User talk:Edit Centric/Archive01

The following content is archived up to Dec 31, 2008 Edit Centric (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Rowling

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) 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) P.S. Define "blanket edit" if you will. AL2TB Gab or Tab 21:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 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) Please read Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. --NE2 22:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC) "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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

What's with those 3 people. So full of hate. There is varying degrees of hate, but I won't rank order the 3 of them.

Tvoz accuses me but she doesn't seem to know that she's been in the paper. I didn't save the newspaper but there's another story online that says she is a Democrat and Ferrylodge is a Republican. Just google "Tvoz democrat wikipedia" and it's on the top. Google "Tvoz" and it's near the top. Congolese fufu (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Basic Training

Thank you very much, sir! A small world it is, eh? I'm actually blessed to have a great recruiter here in town and I look forward to taking a real break from often-overly-dramatic civilian life for a while. Regards, --Merovingian (T, C) 22:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting tips, thank you!! I've never been into guns much at all but I am very willing to learn. And I did know about the gas chamber. I've been reading up on BCT as much as I can, and the Future Soldier Training Program is a big help, too. Anyways my MOS is 35S (signals analyst/collector); AIT is in Pensacola. --Merovingian (T, C) 23:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I can't thank you enough for the support. I will keep my options open, of course, since I'll probably run into some good opportunities in different directions. All I can say is that I want to do well whatever happens. And I salute you! --Merovingian (T, C) 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I'm very sorry if I was a bit terse. It was unintentional. I was still exasperated by the BoL thread above your thread, and I sort of brought it out on you. Again, I apologize. —Kurykh 04:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your AN/I post

What a pleasant surprise it was to read a positive post on AN/I. It may not have received the responses that a complaint gets there, but I'm sure it was read and appreciated by many such as me. Thank you. Maralia (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: REM stuff

Absolutely. I intend to remain on in an adminsitrator capacity to ensure civility and that no disruption takes place. However, I needed an outside moderator to mediate the content dispute, as I was NOT getting in the middle of that one. Thanks for helping out there. I will continue to keep track of behavior issues, if you handle the mediation aspect of it. If at any point you feel that further action needs to be taken (more protection, blocks, etc.) I will help out where needed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

1981

ah, yeah I know it seems a bit weird :) But actually there are some interpretations which point to 1981 as the first year, and 1980 as technically the last of the 70's, so I pick this interpretation, but I can't blame you it's weird. ;) Eyesbomb 19 jan 2008, 11:06 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 10:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Newsletter, Issue 1

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —^Mitch32^contribs 20:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

While we're asking for favors

Could you review the situation at Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl. You don't have to get involved if you feel it is too out of control, but you have that special peacemaker mojo, and that place could use a little love. Again, don't feel the need to get involved just cuz I asked, but it needs some independent help, and you did so good at Accelerate. Just look it over and see what you think. Thanks and later! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Jayron! (That's my niche here now, so might as well!) What are we looking at? Could you give me a little background on things (with diffs) before the protection expires? I'd greatly appreciate it, that way I have the whole story before the loving, parental chiding begins! (LOL) Edit Centric (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I never got that deep. There were no less than 3 postings to WP:ANI demanding that one user or another be blocked for edits made to the page in question. First, User A would demand that User B be blocked. Then User B would demand that User A needs to be blocked. This spilled over into WP:WQA, seveal admin's user talk pages, all over the place. It was getting out of hand. I personally told them several times that no users would be blocked, and to work it out with the help of RFC or 3O or something, but I eventually HAD protected the page indefinitely to stop it and get things back under control. I am sorry I have not made a fuller assessment of the specific issued being debated, but the outrageous nature of this "He said, she said" sort of debate kinda feels like "DADDY, BILLY'S POKING ME, SEND HIM TO HIS ROOM". The incessant revert warring and tattling has made the work on the article grind to a halt. Honestly, I don't know what each sides position is, and what each wants out of the article, since by the time I got involved, it had devolved into patent lameness. It will probably take some investigation to figure out who wants what out of the article. As I said, this is going to be a lot of work, and if you feel its too much, don't feel obliged to handle it (though your keen mediation skills could certainly help)... Thanks for at least looking into it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye man

Its not the same without you at USRD. Why not come on IRC and at least say goodbye to everyone. It'll at least clear things up and I hope we can keep in touch.^Mitch32^contribs 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do this evening, just give me a few to get some IRL stuff handled, I have to get a hold of an antenna tuner for my HF rig, pick up my kid from college, and rip some relaxing jazz.... Edit Centric (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

USRD

There have been some disputes that have come up... would you consider remaining at USRD and serving as a mediator? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

your recent mediation

Hi. You asked that I email you to clarify one of my remarks. But I prefer not to do so as that would reveal my email address. Let me just say that if you look over the diff you will see a reference to something. Something that does not need to be discussed and draws attention to something I prefer to keep a low profile on. St. John apparently felt the need to draw attention to it in a more public forum than user talk. I don't know why for certain but I imagine it was to clarify/explain his behavior. That action in itself is strange, as he needed to only explain his behavior to me, and we were already having a one-on-one discussion. So I expect he was somehow seeking to document his excuse to the as-yet-not-participating Wikipedian(s). That also in itself is a bit odd and I found it rude. I think many other people would find that rude also. Probably you are right that there were better ways to handle the situation than a COI tag. But on the other hand, I think his entire reaction to this justifies my decision. It is a bit over the top. I know if someone were to "accuse" me of a possible COI I wouldn't be offended. After all, if I have no COI influencing me, then surely people would be able to see that. In other words, I think he's a bit too defensive about this whole thing. Then again, my decision to add a COI was not made lightly. I looked over his contribution history and found that Leonard_Carlitz was a bit too laudatory. The article he created on his sister also raised doubts in my mind about whether he truly understood COI. In any case, I wash my hands of this matter. Other people can handle this, I'm sure. --C S (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

COI

Ah. OK, first, copying from my talk page (I'll watch here):

COI at Duke Math Journal

As you state on your userpage that you attend or have attended Duke University, I think I see where C S is getting the idea of COI. However, I'd really appreciate your take on things over at the DMJ talk page. Please see the new section, entitled "Wikiquette mediation"... Edit Centric (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter, I'm looking at some of the other articles that you have contributed to, and I'm seeing a LOT of material that is not third-party sourced. I'm beginning to understand just why C_S felt that there was a definite COI issue, in that most of your source citations point back to Duke University sources. Pete, I know that you are an alumnus, and that in and of it's self is laudable. However, for Wikipedia standards, it's important that things can be independently backed up by sources other than Duke U. Edit Centric (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What? Please point to a specific. Can you find my citing a Duke source for anything in the last few months? Pete St.John (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(end copy) Please pick an item that in your opinion violates COI; or rethink your position. I've apparently failed to communicate that I don't take this lightly. Please note in the COI (original emphasis): Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. My being my sister's brother, or my college's former student, doesn't make for COI by itself. I have to have editted badly. Thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, again cross-posted, but that's cool, as it makes it easier still. Building on that idea, let's take this one step better; I am now gathering up all threads having to do with this, and dumping them HERE. Any further discussions on this topic should take place at that link, so that all the info can be read on one page. Edit Centric (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah perfectly reasonable to consolidate. Pete St.John (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:MonteCarlofire.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:MonteCarlofire.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ejfetters (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation COOKIE MONSTER

In support of Operation COOKIE MONSTER (OCM) I'm presenting WikiCookies in appreciation for military service to the United States. Happy Independence Day! Ndunruh (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dawlish.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dawlish.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for spedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Hey Edit! Haven't seen you in a while! How're you? BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 05:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha, congrats on the job! Well, I'm glad to see you around, and I hope to work with you again ;) It was fun while it lasted, I know! And you were really great :) BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 04:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Citgo

You're right. Maybe you can figure out where to reposition. Pepso2 (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2008

Trivia!

already read that article thanks. i did look for an appropriate place within the prose to place the fact, [even though it did indeed turn out to be wrong], but there was no appropriate place without re-wording much of the article; which didnt seem necessary considering the trivial nature of the info.

