User talk:Aloha27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks! Craig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.186.111.139 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] CFDR and Ron Roberts

Hello, Aloha 27,

As to Ron Roberts and "Night Watch" on CFDR, the 1 am - 5am shift was clearly in the 790 era prior to your employment at the station. I grew up in Dartmouth and have in my possession a couple of early-70s-era commemorative CFDR drinking glass tumblers, one featuring Gerry Parsons and one Ron Roberts. I understand you have an insider's perspective, but I believe Roberts' tenure was before your time. It would be nice to have it reflected on the page.

Just one opinion, Craig in Toronto.


[edit] ===========================================

Ok, are you SURE the TurboTrain is westbound? IIRC the rails to toronto are on the southern side of the downtown core, next to the river. If that is so, the downtown buildings are in a very odd position! Possible reasons: the photo is reversed, the rails aren't where I think they are, that's not downtown. Maury 21:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Maury.

CN/VIA ran the Turbo from Toronto to Montreal and Montreal to Toronto exclusively. CN and VIA did not in their schedules have Northbound/Southbound classifications for their trains, so Toronto from Montreal was a Westbound class train.

[edit] Reid Stowe Collision

Hi,

The collision with a Maresek freighter was reported by Richard Spindler in the online magazine, Latitude 38 "The Importance of Being Earnest on Watch", May 9, 2007. Around the same time, Reid Stowe, posted his phone conversation with Joe Barello of his New York support team, identifying the ship as the Maersk Dunedin. He also reported at his blog that he had been in radio contact with the captain of the freighter, who did due diligence and offered assistance, which Stowe declined. Joe Barello reported details of the collision to the U. S. Coast Guard, a phone conversation that also has been posted. That's one secondary and two primary sources which I'm pretty confident in, mainly because both Joe Barello and Reid Stowe, by reporting the collision to the Coast Guard, have exposed themselves to pretty serious legal difficulties if, in fact, they're lying about the collision. It is on this ground that I think Wikipedia can report the line's name, especially since neither Stowe nor Barello have suggested that Maersk Line personnel shirked any responsibilities immediately after the collision, nor have either accused the Maersk Line of 'causing' the accident. To my knowledge, the only party suggesting that the report of the collision is "unsubstantiated" or that Reid Stowe is lying about the collision to cover his incompetence, a la Donald Crowhurst are those fine mariners who post at Sailing Anarchy. They have made no secret of their scorn and contempt for Reid Stowe. They're all entitled to their opinions, and most appear to have some nautical savvy to back their opinions up, but who are these people? Who is 'cicindela_tiger' who, in post 61 last May 07 2007 darkly hinted that the bowsprit failed on its own? I have no idea, I suspect neither do you, and nobody posting to Sailing Anarchy is backing up their accusations and innuendos with the authority of their good names. This is a particular case why web blogs are simply not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles in general and biographical articles of living people in particular.

If, on the other hand, your feeling that the collision is "thus far been unsubstantiated" stems from one or more reliable, published sources from either the Maersk Line or any other source competent to cast doubts on whether Maersk Dunedin or any other ship was near 37° 34' N 54° 21' around 2:00 AM EDT, May 06 2007, then, by all means edit the article, report the contention, and post the supporting sources as references. I'm not omniscient, and I don't follow nautical trade news regularly.

You are correct that their could be legal consequences of this; that notwithstanding, the Wikipedia article should steer clear of taking sides or suggesting culpability on anyone's part. If you think the article is taking sides or assigning responibility, then please edit for neutrality in voice and tone.

Thank you for your interest, happy editing, and bring any improvements that you have in mind to the Reid Stowe article. Gosgood 22:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oooops

[edit] Re: Drysdale's Falls

My apologies for not consulting anyone on the edits. I admit I was wrong in part for my changes. I hate to see the misuse of Drysdale's falls as much as anyone. I would like to say a few things, though.

I am friends with the man who has recently posted the "No Trespassing" signs. He owns the main path the public used to use to access the falls. He has no problem with the public using the river for access. As long as you are within the high water mark, you cannot be prosecuted. At least ten feet from the water mark in summer is covered by water in Fall and Spring. If the public can enjoy this natural wonder without breaking the law, then why not?

I propose the section is changed to warn that the surrounding land is private property and trespassers will be prosecuted. It should go to say that for those wishing to see the falls, it is still accessible by water.

24.222.155.228 (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it seemed as if I were downplaying how dangerous the falls actually is. I was there the day the man died, I was in the pool at the top minutes before he took his fateful jump into it. I've experienced every bit of the danger there, and can probably relate better than most.

