part; I'll have to look at it again tomorrow. --Badger151 06:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

FAR notifications

Hi, Owain.davies. Please follow instruction #6 at the top of WP:FAR, using {{subst:FARMessage|Gray Wolf}} to notify relevant parties and Projects. Please leave a note at the top of Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gray Wolf indicating parties notified; you can see examples at other articles at WP:FAR. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations on Ambulance article

Hi - I'm a bit confused as to why you've changed over the citation format on the "Ambulance" article. I noticed this earlier; since both your format and the page's format appear the same to the reader, I said nothing - but then the retrieved date for citation #11, on bicycle ambulances, got lost when you converted it. What's going on? --Badger151 15:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly that's a laudable goal, to have all of the citations in the same format. But what was wrong with the original format (the one whose template is still in the "References" section, if you click edit)? --Badger151 02:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Owain. I see you haven't responded to my earlier question. I'm not sure how to interpret that. More importantly, though, I see that there continues to be a discrepancy between the instructions for leaving references on the Ambulance page and the citation format that you have chosen to change all of the references over to. I had hoped that, since I mentioned this in my last message to you, you would attend to this - it is, after all, a discrepancy that you have created - but in spite of your having made several contributions to Wikipedia over the last week, attending to this has not been one of them. I am not familiar with this new format, and don't think I can create as clear a set of instructions as you might have.
More generally, I am faced with a strong sensation of deja vu'. I am strongly reminded of your actions in changing the page over from one style of English to another: once again, in contradiction to Wikipedia policies, you have taken it upon yourself to make unnecessary changes to the format of an article. You have done so without consulting others on the talk page, and without even leaving notice that you have done so, which also makes your changes disruptive - editors used to working in the old style will continue to do so until your clandestine changes are brought to their attention.
Finally, I did not say this when you changed the article's style of English over, because I hoped we were dealing with an isolated incident: the product of being new and inexperienced in how Wikipedia works; but now that a pattern appears to be developing, I will add this personal note - your changes appear to display a blatant disregard for the work done by other editors, and to do so in a way that, though I can speak for no one but myself, I find to be insulting and discouraging. I have never been a daily, or even a weekly contributer to Wikipedia, but since these changes I have found Wikipedia to be less rewarding, and less of a community, and I am less inclined to contribute.
As I believe I said last time, I propose that in the future, you take great care to discuss changes of these types on the Talk page, so that other editors may have their say.
Yours sincerely, Badger151 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Green electricity in the United Kingdom

Hi Owain. Thanks for taking an interest in this topic; I understand your view that no energy is 'green'. The article is focused on electricity retailing, a market in which the term 'green electricity' is, however, very widely used. Much of the article content does talk about this incongruity. 'Renewable energy', on the other hand, is a much larger topic, covering other forms of energy, and including renewable energy production, government policy, etc., which would be out of place in a 'renewable electricity retailing' article. Consequently I've moved the article back and added some notes of explanation to the discussion page here. If you have further thoughts on the subject perhaps you could comment on the same page. Regards Gralo 15:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MOS

Well, it was in no way apparent that birds were being excluded from the discussion. we were discussing animals (not birds), is a curious statement to me seeing as how birds are animals. Any rules made about animals in general would be applied to birds. That birds were discussed at lenghth without our input strongly suggested changes were to be made without seeking our opinions. As for personal attacks, well, when I'm sick in bed and am described as a couple of very opinionated people with no justification other than "that's how we serious people do it", a grammar-ignoring renegade and if I came out swinging a little strongly then I'm sorry but I resent the work I do being categorised that way and our poistions being categorised through strawmen and misrepresnetation (especially when we aren't invited to correct it). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Emergency Medical Care

Greetings,

Thank you for bringing some things to my attention. I have reduced much of the listing as you suggested, only placing rough categories instead.

I have also initiated a discussion regarding the merge on the EMS page.

