User talk:Centrx/Archive14

Llama Song?

Can I ask why you deleted Talk:The Llama Song? I'd quite like the list of media references I posted there to support the page's recreation. Vashti (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The talk page of a deleted article is typically deleted. The only source I can find in the deleted talk page history is:

FWIW, this song was mentioned in the Sunday Times (UK): "Mostly, though, we have a less demanding repertoire, such as The Llama Song and My Cat's Got Knees." ("Mum, dad, you drive us nuts; Bank holiday driving". Sunday Times. April 9, 2006. p. 6. Retrieved March 6, 2007.) Vashti 01:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

—Centrx→talk • 04:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

New England

Please tell me why you think that United states New England would be used more than then say the New England in Australia I believe that the articles deserve the same amount of treatment is they are a similar sized article and are both in highly concentrated populated areas. maybe we could put it to a vote I didnt think it was a big deal that we could treat the two articles the same. Cheers Beaver (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Bow High School

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bow High School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ken Gallager (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted article as talk page

Take a look at User talk:Wuotan! --Orange Mike | Talk 22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia article, not market ticker

Hi Centrx, I left the following comment on the Fed funds rate page. Fed funds rate change about once a month, which isn't very frequent. And when it does change, it tends to be a very big deal, so the article is very likely to get updated immediately. Thanks.

Centrx removed the latest Fed funds rate because this is an encyclopedia article, not a market ticker. But many of the pages on central banks report the bank's target rate. (I hope those pages are updated frequently.) Is there a Wikipedia policy on this? Finnancier (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

article deleted

Why was the article "Centre at Salisbury" deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbell5 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the deletion log. —Centrx→talk • 21:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Alienus

I wonder if you'd review the indefinite block of this editor. He denies sock puppeting, and there are apparently no confirmed socks of his account. --TS 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the point. He simply continued the behavior for which he was previously banned under IP addresses and alternate accounts. If there be no "confirmed" sockpuppets, it would be because he endlessly used tor exit nodes, and for example a confirmation of accounts was obviated by his permanent ban, [1]. As he can otherwise edit peacefully if he so wishes, it seems the only effect of unbanning him would be to to exonerate his behavior, which was sufficient for a ban even only considering actions directly under his account. However, it may not be important. —Centrx→talk • 04:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It makes a difference to Alienus, who insists that he didn't use sock puppets. I think what he is after is the removal of statements to the effect that he has done so. Of course it's a cinch for any banned user to edit Wikipedia quietly and constructively, but that's another matter. --TS 13:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I will not unblock him, but I will not take any action to prevent his unblocking or reblock him unless he renews disruptive behavior. —Centrx→talk • 18:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider removing the "suspected sock" template from the talk page and, as a matter of courtesy, blanking the talk page (not deleting the history)? I believe he is concerned about allegations, which he denies, that he used Tor and socked, appearing in google. The "banned" template should of course remain on the user page. --TS 18:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

He did use Tor and sockpuppets. —Centrx→talk • 21:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Global warming

Please see Wikipedia:Mos#Numbers. Thanks Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What about it? The Manual of Style has stated since about 2004 that numbers above ten may written as numerals or be spelled out as words--I wrote that section--, which itself was a compromise with the not-uncommon use of numerals despite it being less formally appropriate for an encyclopedia, and in consideration of the fact that numerals are more appropriate for actual scientific figures. It was changed a few months ago to slightly favor "figures", without basis in English-language publications, and the poor and convoluted prose of it leads me to believe that the change was not the product of much intelligence or consideration, whereas the original version was the product of ample discussion and was the standard for years on Wikipedia, and is the standard in the English language. —Centrx→talk • 06:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Spelling out ordinal numbers (e.g., "twentieth century") is deprecated in many style guides, but do what you like. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Which ones? Newspaper style guides certainly, as they seek to conserve space, publications generally no. Offhand, the Chicago Manual of Style unequivocally states that centuries, and other non-exorbitant ordinals, are spelled out. —Centrx→talk • 06:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

MOS on numbers

Centrx, would it be preferable to discuss your change (and the previous one) at talk, and to bring MOSNUM into it too, before making the edit? Tony (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Where was the previous discussion? —Centrx→talk • 06:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear there was one. The change in prescription was made silently as part of a broad re-organization of the page; [2]. That slight alteration which favored numerals over words is incorrect. —Centrx→talk • 06:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BN Comment

This is starting to get very close to WP:NPA, and I'd ask you to reconsider both that particular post and you general attitude in this particular area of discussion. Ta. Pedro :  Chat  23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how any part of that would be a personal attack; and I don't see would be wrong with the attitude of objecting to overly relaxed standards for administrative appointments. —Centrx→talk • 23:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"...ingeniously deceiving everyone into thinking that you are indistinguishable from a competent administrator Is an attack on User:Majorly. Your views on admin standards and any relaxation of "criteria" at RfA are valid, but comments like that are not, IMHO. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  00:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That line is actually a too-clever complement: he cannot be distinguished from a competent administrator for he is a competent administrator. It could also be taken as an insult: he must not be ingenious at deception, for he is in fact ingenuously competent! —Centrx→talk • 00:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Portsmouth, OH

