User talk:Aloha27/archive1

CN Turbotrain
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.

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)

Oooops

 * Apologies, Aloha27, I committed some typos in the URL's. They're fixed now; sorry to have inconvenienced you. Take care. Gosgood 13:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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! James086 Talk &#124; Email 02:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * I see you've arrived. You wouldn't happen to have Jon Sanders own Lone Sailor (1982) or Hugh Schmitt's Sanders, Sextant Sea and Solitude sitting on your shelf? Both are in the Mid-Manhattan NYPL branch, but I
 * 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)

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.

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

=
==========================================

Oldest Yacht Club in North America
Thanks. I trusted you on the Armdale Yacht Club. I checked their website and 1732 looked like a pretty old date to me.Xufanc (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Gothamist Article
As an old-timer here, you are no doubt aware that only reliable articles may be referenced. According to the guidelines "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Gothamist article misquotes the very "documentation" used to source their article, so, they hardly have a reputation for accuracy. Since the Gothamist article is sourced on information posted on a blog, it relies on a self-published source which is unacceptable according to the guidelines "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources." I'm happy to include information on Stowe's arrest record, but if you want your edits to stick, you're going to have to link to the State of Maine directly, not the Gothamist article or Bobby's biased blog.

As a newbie, you're welcome to bite me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdougan1000 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Reid Stowe article
Please be aware of the rules for a Biography of a Living Person. "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

You have a blatant disregard for the good intentions of Reid Stowe, and your edits serve no purpose other than to undermine his character. Whatever he promised to do in 2002 has no relevance in a project that started in earnest in 2007, and where none of his sponsors give a hoot what Stowe said he would do in 2002. He has accomplished without a doubt what he set out to do, under the circumstances, and no one would question that. If you have an axe to grind about his project, this is not the forum to do it in. Contact the "National Enquirer." They might be interested.

BTW, I have no connection to Reid Stowe, and no vested interests in the success of his mission. I am only following the norm for Wikipedia, which means neutrality and fairness above all. You seem to have a penchant for throwing in irrelevant material just to fan the flames of ridicule. Set up your own blog for that, if you are so inclined.

Skol fir (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a quote from the Press Brochure at 1000 Days at Sea handed out to the media shortly after departure (April 21, 2007):


 * They will not refuel, not re-supply, and not pull into any harbor during the entire voyage. They are following global trade winds from New York eastward toward Europe, then to the Southern coast of Africa continued around Africa, through to the Indian Ocean. They will pass Australia, around the end of South America’s Cape Horn to circumnavigate the globe in the southern hemisphere. Their return to New York will be the first time they will have seen land in almost three years.


 * That sounds more realistic, wouldn't you say? In fact "almost three years" has even become over three years!
 * Skol fir (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Funny, isn't it?

That press brochure came out AFTER the sponsors had come on board. Some for better than five years. Nice work. Aloha27 (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell me something, Aloha27. Why in the world would you care what the sponsors think? Is that any of your business? Do you have shares in the company? If not, then let them speak for themselves. They are big boys and don't need mother to warn them of the "evil" world out there, as you seem to picture it. Skol fir (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well now seeing as how you wish to push the issue, how about the sponsor who on October 23, 2006 stated in an interview about donating $7,000 worth of product and wondering whether or not he'd been duped? Certainly he couldn't possibly be the only one with those concerns. Aloha27 (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, Danny Kadouri was not backing out of his commitment to Reid, he was just wondering if Reid was going to depart or not. In fact, Reid departed from New Jersey on Apr. 21, 2007, in case you missed it. Secondly, Stowe was smart enough to pick up on the issue as quoted in the Reid Stowe Wiki article, where he says, "Of our contributors, I think most of them have seen what we are doing and our hard work and they're still expecting us to go." Well, they got their wish: he went!
 * Aloha27, do I detect a bit of envy? Maybe you wish you had gone with him, to pass on your expertise in and passion for sailing. Stowe could have used your help, although I question whether you would have been able to cope with the isolation from land-based activities and friends. We all have different personalities and should respect each other for that.
 * BTW, see my response to you at User talk:Skol fir, if you have not already done so. Skol fir (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Aloha27, in your "Revision as of 15:00, 6 May 2010 (edit) (undo) Aloha27 (talk | contribs) m (Undid revision 360581107 by Skol fir (talk)," you wrote, "ISAF deals with sailboat racing exclusively. Guinness WBOR MIGHT be the governing body?"

You changed my version "None of these records, however, have been officially recognized by the International Sailing Federation."

to read... "None of these records, however, have been officially confirmed."

I have a quote directly from Jon Sanders, in a letter he wrote to Reid Stowe:

"Soon you will achieve the 1000 days at sea. Your long ambition. Record.

Soon longest period alone at sea, unassisted - more than 658 days. Record.

The WSRC part of [ISAIF], normally keep those records.

As you have not paid the initial $2500 you may need to find a sponsor to do that, and perhaps they will pencil it in. (And maybe in due course will ink it in). Never the less, Advise them of all your achievements. It is probable something will fall off a truck and Guinness World Records will publish it. They do not always publish first opportunity and seldom repeat. (Because the book is a annual xmas publication)."

So, tell me why you insist that "ISAF deals with sailboat racing exclusively"? Did you not know that ISAF has a division for Offshore Special Regulations? ...and that "In 1988 following several controversial claims about the times and status of long voyages, WSSRC was asked to take over additionally offshore sailing records."?

The latter quote is direct from World Sailing Speed Record Council. You can check it out yourself.

Skol fir (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In case you didn't realize it, I WAS trying to cut you some slack. IF the WSSRC refuses to back-date Stowe's claim for whatever reason, then he would have the additional option of perhaps finding some governing body somewhere who would. Then your entry would have to be discarded. God knows the article doesn't need more corrections than it does now. Aloha27 (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

How does X work?
Was wondering if there was any more discussion required after a majority recommendation to merge Soanya Ahmad with the Reid Stowe article. It would appear to me to be unworthy of a stand alone article and the entire article is associated with Stowe's 1000 days voyage. The first time this article was introduced, it was deleted, I think for WP:N and WP:BLP1E. I personally see no reason that it should be deleted again. I think a merge would be the right call here, as Ahmad is unlikley to have any other significant media coverage from any of her future endeavours. Regards Aloha27 (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, only a few people chimed in, I agree that the article doesn't seem to meet the criteria for a stand-alone article -- she did seem more like a crewmate. I'm not really sure why the Cottee statement is at the end of Ahmad's article.  I would just write all about her in Stowe's article, using the references currently on her article, then just change her article into a redirect to his article.  If anyone wants to expand her article into a full article after that, hey, more power to them.  Banaticus (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Aloha27/MV Patrick Morris has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MV Patrick Morris, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 MV Patrick Morris, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Kilopi (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

October 2013
Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page St Patrick's Channel. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation do's and don'ts, you should: Thank you. Cmr08 (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
 * Use short sentence fragment descriptions, which should not end with punctuation
 * Use only one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
 * Do not add red links unless used in an article, and include a "blue link"
 * Do not pipe links—keep the full title of the article visible
 * Do not insert external links