Jump to content

User talk:Centauri: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
notability
(10 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 108: Line 108:
==notability==
==notability==
You have recently stated that bridges are among the articles you consider inherently notable. You may therefore be interested in the [[Olchfa footbridge]] arcticle. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 13:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You have recently stated that bridges are among the articles you consider inherently notable. You may therefore be interested in the [[Olchfa footbridge]] arcticle. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 13:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== double voting ==

Hello Centauri. I have no idea why you're using multiple accounts (work and home, perhaps?), but could you please only use one of them per VfD vote? It seems like ballot-stuffing otherwise. &#8212;[[User:Mirv|Charles]][[User talk:Mirv|&nbsp;P.]][[Special:Emailuser/Mirv|&nbsp;<sup><small>(Mirv)</small></sup>]] 08:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:You know, I don't like witch-hunting, and I believe that if a user wants to use multiple accounts, nobody should interfere unless those accounts are used for malicious purposes ([[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet]]ry). I'd rather not go around tagging both accounts' votes with the crystal-clear evidence (two diffs, if you're curious) that I encountered in a chance trawl through the history of a page which shall remain nameless. Rather than do that, I thought I would ask you nicely to stop. So please don't play dumb. &#8212;[[User:Mirv|Charles]][[User talk:Mirv|&nbsp;P.]][[Special:Emailuser/Mirv|&nbsp;<sup><small>(Mirv)</small></sup>]] 08:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::If you insist: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irate&diff=prev&oldid=10516600][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irate&diff=prev&oldid=10523323]. Do you need further explanation? &#8212;[[User:Mirv|Charles]][[User talk:Mirv|&nbsp;P.]][[Special:Emailuser/Mirv|&nbsp;<sup><small>(Mirv)</small></sup>]] 08:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another piece of evidence: Recent listings of the edits of [[User:Centauri]] and [[User:Gene Poole]] chronologically don't show much overlap:

*[[User:Gene Poole]] - 31 edits in a row from 8 March (02:14) to 15 March (06:00)
**[[User:Centauri]] - 1 edit at 15 March 07:07
*[[User:Gene Poole]] - 6 edits in a row from 15 March (22:34) to 16 March (05:36)
**[[User:Centauri]] - 1 edit at 17 March 11:40
*[[User:Gene Poole]] - 23 edits in a row from 17 March (21:51) to 18 March (04:36)
**[[User:Centauri]] - 12 edits in a row from 18 March (08:02) to 19 March (22:31)
*[[User:Gene Poole]] - 34 edits in a row from 20 March (22:32) to 23 March (05:30)
**[[User:Centauri]] - 1 edit at 23 March 07:24
*[[User:Gene Poole]] - 10 edits in a row from 26 March (02:17) to 26 March (02:40)
**[[User:Centauri]] - 23 edits in a row from 28 March (03:57) to 28 March (21:01)
*[[User:Gene Poole]] - 12 edits in a row from 28 March (23:11) to 29 March (05:33)
**[[User:Centauri]] - 4 edits in a row from 29 March (08:24) to 29 March (22:39)
*[[User:Gene Poole]] - 3 edits in a row from 30 March (22:44) to 31 March (01:40)
--[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 04:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of what? That I'm personally acquainted with Gene Poole? I publicly said as much over 3 months ago - and in any case I didn't realise it was a crime.--[[User:Centauri|Centauri]] 09:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


:''That I'm personally acquainted with Gene Poole?'' What, was there a sale on non-sequitors at your local Megamart? It means that it looks like "Gene Poole" and "Centauri" are one person swapping identities between editing sessions. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 05:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::You haven't any explanation, merely handwaving and disingenuous head-scratching as to why you, "Centauri", should be responding -- in the first person -- to comments addressed to "Gene Poole". And, I should point out, circumstantial evidence convicts people in legal proceedings every single day. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 09:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Sockpuppetry of the penis ==

That's the best thing I've read all week! Looks like Team Deletion doesn't like hearing home truths from either of us. Do you want me to say something to one of the admins? --[[User:Gene Poole|Gene_poole]] 23:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:04, 1 April 2005

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! _ [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:02, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

German silver

Please don't include copyrighted material into Wikipedia articles without getting permission from the copyright owner. I had to revert your edit in German silver as it is copyvio from the The Hutchinson Dictionary of Science. --Pjacobi 21:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The sentence The letters EPNS on silverware stand for electroplated nickel silver. is a verbatim copy from above source. But I will include the content in expanding the article. Please don't do further reverts. --Pjacobi 21:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This argument is going on in three separate places now: Here, this page, and this page. Samboy 00:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed that you made an edit to reword an edit that 203.40.120.202 had made. I'm wondering whether you've actually heard of the urban legend in question. I've reverted an edit to this page before and believe that this is a hoax, although if you've actually heard of the urban legend I'll leave it as it is. JYolkowski 03:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He's a top contributor who has spent a lot of time stewarding the Atlantium and other micronation articles. I thought he was also an administrator, but I guess not. He's party to an arbitration dispute with User:Gene_Poole, who is really George Cruickshank (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gene Poole vs. Samboy) - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 18:03, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

That whole section seemed rantish. I don't know who wrote it, and I don't care. It was crap! Heck, it even had a sentence that referred to the article as an object itself, which is totally against form. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you want to see where it start, see [1]. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, I've done a little rearranging. The guy is correct you know. It just needs less righteous anger. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

School deleters

I know, it's scarcely believable. There are people working on an encyclopaedia, whose founder suggests it will be a repository of all human knowledge, who spend their time trying to rid it of knowledge. It's a bit depressing, although luckily they are mostly awesomely pompous, which makes them fun to read and laugh at.Dr Zen 05:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Having read through the article more closely I am convinced it qualifies as a rant. It is, however, a reasonably good representation of a moderately widespread delusion, and as such probably deserves mention somewhere. Perhaps when I am feeling more creative I will try to write a neutral summary as a substitution.