On 21:53, 11 February 2007 you marked the Portsmouth, OH page with the Primarysources template. The page seems to have quite a few reliable sources now, so I was wondering if this template should be removed from that page. Being a self-proclaimed n00b Wikipedian who generally tries to avoid content disputes, I thought I'd let you do the honor of removing this template, if you agree that it should be removed. Skinrider (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it. It's generally okay to just remove a template that no longer applies, as you are an uninvolved party. —Centrx→talk • 22:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mood board

You deleted the article mood board without checking its history. The article was encyclopedic (if rather short) before it was vandalized on 2007-01-06. You should have checked the history before deleting the article: in this case a revert to 2006-12-12 would have sufficed to remove the vandalism. Please be more careful in future. Gdr 17:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

DNFT

Self-pity, self-praise, and justification of pre-emptive warfare rarely leave much room for intelligence or sanity. But don't let other editors goad you. Please reconsider your remarks, strike, and consider that every unprovoked attack brings them one step closer to RfAR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Destination 4

Hello! Would it be possible that you unprotect Final Destination 4 (which redirects to its series page)? Official details for the film have emerged, enough to create a small article. However, the article in progress (Final Destination 4 (3-D) was forced to have the useless 3-D suffix. It would be a big help if the FD4 article was unlocked. Thank you in advance! Powerslave (talk|cont.) 04:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Done. —Centrx→talk • 04:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 06:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Gibson Southern Marching Titans

Here's the thing: sources are absolutely NOT necessary unless someone is actually challenging a claim made in the article. As for "notability", it's totally irrelevant. Thus, removing both those tags was perfectly legitimate, as they were absolutely not needed. I would hope someone who has been around Wikipedia for almost as long as I have (such as yourself) would understand that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Independent verifiability is necessary for an encyclopedia article, regardless of whether anyone is challenging the statements in an article; and if the statements are independently verified, the sources might as well go somewhere on the page. Incidentally, I do challenge several of the claims, which were at best written in blatantly promotional language by someone intimately interested in the subject of the article. I do not see why notability would be irrelevant, whether notability is interpreted in its colloquial meaning or interpreted in terms of sourcing as at Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Because we're not bound by the same constraints as other encyclopedias! We're a project to compile all human knowledge, and removing information just because it does not meet some arbitrarily-defined and arbitrarily-judged (if there are even any standards for it at all) threshold of "notability" works against that goal! I'm not going to re-revert right now, but I seriously think you're blinded by your experiences with traditional encyclopedias. How does removing information further the purpose of an encyclopedia? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Spreading false information is worse than lacking marginal information. The information in this article comes from one non-independent source of little or unknown reliability, and it may be impossible to get the information from anywhere else. This is an inherent problem with "non-notable" topics, and is not arbitrary. —Centrx→talk • 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Little or unknown reliability" to you, perhaps; certainly not to people actually familiar with the subject matter. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the reliability even approaches that of a daily regional newspaper. How exactly is someone even intimately familiar with the band sure to verify that the band placed 9th in 1994, let alone another editor? Some of the statements aren't even sourced, so that reliability goes from "little reliability" to "non-existent". —Centrx→talk • 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, please define "unencyclopedic". In the 5+ years I've been here, both as a registered user and as an anon, I've seen that word used more and more often, but never has anyone been able to put some substance behind it. Near as I can tell, it's nothing more than an equivocation for "I don't like it/I don't know anything about it/I'm not interested in it." Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Unencyclopedic" means that something does not belong in an encyclopedia. Generally this is referable to Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. In this case, I refer to the chronicle of competitions and placements, which is a nearly identical duplicate of an external link, is not verified by any independent source, and is twenty times longer than the text of the article. It may or may not be trivia or an indiscriminate collection of information, but it is a more lengthy catalogue than can be found for the London Philharmonic Orchestra or any other world-class musical group, or economies and governments of the world. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of disjointed, context-free factoids; we do not duplicate the history of Aggregate Reserves of Depository Institutions and the Monetary Base from the Federal Reserve website, and we do not duplicate the Gibson Southern Marching Titans Band Profile from the Indiana Bands website. —Centrx→talk • 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of "unencyclopedic" was something of a tautology, and doesn't really add any actual susbtance to the matter. Furthermore, just because the LPO article doesn't contain information similar to what you removed from the GSHS marching band article is no reason to remove it from the marching band--rather, perhaps instead a more positive course would be to research and add similar information for the LPO. But of course, that'd be work--certainly a lot more than just zapping someone else's hard work just because you're not interested in it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There are petabytes of data--data which is more reliable than this data--which we could add to Wikipedia, but we do not because this is an encyclopedia of knowledge not a database of facts. —Centrx→talk • 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a difference of presentation, not of substance. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the difference is meaning.