RE:

Thanks for letting me know about that, I was going to add a {{uw-npa1}} with TW, but I pressed the wrong button. Greetings, macy 20:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

List of NCIS episodes

Hi there :). No, it was not original research on the episodes. The descriptions are out there in multiple places on the net, but since there were extremely few sources listed for the information already there, it didn't seem particularly necessary to provide all that this time. The page is better now, since I also corrected grammar. Personally, if the sources are now going to be a requirement whereas they were seemingly not a huge deal before, I would suggest tagging the article to ask for sources rather than reverting my changes, JMO, but anyway.... Unfortunately I don't really have the time now to go back and do it myself, as I am back at work now, but since some of the descriptions were in a bit of a state before, I really do think it would be a shame to have to go back to that. If you want to change it, I'm not going to argue with you, I don't care that much lol, but I do feel it looks and reads better now. Best wishes :). Sky83 (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I will try to source the comments at some point, but I can't guarantee I'll get the chance to do it! It's rare that I have the opportunity to sit down for as long as I did to do the NCIS article, but I'll have a bash at the sources if I can :)! Sky83 (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

{{tb}}

Hello, Edit Centric. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Edit Centric. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Section move on California counties

I noticed you are moving the transportation section on some California counties for consistency. For the most part the county articles follow the format at WP:USCITY. That shows Transportation under Infrastructure, and the Infrastructure section comes after Media. If you want to keep the section order consistent, which is a great goal, we should probably keep it consistent with the WP:USCITY guideline. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm thinking that the Wikiproject on U.S. Counties would be more applicable in these instances, but I may be wrong. In any case, I was simply following logical thought flow, you see places, the next logical question would be "well, how do I get there from here?" Edit Centric (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. counties. I did not that was there until you mentioned it. That shows major highways under the heading of Geography. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of some of the guidelines that were already out there, and it looks like you are. Best, Alanraywiki (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I've been doing structure work on California county articles since 2006, and back then, didn't want to step on any toes. So I started with WP:U.S. Counties, then got involved for a while with WP:CASH and WP:USRD... Edit Centric (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tuolumne County

Thank you for restoring the transportation section on the Tuolumne County article. I don't know how we missed that..I thought the article looked different somehow. :) Vayne (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going over the entire history of the article right now. WOW! Edit Centric (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Caught another one, the Demographics section was also "lost to the annals of vandalism", but I successfully resurrected it from it's digital graveyard. "Rise, Lazarus!"

By the way, could you take a look at the on-going discussion regarding the Santa Cruz County article, and the inclusion or exclusion of the county geo location box? I'd like your input on this one, one way or the other. Thanks! Edit Centric (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:XSG

I'm afraid I can't be of much help here, as the area of dispute regarding this editor was over his edit-warring attempts to insert Dow Jones share-index trivia into Day of the Year articles and, when thwarted, with a variety of disingenuous arguments. The argument was settled in that another stepped up and agreed with me, so XSG hasn't, so far as I can tell, attempted to re-insert the trivia. Also, I'm afraid I don't have much interest in Californian articles--a Californian holiday, yes, but not articles--but good luck with your efforts. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it generally more appropriate to try to work out your issues with a particular editor prior to soliciting assistance from people they've had conflicts with in the past? I find it particularly humorous that you misread the situation and went to CalendarWatcher, whom I was accusing of WP:OWNership due to his reversion of good-faith edits without discussion. That issue concluded with a third party intervening, agreeing that the information I was adding to the article didn't belong but also agreeing that CalendarWatcher stepped over the line in reverting my addition without discussion. In this case, you apparently weren't aware that your addition of the Geo compass was a reversion and that the discussion to remove it was from over a month ago... —  X  S  G  17:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition and subsequent removal of Geo compass

Hello, Edit Centric. You have new messages at XSG's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re: Hey

O - where have you been?!!! What happened on WT:USRD was me losing it with NE2, I have been pretty ticked for months about DYKs and him and I got pretty mad. Sorry if it offended you. I miss having you around btw, hope you come on IRC.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 18:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh hell, you didn't offend me, I haven't even been over there in ages! I've been sticking mostly to CA county articles, and otherwise pretty busy IRL. So, what happened in mIRC? Edit Centric (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

IRC is still running, but we've become better since the ArbCom case. If anything, much of USRD activity is slow and empty. We could use your help again :) - Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 19:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do! In the meantime, I'll try getting a hold of you over on IRC later this evening if possible. Oh, I also let Theseeker4 know that I'm giving you another avenue to vent, so that dealing with the other issues is hopefully a bit easier. Edit Centric (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WQA - Mitchazenia Centralized

I'm bringing this over to my talk page, simply because it's easier to centralize things here when I have two people that I want to address at the same time, on the same subject. What I'm about to write is based on solid facts and foundations, who I AM as a person, and my years of experience with interpersonal relationships and working dynamics.

First and foremost, what I find eyebrow raising here is The Seeker 4 taking such a condescending tone in your warning to Mitchazenia, based upon each's Wiki history and activity; Mitchazenia IS a Wikipedia Administrator, with an edit history that goes all the way back to...(darnnit, people, now I need 4 WINDOWS open, one more window than I have monitors!) November of 2005! Evidently, the "powers-that-be" of the Wikipedia community that decide these things, have vested a trust in Mitchazenia, based upon his track record over 3 years. The Seeker 4 is a newer addition to the Wikipedia community, only having been editing under this name since September of 2008. How does THAT work!?

Mitchazenia, I know (and have expressed this to The Seeker 4 in no uncertain terms) that NE2 can try one's patience, you KNOW I know this! As an admin though, please try to be a little more patient than just breaking down and taking things to "Do you know what these letters mean?" The next time you find yourself typing that hasty remark with the frown lines digging into your brow so deep you could plant potatoes in them, take a step back, breathe, and then think about five ways you could respond so that you're "taking the moral high-ground", as it were.

Seeker4, I highly suggest that, if you want to be an effective WQA mediator, take some time to get to know WHO you're dealing with, and better formulate and tailor your replys. Steering the dispute resolution ship takes a very firm, tactful and knowledgeable hand. I've done it before, not only here in Wiki, but IRL as well. (If you want to know the specifics, just ask, I'll gladly elaborate.) Edit Centric (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. All I can say is my comment was not intended in any way to be condescending toward Mitchazenia, and I apologize if it came across that way. I have never intentionally treated anyone on here in a condescending manner. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Okay, I'm again bringing this in to one central location so that all parties involved can talk about what's going on, and ways to avoid it. As this did not make the Wikiquette Alerts page, we're going to handle it at "the lowest possible level". If we have problems at this level, I will take the ENTIRE thing to WQA, rest assured.

First of all, Wikipedia is not the place to make personal attacks. In the following cited examples, I see this happening on BOTH sides of the equation. So, let's look at how this went south, shall we?

• Burnte starts off with a generalized comment about "Bloody deletionists" here. Goes on to focus the angst on a single user here, telling Mr. Z-man "Please refrain from correnting (sic) people in the future unless you know what you're talking about."

