Jump to content

User talk:Edit Centric

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Congolese fufu (talk | contribs) at 06:46, 11 January 2008 (→‎What was that?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello Edit Centric, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Alias Flood 17:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting help
Getting along
Getting technical

Opening Volley

I reject your reality, and insert my own! J/k, if anyone has constructive criticizm of my work here, please e-mail or comment me! (I'm always striving to improve!)

JP

Interstate 5 in Washington

My latest edit comment in Interstate 5 in Washington, "Calling it 'The I-5' is so Californian. It's just I-5," wasn't meant as a jab at you. I didn't even realize you were Californian until I just checked your user page to thank you for your constructive conversation on the I-5 in WA discussion page. Thanks, and my apologies if you took this comment as directed personally at you -- it wasn't. Travisl (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good! :-) Edit Centric (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An

SR 120

I'm doing some general work now; in other words, I'm not currently working on SR 120 but I may return to it in the future.

If you're somewhat familiar with the LA area, can you check the maps at the bottom of WT:CASH for any errors? Thank you. --NE2 00:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Citation

Alright, I got the image from [1]. If you want to see the image on the site itself, do a search for the phrase "Tigers in Six". It's kind of a long blog. Now that I look at it, it looks like the guy in the blog got the image from [2]. The image looks like it came from Getty Images.

So in short, random images found off of Google probably violate copyright, so are then not safe for Wiki? Sorry for my Newness. --Rolen05 (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am still kind of confused. So there is no way to properly cite that image? Does the World Wide Web not run on MLA? And what is the best way to find photos for inclusion in articles? There is no way that all the photos I have seen on Wiki are in public domain or were taken by a user themselves. I guess I am resigned to waiting for image deletion.....--Rolen05 (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme think on this one a minute... Edit Centric (talk) 08:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rowling

Oh that's no problem. Thank you for the source. Happy editing. Eagle Owl (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP Editors

No problem, good working with you on the CompUSA article. Whether it's officially recognized or not, there is a natural bias against IP editors. I feel comfortable saying that, since probably 90% of the vandalism I correct is from anonymous editors.

When there's a problem with an IP editor, especially one that has been disruptive in the past and refuses to cooperate or be civil, there's a natural tendency to assume the worst. There's no logical reason not to have a wikipedia ID for anyone who's going to be here for longer than a few rounds of vandalism, so there is and should be a higher level of scrutiny there.

Anyway, don't worry about it for now. Anything else I can do to help, just drop me a line. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benazir Bhutto's books

Thanks! :) I've read the book, and my Pakistani American friend read the same book with the other title, which is how I came to learn of the two titles... Boxter1977 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction to Benazir Bhutto assassination

No problem - you were probably right to remove that Orphan tag, and I was probably wrong to add it in the first place. The more civil thing to do would have been to add links to the article from related articles, not just add the template and leave. I'll go do that now, if it hasn't been done already. Anyway, thanks for letting me know, and keep up the good work on the Bhutto articles. Terraxos (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm just doing what i'm supposed to do. Richardkselby (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Ko-map-sum-nida to you too! Current events articles can get crazy, so it's always good to have people trying to keep things orderly (cited, organized, etc.) but still as up-to-date as possible. Superm401 - Talk 04:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Int'l reaction to Bhutto's assassination article

Thanks muchly for the notice, and thanks to you as well for keeping things orderly! Maybe I've been editing too much today -- I just couldn't resist the snarky edit summary; glad to see you enjoyed it, though.  :) Ashdog137 (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am honoured to be on your page. A pleasure working with you, and happy new year. Ground Zero | t 17:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note