• Facts: Placement of band: 10, 9, 6, -, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 5, 4, 1
• Knowledge: New band director, etc.

 

• Facts: Aggregate non-borrowed reserves: 41653, 43948, 40973, 42252, 42281, 27154, 8732, 209, -8758, -18007, -17265
• Knowledge: Credit contraction and depreciation of assets underlying securities held by banks; Term Auction Facility.

 

• Facts: 520nm light waves, 520, 590, 590, 590, 590, 520
• Knowledge: Green then yellow; trees then school bus then trees again; children; automobile; etc.

Facts make sense when integrated into, and explained in the context of, an article. We might have lists, which point to topics without articles or which supplant deficiencies in categories, but these are otherwise replaced by categories. We might also have lists or facts temporarily appended to an article if an editor researched them from newspapers and compiled them but they have not yet been integrated; not applicable in this case because the data is copied from one source from which an editor can get it anytime as it is an external link. We might have lists that duplicate facts that might otherwise be difficult to find, but they must originally have been verifiable and are still verifiable if you go to the library; not applicable in this case since the original source is unreliable and if it disappears no other editor will be confident of the facts or able to find them again, perhaps even if they travel to the local library of the town in question. —Centrx→talk • 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Teresa Bright copyvio

Glad to see someone else has finally looked at it. I restored the references, categories, and factual lists, and added a one sentence stub. The result should not be a copyvio, and should still indicate notability. The original poster had worked on it a bit, and we had some discussions on how they could fix the copyvio problem, but they stopped editing some time ago. The clean break is difficult, since the problems occur in the first revision.

Note that this is not a simple copy-paste copyvio, just entirely too many (cited) excerpts from a single source. The original report was at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2008_January_25/Articles. Since all the edits were good-faith, it was not clear whether deleting the article was the right thing, or just rewriting the sections that were too excerpty. JackSchmidt (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay; should I delete all the revisions before your latest? —Centrx→talk • 03:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but can we give credit to Dondt1 for "early version and reference hunting", then JLaTondre fixed cats, and I don't know if Nakon's {{cleanup}} tag should be credited. I mean I didn't do very much, I just cleaned up what Dondt1 gave me as much as I could. Would I just add that to the talk page or something? JackSchmidt (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds good. —Centrx→talk • 03:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Horked

What was your reason for deleting this valid soft redirect to Wiktionary? You gave no reason in your deletion comment, so it's hard to judge the reasons for it's removal. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Same thing with the soft redirect at Loser (slang). Still working through my lists to evaluate deletions fo soft redirects, so there may be more. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The {{wi}} redirects are just placeholders to prevent people from creating inappropriate articles at those titles. Horked was created once in the last two years, and that more than a year ago. Loser (slang) is not linked anywhere in the main namespace and so is also unlikely to be re-created. If either of them are re-created, I will replace the {{wi}}. —Centrx→talk • 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Vanishing