• Mr. Z-man Shoots back with this. "Please refrain from being a dick", "Don't tell me what to do", "Who do you think you are". (NEVER a good direction to take a conversation if you're trying to make a point and do it positively!)

• Burnte Fires a volley in return here, "...wikitards such as yourself...", "..I will always call out liars such as yourself.", "Contribute positively or bugger off." (Wow, THREE middle fingers in one hand!)

This whole thing then moves over to Burnte's talk page, where the voices of reason get a hold of it and start to parse things;

"Wikitard," "liar"? Wikipedia is not a battleground. I'd suggest you withdraw these rather blatant personal attacks or I will be bringing it to wider attention. Mr.Z-man 16:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dick"? Wider Attention? Please feel free to do so at your earliest convenience. burnte (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. As an uninvolved editor who happened to notice your comments here I would suggest in the future you relax, take a deep breath and consider wikipedia policy. Personal attacks will do nothing but get you banned, which will not help your cause in keeping an article you find valuable in any way. I suggest you refactor the comments you made by striking them though and refrain from those types of attacks in the future. Thank you and good luck. The Seeker 4 Talk 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite relaxed. That's mostly bluster and puffery, but MrZ isn't quite bright enough to catch on. However, I won't be "refactoring" my comments. I don't subscribe to revisionist history. I said what I said and I will let it stand. burnte (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well congratulations, this reached wider attention. The Seeker 4 is absolutely right. "Bluster and puffery"? No. What Burnte typed are personal attacks. But this strayed into battleground and civility areas as well. But it went FURTHER! "..but MrZ isn't quite bright enough to catch on."

Mr. Z - You're a Wikipedia ADMIN. You shouldn't let people get your dander up, don't let yourself sink to this. As an admin, you need to display a more mature, positive, patient and judicious position on things, even something as trivial as the AFD where this argument started.

Burnte - I would echo The Seeker 4's thoughts on this. The personal attacks, "bluster and puffery" needs to stop, or you risk getting blocked. Blatantly violating numerous Wikipedia policies related to civility is NOT a constructive or useful means to make your point, or get others to see it clearly.

I suggest BOTH of you try to dial it down, take a deep breath, and consider your words more carefully BEFORE you type them. You are what you type here in Wikipedia. Edit Centric (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I really dgaf, I was just going to let this die, I'm not quite sure why this is still being discussed TBH. You do realize this was all more than a day ago right? Mr.Z-man 21:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I got that, but it was never really hashed out, just swept under the rug and not dealt with = unresolved. This means that more than likely, it would just keep happening. The sole purpose in resolving this is so that all concerned (including myself!) can leave here more enriched, and with no hard feelings left simmering on the back burner, only to get ratcheted up at some later point. If you're over it, then that's cool. Edit Centric (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd have to agree with Mr. Z-man here. We'd pretty much let it die. I don't think he was mortally offended by the exchange, nor was I, and we just walked away from it. I had typed up a complete response, clarifying, etc, but I think I'll just follow Mr. Z-man and take the high road and ask you not to dredge this up again. We HAD hashed it out, and moved on. burnte (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mr. United Nations. I wanted to ask why you declared that Mr. ZEEEEEE man was incorrect at first:

• NEVER a good direction to take a conversation if you're trying to make a point and do it positively!

Then later referred to his actions on Burnte's talk page as

• the voices of reason

I don't understand. The person who you moments ago claimed was doing a bad thing by picking a fight, was doing a good thing by further provoking the person they initially provoked, and pretending like he was surprised that someone wouldn't take his provocation lightly?? --TIB (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Appendectomy: Oh, and also, both Z-man and burnte were using personal attacks, not just burnte. I think his statement about being right before your correct others might apply here. --TIB (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Did I invite you to this party, TIB? That's okay, I always make extra servings for unexpected guests! If you hadn't misread this entire section, you would have gotten the message that BOTH MrZ AND Burnte share the blame for letting this exchange get as far as it did. (Lesson 1) I did not refer to his message on Burnte's page as "the voices of reason", I was referring to;

• A) Mr. Z getting a grip on the situation, and suggesting taking it to WQA, which would have been appropriate, and
• B) TheSeeker4 attempting to mediate the situation.

Again, you are absolutely RIGHT! BOTH Z and Burnte let this episode escalate beyond reason, and I so much as said that above. Now. UN-ruffle, grab a cup of coffee, feel free to sit and relax! :-) Edit Centric (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that the above type of behavior should NEVER be construed as acceptable, or a conducive method to resolve differences over articles, content or other Wiki aspects. Oh, and thank you TIB for the "Mr. United Nations" compliment, it's nice to see that you noticed what the goals are! :-) Edit Centric (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

List of space combat flight simulator games

Hello Edit Centric, sorry for the late night last night. The conversation seems to have stalled, and there isn't anything being discussed in great detail in order to build a constructive dialogue. What should I do? --Kirihari (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What I would do is give it a day or so, then do your best to stick to the outline at the article's talk page. It looks like there is some good discussion going on there!

Listen, I still have concerns after looking at the history of things, and the comments made by SharkD at WQA. He made what is clearly a WP:OWN comment, and said it was only WP:OWN if he intends to keep editing the article. There's where SharkD is roped. So do your best to work with SharkD on this. If SharkD gets out of hand again, do not get into another edit war. Do not get uncivil. What you do is take the moral high ground, and step back. Message me HERE, and I'll look things over. If I see clear evidence of SharkD shanghai-ing the project, the process or the article, I will intervene. Edit Centric (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Consider it done, I will do my very best, also I will do my very best to remove personal feelings from anything I edit, I was talking to my dad about the situation, and he didn't even need to respond before I just stopped and said, umm.. "yeah... this sounds pretty lame.. doesn't it?", then we turned to a different topic, I really do think I have learned something. Also I apologize for intruding, I hope that everything is okay, you mentioned something about an emergency in Anchorage. Something about the cold that makes a bad situation worse. Also the no sun thing really got to me sometimes. I used to live in Yellowknife, NWT, Canada for three years, there is something about -40°F or colder a person really kinda misses once they are gone. Frostbite likes me. :) I think you guys get a whole crapload of snow more than us though, but damn was it ever a dry cold. Thanks again. --Kirihari (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, what's going on up in Anchorage is that Mount Redoubt is getting ready to blow its top, and I have family that lives in Anchorage. I'm sitting comfy down here in California, but they're about 100 miles away from this big monstrosity that is threatening to blow its lid and spew ash and rock all over the place. Edit Centric (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap, the 1990 eruption looks like an atom bomb. Wow, doing some reading on it http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/ash/health/index.php, the ash can collapse roofs and is very dangerous to inhale depending on what exactly is in the ash, but no one really knows until it happens. Well my friend, it is amazing what you don't see on the news when you live on the other side of the world, I truly hope the best for them. I tried to use the volcanocam but it wasn't working, which is always comforting (said with a warm sarcasm). Well I hope all goes well, as for me, my job now is to put together our new made in Canada BBQ! I am so happy, BBQ's don't exist in Japan in any normal human patio/balcony style. So this is a great day! Just as long as the volcano keeps it's hat on. Take care. --Kirihari (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that this is of any interest ehehheeh, but I think I have finally figured out how to effectively argue a point in a logical manner, making a good point and backing it up with good constructive rhetorical questions and specific examples. If ya have time just take a look at my last comment on the Talk page of the List of space combat flight simulator games, it sounded cool (heheeh i think). Not that it will make a difference, anyways, Ramdomran wants to take this article to the WP:VG and get many more people's advice, that sounds good to me, getting more advice is always good! I really hope we can come to some kinda constructive resolution soon! We should still post the conclusions or the resolutions to the arguments into the Talk page on List of space combat simulators right? Anyways, have a great day, I am really optimistic that we are heading towards the right path. --Kirihari (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello my friend, it looks as if the conversation is done, if when you have time, if you might be able to go over to The talk page of the list of space flight simulator games and kinda give a "thumbs up" to go ahead and revert the list back from "Chronology of space combat flight simulator games" to "List of space flight simulator games" and then I will sort the list Alphabetically again and then everything should be A-OK. Edit Centric, I really don't know how to thank you, you have saved the day, truly! Thank you for all of your hard work and I will always remember to keep my cool from now on, ;). --Kirihari (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Posted my response over on the article talk page, looks good to me! Edit Centric (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Regards and thanks

Hello,

I'm posting here to thank you for your effort concerning the dispute in the White Brazilians article. Unhappily it seems that the other guy is not going to accept mediation.