Anyways, bottom line regarding to your comment on my talk page. I'll try to discuss on the talk page more often if I were to make changes. However, I'm removing the section that you have created because I do not want to make this of an issue. I'm not the perfect contributor here, or my cousin User:Artisol2345 (who even left Wikipedia because of these type of issues), but if you see me causing more inconveniences or problematic issues, then take your comments to my talk page. Again, thanks. AL2TB Gab or Tab 00:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, and I'm not even half as torqued off as I was. Just try to remember that Talk pages are an invaluable tool when it comes to major article changes and revisions, especially if the article is covered by a parent project, such as USRD or CASH. Also, it might help to take two steps back, and see the bigger picture, insomuch as what Wikipedia actually is. Beyond being an on-line encyclopedia, it is also a large-scale experiment in community. Just think of it as a world, where Jimbo Wales is God, the employees are angels (or devils, could be!), and so on and soforth, down to us, the populous! And just like the real world, we don't accomplish much if we don't work together... Edit Centric (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Here's the discussion from my page. You may modify the frame in any way you want. AL2TB Gab or Tab 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CASH edits

AL2TB - I've stood by and watched this go on long enough. You need to go visit WP:USRD and WP:CASH, and read through these (AGAIN, if you have done so already). Also, You need to not assume so much when you go making blanket edits to a WP:CASH article. So far, I've seen multiple articles where regular WP:USRD editors have had to go in and MANUALLY revert all of your changes, simply because you've made the changes over multiple edits. Please, I am BEGGING you at this point, BEFORE YOU MAKE BLANKET CHANGES, check with other editors on the article's TALK page. There may be a good reason that things are the way they are, there may have been a consensus already reached on the change you are thinking about applying. Work WITH us, not against us! Edit Centric (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well fine, I'll try my best to discuss any major changes on the talk page before changes are made. However, all I'm really doing is following that motto Wikipedia:Be bold. However, I try to stay away from talk pages because I lack the ability to peacefully solve peaceful resolutions. In reality, most people tend to explode their heads because they face through heated discussions, and I remembered seeing your little talk between you and User:NE2 in the section WT:ELG#Why do we include distance?. And as for the reverting, why do you have to do it manually? I'm sure you already know how to use the "undo" link as well as "rollback" tools. And for the consensus change, where can we go and read the discussion regarding to such change?
Also, because I do not like heated topics on my talk page, this message will be removed in a short while. Sorry about any inconveniences I may have caused. AL2TB Gab or Tab 21:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Define "blanket edit" if you will. AL2TB Gab or Tab 21:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.S. Never mind, I understand about the whole "blanket edit" thing. I may tend to make those types of edits, but that's how the way I normally edit. I try to edit all in one sitting, but I make multiple edits to prevent any big loss of information due to an unexpected power outage while I was typing. I also tend to make many mistakes, so please excuse me for that. However, telling me how to work things YOUR way is really getting me on my nerves. What I'm trying to do is "be bold" and also not "be reckless." If you want me to understand that there was a consensus change, show me the page where the discussion for the consensus took place. AL2TB Gab or Tab 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. --NE2 22:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus change" is not what I stated, the exact quote was "there may have been a consensus already reached on the change you are thinking about applying." In other words, the change to the article that YOU are applying may fly in the face of a previously agreed upon format or style in the article, that was reached by consensus of those working in the project. As far as "getting you on your nerves", have you stopped to think for one moment that, when you make such a change, that it does or doesn't get on the nerves of those who have devoted time to REACH a consensus, and work to apply these agreed-upon formats and styles across the project? It's a two-way street.
The mere fact that you "try to stay away from talk pages because I lack the ability to peacefully solve peaceful resolutions" could be a major contributing factor to the subject of this discussion. Talk pages are where we, as a group and / or community, enact things like consensus discussions, adopt standards, coordinate info, etceteras. By staying away from these venues, you are deliberately remaining OUTSIDE of the project's internal processes, and not understanding why other editors get so torqued off at you when you make a major change. By self-exclusion, you are actually contributing to the recklessness.
If you regularly edit articles on Wikipedia, and are worried about an unexpected power outage, I would suggest investing in a UPS. I have one, and I assure you they are indispensible, especially if you are in an area affected by "brown-outs" and rolling black-outs.
Regarding the exchange between myself and NE2, that is what sometimes happens when people from differing schools of thought converge on the same article, discussion, or edit. The conflict reached resolution, mostly because I backed off and let him run with his point-of-view. (I got tired of the argument.) This by NO means suggests that I am a "pushover", I assure you that nothing could be farther from the truth. It just means that sometimes, it's a "no-win" scenario, and you just have to let it lie. I have nothing personal against NE2, he's just another one that likes to "renegade", willing to operate outside of the lines of consensus. This is not to say that he hasn't made some VERY worthwhile contributions to the project, such as maps, historical data, and sourcings. The difficulty only arises when several editors adopt a set of standards for a project, and the renegade editor comes along and disrupts what the community is trying to do. If you were a part of that, wouldn't that torque you off, too?
Please consult the following pages for further reference: Consensus, and The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Thanks. Edit Centric (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Replied your e-mail. AL2TB Gab or Tab 03:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words