Thank you for your opinion, but I don't see anything destructive about the edits so far as I can tell, and I decline to risk my privacy further by specifying my reasons in public. Sorry, but if you have an issue with this, I'm going to suggest discussing it with others. I can't even offer an explanation without countering the purpose of doing it. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless your real name is <>, you are just making a bunch of useless or destructive edits. —Centrx→talk • 01:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but I don't see anything destructive about the edits so far as I can tell, and I decline to risk my privacy further by specifying my reasons in public. Sorry, but if you have an issue with this, I'm going to suggest discussing it with others. I can't even offer an explanation without countering the purpose of doing it. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is destructive in that you are tampering with archives, which can alter their meaning and contradict their purpose. Because you are changing so many pages, you flooding everyone's watchlist and advertising your user name change, including your old user name, to hundreds or thousands of people on Wikipedia, which may contradict your own purpose. If massive changes like this were allowed on flimsy grounds, it would be disruptive. Since it is easy for anyone to view your old username, and since any one who stumbles upon any of these great many archives has no good reason not to restore the original archive as commonly occurs, and might even accidentally do so, you cannot hide it, even if such a blatant pseudonym had privacy implications. —Centrx→talk • 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but again, I cannot engage in discussing it with you, and I'll ask you to keep this discussion here, and to avoid unneccessary references to my old username. If you have any further concerns, please take them elsewhere, as again, I'm not able to discuss this with you. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You can easily describe what kind of situation would make this pseudonym a privacy concern. —Centrx→talk • 01:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't believe I can. My actions don't violate anything stated at WP:UNC or WP:RTV as far as I can tell, and since I know the situaton, again, all I can suggest is seeking discussion with others about the subject. Try to leave me out though, since I can't really defend my actions by discussing them. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot conceive of a situation where you would not be able to describe generally how your pseudonym could compromise your privacy, and you have not e-mailed me privately even with such a general description, and making mass edits without stopping or discussing when people object is disruptive and falls under Wikipedia:Blocking policy. —Centrx→talk • 02:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, your ability to conceive of the situation isn't something I can address, but this is the first time you, or anyone has asked me to discuss it with you through e-mail. Unfortunately, I don't know that I should, since I don't know who you are, or whether you'll respect my privacy concerns. And could you please refrain from trying to discuss this on my talk page, I'd much rather not discuss it there. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You have to discuss it somewhere, or you are prohibited from making these edits and the existing ones will be reverted. And since you continued to make these edits without responding on my talk page, there is no other place to respond to you except your talk page. —Centrx→talk • 02:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, because I believed your objection to be in error, and you failed to convince me otherwise, and failed to give me another forum to discuss my concerns in private. I certainly don't expect you or anybody else who doesn't know the full situation to understand it, and I knew I couldn't explain it further in public, so what I can do? My hands are very much tied here. I have concerns. But to share them, I'd expose them, which would violate my concerns. I can't discuss it, since my intent is to leave Wikipedia, and further discussion wouldn't help. I am in quite the pickle, you understand. However, since nobody was able to point to any policy pages where any kind of ban was expressed, and the pages I did link to earlier did include text that covered what I wanted to do, and others did tell me to use AWB myself, I feel it is acceptable conduct. If not, then please tell me how else I can solve my problem? FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Radio Chick needs semi protection

Since November 7 an annonymous IP contributor has used various IPs to change the external links to w³(dot)doghouse<obfuscate>fm.com This does not appear to have any connection with the subject of the article and has been reverted multiple times. The latest vandalism was on March 8, soon after someone had reverted previous vandalism. Contacting you because you protected the page early last year.24.6.198.12 (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I edited my post above because it occurred to me that it might throw them some googlejuice. (which is the whole thing we are trying to avoid isn't it?)24.6.198.12 (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This link is added infrequently, every few months, so instead of semi-protecting it for months I will keep an eye on it. Thanks for alerting me. —Centrx→talk • 15:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox School}}

Your edit to avoid {{flagcountry}} made the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country codes display instead of country names, as it was the recommended format for the parameter. I'm not sure how to handle this, but you might like to know. - Paul_012 ^(talk) 16:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, the instances where the template is used should change; in the mean time we could create a template that either converts the name if the ISO code is used or passes it through if not. —Centrx→talk • 16:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the template did not use ISO codes six months ago, so either the ISO codes were fine then or someone went through with a bot or semi-automated tool and changed them all. —Centrx→talk • 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dumbass

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dumbass, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Dumbass. Matthew Glennon (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Insurgency rewrite?

Since I see you've commented on Insurgency in the past, you might be interested that I put an invitation, on its talk page, to look at a rewrite in my sandbox at User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-Insurgency, and see if that is a valid improvement. Thanks!

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Yes, question.

So, have you responded to that ancient request about the Indian valley High School article? It would really be dandy if you could restore that article. Some idiot deleted it because of vandalism. What did Wikipedia do when George Bush was vandalized? They protected it. They didn't delete the whole damn article because of a bunch of hormonally imbalanced teens. Think we could work this out peacefully? Whadda ya say? Saintjimmy777 (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: Please leave a response on my user page. Thank you.

DreadStarr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DreadStarr

DreadStarr has TWO albums on iTunes. The lead singer is the son of neville staples " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Staple " from the specials " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Specials " and has contributed on those albums. DreadStarr has toured the world and left a significan't impact on the web. please undo the deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.27 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This person posted on my talk page, too. I referred him/her to WP:DRV. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ranked

Hi Centrx,

I was wondering why you deleted Ranked, which redirected to Rank. It seems like it would be a helpful redirect to me.

Neelix (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Centrx,

I haven't heard from you in six days, so I'm going to recreate the redirect. If you disagree with this action, please respond with your reasoning on my talk page.

Neelix (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Centrx,

I spend a fair amount of time creating redirects that are variants of words (such as rank, ranks, ranked, ranking, etc.). I feel that these redirects are helpful because the singular noun is not always the form that a user will type into the search bar. I understand your aversion to switching red links to blue without actually creating new articles. I would, however, suggest that the majority of links to the past participle of a verb would be sufficiently redirected to the present form. By creating these redirects, I am not in violation of the guidelines you suggested, which state:

Per the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), single-word article titles are usually nouns or verbal nouns (i.e. participles or gerunds), such as greengrocer and camping. Per the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals), article titles are singular. Other inflections, if they exist at all, are redirects.