Other than that, I wish you and your family can keep safe during this trouble. What a horrible thing to happen!

Best wishes, Donadio (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: AN/I Report

You're Welcome, glad I could help :) Thanks for passing that along to the proper people. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 1, 2009 @ 23:26

Re: Different ANI report

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. These are indeed the strategies I try to use most of the time...I'm just more successful some days than others (and around some people than others). Anyway, it's always good to have some outside input. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No prob, these are things that I have learned over time, and as I get older they are much easier to implement. (It also helps being a parent three times over, the oldest being 20!) Edit Centric (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

You recommended I upload the county adjacency images to Wikimedia Commons. Is there a benefit? What's the difference? (I'm an image novice here.) —  X  S  G  05:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, one of the more obvious benefits is that if they're on Wikimedia Commons, they're accessible across all Wikimedia projects. Besides that, it seems to be the more ideal place for images according to the "Wiki-powers-that-be" (LOL!) Edit Centric (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

hi

replied to your last post on the incident report. i'm about to go to bed, and will probably be off for another week of wikipedia.  :) i simply think some admins should keep an eye on this behavior that is becoming more and more extreme. these articles are not only the realm of this user, and there is no benefit going into these articles and removing valuable (and cited) information. thanks, Icsunonove (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that I'm not saying this to be rude or pointed, however any input regarding the ongoing AN/I discussion needs to be confined to the noticeboard, so that we (Admins and third set of eyes editors) can glean as much info about what's going on as is necessary to resolve the issue. Thanks. Edit Centric (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and no offense taken. I should of simply said I replied. :) Icsunonove (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I replied again, and got to hit the sack soon. Icsunonove (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hey Edit. Sorry to stop in unannounced like this (but is there any other way?). I've seen some of the work you do, and you're very good at it. Mostly I've seen you work with editors who are coming close to civility issues, but, I was wondering - do you also provide 3O in regard to content dispute?

The reason I ask, is that I suspect that I may be coming up on some issues in a couple days, and I may want to seek advise on how to handle a user I suspect will cause issues I might disagree with. Thanks — Ched (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ched. No, I hadn't started delving down into 3O just yet, as I've been quite active in the higher levels of dispute rez at WP:WQA and WP:ANI. May be a good idea though, if you would like a third opinion if and when something comes up, I would be happy to pop over and look at what's what. Edit Centric (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

One aw shit, cancels 1,000 attaboys

re: Blocked

{snip...snip}

xpost

re: FrankB, I just want to clarify a few things here. First, I am a completely disinterested third-party editor (NOT an Admin!), that fields WQA posts and tries to mediate between parties, so that something constructive can come from the experience. When I saw the WQA that was initiated about your account, I read (as I always do) through every cited diff, every edit descriptor and every response. I also (as I always do!) looked at each user's user page, talk page and contrib history.

What I read just floored me. I could not understand how an editor with such a lengthy contrib history as yours could apparently thumb his nose at every single Wiki policy and guideline in place to foster mutual respect and community. I recommended a block due to this, simply because warnings had already been tried and ignored, and mediation was not an appropriate solution, given the gross incivility.

FrankB, I've looked at some of the work that you've contributed here over the past 4 years. You're a good editor, FrankB! Its quite apparent that you spend a considerable amount of your time on these articles, and make some pretty thoughtful edits. What this displays to me is that you care, and I am encouraged by that.

Once your block is up, I would very much like to see you continue to be a valued part of the Wikipedia community. I would encourage you to try remaining civil and tactful, even in the face of problem edits and editors whom you may not agree with. Only by working together can the project as a whole be benefited. Respectfully, Edit Centric (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, hope the floor didn't hurt. But your characterization of my attitude and what I respect and don't is to say the least dubious. Did it occur to you that I didn't attend your schools, have different experiences, different parents, and can think for myself? There is plenty of room for differences in interpretation, as anyone that has mediated flame wars here, as I have can tell you. One cranky old editor spouting off does NOT make for a battle. OTOH, similar frank opinions have almost universally in the past resulted in a good working relationship, a clear communication, and about 3/4ths of the time, resulted in a new Wikifriend. So piffle to WP:CIV--you're not looking at the context, nor the intent of the context for that guideline. Being polite can in fact be counterproductive and a time waste, a matter of judgment--mine, as the observer.
  
  Take Quiddity (who signed up at page top for example) who once demonstrated a unbelievable tendency to pro-offer unwarranted judgments and unsolicited advice. Ultimately, I had to get firm with him and sent this, which he threatened to post, SO I DID. Nothing there to be ashamed of, you see.
     Bottom line... there are some people in this world that need rapped along side the ear to get their attention.
     There are others that need to have their toes stepped on, UNTIL THEY APOLOGIZE.
  
  Both those types benefit some by being jerked up by the shorthairs. Failing all else, it makes me feel better, and communicates at least one person, however crazy they may think me, has less than steller appreciation for their actions as they impact others--normally others time. I really don't get excised much here about anything else. Endless editing and all that, after all.
  
  Sooooo, Thanks for the appeal to my vanity, but I suggest in the future you counsel people to examine whether a situation is ongoing, escalating, or one time episode of venting. I spent 2-1/2 years here acting as a mediator myself, and would never have considered involving myself in an isolated message based case. Not sensible. Call it justifiable road rage if you like—a real world situation here in cyber space, and at least I cleaned up the vulgarity of what I had written in the first three drafts, to make my loathing judgment of his lazy rape of hundreds of pages plain. THAT is where I put my loyalty and focus. NOT on one of thousands of arguable interpretation of various guidelines and policies. If your INTERPRETATION of WP:CIV prohibits any colorful idiom or addressing a dumbshit-thing-to-do as a dumbshit act, I'm definitely done here. I'm floored that you haven't the imagination to understand that— save for the hyperbole about kicking ass, a deliberate attempt to indicate how poorly I viewed the 5-6 hours a day of well over six weeks of effort fixing his rape pogrom allegedly following guidelines — nor the fact that you were all being busy-bodies making much ado about nothing.
  
  One of the most reprehensible facts about contributing here is that there is a total insensitivity to the leisure time our contributors make, particularly by 'blithely accepting actions', one way or another, deleting their hard work and effort, which is about as personal an attack as one can make... Show me where NPA THE LEAST SENSITIVE to that VERY REAL, VERY PERSONAL virtual 'slap in the face'. And fools wonder why we have editor retention rate problems! Wake the fuck up. THAT IS A REAL WORLD PROBLEM, not my slight episode of 'hitting' to administer a lesson in courtesy to others. (Call me twisted, but a single discourtesy to me administered to make the point is properly due those who exercise the ultimate discourtesies, really without due process. Making 180 article pages into redirects without involving the community at large in the decision is to me, WP:BOLD applied way over the top. AFD or MFD should have been invoked, at the least. Not one talk page and three or four editors without a direct attempt to re-involve the originator of same articles, or their major contributors. BOTH THOSE badly need a quorum count provision, but I digress, the digression.)
  