Please continue to assess the quality of the EMC article, much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeattractive (talk • contribs) 22:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BITE

I'm not really too chuffed at being directed to WP:BITE. The user commented themselves that it was copied from an article, so that's a copyright violation, and can't stay. The main reason I don't like being directed to bite is because it's a rather sore point, as I feel I do quite a bit to help newbies. Take a look at the second barnstar on my userpage, for example. TheIslander 09:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"I think it's good wikiquette to always give a reason for reversion to the user if they are new or apparently new..."
Actually, I think it's good wikiquette to always give a reason for reversion to the user regardless of whether they're new or old. For that reason I did, though this seems to have escaped you completely (my comment above, which is now in bold?). "interesting, though if it's copied, it can't go here. Original work only (with references)" [2] means "No, you can't just say "copied from a defib article", as that violates WP:C". Further evidence to back up the fact that it was copied can be found in the form of this users submission to the defib article, which was identical. Another thing I didn't bother to mention was that it was written with a slight POV slant - suggesting that using an AED is bad full-stop, when in fact in the absence of a normal defib, it's priceless. Regardless, contrary to your comments, I reverted a) with good reason, and b) with good comments.
I also have to agree with MoodyGroove below: this comment is completely out of order. "...i'll tell them off for that in a minute" - 'scuse me? Who do you think you are? The most you can do is re-revert our reverts, with good reasoning, but beyond that, nothing. Please do not assume that you can "tell us off" unless you completely and fully understand our reasons for reverting, and they are undoubtably wrong! TheIslander 22:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Defibrillation

I removed the edit to Defibrillation because it's wrong. Removing it isn't biting. It's improving the encyclopedia. The burden of evidence is on the editor who restores disputed content, not the editor who removes it. The {{fact}} tag should not be used to restore disputed content, and while I appreciate the work you did on the merge of defibrillation and defibrillator, you do not own the article. That's two of my edits you've reverted without discussion in 24 hours, and comments like this are a bit righteous. I'm 99% sure I know who User:67.161.99.124 is, and if I'm right, we've discussed this topic extensively in personal correspondence. This is a novel interpretation of the AHA/ILCOR guidelines and will not be substantiated by any references (with the exception of the part about the delay between stopping CPR and shocking reducing shock efficacy). Most of the research that has been critical of AEDs and the analysis period refers to the old practice of stack shocking, which resulted in unacceptable delays for little added benefit, especially considering the high first shock efficacy of modern biphasic defibrillators. It had nothing to do with the studies showing improved survival with 2 minutes of CPR prior to defib with down times > 4 minutes. MoodyGroove 12:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Mets/Choking

Aww, c'mon. Have a little fun. Couldn't you at least allow the Mets addition to remain until after the playoff race was over? The Mets are on the verge of the biggest choking incident in history--14 games this late in the season!! That's bigger than any chunk of sausage lodged in someone's airway. Don't worry, I won't toy with your prized entry any more. God forbid that I end up blacklisted from editing Wikipedia entries. Whatever would I do with my free time? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.177.12 (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Success of fire suppression in northern forests

Per your contributions to fire apparatus, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Success of fire suppression in northern forests. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 06:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

RDS and ambulances?

I continued the discussion on my talk page. Squidfryerchef 22:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rod of Asclepius

Thank you for leaving a message on my talk page. I've left a comment on the talk page of the above article. --Pixelface (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

EMS

Agency specific references do not belong in this article. Book references are made according to the Chicago manual of style.Demantos (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME?!

HOW ACTUAL DARE YOU REFER TO MY WORK AS VANDALISM!

I AM ACTUALLY BEING DEADLY SERIOUS!


I AM REALLY VERY VERY ANNOYED BY THAT BECAUSE IT TOOK ME QUITE A WHILE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE A PAGE REDIRECT AND THEN YOU JUST COME ALONG AND CALL IT VANDALISM!!!!!!!!