By this standard, creating redirects of other inflections is more than acceptable. For a good article about how to treat redirects, please see On redirects. A user named Rossami wrote it, and I believe it to be a healthy guideline to the maintenance of redirects.

If you have further concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Neelix (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Other inflections, if the exist at all" means that the inflections are unlikely to exist, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The variants of words typically come up in the Search feature, which, though, does need to be improved. The question is, who is typing "Ranked" into the search box, and what are they looking for? A person who is looking for the meaning of the word "Rank" should be looking at a dictionary, rather than a disambiguation page of irrelevant terms. A person not looking for the meaning of dictionary words is better served by search results of articles related to "Ranked", not a single irrelevant article. —Centrx→talk • 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hilo

Hello, Centrx. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

WGBH

The WGBH-TV article was the result of a split of a previous article called "WGBH". It should not have been moved back to that title, as the callsign of the station is WGBH-TV, not WGBH. (See WP:NC and WP:TVS.) If material which was not germane to the TV operation still remained in the article, the correct response would have been to move the text to the more appropriate article, not to rename the article. 121a0012 (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

alice walton

hello. i reverted your changes to my edits in the alice walton article as your reasoning on both points reflect only your opinion lacking a neutral point of view. --emerson7 22:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Category:Drunk driving is not a list of people who have been caught drunk driving. That list was at Category:People convicted of drunk driving, which was deleted at CfD. Regarding ordering, you need to actually explain what is wrong with ordering categories by relevance, which is normal practice. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is not a catch-all spell to cast whenever you disagree with something. —Centrx→talk • 22:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

i'll give you the drunk driving category, you are absolutely correct about that...I wasn't aware that was even in there. with regard to accidental killers, i'm sorry, but it is very relevant and accurate, and npov claim is based on the decision of what is more or less relevant. an alpha list is completely and inherently without bias. --emerson7 22:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much every single article on Wikipedia has its categories ordered by relevance or importance, not alphabetically. Ignoring the "Accidental killers" category for the moment, there is nothing biased about the fact that Alice Walton is primarily included in Wikipedia because she is in the "Walton family" and is a "billionaire (American)", and that those classifications are much more specific, relevant, and important than the fact that she happened to have been born among the thousands of other "People from Arkansas", where she no longer even lives. —Centrx→talk • 22:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

by your deciding which cat is more or less relevant-in ordering or inclusion-is a purely subjective interjection, inherently in violation of npov. given fifteen people with the very same information, there is no doubt there would be little consensus over which is more important as each individual adds his or her own subtle bias. that phenomenon is eliminated by alphabetic listing. --emerson7 23:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Making decisions is inherent in writing any Wikipedia article; the purpose of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is not to eliminate all potential subtle bias by arbitrary rules (and in fact this would be easily gamed by naming your favorite category with a higher letter in the alphabet). Also, actually, fifteen Wikipedia editors would all agree that "Walton family" is more specific, relevant, and important than "People from Arkansas". If you want a mechanical rule, the same order could be obtained simply by the rule: "a category with fewer members goes before a category with more members". As I said before, this ordering is standard on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 23:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

although i appreciate your position, i just think it is wrong...particularly the 'fewer members rule', and that it is the wikipaedia standard. i can come up with a dozen flaws and examples for the former; and for the latter, it would be no problem coming up with more listings by 'alpha' over 'relevance' by two-to-one or more. to be perfectly honest, however, since this particular article is relatively obscure, and contains so few categories, it is really not that important to me which method is used. cheers! --emerson7 18:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits in Cooking

Please do not remove the Image:Iraqi Soldiers Cooking.jpg from the article Cooking. although it is not prototypical, it shows a form of cooking. No image can be prototypical. If you want to improve the article, then add other images of cooking to give different views. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Images can certainly be more or less prototypical, and soldiers cooking, especially one with a goofy expression, is far from prototypical. Also, depending on what you mean, adding a multitude a pictures would not improve the article; Wikipedia is not an image gallery. —Centrx→talk • 03:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No, wikipedia is not image gallery, but an image showing soldiers cooking is certainly encyclopedic. Your grandmother picture is far less prototypical. Why you are repeatedly removing a harmless image? You are ignoring a vast scope of military cooking. The image is about military cooking. If you disagree, try Wikipedia:Third opinion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