  Those articles --nearly 200 some-- were something apparently dozens put up... involving hundreds of man-hours and were well crafted. Oh, they needed some cites for a few fannish statements of cause and effect, but the necessity of that is itself doubtful in cultural articles about recently produced intellectual efforts. WP:AGF should be sufficient for such a report making a statement like "this is the first (last) episode character/actor-so-and-so appeared in, and so forth.
  
  Then there's the whole joke of notability for such pages, which is hands down the most destructive guideline I've seen passed here. It's net result, because of the plethora of WP:NOTE guidelines, is we've literally lost thousands of editors by taking away their prime motivations for becoming involved, and applying inappropriate measures in an 'alleged' attempt to improve the quality of our offered articles—merely because some too wedded to the academic world have dictated the (anti-commonsensical) need of quoting a writer about something, rather than readily available source material. Others agreed, because like myself, they disdain one media or the other (I have no use for rock bands, and most TV--but at least I understand my prejudices) and felt that such has little place in an educational project—in direct controvention to statement's Jimbo has made lauding such breadth of coverage.
  
  The failure to improve overall article quality in the two years since is manifold and obvious; GA, FA and B-Class articles haven't notably increased in either numbers or percentages. The manpower drain to such measures of deletionism (vice improvement of whatever to a reasonable 'type-standard') has really gone nowhere. OTOH, ANYONE can access a primary source in a cultural matter like a popular book or television program (albeit with some effort required) to check a fact, cite a quote, or check an interpretation or summation, synopsis or summary. Cultural topic coverage is some of the more entertaining reading we offer, after all, and those that punch in random article or just hear about someone/something new is something that attracts readers. So who should care that such articles aren't to an academic standard. They don't need to be--the reader wants information and coverage, not null search results... In DIRECT CONTRAST to WP:NOTE's focus is the indisputable fact that today, many people come to wikipedia FIRST, not just via google, to get a laydown on a cultural topic. My teens were the one's who made this obvious to me. They checked things out here first... then google in many cases. The third party source and so called notability guidelines are frigging idiotic as written for fictional matters. But I get more satisfaction arguing with a wall. I guess you picked up some of my disdain for those ramifications and the narrow interpretations by some... but do remember, IAR trumps them.
  
  That those editors apparently had moved on, perhaps found the contributory environment here too hostile, and weren't around to defend those pages became too patently plain if you examine the talk record... One idiot lemming behavior one sees over and over here is some young editor, from my pov 'much lacking life's perspective and experience' latches onto the language of some guideline or guidelines and gets carried away with it--totally discounting the effort of others to build whatever page or trying to make it work.
  
  Had he accessed some off site materials (The scripts are on the web, for example), incorporated important series evolutionary trivia into the articles, and eliminated the fan trivia, the pages would have been easy to fix up. Instead, I saw it on my sickbed, queried our coverage an got appalled. I did however thank him for his screw up helped me get interested in the show, and I'm usually disdainful of entertainment media overall if it's not between book covers. The show's rather well done and enjoyable. My first wife, may she rest in peace, was a wiccan and I've been quite interested in comparing wiccan depictions these last 28 years.
  
  The miracle is not that I went so easy on that SOB, nor (to some) threatened violence, but that I bite my tounge for months without saying something—then had to spout when he made yet another ham-handed edit creating a slew of double-redirects without even discussing the matter, with me or the other two I've finally involved in editing the pages. WHERE'S THE RESPECT FOR OUR TIME, or the way he impacted our time DISCUSSED IN YOUR Wikiquette discussion OR AN/I? Where's the two times his edit crashed my browser, as the section edit on the page no longer matched the system software page... resulting in a lost hour and a half, for the edit got lost sans the system's ability to reestablish page context. So excuse me for feeling provoked by his incompetence. Not one's ever paid me a penny for giving time here.
  
  In sum, that whole group of people, yourself included have the problem backwards--like a cart being pushed by a mule. You all wring hands and make tut-tutting noises about one well deserved dressing down that was a one on one communication, totally oblivious to the fact your jumping of the gun is part of the institutional insanity here that makes it increasingly a less and less satisfying place to contribute, and outright hostile most of the damn time. In the future, try intervening AFTER there is ongoing dissension, argument and acrimony--not just because one person has a forceful opinion and the balls to express it. He MIGHT JUST think you the fool, given the underlying facts... and attitude toward busy-bodies of course. In the real world, mangers curse and swear, people call each other names, and people pound tables... SOOooo, get a life and realize ideals aren't life, nor is it your place to make others conform without at least giving time to see if there is a ongoing problem. People vent. Period--it beats murder.
  
  Had that dubious editor exercised mature restraint and judgement, the Charmed articles wouldn't have needed such a time sink by someone like me. But the half-assed juvenile half-measure HE CHOSE, caused the issue... then the other for me. So next time, be sure that a problem exists... or what it really is. If someone ASKED why, instead of telling me about things well known (NPA/CIV), I'd have been glad to explain. Had HE acted correctly, and just for one way, incorporated trivia into the body, and defanged the fan sections... I wouldn't be out man-months of efforts. Someone could then come behind and add better plot summaries, etc. in line with FICT guidelines. Instead we have a juvenile attempt at over-application of a dubious guideline for a program that reached a mininum of four million households for eight years running... Compare THAT to a best seller... defined as 100,000 books (which would delight most publishers).
  
  Far too many go through the motions and hardly write any significant content. They peck and pick at word choices, hang tags instead of addressing a article or group of articles shortcomings, and basically criticize instead of acting, improving whilst patting themselves on the back for running up a high edit count. Piffle. Admins should need to demonstrate 500+ significant edits, at least half of which added material or cites, not this institutional madness of glorifying the inexperienced and power hungry zealots sans real world experience.
  
  So thanks for the belated appreciation... but it's untimely. Now the project is out an editor who does little but make big edit improvements. The community doesn't deserve me, nor quality given the road to mediocrity it's hurling down helter-skelter. I'm so fucking out of here. I have lots of other things I can do with my Leisure time. I think I'll just follow along with dozens of good editors I've worked with and disappear. This institution is too incapable of appreciation, and has certainly lost appreciation of one important ancient and bedrock guidelines: WP:IAR. It certainly never demonstrated a vast respect for people's time. // FrankB 17:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Tidy up, you

Since you involved yourself, these need carried on with. User:Pic Editor960 is currently the only other that exhibited time to contribute, and obviously lacks years, judgment, and editor experience. Lefty, does a bit. (See charmed discussions, my talk.)

• Three fourths of these have {{Inuse}}, were in-between and transistional work that was interrupted by your (Collectively) self-righteous acts. Perhaps you can post that to AN/I and get some help. When I post this, I'm closing this tab and won't be back. I've been foolish enough for too long.