WELL PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW REDIRECTING 'Chaz' TO 'Chatham House Grammar School' IS VANDALISM, CONSIDERING THAT IS THE ACTUAL COLLOQUIAL TERM THAT MOST PEOPLE KNOW THE SCHOOL BY, AND SINCE ONE OF BRITAINS PRIME MINISERS (EDWARD HEATH) WENT TO THE SCHOOL, I WOULD SAY THAT IT IS RATHER IMPORTANT! AND I DO ACTUALLY GO TO THE SCHOOL BY THE WAY SO I HAVE FIRST HAND REFERENCE!

IM SORRY THAT THIS MAY SOUND SO RUDE BUT I ACTUALLY PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THAT!


PLEASE DO NOT DELETE IT AGAIN...

thank you x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewrice (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WELL...

since hardly anyone actually knows them by the terms 'chatham house grammar school' and 'clarendon house grammar school' anymore since like the 20th century, i thought it might be helpful for the MAJORITY of people who reffered to them by those names!

so thank you for trying to help wikipedia, but i am also trying to help here, and that is why i would like you to leave the terms there, which i must add i spent a lot of time researching how to do them!

p —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewrice (talk • contribs) 22:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

 !!!!!!

PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHERE EXACTLY I 'DELETED' ANYONE ELSE'S WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND IF I DID IT WAS SHEERLY BY ACCIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!

AND I SSSSSTTTTTIIIILLLLL GO TO THE SCHOOL!!!!!!!! SO I THINK I WOULD REALLY KNOW MORE ABOUT IT THAN YOU! AND HOW EXACTLY AM I SUPPOSED TO 'PROVE' THAT THE COLLOQUIAL TERM IS 'CHAZ'... BY GOING UP TO PEOPLE IN THE STREET AND CONDUCTING A SURVEY OF WHAT IT IS MOST COMMONLY REFERRED TO?!

AND TO BE HONEST IF YOU HAVE GONE TO THE SCHOOL AND NEVER HEARD THE TERMS CHAZ AND CLAZ USED THEN EITHER YOU MUST BE VERY OLD, OR YOU MUST NOT BE VERY ATTENTIVE!

IM SORRY ABOUT THIS! BUT YOU ARE BEING TOTALLY UNREASONABLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewrice (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

well fine

leave the chaz there for the moment and i will actually search all available resources to see if ANY eligible stakeholder in the school uses this term.

after this, then what do i do with the evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewrice (talk • contribs) 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

its unusual for short lived slang terms to be posted here?!

first, it is not short lived... as the refering to this has now spread to a numerous number of teachers... including Mr. Fergusson, a maths teacher at the school

and secondly, there is a WHOLE PAGE HERE ON 'lol'!

and you want to disallow an abbreviation to be redirected to its full page?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewrice (talk • contribs) 22:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

and... putting more energy into the article?!

i was the one that actually created the whole 'clarendon house grammar school' page!

which i must add was my first page creation, and as such i found it very difficult... altho i hav struggled to put it all together, only to be told i must go and find records of Mr Matthews using the terminology written down on paper before i am allowed to make a very well informed edit.

well can the reference be from any pupil? or a pupil or authority? or does it have to be a teacher?!

and does it have to be written or just recorded that they have said it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewrice (talk • contribs) 22:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Chatham House problems

I see there is a rather nasty edit war going on between you and User:Iamandrewrice. I can see that you are clearly on the right side of the debate - but both you and User:Iamandrewrice are breaking the 'three revert rule' (WP:3RR). In your case, this may simply be because you are unaware of the rule - I doubt Iamandrewrice would care. If you were to avoid breaking that rule - then asking one of the admins to put a block onto User:Iamandrewrice for breaking the rule would be reasonable. I'd be inclined to do so myself because this is an especially annoying person - but since you are also (currently) breaking the rule, that would likely get you in trouble too and I'd prefer that didn't happen. I'll paste a similar complaint on Iamandrewrice's talk page. Either way, the warring has to stop. SteveBaker (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

i cant believe you!

