User talk:Centrx

This is a Wikipedia user talk page, not an encyclopedic article. Click here to leave me a message

If you leave me a message, I will generally reply here unless you ask otherwise.
If I leave you a message, please reply there unless it was not recent.
Please sign your messages with ~~~~.

Linux

Please can you unlock Linux, I can monitor the edit war. frummer 13:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether there would be someone to "monitor" it, but, but that there would be an edit war at all. I've unprotected it, but we'll see what happens. —Centrx→talk • 22:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicons

Please stop your continued effort to rid Wikipedia of these icons. They are transcluded on thousands of pages (see here), and neither policy nor guideline supports your actions. If you wish to start a policy discussion, please do so in the appropriate place rather than on each individual article. Continuing to remove these because of your personal preference is just not appropriate and is against the community aspect of Wikipedia. You have accused me of wikistalking for searching out where you have deemed consensus in this subject, but I am still unable to find it. If/when you begin this discussion, I'll gladly join in. AuburnPilot^talk 01:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Manual of Style, as well as the majority of articles in which editors have decided against flagicons. This is not personal preference. You have had the opportunity to explain why these icons are appropriate, but you have not explained it. —Centrx→talk • 01:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the two pages you provided above, there is absolutely Zero mention of flagicons. I did find a link to what can barely be called a discussion here. 5 editors, included yourself, made a a few posts on the subject but the discussion didn't go anywhere. In a section a few paragraphs up, there's a little more discussion. Many users there seem to agree to their use in certain situations, while others believe it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Very few if any of the editors who took part in the discussion believed they should be removed entirely. So, I'm still unable to find the consensus to remove them. I believe flagicons should be included as they are now, because they allow for quick recognition of countries, they are visually appealing on often text only templates, provide a link to the country's flag (obviously), and are no more redundant that any of the other info. From another standpoint, there are many flags I didn't know until I began seeing them as flagicons here on Wikipedia. These provide an additional association between the country and its flag. If you don't wish to start the policy discussion, point me in the right direction. Without clear guidelines, this debate is not likely to go away. AuburnPilot^talk 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Biography discussion appears to have reached a consensus, and you would also be hard pressed to find featured articles that use these flags, whereas there are dozens on biographies, television programs, etc. that all have infoboxes with locations in them, but no flag icons. Wikipedia:Images is about the use of images; they are not navigational tools and the use of these flags does not conform to that page. Wikipedia:Manual of Style talks about images and its subguidelines talk about appropriate linking.

Regarding reasons to have them:

When used in situations where the names of the country are already present, they are redundant. I don't know what you mean by "they are not more redundant than any of the other redundant info". Infoboxes are specifically an overview of vital information and summarize information that may be found pages deep in the article. There are other problems with infoboxes, but they do not except with these flags have any redundant information in them, and for these navigation templates this is even more true.
The country's flag is totally irrelevant to the "War on Terrorism", or to a biography on a person that had nothing to do with government, or hated the flag, or (and this happens frequently because of zealously adding flags unnecessarily) the flag did not even exist when they were alive.
The template or infobox as a whole becomes visually unappealing and unbalanced, because only the locations end up with images. This is an encyclopedia, not a picture book.
Adding interesting but irrelevant images by which you notice a new flag that you did not know before is not the purpose of these templates. All manner of interesting but irrelevant information and images could be added to articles. Template:War on Terrorism is a navigation template; it is for efficiently helping the reader find related articles (and the countries as whole entries are problematic anyway, the Norman conquest is irrelevant to the War on Terrorism but you will find out about by clicking "England"). For the same reason, an article on Oxygen does not suddenly chime in and say "Did you know Oxygen is the name of a music festival in Ireland?"; this is not Pop-up Video. You can see a similar issue on Wikipedia:Vandalism, where people wanted to add an image at odds with the purpose of the page, [1]. —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding debate, debates go away by people discussing reasons and being convinced by those reasons, not by appealing to the authority of a guideline though this use of flag icons is at odds with guidelines on images and standard practice with regard to images, navigation, templates, and infoboxes. The people who read that WikiProject Biography discussion are fairly convinced, and that includes all the people who read it and, agreeing with it, did not add further comments. All the many articles that have infoboxes with locations but no flags, specifically all the featured articles I could find, are evidence of people convinced. —Centrx→talk • 02:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halellujah! Can we get rid of WP:FLAGCRUFT now? I'm off to add my voice to the WikiProject Biography debate if it is not too late. Carcharoth 02:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case it is not clear, I am against using flag icons, and I thought that there had been some long debate at WP:BIO comprehensively rejecting flag icons, but I've just discovered it is that old debate. There have been longer debates elsewhere which were not so clear-cut. I would favour trying to open up a large, centralised debate on this (and maybe on infoboxes as well), and really trying to stop this slow slide into flag icon and infobox hell. How would I start such a debate? Carcharoth 02:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The locations that would make the most sense are Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (or somewhere therein). You could also create a new Wikipedia page proposal or put it under WP:FLAGCRUFT, but properly I think flag icons and similar issues are style issues that belong under the Manual of Style. Post notice of it on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and/or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), and possibly Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board (which goes under Wikipedia:Community portal). —Centrx→talk • 03:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, congratulations. You've convinced me. In the future, may I suggest you explain things like this when making such an action rather than adding the edit summary "See talk page" or making accusations of wikistalking? Especially if the talk page is simply you asking why they are appropriate? You more than explained your reasoning above and I am more than convinced by it. I think a lot of this could have been avoided had such a statement been made on Template talk:War on Terrorism. Incidentally, the discussion about removing the image on WP:Vandalism is actually pretty interesting; thanks for the link. Happy editing! AuburnPilot^talk 03:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And on that same note, I have reverted my last revert. AuburnPilot^talk 03:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem before was the only reason stated there about why the flags should be included was because "the other ones have it", and the natural response to that is that the other navigation templates should not have it, and then no one else gave any other reason why they should be in the template. The simple "cluttered" and "redundant" from the old discussion are, without any offsetting reasons, reason enough not to have them. —Centrx→talk • 03:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC

Pilot (House)

I've added replies to your objections to Pilot (House) becoming an FA at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pilot (House). I hope you can give your support for the article or list any other objections I can take care of. The Filmaker 03:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portal

Hello. Can you please explain why you made those changes on Template:Portal unilaterally? The link font is nearly unreadable in its current form. --- RockMFR 03:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now changed it back to 85%. Does that correct the problem? —Centrx→talk • 06:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much better. --- RockMFR 17:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ozomatli.jpg

Yes, understood, and thanks for the quick reply. The issue is that the artist's management had already given me a "No Rights Reserved" e-mail with regards to the article (including the image.) I had resent a specific request for specifically the image -- asking them to reply with either a No Rights Reserved or release under CC. The link to the image will now show them an edit page rather than the image under review. Is there anything that I can do to bring back this image? thanks, guyzero | talk 08:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MEMRI article as proxy for Juan Cole

Hi, I think we need some admin intervention on the MEMRI article. At the moment a mediation on the Juan Cole page is stalled and it looks like MEMRI has become the place to continue a proxy war regarding using Cole's blog as a source. It has descended quickly into personal attacks and edit warring (not quite crossing 3RR I think but certainly heading that way) and disruptive editing. I think we need some order to be established, and some experienced outside views regarding WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. I've also posted this on the incidents noticeboard but as you are familiar with the situation, you may be more helpful in helping us sort it out.

I'd also like to point out that I have referred your instructions re the V&C page at the mediation. I point this out for full disclosure, so in case you feel I've misunderstood you or the situation, you can clarify your position. <<-armon->> 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling page

hey how come you delted and protected the ohio valley wrestling roster huhh? if deep south wrestling has the roster article how come OVW doesn't!

The Deep South Wrestling should probably be deleted also. Wikipedia articles need reliable, published, third-party sources. —Centrx→talk • 22:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Old comments

Thanks for the lecture. I was trying to be light-hearted (look at some of my other comments on that page- all light-hearted). I'll update my comments, so as not to put anyone else in a bad mood. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 22:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Franzacurta

Why did you remove {{helpme}} tag, when that user obviously still has a problem ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no question asked under it and it looked like the problem above had been dealt with, but apparently not. —Centrx→talk • 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was run out of ideas :-( I thought you were able to solve it. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, I could delete the image and he could upload one in its place, but he should have no problem uploading a replacement image anyway, without deleting. —Centrx→talk • 23:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so, but he claims there is a mismatch with filename already exists. Very odd. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking possible on Falun Gong ?

The editing activity seems to have died down a bit, including on other Falun Gong-related pages. Any possibility of (temporarily) lifting the sysop ban on the Falun Gong entry? Thanks. Jsw663 08:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Chung Ling High School

Hi Centrx,

It is to my utter dismay to find that the article was unilaterally deleted without going through Articles for Deletion nor Proposed Deletions. I'm not sure which version of the article you viewed that made you decide to delete it, but the last time that I checked, it was informative and encyclopedic enough to have stayed on Wikipedia for well over a year. So, I kindly request that the article be reinstated, and placed in either those two options. Thanks and regards, Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 15:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too wish to comment on the deletion of this page. As the edits may show, I am one of the major contributors to that page, and I find it seemingly unjust to delete it without a vote. Stkhoo 16:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, AfD is not a vote; it is a discussion to determine whether an article warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia. For most articles, this is based on whether there are a multitude of non-trivial reliable independent sources about the subject. This article has none whatsoever. Many articles of this kind have existed on Wikipedia, but they are eventually and invariably deleted. Wikipedia articles must have reliable published sources unaffiliated with the subject that cover the subject non-trivially, such as books, magazines, and academic journals. I would be happy to undelete the article so you can add these sources, but without them the article does not warrant being included. —Centrx→talk • 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 09:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

something I made up?

Not so fast cowboy. Try a google book search for the phrase; a cursory examination shows its use back to 1816. England does have a King once in a while. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean; I thought you meant "At His Majesty's Pleasure" was never used. Nevermind! -- Kendrick7^talk 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD that might need closing

Matthew Palmer has been nominated in error. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 07:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Centrx→talk • 07:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2004 – May 2006	Jun–Jul 2006	Aug 2006	Sep 2006
Oct 2006	Nov 2006	Dec 2006

Archives