1. Charmed
2. Charmed, Season 3, 2000-2001
3. Charmed (season 1)
4. Charmed (season 2)
5. Charmed (season 3)
6. Charmed (season 4)
7. Charmed (season 5)
8. Charmed (season 6)
9. Charmed (season 7)
10. Charmed (season 8)
11. List of Charmed characters
12. List of Charmed episodes
13. List of magical beings in Charmed

My time is too valuable to further abuse it here. Best wishes, but don't be busy bodies. // FrankB 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jocularity

No need to defer! I'm a military child (naval brat, though) and thought the same - Bugs' punning only raised a red flag (sorry...) due to the odd capitalisation ("forced March")... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

de Anza expedition

I had originally added the info about Palou but then tried to condense it because I thought it was getting too long. Clumsy wording.--ABIJXY (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilian

Hello. The problem is that Donadio is not neutral. Take a look at his first comments at talk page of White Brazilian. He is obviously pro-Portuguese. He even reported that his grandparents are "colonial Portuguese" at his first comments. Actually, nobody asked him about it. Then he started all that pro-Portuguese discussion (he even tried to use Phone Books as a source, because most Brazilians have Portuguese surnames, then he claimed they're all "Portugueses") - like claiming African Americans (who usually have British surnames) are of "Britsh descent". He started appering in article about "non-Portuguese" Brazilians (Italian Brazilian, German Brazilian or Japanese Brazilian) and also started useless discussion in their respective talk pages. Since then, I realized this user was not neutral.

Take a look at his "contributions" and you will surely notice it. Thank you. Opinoso (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WPQ post

re: "When you point the finger at someone, remember that you have three pointing back at you." .. GOOD ONE! ... never heard that before. — Ched (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

since i agree that the digression into past grievances is of no value in the wikiquette thread, i'll ask here. you wrote "In fact, there's a bit of dirty laundry there that I could have aired, but chose not to, giving the editor (and you know who I am referring to) the benefit of the doubt.". er. i don't know who you're referring to. is that a good sign? Anastrophe (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Rebuttal to complaints about Victor9876

Hello, you have warned me form the perspective of one complainer. There is another side of the story, are you willing to listen?--Victor9876 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Centric, I'm sure you followed the WQA that has been resolved - except for arima. Would you kindly look at the Whitman talk page and look at his behavior, which has been assessed as uncivil, attacks and disruptive. He is not there for purposes of advancing the article and current discussion. It appears he is there for his own agenda. Thanks.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it, and warn him separate from WQA if I find just cause. Thanks for being patient. Edit Centric (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe what Victor was calling your attention to was regarding the early part of Talk:Charles Whitman/Archives/ 3#Not back to content, when I left a comment and arimareiji thought I was accusing them of sock puppetry and it read to Victor and myself that it was the other way around. Rather than ask for clarification of what I meant, he went off on me and told me to stick a sock in it. Honestly, he seems to me to have a bit of a short fuse, but then he made me quite angry as well. I do think he has tended to be quite judgmental toward me for no more than I have participated in the current dispute. I truly made an effort to keep things civil only to be told I was biased. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

MIA

Where ya been? You left BMW holding the bag, and now there's a backlog of work for ya at the boards ;). Hope all is well. — Ched (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, crappola! Okay, I'll get back there as soon as I can, I got a bit busy with IRL stuff over the weekend, along with a few other projects. (I'm putting together a DVD compilation of 9-11 morning footage by network, so that my kids will have an answer when they ask me later in life; "Daddy, why is the world the way it is now?" So far, I have the first two hours of ABC and CBS, I'm working on getting the CNN and NBC footage...)

See ya back over there in WQA! :-D Edit Centric (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

When you're done with the tough stuff over there - wanna look around your medicine cabinet for a WP:Bite bandaid <* snicker, snicker *> — Ched (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Constuctive Advise

Thank you Centric (I would like to be more informal and call you edit, maybe that will come in time), for your input and suggestions. As to HTML, I know very little and it is something I want to learn. One problem I'm having right now is this computer. Mine is being repaired and I borrowed this one a few weeks ago. The cursor floats sometimes to other areas and will turn whole blocks of text blue and the next keystroke wipes away a whole hour of thought out text. Can't wait to get my tried and true old jalopy back.

I see you are in Cal; anywhere near Thousand Oaks? I have a brother who is a mak-up artist and lives there.

Tell your wife, please, my remark wasn't personal at all, that is how Arima and I snipe each other. I really did want to be civil with him. There's just something underneath his intentions I can not figure out. I will come to you in the future with valid concerns about someone, not nit picking SOB stories that are more fantasy than fact. O.K., this computer is doing its' own thing and I better save, before it bites me. Thanks again Centric.--Victor9876 (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't be sniping each other in the first place, at least not maliciously. If he wants to snipe, then fine. You take the moral high ground. Remember, two wrongs don't make a right! (But three rights DO make a left!)

Nope, I'm more in the vicinity of Modesto and Stockton, but have lived on three continents so far! (Not at the same time, if that were possible, I'd be God!)

Would never accuse you of having an "SOB" story. (How dare you bring my mother into this! LOL)

The issue you're having sounds like the mouse. Try another one, if you have one handy... Edit Centric (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hauskalainen problems

Hello Edit Centric. More Hauskalainen problems, or so it appears,[3] being that Hauskalainen re-inserted a modification edit to one of my comments on the Right to keep and bear arms talk page using the same alias, per his edit summary. FYI.[4] He is apparently soliciting meat puppets on DemocracyNow.org in lieu of discussing content issues on Right to keep and bear arms. This is a closely related topic to the 3RR discussion you had with him recently on Gun politics. Thanks Yaf (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Whitman Talk Page

Hey Centric,

The Novel that was composed on the above talk page seems to have had the final chapter written. I don't want to archive the page, but it does appear to be rather lenghthy. Also, the RfA seems to still be active. I'm afraid if I archive the page and remove the tag, that might create another round of babble. Are you up to the task? Also, I noticed BMW commented on the 2nd WQA and had a negative review to what went on. Perhaps in your next course of conversations with him, you might mention it was all your fault our resolution was amicable. Thanks again!--Victor9876 (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"you might mention it was all your fault our resolution was amicable." Smart-arse! LOL Edit Centric (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad you caught the intended humor.--Victor9876 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I'm attempting to do all of this today with a "swimmy" head. I think my daughter gave me her cold, dammit! So far today, I've been accused of being "intimidating" (see my user page for the newest parody of said accusation!), I don't think I look like LBJ! Trust me, the levity is a much-welcome sight. Edit Centric (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well Bless her little heart, I'm sure she did it on purpose! Accusations run wild on WP, but I wouldn't know anything about that! The way I handle a "swimmy" head is to allow the alcohol to finish the job. I agree, you don't look like LBJ, but then, I went to the barber the other day and told him to give me the Elvis look - he called in a Mortician. So...I don't know what to tell ya!--Victor9876 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

O.K., now I have a serious development. Ping me when you are ready. Thanks!--Victor9876 (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