One is a picture of a woman actually baking in the kitchen of her home while a child licks her finger. The other is a picture of one soldier peeling an onion and another soldier emptying some sort of cat litter. You are deluding yourself if you do not find it clear which is a more historically common and typical example of people cooking. The article is not about "military cooking". —Centrx→talk • 07:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the article is not about military cooking, but military cooking is a part of cooking. Military cooking forms a large aspect of cooking. Hotel cooking is not the only form of cooking. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Home cooking feeds 95% of the population, today and throughout history. Hotel cooking, for that matter, which is relatively rare, probably accounts for more cooking than military cooking. That picture is not even a good representative of military cooking; it is not a mess, and they are not cooking in the picture, they are merely in a kitchen. We could put a picture of some homeless people cooking in a trash barrel, which is a part of cooking, but it would be a poor representative and we must choose which pictures are most representative. They did not put pictures of paraplegics with elephantitis on the Voyager probe. —Centrx→talk • 23:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If this image does not represent cooking, then the grandmother image also does not represent cooking because "cooking is the act of preparing food for eating by the application of heat". The grandmother is not applying heat to prepare cookies. Hence she is preparing meal, but not cooking. Similarly the image Image:Chef preparing food 2.jpg which was present in Food#Cooking, also did not show cooking because it did not show the application of heat. Since we can call an act cooking only when it applies heat, I am removing both the soldier image and grandmother image. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Even with so strict a definition, the grandmother is clearly preparing food to be cooked, but it is not even clear what the soldiers are doing. One soldier is peeling something, perhaps merely a fruit to be eaten directly; the other soldier does not appear to be doing anything related to cooking. Aside from whether military cooking would be the best example for "cooking", this picture would not even be the best picture for an article devoted to "military cooking" because it is so unclear. Anyway, having the one picture with the Wok is fine. —Centrx→talk • 03:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot approved: dabbing help needed

Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Porter Ridge High School

You deleted this earlier this month and it came across my watch list this morning when it was recreated. I didn't think schools were ever speedy eligible, in fact a7 says as much. So just a courtesy heads up that it's back and a question on why it was deleted in the first place? Thanks!

blocked open proxy

Hi. As per this discussion, I've been encouraged to ask you about an open proxy you blocked whose block expired and that became active again. Right now it has been re-blocked. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. As I said at ANI, however, I'm still not sure what, if anything, to do about this? Someone with the same IP did recently edit the page to change the block notice. Does that mean the issue is resolved? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

why you deleted the short article about the company iambic, Inc?

Hi,

I'm trying to have my company listed in wikiedia, just like many other are. Despite the latest version of the article was a no advertisement, short and to the point article, and sat in wikipedia for months, you decided to delete it.

I'm at a loss as of what was wrong with it.

Regards,

- Adriano —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iambic (talk • contribs) 07:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 23:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Tbsomerset#Unblocking My Account

Hi, could you have a look at that unblock request? I think we should grant it. Best,  Sandstein  08:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegation of idiocy

I agree with much of what you say here, but wonder how "portmanteau" is "idiotic". -- Hoary (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The word "portmanteau" has been inserted throughout Wikipedia apparently as some sort of novelty. It is used instead of well-known words like "combination" or "blend". In many cases not only is the usage superfluous and confusing, but it is downright inaccurate: properly, a portmanteau word has a special kind of packed meaning, as in a portmanteau suitcase, and in linguistics "blend" is the correct word for most of the usages on Wikipedia. See also User talk:Centrx/Meta-writing#Portmanteau. —Centrx→talk • 04:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed right here. Interestingly, the index of Booij's The Grammar of Words 1st ed (the only putatively relevant work that I happen to have on me right now) only mentions "portmanteau" for the very different "portmanteau morpheme" (as an example of which he presents "the ending -s", expressing third person, singular, and present tense). But granted that portmanteau (word) is overused in WP, idiotic seems an overstatement. -- Hoary (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The over-use is idiotic; individual usages by individual persons are not, unless they are intentionally trying to annoy me. Incidentally, this is not stupidity, it's compelling prose! —Centrx→talk • 04:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ebonics and African American Vernacular English are two favorite playgrounds for the booboisie. Dealing with this soon becomes extremely tiresome, but one of the very minor unintended pleasures is the garbled prose with which those who see themselves as defenders of good English typically inveigh against the "bad grammar" and "slang" that, they fondly believe, constitute AAVE. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cockblock

I request unprotection of cockblock, as it is an important concept in seduction literature that can be greatly expounded on. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. —Centrx→talk • 16:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OKBot

It is a duplicate image; So, It must be deleted. My bot replaces old version with the new one which is same bit-by-bit and in the same format. I think there is a better solution I didn't think about it. We can delete this image, and redirect its page to Commons version. I'll ask an admin to do so, and stop my bot.--OsamaK 12:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I talked to people at #wikipedia-bag (BAG channel). ST47 thinks that if the bot doesn't not change the style of the discussion, no problems on it. Remember that my bot replace duplicate image which is same bit-by-bit. He think also, we have to do both solutions (Replacing and redirecting). I agree with him, what do you think?--OsamaK 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wikisigbutton.png