--Kelly Martin 03:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wow

Lots of stuff on Sealand I see. I personally think it should be merged with Sealand, others may think differently. I've put a note on the talk page to get the ball rolling. If you need assistance let me know, as I won't be watching that article. My Wikiactivity is stretched thin as it is! I'm going to have to start relying on users to let me know where potential issues are: beginning with this article I'm starting to delegate :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 11:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

redirects

Redirects are really simple, you just clear the page entirely, apart from at the very to where you put #redirect [[article to redirect to]]. Hope that clarifies things. --fvw* 01:28, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

OK I think I've done it right - please let me know if I haven't. Also, do you know how to edit the bit right at the bottom of the Sealand article that shows up as {{sealand}} in the code?--Centauri 01:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that looks fine. To edit the footer, you have to go to Template:Sealand and edit that. Under the edit box there's a list of links to the templates in use on the page you're editing. --fvw* 01:42, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Hyacinth 02:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Microwiki.tk

I marked it as non-functional because the domain name was failing to resolve for me. After your explicit statement "im looking at it right now", I had some other people check. It worked for them, meaning the problem's on my (ISP's) end. Sorry if this caused you any frustration. -- Cyrius| 02:26, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No problemo. I wondered if that might have been the issue.--Centauri 02:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deletions - but in case you missed it

Interesting that when I posted on Gamaliel's page, advising Centauri that he should just accept that there are rules that are only applicable to some and really he should move on, that my post was immediately deleted. The quicker posters here realise the pecking order, realise that Wikipedia is nothing to do with being accurate or 'fair' or even consistent but is merely about 'contributing to our joint existence' then unhappy people, people faced with abuse, will be able to move on. Wikipedia will be less likely to be quoted in academic circles when, ironically, academics start trying to contribute and all the knee-jerk posters will be outshone by the light of intelligence. Remember: abuse is not abuse when it is by someone revered; then it becomes a policy. The Number 22:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've quickly become familiar of the wildly inconsistent, subjective approach some editors here seem to use as their modus operandi. Evidently some people believe that voicing a divergent opinion to their own constitutes a "personal attack", but their own outright abuse of others is perfectly acceptable. Weird.--Centauri 23:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi, How long should you wait before rewriting an article that has been deleted through a VfD procedure? I am thinking of rewriting the Marco of Alexandria Article. Cheers Omar Filini 14:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is an interesting discussion over on VfD for the bio-article for German demoscene musician and artist paniq. I was hoping you could enter a comment or vote after reading through and reviewing the article. -R


As of March 4, 2005, the following (7) articles are currently listed for deletion under the POV suggestion that schools are not notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy. Whether you agree or disagree, please be aware that the following schools are actively being voted on:

Thank you for your time. --GRider\talk

Deletion

The user in question was clearly trolling for responses in order to fix several votes in his favor, a practice which is not permitted since it unfairly skews VFD votes - these are not meant to be political. The m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians is a nice central location where GRider can point interested users to certain votes. Feel free to put a note on the top of your talk page if you don't want anyone to touch it. In the meantime, please sign your comments on others' talk pages, and please do not throw the term 'vandalism' around lightly. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 04:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\talk

notability

You have recently stated that bridges are among the articles you consider inherently notable. You may therefore be interested in the Olchfa footbridge arcticle. Thryduulf 13:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

double voting

Hello Centauri. I have no idea why you're using multiple accounts (work and home, perhaps?), but could you please only use one of them per VfD vote? It seems like ballot-stuffing otherwise. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You know, I don't like witch-hunting, and I believe that if a user wants to use multiple accounts, nobody should interfere unless those accounts are used for malicious purposes (Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry). I'd rather not go around tagging both accounts' votes with the crystal-clear evidence (two diffs, if you're curious) that I encountered in a chance trawl through the history of a page which shall remain nameless. Rather than do that, I thought I would ask you nicely to stop. So please don't play dumb. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you insist: [2][3]. Do you need further explanation? —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another piece of evidence: Recent listings of the edits of User:Centauri and User:Gene Poole chronologically don't show much overlap:

--Calton | Talk 04:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of what? That I'm personally acquainted with Gene Poole? I publicly said as much over 3 months ago - and in any case I didn't realise it was a crime.--Centauri 09:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


That I'm personally acquainted with Gene Poole? What, was there a sale on non-sequitors at your local Megamart? It means that it looks like "Gene Poole" and "Centauri" are one person swapping identities between editing sessions. --Calton | Talk 05:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You haven't any explanation, merely handwaving and disingenuous head-scratching as to why you, "Centauri", should be responding -- in the first person -- to comments addressed to "Gene Poole". And, I should point out, circumstantial evidence convicts people in legal proceedings every single day. --Calton | Talk 09:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry of the penis

That's the best thing I've read all week! Looks like Team Deletion doesn't like hearing home truths from either of us. Do you want me to say something to one of the admins? --Gene_poole 23:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)