PING! (But reading the last section of your talk page, I think I already know what the development is kinda about. (I think, corr me if I'm misconflooberated!) Edit Centric (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I know correlation is not causation, however, ever since Jwy appeared in the Whitman talk page, he makes points (some valid), about a certain section involving an author of a book about Charles Whitman. Jwy makes suggestions that always involve removing certain content about the author. I have sourced and referenced the material. Then he leaves for awhile and comes back complaining of the same issues. He mentioned a 30 at one point but wasn't specific, so when arima came in, they were on the same page almost verbatim, claiming WP rules ad nauseum, that really didn't apply and so on. That lead to the WQA's against me, which were resolved and the issues were addressed and the section changed. Arima is gone, but today, a new editor named "Snipercraft" came in and changed the lead I wrote, that was good in a few parts, but it changed the foundation drastically in other areas. Also, he reverted a spam section I removed from the author's page, and the only edits he, or she I might add, have been to my contribs. No other wikipedia articles - just my contribs. If it had only been the Whitman article, no suspicion would have occured, but the author that Jwy seems to be protecting as well!? Seems like there is something amidst. I may be wrong, but would you mind looking? Thanks!--Victor9876 (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Snipercraft Why would Snipercraft cross-post to Jwy?--Victor9876 (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Arima has entered the building. Snipercraft has bowed out. ???--Victor9876 (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, so be it then. I found the accusation of sockpuppetry a bit far-fetched, but as long as Snipercraft is no longer active there, I'd let it be... Edit Centric (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Well Bubba, Jwy and especially Arima are using Snipercraft's edit, to revert the Whitman page to Snipercraft's edit. Also, the three of them, Jwy, Arima and Snipercraft have acted in concert to game the system. What they will inevitably do is remove all negative attributions about Gary Lavergne, even though the negative attributions are true, referenced and sourced. They have decided to pick up where they left off and I am responding with humor - there is nothing else they will listen to. I'm willing to bet a $1 against a hole in a donut that they are associated with the author in one capacity or another.--Victor9876 (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Victor's version of "humor", which he appears to believe you support:

• "Smells of...sniff...sniff-sniff...sniff...GAMING the system." [5]
• "It should be obvious Jwy, I do not consider you or Arima as "good" faith editors! Yes, I have a specific remedy to propose - I just can't do it here!" [6]
• "We have some nice high cliffs here in North Carolina. I could point you towards a few if you would like, out of courtesy of course. LOL! It's a joke Arima, don't respond with your usual huffing and puffing." [7]
• "I'm sorry Ari, I was watching a cartoon and was laughing my arse off. It took precedence over your response. So, since I was distracted, would you please repeat what you wrote a little louder?" [8]
• "Darn TV! I'm sorry Ari, what did say again?" [9]
• "More important questions than yours are: Is Marvin Gaye? Does Helen Hunt? Is Billy Wilder? Does Tom Cruise? Does Gregory Peck? Is Barry White? I don't have all the answers like you do. Make up your own answers, you usually do." [10]
• "Let's call it WP:CIVIL_WAR. I'll be Lee and you can Saddam Hussein." [11]

arimareiji (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Alright, Victor9876. Enough smart-arse'ing. Just because you have doubts about other editors' motivations, does not give you carte blanche to go on an unabated campaign such as the one above. Reign it in, brah. Edit Centric (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but I've already made a notation at AN/I. I just thought you would want to know he's using your name at the page as being a supporter. arimareiji (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your advise Centric and reign it in. Arima is a LIAR as to the charges above. I mentioned his assumptions that brought about the 2nd WQA as a part of his mis-directed communications. I'm glad he brought an AN/I. One of us has to go.--Victor9876 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not glad about it going to AN/I - as I've repeatedly said before, you have a lot of information which would be extremely useful if you were willing to work with other editors. As far as my being "a LIAR," that's an extremely poor charge to make when the edit history says otherwise. arimareiji (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As this has now gone to AN/I, we're going to handle it there. This situation between editors has become untenable, and needs to be resolved with a sense of urgency now. Edit Centric (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Centric, how do I find the first WQA? I found ours, but I can not fing the first one. Thanks!--Victor9876 (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) S'because it's been archived. Here's a link to the last change that you made to it... Edit Centric (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple notes. Snipercraft appears to have come in today and had his userpage and user talk page deleted, after I had made the query about what a sock or checkuser case would reveal about that user and the Houston McCoy families' accounts. I'm not thinking that a brand new editor would know about deleting the user page. To explain the comment I made on the Whitman talk page, some time ago, when a lot of work was being done on the Whitman page, an editor or two showed up right away and began disputing facts in it. It eventually turned out that the editor or two was in fact related to Houston McCoy and created quite a disturbance. That would also include the editor who was wikistalking Victor. It ultimately ended up that the editor(s) went away and for whatever reasons there were, it was to the point that the talk archives were deleted by Jimbo Wales, although I'm not privy to all the reasons why. I have to back Victor on this note: someone was watching and realized there was controversy about the page and around the time it seemed to be dying down, stirred the pot. I'll leave you to fill in the blanks on that. Based on all of that, I can certainly understand why Victor would be a little suspicious and paranoid about the article seemingly being converged upon after months and months of small edits and inactivity. And the initial confrontational manner in which arimareiji began on the page didn't help, although I realize he will say he was not confrontational. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ched a-gain

Hey EC. Hope the family is doing well, and you get over the stuffed up head quickly. Couple things - First was that Intimidating picture on your user page (lulz). Don't know if you have default settings on your home setup (very nice by the way) - but when you moved "you" over to the left, for the command center to be on the right - the TOC (dark blue) shows as a layer over your pic. Fine by me, just didn't know if you had noticed. Second: I like that 9/11 idea - wouldn't mind buyin a copy for my grandkids. Last, and none of my business, but I just wondered why you never went RfA? Oh well, keep up the good work! — Ched (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is not something one can buy, I'm afraid. It involves the 5 hour apiece download of 1GB files from a fileserv, a lot of DVD setup and customization of menus, then another 2 hour transcode and burn process. That's just a SINGLE layer DVD!

So far, I have the ABC, CBS and NBC coverage of the first two hours of that morning. If you remember, that pretty much encapsulates the whole thing, from first plane in to last tower down. I was in Korea at the time, so I picked up on CNN at about the point where the first tower (2 WTC) collapsed. (I remember coming in on CNN at the point where the two guys are standing there on the roof of that other building, looking out at the WTC.) All of this first hour coverage is pretty new to me, as we didn't get any of the nets over there.

As for the RfA, I was talking to a few other Admins and a Beureaucrat about that one, but came to the healthy conclusion that my mainspace edits are a bit lacking, and that may impact the RfA process. So I'm biding my time, perhaps eventually someone will throw my name in the hat for nomination, which I would accept with a bit of reservation and a great deal of humility. Edit Centric (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, lot of work - I'm sure it's impressive though. I had stopped at my mothers house to do some home repairs for her that day, and saw it when the news first broke - seems like yesterday to me, but then again - the 70's seem like only weeks ago ... lol. As far as the RfA, I'm sure you'll be there very soon (and I hope you'll drop me a line so I can get my Support in early). The admin corps sorely needs reenforcement (down to around 800 active), it could use the help, especially an editor who understands tact, and has a mature intelligent approach to difficult situations. Maybe Twinkle and/or lupin for an hour or so here and there would help build the edit counts. If you don't step forward soon, I may have to consider pestering one of the admins to nom ya! ;). Oh, and on a side note: the wiki-gods must be smiling at me, your tb tag could not have come at a better time, in a better place, from a better person - see the thread above the tb tag for a smile. My best to the family, it's a pleasure to watch you work (and I do try adopt similar mindset in the rare occasions I run into the kind of things you deal with on a daily basis). My best to the family ... have a great weekend. ;) — Ched (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette

If you think I wanted to continue, you are very mistaken. I had twice asked that the thread be archived. Thank you for closing it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Concerning your comment on my talk page, which I saw after writing the above, I do not understand what you mean by "hotheaded". In edit after edit, I made the point that the right is never entirely on one side of a dispute, and made it clear that I had no criticism of Hrafn beyond, his not being perfect (in common with all humans). I feel the response from other users discussed little beyond what they think is wrong with me, which is WP:NPA. Did you actually read the discussion? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, read it again and again. The more I read it, the more I was shaking my head, hence the reason why I closed it. That WQA was not about you, it was filed by OrangeDog regarding Hrafn. Somewhere along the line, the WQA strayed into this tangent about yes, others' perceived notions about your shortcomings. That's another reason I closed it.