i thort you were actually trying to help me set up on wikipedia

but all you care about is aggreeing with your 'friend' Steve on slagging me off! well thanks so much for all your help!!!!!!!

i certainly know what kind of person you are! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewrice (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

however

what i have a problem with is that 'Steve' has very overtly and blatently slagged me off and you took no apparent action to stop this! meaning that you are in exactly the same position as him!

and well im sorry i dont understand... if clarendon house grammar school is allowed to have a page even though i cant prove it just because you have personally heard of it, while the colliquial terming 'claz' which like the school itself, currently has no evidence for it, is deleted just because you havnt heard of it yourself?! are you saying therefore that you are only deleting things which you are not personally aware of? i thought that contradicts the whole point. Iamandrewrice (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

that is not the point i am making

i am saying that you in no way objected when 'Steve' went against the kind of behaviour that would be expected from a wikipedian, and slandered me, implying that i have no respect for the system's rules, and that i am an 'annoying person,' which is a personal attack and is CERTAINLY most not allowed on here. In not objectifying, and in face agreeing with him, you have therefore misused your position in much the same way as he has.

If this is the kind of treatment i am going to receive for attempting to add to wikipedia then do not expect 'kind' additions from me next time. And interpret that as you will, but either you use my skills to the sites prevalence, or on the contrary.

And I think you will find that you are in fact wrong... you and 'Steve' are not to decide whether a school or a colloquilistic term are more verifiable than one another without having solid 'evidence' of either of them. Therefore according to this rule, I would like you to delete the article I created on Clarendon House Grammar School, as I certainly do not support hypocracy, and i am not going to let one thing pass under the same rule that another thing, through personal discretion, is allowed not to.


Iamandrewrice (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

well thanks...

but regardless of that, I would like to make a formal complaint to a high wikipedian authority about 'Steve' Could you please explain how i am able to do this, or give me the link to a user that can help me.

thank you.

Iamandrewrice (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you the link myself: Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention. You aren't going to like what happens when you complain though - they'll hand you back a longer ban almost for sure. A better place to take your outrage might be Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - but you might want to read the sage advice on that page before you start in on this. SteveBaker (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Bronto lifts.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Bronto lifts.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. |EPO| da: 18:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

fox hunting

Wow. You're fast. You beat me by a nose to kill the dumb Ireland edit. Just wanted to mention that I'm very impressed by the hard work you've put in cleaning up the foxhunting article and adding citations. The article was a messy POV war when I first read it about a year ago. It is becoming very solid and more resistant to mangling by either end of the POV spectrum. David A. Flory (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Image replacement

I fail to understand your replacement of my image of Rod of Asclepius. The SVG format is superior for simple forms and detail removed was unnecessary. Scienceman123 talk 01:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry for not leaving a message, but there were two main reasons. One is aesthetics, where the svg version is clearly of inferior quality, with a blocky look, and looks much worse! This is informed by a lengthy discussion on the best snake to use at Wikiproject Medicine here. Hope this helps. Owain.davies (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ambulance

Hi, Owain. I haven't been ignoring you, but because this came up after I entered my initial comments, I'd like to leave the review to others. There is still a lot of MOS cleanup needed; perhaps you can round up another editor who will help you go through the items I mentioned? Editors I know of who are good at that sort of work are Outriggr (talk · contribs), Colin (talk · contribs), Pagrashtak (talk · contribs) and Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs); I know they are all busy, so perhaps first you could post to WP:MED for help on the MOS cleanup? There are still incorrect dashes throughout, bolding that is not part of lists, and the article seems very listy to me; additional input from others is needed, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Meiji Period: Use of Japanese era name in identifying disastrous events

Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:

As you know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the <<year>><<place> <<event>> format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).

In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.

The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)