This came up before, someone wanted to remove it because it was duplicated, but several people showed up and pointed out that it is used in so many places to leave it alone and it was left alone. I can't see how anything has changed in that regard.--Crossmr (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a big problem

With this. Why was this guy banned for so long? He was a very good editor. Peter Damian (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Open proxies. —Centrx→talk • 22:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTRS

Oh, I was simply restoring long-standing content to that page, which you removed. No worries, just provide me with a link to the discussion which resulted in having it removed, and I'll be on my way. Thanks - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It was added 10 July 2008. That is not long-standing, and its addition was not discussed. Also, even if we stipulated that it were appropriate to include these factoids, it would not be correct to have percentage-point precision, or to place these factoids at higher priority above important basics like "OTRS e-mails are confidential". —Centrx→talk • 01:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

2 months is a great deal of time in wiki-land. I see no reason to remove the info, which, when disputed, shouldn't be removed...right? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Two months is short period of time for a rarely visited page, and where the change is relatively innocuous.

As it stands, the data seems to be incorrect, currently: only 13.6% of e-mails are in the info-en queue, not 32.5%, while more than 50% is in permissions, not 14.5%. The discrepancy is difficult to verify, since there is no indication of how the statistics were collected, or how they should be reproduced when they need to be.

In any event, I did not delete the statistics in my second edit, I only placed them in their proper priority and with less precision, which are separate issues from whether they ought to be included at all. —Centrx→talk • 01:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have as well restored the longstanding content and started a discussion on the talk page. Can we talk about this before you remove it? I'd want to discuss your proposed revisions, so I feel good about them. You may ultimately get them, but I think we need to talk about them. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have explained why these statistics do not belong, and, even if stipulated that they do belong, why they do not belong at that precision and at higher priority above important basic facts. No one has explained otherwise. —Centrx→talk • 01:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:RFCmedia list

I see you deleted the above, but are you sure this is unused?

I don't understand how it works, but I do know that clicking a WATCH link on the WP:RFC page adds the template to your watchlist. AndyJones (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All those RFC pages have very central links on the Community Portal. How are they unused? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the history on those templates that you deleted? Template:RFCsci list was edited three times yesterday. Forty pages link there. Many people watchlist it so they can keep up with RFC requests. If nothing else, I use it, and therefore it is not "unused". Please undelete it promptly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not obvious because I didn't have this template transcluded somewhere, but it was (and still is) on my watchlist to keep me posted. I do not agree with the deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I advertised a problem with these templates on August 8 at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. On August 29 I stated my intention to discontinue these automated templates in order to correct that problem. These pages were used only by bot. —Centrx→talk • 18:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Used" and "edited" are not the same thing. By that logic, you could delete the Main page, which is edited less than once a week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are referring to. The now-deleted templates became unused after the change to RFC. It would be analogous to moving the main page back to the title "Main page" after it had been moved to a new page "Front page", because the new page did not work with Firefox, or something. —Centrx→talk • 21:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Centrx, this was an unwise use of admin tools, and the way that you are now getting defensive and arguing with everyone, is not encouraging. Please re-think your approach. --Elonka 20:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am explaining what I did and why I did it, asking what better alternative there is now, and why there is any reason to believe that the current status is not going to be the ultimate decision after discussion about it (discussion on the merits which was not forthcoming for a month, and which is still not happening). People are chastising, but that is not productive that me reverting something that is going to be re-reverted. The admin tools are irrelevant, because this action could have been done entirely without admin tools, it just would have left some junk that would have been needed to be cleaned up later by an admin. —Centrx→talk • 21:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if you removed the templates from one page that used them, the bot would still update the templates, and all the other pages that linked there would have been fine. Deleting the templates was overkill. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusing my bot

CENTRX! I APPRECIATE YOUR AWESOME REFORMS TO MAKE MY RFC BOT LESS REDUNDANT, BUT HOW COULD YOU DARE TRY TO REFORM A BOT WITHOUT CONSULTING ME, THE BOT OWNER, SO THAT I COULD MAYBE TRY TO ASSIST YOU? INSTEAD, I HAVE TO CLEAN UP MY BOT SHITTING EVERYWHERE BECAUSE YOU FUCKED UP. --harej 19:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your bot should not shit anywhere if a page it wants is missing. If the bot has crucial errors that might shit somewhere, you should check the talk page of the relevant page more than zero times per month. —Centrx→talk • 19:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't see anything broken? —Centrx→talk • 20:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the section immediately above this one is an indication that something is broken. I know you must feel under attack, but can you please at least take a deep breath, check out what the consequences are, and consider whether it's appropriate to rethink? I'm off wikipedia now, but I'll check back to discuss the matter tomorrow. AndyJones (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for RFC templates

An editor has asked for a deletion review of RFC templates. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --harej 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of thanks

for being willing to compromise, and above all, for tolerating my inappropriate outrage. I especially appreciate that you ended the dispute before it could escalate into drama. And if you wish to respond with a rude gesture, that is your business. You have earned it because I have not. --harej 23:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thou infectious earth-vexing gudgeon! —Centrx→talk • 00:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Spellings of metre

Centrx, this is the third time that you delete a note full of references, that I wrote together with another editor. You ignored the talk page, where I explained the reason why this note is important, useful, and accurate, and another editor agreed with me. You are the only one who don't like the note. Please stop deleting it. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The note does not support the text it foots. —Centrx→talk • 18:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Broken Page - References won't display

The page, Tent city is currently broken, the references will not display.