Your final response, which stated in part; "About me, and Catherineyronwode, you said some things that were WP:NPA. Your calling the link to the mediation case "evidence" is bullshit. This is a Wikiquette discussion, not an arbitration case." was reactive, you can't sit there and tell me that you weren't a bit miffed at that point! (I know I would have been!)

What's done is done, and it's definitely a learning experience for all. Edit Centric (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly I was out of patience with the wiki-lawering, which I dislike. There was a book written on bullshit by an important philosopher, and I would not have used the word without having a meaningful definition of the term in mind. In my rush I gave the wrong link, and have corrected in the link included above. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And therein lies the rub in what I do at WQA! There's a fine line between the legitimate quoting and application of Wiki policies and guidelines, and "wiki-lawyering", or as our drill sergeants called it, "barracks lawyering". It's a knife-edge, and one has to be careful not to fall on the wrong side of the knife. So with my balancing staff in hand, onward! Edit Centric (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WQA

Can we separate out the Collect and THF WQA complaints? I'm not Collect, and, to date, no one has made any complaints against me; they're all against Collect (though they all seem to be content-dispute-based, and not WQA-based). THF (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at this point. Everything belongs under the same heading. I only did what I did because Ikip's responding complaint should have gone under the WQA that you originally filed. If indeed most of this is content-based however, it's not a WQA issue anyway. But let's get some input first. Edit Centric (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WQA

I'm sorry for my WQA edit; I just realized I erroneously deleted the previous section while attempting to add a section. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting the facts straight

"You're absolutely right in that Black Kite was out of line in editing the said content from your user page. Black Kite, whatever your own personal proclivities are regarding the administering and application of Barnstars, there are better ways to address this, rather than taking the "heavy-hand" approach."

Black Kite did not remove barnstars; he removed forged barnstars, that NotabilityPatrol created using the names of people he was fighting against. He claims it was a simple cut and paste error; obviously, that's not the case, since it would be a strange sequence of events to somehow create a barnstar where the person who has been arguing with you about the content of an article would then congratulate you for fighting vandalism on said articles. If these had been talk page comments, and not barnstars, the same principle would apply but I very much doubt Black Kite would get so much criticism for removing them. --Golbez (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As this issue has already been addressed and the content has been removed, this is moot point. Not to discount what you're saying here, it's all valid! However, if you go through and read the WQA (now archived, so please don't add to it), you'll see that the approach taken was much more fruitful. Edit Centric (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because the WQA is closed doesn't mean I can't point out that you were off-base by calling Black Kite "heavy handed" and "out of line" for removing forged comments. --Golbez (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I'm not about to belabour the issue, as it has already been resolved. The point here is that I got the results that Black Kite could not get by the means employed, which were, IMHO, a bit overboard. If we allowed Admins to have free reign over other editors' user pages, Wikipedia would be a much more hostile working environ, and I would not be able to do what I do at WQA as effectively. I'm not discounting what you're telling me, but I do not believe, given the edit histories and interactions that I duly researched, that I was "off-base" as you inferred. You are certainly entitled to your opinion on this one, and I respect the fact that you are ready and willing to present it to me this way. (Tell me if I'm getting WP:TLDR here!) I honestly thank you for sharing this, as it all helps me do my job better at WQA. My regards, as always. Edit Centric (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you noted this, I DID address the misuse of Barnstars very early on in the discussion, as I can greatly appreciate what they are actually meant for. Edit Centric (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit Centric, it seems that Notabilitypatrol has just undergone quite a change. (You might want to look at the intermediate edits as well.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have undergone no change. I just modified my interest listing and have culled the amount of personal information I am posting about myself. This is a prudent measure since you and Golbrez have been following me from article to article, filing complaints and stirring up trouble wherever you can (though is obviously to no avail as you're tracking my personal information). No one will blame me if I have genuine concerns about my well-being at this point with you two on the loose. You will note everything about me is transparent and consistent within reasonable measure of security - I do enjoy editing food articles even though I did not feel the need to call it out for your benefit earlier - see the article I wrote the other week on C._Anne_Wilson among others. Thank you both for your ongoing and very intense interest in following me from article to article. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And, by the way - how is "quite a change" going from saying I'm a zoologist by trade (which I am - retired, but that's none of your business, frankly) to saying I enjoy editing articles about taxonomy? Do you not know what taxonomy is? Once again, I will implore you to, PLEASE, stop stalking me. I don't understand why you're doing this to me. If your goal is to scare me away from wikipedia you won't - I have probably been alive longer than the two of you combined and my generation doesn't frighten easy from bullies. Thank you. (PS - here are some of my scientific / zoological article edits, you may learn something - Dorcus_tenuihirsutus, Aardvark, Captive Primate Safety Act --- Notabilitypatrol (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Frankly, I do not appreciate WQA alerts that are created by persistently disruptive SPA users in an attempt to legitmize their disruptiveness. I have unarchived the WQA (why was it "resolved" without my input?) and commented there. Black Kite 10:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It was "resolved" because NP agreed to correct the issues that caused the whole mess to begin with, Black Kite. There was plenty of opportunity for you to chime in, and I was hoping that you would have, honestly. You didn't, we worked the issue, and managed to get somewhere. I sincerely apologize if you feel left out of the process, though. Edit Centric (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Plenty of opportunity"? The WQA was opened at 3.43am my time, and closed at 6.35am. Oddly enough, I was asleep. Black Kite 12:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sleep? What's that? But really, I am beginning to see a trend here, as you will note at the WQA. It confounds me that, after I approach this WQA from a neutral POV, giving the user the benefit of the doubt and working constructively with that user to resolve the source of their issue, that they would toss my good will aside and go make the posts that they did. (I seem to remeber a parable in a certain book, about something like this...) Edit Centric (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not blaming you - the user is quite plausible, it's only when their edits are taken as a whole that the full picture emerges. The only thing I'm slightly concerned about is whether this compromises my ability to take action against the user in the future as "involved", which I don't think I am. Black Kite 12:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I would think that if the action is done in an Admin capacity, for something relating to this situation, then yes, you might want to bring it to AN/I, complete with diffs and supporting docs. Doing this, you're taking the moral high-ground, and doing what's right by yourself and Wikipedia. OTOH, if something completely unrelated comes up in the future, and you need to give the user a "wiki-break" so to speak, then I don't personally see a problem with that. Check me on this though. Edit Centric (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, it's now 04:46 here, I've spent the night watching comedy specials and working WQA. I'm headed for the snore shelf for a bit, so forgive me if I'm slow on the next reply. Cheers! Edit Centric (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actismel

I saw that he'd shown up this afternoon and posted to Paul Watkins (Manson Family), which I watchlist. I tagged his talk page as ColScott, hoping that he'd go away quietly, although I know better. He posted what he thinks is my living location on the AN/I board in the middle of (yesss, the Whitman thread) an otherwise unrelated thread. I was dreading working up a checkuser case on him, and saw that someone else had suggested this earlier. I'm glad this was quick. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the image File:Lbj-green.jpg fair use?

Doesn't the use of File:Lbj-green.jpg on your User page violate fair use? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, it might, and I hadn't considered that. Duly noted and removed, good eye! Edit Centric (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

:) Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow!!

I'm on assignment right now, but got a chance login ... and wow, on my userpage is an unexpected gift. I'm truly honoured. Thank you (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)