User talk:Opie

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Roylee[edit]

Thanks for your update on Roylee. How'd you find the page? I have removed all self-referential fringe theories and Original research from the articles you mentioned. He seems to have been very active on Silk Road and related articles. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about that, so I'm not going to pull out his stuff there. Cheers, — mark ✎ 28 June 2005 07:37 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those articles. I found the page by accessing the link that you posted on User_talk:Roylee#No_original_research. I'll keep an eye out for more of his(her?) self-referential insertions. Opie 28 June 2005 10:42 (UTC)

Ahmad Rashad[edit]

I'm trying to find some confirmation on him and Lenny Moore being brothers. However, I'm old enough to remember when he (Ahmad) was in college and was still Bobby Moore, and I clearly remember him being referred to as Lenny's brother back then. Dale Arnett 13:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC concerning Roylee[edit]

A Request for comments is live: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roylee. Your input would be appreciated. — mark ✎ 10:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Tees[edit]

Opie... I notice that you consistently are posting inaccurate information from resources that are obviously unreliable and incorrect. In regard to the Tee article, you refer to numerous links that have information based on “stories” and not facts. I have contacted the patent office and they verify that there is not a patent dated 1896 or 1892 concerning Golf tees. They do however have a patent dated 1899 filed by a Dr George Grant. I do not understand your willingness to present fraudulent information on the Wikipeida site. Particularly, when it can be easily disproved by contacting the US Patent Office.````JohnnyB67

UPDATE, 19 May 2006: The British golf tee patents dated 1889, 1892, 1896 and 1897, which contradict JohnnyB67's claim that an African-American dentist patented the first golf tee in 1899, do in fact exist (as shown here), so this whole flap was much ado about nothing. --Opie 20:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British patent #12941 of 1889.
British patent #3916 of 1892.
British patent #253 of 1896.
British patent #14292 of 1897.

My information is accurate and verifiable, and comes from the book The Singular History of the Golf Tee by Irwin R. Valenta, 1995. The first few pages of that book are online here, and the 1889 patent by Bloxsom and Douglas is reproduced there in its entirety. To verify the British patents that preceded Grant's (as I already did), contact the British Library patent enquiry desk at patents-information@bl.uk . Ask about one or all of the following golf tee patents:

patent 12941 of 1889, 16 August 1889
patent 3916 of 1892, 29 Februrary 1892
patent 14292 of 1897, 12 June 1897

which are all before Grant's 1899 patent. Please do not continue to add obviously inaccurate information to Wikipedia. Thank you. Opie 23:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opie, I do not see where you have verified the patents that you state. You show no links to those or any other patents. You also quote information from a book not a documented source such as a governmental agency or Patent office. If you have "verified" your information with the Patent office, please include a link to one of the patents you speak of. I can show the US Patent 638,920by Dr. George Grant I would appreciate it if you can do the same. There are numerous books that have inaccurate information within them and unfortunately I believe you are quoting from an inaccurate source. Additionally, I do not understand why you are removing the Grant patent information considering it contains a direct link to the US Patent office.

JohnnyB67 23:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said, the 1889 patent by Bloxsom and Douglas is shown here in its entirety (when the page loads, click NEXT twice). Regarding the verification of the 1892 patent, here is the email I received from the Patent Enquiry desk:

From: Patent Enquiry Desk <Patent.Enquiry.Desk@bl.uk>
To: [deleted]
Subject: Re: Golf Tee Patent 

Hello [deleted],

Thank you for your enquiry on the 4th of
January 2004 concerning British patent
3916 of 1892.

British patent 3916 of 1892 was applied
for on the 29th of February 1892. It was
accepted on the 4th of February 1893.

The 'Improved Golf Tee' was patented by
Mr.Percy Ellis of The Manor House,
Wallington, Surrey, England.

I hope that this is the information that
you were looking for.

Regards

Mr.Z.Khan

Opie 00:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opie, you are using an "email" as proof of a patent existence? I highly doubt that an email, that can be easily forged, would establish a patent existence. All patent offices have records with dates and the patent in its entirety. If they cannot rproduce a "verifiable" patent then it is safe to say that it does NOT exist. You seem to be determined to post unverifiable information on this site. An email is NOT a verification of a patents existence.

JohnnyB67 00:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you playing a practical joke? As I said twice already, the 1889 patent by Bloxsom and Douglas is shown HERE in its entirety (when the page loads, click NEXT twice).

Again: The 1889 patent by Bloxsom and Douglas is shown HERE in its entirety (when the page loads, click NEXT twice).

P.S. You don't honestly believe that the author of the golf tee book is making things up, do you?
Opie 00:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the British patents from 1892, 1897, etc., are easily verifiable too, even though the UK Patent Office has not (yet) made its 19th-century patent images available on the Web. All you have to do is email patents-information@bl.uk , or fill out the Online Patents Enquiry Form at http://www.bl.uk/collections/patents/patenquiry.html. That is, if you still think that Valenta's book is a hoax, and that my email from the British Library was "forged." :-)