I've also been there many times after the no trespassing signs went up in early July. The signs have done litte to slow down the amount of people that go there. They have, however, cut down on the number of people jumping to almost zero. There is no longer anybody drinking or doing drugs there. The only people I saw there all summer were families, or older people who have fond memories.

Right now, due to the private property, the top of the waterfall is not accessible, and no one can jump. All people are doing is swimming in the large area below the falls, or just gazing. There are no undertoes, no underwater hazards, and it is not terribly deep. These people have came to the spot only through the river, and are breaking no laws.

The article should state that trespassing on the land is illegal, I agree with you there. People are going to be there regardless, so providing them with a legal option of going there helps, doesn't it?

24.222.155.228 (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your 16:15, 3 November 2007 edit of Reid Stowe

The link didn't work because there was a hyphen directly following the trailing letter 'l' of the URL. Removed the hyphen; the link works fine now. Take care Gosgood 18:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes at Reid Stowe

Sorry Aloha27, you and I fall on different sides of a line regarding the quotes at Reid Stowe. I removed them; I find them to be sloppy workmanship, as argued nearly a month ago here, in discussion with NautiGirl, and today here, in discussion with your alter ego, Audio God. Please join the discussion at the second link and make the case for these quotes instead of adding them again. Thank you, and Happy New Years. Gosgood (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your remark on my talk page: Our opinions and their admissability to Wikipedia articles

Wikipedia functions (for sake of argument, allow me the idea that it 'functions' ;) on a remarkable premise. It strives to be a trustworthy source of information, though its contributors, without exception, cannot be trusted.

Wikipedia contributors, without exception, cannot be trusted because they are allowed to be anonymous entites. Since they are permitted this boon, no one can confirm their credentials on anything. A wikipedia editor may claim to be a master yatchsman, but to his everlasting credit Essjay sent straight off to hell any idea that a Wikipedia editor can be trusted with any of his own utterances. So whatever competencies you claim for yourself is immaterial to any discussion at hand. Furthermore, the same applies to my own contributions. In particular no reader of Wikipedia can establish my credentials as a writer on New York City parks, architects, or zoos. Whatever trust they may have in the articles stems entirely from the supporting references.

Wikipedia protects itself from my incompetence in these subject areas by demanding that my edits adhere to certain core policies. In no particular order these are:

  1. I am forbidden to pass off my original research as encyclopedic content. My opinion, whatever it may be on these or any other topic is inadmissable to the encyclopedia. Since I am anonymous, I am assumed untrustworthy and not competent to comment on any subject under my own name.
  2. In light of my untrustworthiness, Anything I think ought to be in the encyclopedia MUST be supported by reliable published third party sources. It is through this mechanism only that Wikipedia disengages my incompetence from their aim to be a reliable source of topical articles.
  3. When writing on behalf of the encyclopedia, I am not permitted my own viewpoint. This is also a natural outcome of the fact that my competence in anything whatsoever cannot be established. My advocacy in anything at all is suspect. This leaves but one stance for me when writing on behalf of the encyclopedia: a dispassionate one that allows me to collect references but not hold opinions on them.

Writing from a neutral viewpoint is not easy, but, to my mind, it is the one craft that distinguishes Wikipedians whose edits stick to others who contribute more to the noise than the signal. It involves a certain dissassociation of one's ego from subject matter, and a certain ability not to take oneself too seriously, which I best described to Geometry guy some months back when he felt obliged to downgrade an entry that I had rated as a Good Article. I cannot write it better now than I did then, so I ask you to review what I wrote there.

These are the rules of the Wikipedia sandbox. necessary rules from a project that aims to be authoritative, though its contributors have no basis to claim competence in any subject matter whatsoever. If these rules don't strike you as being very much fun, by all means, find better uses for your time. There are other blogs and wikis with different standards. Have at them. If, on the other hand, you can disassociate your ego from your writing, back up your contributions with reliable sources, and can prepare cogent precis, then you are welcome to play here.

As for Reid Stowe, Sonya Ahmad, and the threat they pose to themselves and society, as far as I can see, they are all grown ups who have made their choices and will live or die by them. For sake of discussion, I will allow you that Reid Stowe is an incompetent idiot. In an open society, he is allowed elegant ways to get himself killed in a manner arising solely from his own stupidity. The same standard applies to his sailing companion. It is quite true that uniformed, competent professionals may be summoned from warm, safe beds to pull his sorry ass from the ocean, and in such endeavors they may die. But when they first donned the shiny uniforms, with the badges that demand (and get) my deep and abiding respect, they had the right and obligation to understand the price that such uniforms exact: that they will be called upon, at many points in the future, to save idiots from their own stupidities. They could have, at that juncture, left the pretty uniforms on the hangers and taken up occupations as audio engineers or computer animators. That they didn't has made the world a better place, but the respect owed them by we who have chosen safer lives does have a price. I trust they have the intelligence to understand the consequences of choosing careers in a special, and dangerous, profession such as search and rescue. They have chosen their lots, as had Reid. To each the respect they deserve, be it much or none. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think i know who you are. I remember the licence plate on your van. Your Steve Abby, you worked with me at Foodland. This is Kyle Cock. You should leave the Keble County Mounty thing on this haha please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerbreadman999 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

you making fun of the way i talk? hahaha whats going on man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerbreadman999 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barrachois Harbour Yacht Club