I'm not sure what might be the problem. I looked through the page code and didn't notice anything unusual. I'm guessing it is probably a syntax error. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on Wikipedia syntax.

Wisepiglet (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Qwo-Li's page?

Why did you delete Qwo-Li Driskill's wiki page? Please check out hir website and reinstate the page.

http://dragonflyrising.wearetheones.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.172.249 (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The text of the article was copied from that website. A Wikipedia article on a person must be written by authors unaffiliated with the person, and must be supported by published sources independent of the person. —Centrx→talk • 18:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Birthday paradox

Centrx, I draw your attention to this redirect you made: moved Birthday paradox to Birthday problem over redirect: This is not actually a paradox, and it is far more common in the literature (and correct) to refer to it as a problem So far so good, as long as you are talking about the Birthday problem. BUT there exists a different Birthday Paradox and it is prominent in comic opera. Here it is:

A person born on February 29th will have fewer birthdays than their age in years. This seeming paradox is presented in the operetta The Pirates of Penzance where the birthday of Frederic the pirate apprentice leads to this exchange:

FRED. How quaint the ways of Paradox!

At common sense she gaily mocks!

Though counting in the usual way,

Years twenty-one I've been alive,

Yet, reckoning by my natal day,

I am a little boy of five!

RUTH and KING. He is a little boy of five! Ha! ha! ha!

ALL. A paradox, a paradox,

A most ingenious paradox!

Do you have strong feelings for or against this notable paradox being described at Birthday paradox ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If the birthday probability problem is more common as "birthday paradox" than the Feb 29th problem is, then "birthday paradox" should probably still be a redirect to "birthday problem", with the Feb 29th problem at a different title with a disambiguation note. Possibly the Feb 29th problem belongs at Leap year, where it is already described. —Centrx→talk • 20:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with not moving the explanation of the Feb 29th birthday issue from Leap year where it is well described. I would add that it is called a birthday paradox. Do you agree that for consistency, "birthday paradox" can be just a 2-way disambiguation fork that redirects to birthday problem and Leap year#Birthdays ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. —Centrx→talk • 01:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Recreate-deleted-warn

Hi Centrx. I have been doing some updates to MediaWiki:Recreate-deleted-warn. There is an oddity in the talk page detection in that message, and that oddity was inserted by you in 2007. I am not sure if that is a bug or a feature. So I left a question for you at MediaWiki talk:Recreate-deleted-warn#Talk space detection. I'd like your response over there.

--David Göthberg (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ramsey (disambiguation)

Copied here from User Talk:SlackerMom

Why create this page? The disambiguation page is already at Ramsay. Parenthetical context is added to a title only if a topic is displaced from its plain title. —Centrx→talk • 02:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see the reason at WP:DABNAME. Specifically, the portion of the guideline that reads: It is also acceptable to create a page at "Term ABC (disambiguation)" that redirects to a disambiguation page at "Term ABC". This type of redirect can be used to indicate deliberate links to the disambiguation page. SlackerMom (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Stingray Sam

The Wikipedia article for the upcoming Cory McAbee's film Stingray Sam is nominated for deletion. Please contribute to the discussion.--DrWho42 (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Harry Webber listing

My listing was removed because of a supposed copyright violation with the website of my speaker's agent Leading Authorities. My speakers agency was given the content of my bio from my weblog at http://MadisonAveNe.com/bio.html. How can I resolve this matter without firing my speakers agency for unreasonable stupidity. Obviously, they were of the opinion that being listed in Wikipedia would make me less desirable as a public speaker.

69.231.147.63 (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In order to be included on Wikipedia, an article must be written by authors independent of the person and the person must be the subject of published sources independent of the person so, even if the copy was authorized by the copyright holder, a biography copied from your website cannot be used as the text of the article and your agent cannot write a Wikipedia article about you. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information. —Centrx→talk • 20:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have

any idea how to place an image in an article? I've taken the tutorials and tried everything. I guess I'm just dim when it comes to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chapadjiev (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no Idea how to place an image in an article? I've taken the tutorials and tried everything. I guess I'm just dim when it comes to this. and I don't have Article page please create one for me,

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayatdurrani (talk • contribs) 15:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)