Opie 09:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opie, your statement "You don't honestly believe that the author of the golf tee book is making things up"…. is foolish. Many books and authors present fraudulent and construed information. Some of these authors print information that is researched haphazardly and sometimes not researched at all. This is why reputable authors research and verify the content they use with Agencies that hold the fact-based and documented information. You consistently use the book The Singular History of the Golf Tee by Irwin R. Valenta, along with the website “Scottish Golf History” as fact-based sources. Looking at the website alone I find an abundance of erroneous and inaccurate information and patents. One just for example, is the U.S. patent of Mr. Dalziel in 1896. This patent, is claimed on the site as a “golf tee,” but in actuality it is a device for the game of Tennis and has no relation or bearing on the game of golf. See patent #567,455 This is just one of the flagrant inaccuracies that are included in the links and information you have provided. Another example of a site that has inaccurate information is Pat Ryan Golf timeline. It states that the Bloxsom & Douglas patent originated in 1899. Whether these “inaccuracies” are intentional or not, it is the lack of due diligence of the authors and creators that seems to be the issue. Once corrected information has been verified by a reputable agency as accurate, upon the notification to the necessary parties, the erroneous information should be removed. If it is not, then one is lead to believe that the misinformation by the author or creator is intentional.

All of the U.S. patents can be verified through the U.S. Patent office website. However, you say that the UK office has patents that are unsearchable through their website. It seems very suspicious that all of the patents that are quoted in the book seem to be “unavailable” through the UK patent office website for verification.JohnnyB67 18:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know you can't be serious :). Here is the correct link to the Dalziel patent. The title is "Golfing Appliance" and the drawing shows a rubber tee embedded in a platform fixture. The link you gave was for a different patent, 3,876,203 by Philip Gold, dated 1975, titled "Device for use in practicing tennis strokes". In other words, my website sources are accurate; you're the one without a clue.

As for those British patents you claim don't exist, I've just ordered copies of them through a document delivery service and will receive them within the next few days, and will upload them to Wikipedia. I can't imagine what your excuse will be then. :)

Opie 20:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The patent images are now uploaded to Wikipedia, and can be seen in the tee article.

Opie 20:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golf tees[edit]

Hi there. I have to say, of all the disputes that I've seen on here, I never thought I'd see one about the historical origin of the golf tee.

I would like to suggest that, rather than decrying each other's statements as false, you and Johnny867 include both your statements in the article, and detail the reasons for and against each. DS 18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfly, I think that "JohnnyB67" may be just pulling my leg. But I will indeed edit the article to give both sides, until I receive and upload the patent documents that he claims are nonexistent. Then, there shouldn't (theoretically) be any argument anymore. And yes, this argument is quite silly. Especially from my perspective. Opie 20:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opie, I concur. It looks well balanced, which was my initial intention. The biasness was quite pronounced the way it was originally written. Nice job on the rewrite. JohnnyB67 21:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mechelen[edit]

Thanks for showing me how to put the geographical coordinates -- 83.182.60.42 (at times submitting from an open access point as 213.224.87.185) 2006-05-28 10:42 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good job on the Mechelen article. --Opie 19:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing (architecture)[edit]

WikiThanks

Thanks for creating crossing (architecture). This has been missing for a long time. -- Petri Krohn 10:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Belfries of Belgium and France: Belfries or Bell towers[edit]

The website to which two links in your answer to my question had pointed, now redirects to a very general page on a revised website. I hope I found my way to the corresponding pages and updated the links, thus in the text you had signed. I added a link (2a) from which the left menu gives access to several relevant pages, in particular 2b that I assume to be like the original links (2) and (6). You may wish to verify / edit. Thanks to your help, I finally started to modify the article though I've still a bit of work to do. SomeHuman 2006-07-11 19:29 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that the old site has changed its address. Thank you for finding the new site and linking to it. --Opie 23:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yngling[edit]

Your strange edit ("subst. box drawing characters") to Template:Yngling broke the family tree. Reverted after 4 months. -- Petri Krohn 01:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. The tree looked fine to me. But I now understand that some browsers/systems (including yours?) are unable to correctly display box drawing characters. So, I'm OK with the reversion.

Opie 06:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am using IE6. I am able to see the characters but IE fails to present them with fixed-width fonts. (Wasn't that the whole point of box drawing characters in the first place?) :-( -- Petri Krohn 05:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, IE6. That explains it. There was no broken tree, just a broken browser :) . Just for the record, IE7 and Firefox display my version of the tree quite nicely. But for now, it's best to stick with the ASCII art, crude as it may be.
--Opie 03:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Glider[edit]

Hi. In response to your question about Ibn Firnas' "ten minute" flight in the Glider article, I was not the one who originally added the statement about his "ten minute" flight. I just left it there at the time I last edited the article. I've searched online and it appears to be from a The Independant article, which I've just cited in the Glider article. As for those two references you mentioned earlier, I did obtain them from the David Tschanz article you mentioned but I forgot to mention that article itself at the time, and so I've just added it now. I haven't found those two references you mentioned either online (though I haven't yet looked in a library) but I assume they would generally agree with him inventing a glider aswell. If you cannot find two references online or in a library however, then you can remove them if you want. Jagged 85 20:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary of Burgundy[edit]

Thanks for that - the text has only been there this week & I see your article is also new. nice coincidence Johnbod 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:English_people#Wobble.27s_Reverts[edit]

Can you review the discussion at this section when you have time? Lukas19 10:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project: Microformats[edit]

Given your interest in semantic tagging, I think you'll want to know about, and perhaps join, Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats. Andy Mabbett 10:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Town halls in Melbourne[edit]

Category:Town halls in Melbourne, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kicking tee[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Kicking tee requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928^Talk 13:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]