Hi, I've restored the deleted article into a user subpage: User:Aloha27/Barrachois Harbour Yacht Club. This way you can work on the article, and add sources without the risk of it being deleted. Once you have added sources and you think it's ready to be back in the main article space, click the "Move" button and give it the new title "Barrachois Harbour Yacht Club". For more info about moving see Help:Moving a page or you could ask me. Also note that if you don't edit it, just leaving it in the subpage, someone will eventually come along and delete it, but that's only if it seems you've forgotten it. I've given it a bit of an improvement so that it fits with the Manual of Style, but don't worry too much about reading the MOS, it's huge (lots of technicalities) and would take days to get through it all. If you have any questions feel free to ask! James086Talk | Email 02:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Audio God: One theory

Hello Steve,

Got your note. My first theory entails your preferences: It is possible to change your signature, making it completely different than your username. On your preferences page, possibly the raw flag has been checked and the text string 'Audio God' is there instead of 'Aloah27.' (Is it possible you've been experimenting with this? Is it possible your dear, sweet fiancě uses your Wikipedia account? Is it possible she has the same, finely balanced sense of humour expressed by the habituěs of the "This is totally, fucking ridiculous" thread at Sailing Anarchy? Have you ever invited any of those fine worthies to your home, and were they left alone with your computer?) If the raw flag is checked, then whatever text is written in your Signature text widget on your preferences page, including Wiki markup, becomes what four tildes ~~~~ expands into. A link to your preferences ought to be nestled upper right hand page, third from left, between your 'my talk' and 'my preferences' links. To test this theory, I've turned my own signature green. Preserve this; I destest fancy signatures, and intend to switch it back after the concept is proven. You will then have a very rare, green 'Gosgood' signature. Check your preferences, and if the 'raw' flag has been checked and 'Audio God' is written there, then that is your culprit.

If that is not the case, then I'm fresh out of good theories. Perhaps someone at the Help desk can help Gosgood 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Glad to be of some assistance. An 'Audio God' account need not exist for pulling this particular bit of business off. Some Practikal Joker managed to get at your preferences when you were not looking. Perhaps when you got up to pee or for a beer while editing Wikipedia, someone stopped by your computer and 'helpfully' set your preferences, or you've shared your password with a 'good friend,' or a 'good friend' has managed to guess your password – you get my drift. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for cleaning up after me

Never can get the spelling of that word right. Looking at the Jon Sanders article. It ought to be at least as big as Stowe. He's got the street cred. Apart from Paul Fisher (an Aussie, I think, judging from his contributions) nobody's playing in that sandbox. Want to have a go at it? Or are you starting to think about getting the boat in? If I take a crack at Sanders, I'd like to have somebody with sailing expertise around. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Glad to be of help if I can. (Expertise? Hardly... but still learning.)

I think the reason Sanders' entry seems to be lacking in volume is that he's not actively soliciting donations. Hard to believe that someone who was at sea, solo for 657 days, (a record I seriously doubt will be broken) is little more than a good paragraph here. Water's still a bit stiff, (32F) and we really don't start to get in the swing of things until late April/early May, with splash around the 15th! Aloha27 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

probably won't get to the branch until later in the week. If you had these handy you might be able to clear up his birth date: I think the world is quoting Wikipedia, saying he was born in 1949, but Australian Broadcast Corporation thought he was 66 in 2005 (meaning he was born in 1939). I think ABC is right, but a printed refernce would tie it down. Nice to see your edits. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Nova Scotia has it's benefits. The population density, I am told, is a tad less than Brooklyn, New York.
    • Well, we put some meat on the bones, better than tripled its size (3.7). Still not on par with Stowe. I think I'm going to have to scrounge up the two books for details on his early life, including a precise birthdate. I wonder if the Freo Doctor chaps, remmie, glug, godokin, got a good still picture of him, maybe head-and-shoulders, back during the Soanya pickup, one they would be willing to release under GDFL or Creative Commons? There are shots of him at the end of the interview video, but the YouTube footage is pretty compressed and blurry. Thanks for your help so far! Take care Gosgood (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)