Yeas I would like to talk to ST47, not fight with him. How does fighting help our community? I tried talking with him and he just Troll this, Troll that. It is not about the revirt at all. I did not know what to do, and no admin were around so I thought the right thing is to bring it to arbitration Committee. I did not know about RFC. I do not even want that, I just want the admin to show some repect to a fellow editor, not breath fire at them! Igor Berger (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: POTC: AWE canon

If the editor is repeatedly adding it within a 24-hour period, which could be constituted as an edit-war. But you can just keep flicking their speculation until they give up. Alientraveller (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Alientraveller (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

Thank you for your note! My attitude towards IRC use here, as I've said, comes from my general dislike of real-time computer chat ... I don't currently have a chat client and when I have worked on computers with such a feature enabled, I have really felt it rude when even close acquaintances have intruded. Way back in the old days (early 1990s), I was a graduate student discovering the joys of Usenet, and it was all too common for young female undergraduates at the school (SUNY Buffalo) to just pick someone at random who was logged on and initiate a chat (which disrupted your text flow completely) and then (once) get all huffy if you asked for her not to bother you. And then I once got bothered over the Internet by someone from Mexico asking random questions about the school! So I guess that just ruined computer chat for me.

Your points about its advantages are well-taken, though. I mean, if we were really tight about this sort of thing we wouldn't have meetups (but you know what? I've yet to be at one where anyone has developed consensus on anything going on on-wiki).

And perhaps I really should get a client and give it a try. Don't knock it till you've tried it, after all. Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SR 41

Now that I'm done with SR 190, I'll see what I can do with SR 41. --NE2 11:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not finding this route very interesting; sorry. I may get back to it later, but for now I'll move on to other routes. --NE2 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I apologize but I accidentally removed one of your comments at ANI due to dome problems with edit conflicts and locked database's. You probably will want to re-add it. You can see the edit here. Also, I noted the history of the page for others. Again, my apologies. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I noticed that issue too...Edit Centric (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chun-man heh-yo

I do try to be as clear and logical as possible. Usually people get the point.Ecthelion83 (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Almeida

Hi, since you seem to be on duty, pls. help! I wish to nominate Naomi Almeida for deletion (3rd AfD) under WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:MEMORIAL, but I don't know how and don't want to make more of a mess than I already did in the edit history. I already made a request for help at WP:AN/I but no one responded.

Thanks, Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help!. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

First, the sockpuppet template was removed since they aren't blocked indefinately. Second, once again, the sockpuppet was not blocked. You'll have to ask the blocking admin about that. Third, an admin does not have to close a sockpuppet case. If the sockpuppets have to be blocked, an editor can ask for admin assistance. I just looked over my request and I only linked to the checkuser case, which probably caused the administrator to lighten up on the block. --EoL talk 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was that?

On ANI, you said I removed someone else's comments. I never did. If I did, it wasn't knowingly doing it. I don't see how I could have. There was an edit conflict so I had to cut and paste from the bottom part. Congolese fufu (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at it and I can't think of what glitch is happening. During the edit conflict, I did hit the save page muliple times awaiting my slow connection.

Looking at it logically, there's no reason that anyone would try to remove that paragraph. It's not a key paragraph that vital to either side's argument. It isn't evidence for one side. Is it a WP software problem? If you read what I wrote on ANI, the comments are neutral and not in favor of either side. Just like your name, centric. Congolese fufu (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edit_Centric&oldid=183581353"