User talk:Centrx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents
This is a Wikipedia user talk page, not an encyclopedic article.
Click here to leave me a message
  • If you leave me a message, I will generally reply here unless you ask otherwise.
  • If I leave you a message, please reply there unless it was not recent.
  • Please sign your messages with ~~~~.

[edit] Archives

[edit] Llama Song?

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

The talk page of a deleted article is typically deleted. The only source I can find in the deleted talk page history is:
FWIW, this song was mentioned in the Sunday Times (UK): "Mostly, though, we have a less demanding repertoire, such as The Llama Song and My Cat's Got Knees." ("Mum, dad, you drive us nuts; Bank holiday driving", Sunday Times, April 9, 2006, pp. 6. Retrieved on March 6, 2007. ) Vashti 01:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
—Centrx→talk • 04:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New England

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

[edit] Deletion Review for Bow High School

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

[edit] Recreation of deleted article as talk page

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

[edit] Encyclopedia article, not market ticker

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

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

[edit] article deleted

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

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

[edit] User:Alienus

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

I don't really see the point. He simply continued the behavior for which he was previously banned under IP addresses and alternate accounts. If there be no "confirmed" sockpuppets, it would be because he endlessly used tor exit nodes, and for example a confirmation of accounts was obviated by his permanent ban, [1]. As he can otherwise edit peacefully if he so wishes, it seems the only effect of unbanning him would be to to exonerate his behavior, which was sufficient for a ban even only considering actions directly under his account. However, it may not be important. —Centrx→talk • 04:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It makes a difference to Alienus, who insists that he didn't use sock puppets. I think what he is after is the removal of statements to the effect that he has done so. Of course it's a cinch for any banned user to edit Wikipedia quietly and constructively, but that's another matter. --TS 13:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I will not unblock him, but I will not take any action to prevent his unblocking or reblock him unless he renews disruptive behavior. —Centrx→talk • 18:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you consider removing the "suspected sock" template from the talk page and, as a matter of courtesy, blanking the talk page (not deleting the history)? I believe he is concerned about allegations, which he denies, that he used Tor and socked, appearing in google. The "banned" template should of course remain on the user page. --TS 18:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
He did use Tor and sockpuppets. —Centrx→talk • 21:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits to Global warming

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

What about it? The Manual of Style has stated since about 2004 that numbers above ten may written as numerals or be spelled out as words--I wrote that section--, which itself was a compromise with the not-uncommon use of numerals despite it being less formally appropriate for an encyclopedia, and in consideration of the fact that numerals are more appropriate for actual scientific figures. It was changed a few months ago to slightly favor "figures", without basis in English-language publications, and the poor and convoluted prose of it leads me to believe that the change was not the product of much intelligence or consideration, whereas the original version was the product of ample discussion and was the standard for years on Wikipedia, and is the standard in the English language. —Centrx→talk • 06:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Spelling out ordinal numbers (e.g., "twentieth century") is deprecated in many style guides, but do what you like. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Which ones? Newspaper style guides certainly, as they seek to conserve space, publications generally no. Offhand, the Chicago Manual of Style unequivocally states that centuries, and other non-exorbitant ordinals, are spelled out. —Centrx→talk • 06:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOS on numbers

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

Where was the previous discussion? —Centrx→talk • 06:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't appear there was one. The change in prescription was made silently as part of a broad re-organization of the page; [2]. That slight alteration which favored numerals over words is incorrect. —Centrx→talk • 06:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BN Comment

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

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

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

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

[edit] Portsmouth, OH

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

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

[edit] Mood board

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

[edit] DNFT

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

[edit] Final Destination 4

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

Okay. Done. —Centrx→talk • 04:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 06:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gibson Southern Marching Titans

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

Independent verifiability is necessary for an encyclopedia article, regardless of whether anyone is challenging the statements in an article; and if the statements are independently verified, the sources might as well go somewhere on the page. Incidentally, I do challenge several of the claims, which were at best written in blatantly promotional language by someone intimately interested in the subject of the article. I do not see why notability would be irrelevant, whether notability is interpreted in its colloquial meaning or interpreted in terms of sourcing as at Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Because we're not bound by the same constraints as other encyclopedias! We're a project to compile all human knowledge, and removing information just because it does not meet some arbitrarily-defined and arbitrarily-judged (if there are even any standards for it at all) threshold of "notability" works against that goal! I'm not going to re-revert right now, but I seriously think you're blinded by your experiences with traditional encyclopedias. How does removing information further the purpose of an encyclopedia? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Spreading false information is worse than lacking marginal information. The information in this article comes from one non-independent source of little or unknown reliability, and it may be impossible to get the information from anywhere else. This is an inherent problem with "non-notable" topics, and is not arbitrary. —Centrx→talk • 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
"Little or unknown reliability" to you, perhaps; certainly not to people actually familiar with the subject matter. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the reliability even approaches that of a daily regional newspaper. How exactly is someone even intimately familiar with the band sure to verify that the band placed 9th in 1994, let alone another editor? Some of the statements aren't even sourced, so that reliability goes from "little reliability" to "non-existent". —Centrx→talk • 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

"Unencyclopedic" means that something does not belong in an encyclopedia. Generally this is referable to Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. In this case, I refer to the chronicle of competitions and placements, which is a nearly identical duplicate of an external link, is not verified by any independent source, and is twenty times longer than the text of the article. It may or may not be trivia or an indiscriminate collection of information, but it is a more lengthy catalogue than can be found for the London Philharmonic Orchestra or any other world-class musical group, or economies and governments of the world. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of disjointed, context-free factoids; we do not duplicate the history of Aggregate Reserves of Depository Institutions and the Monetary Base from the Federal Reserve website, and we do not duplicate the Gibson Southern Marching Titans Band Profile from the Indiana Bands website. —Centrx→talk • 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Your definition of "unencyclopedic" was something of a tautology, and doesn't really add any actual susbtance to the matter. Furthermore, just because the LPO article doesn't contain information similar to what you removed from the GSHS marching band article is no reason to remove it from the marching band--rather, perhaps instead a more positive course would be to research and add similar information for the LPO. But of course, that'd be work--certainly a lot more than just zapping someone else's hard work just because you're not interested in it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
There are petabytes of data--data which is more reliable than this data--which we could add to Wikipedia, but we do not because this is an encyclopedia of knowledge not a database of facts. —Centrx→talk • 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a difference of presentation, not of substance. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No, the difference is meaning.
  • Facts: Placement of band: 10, 9, 6, -, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 5, 4, 1
  • Knowledge: New band director, etc.
 
  • Facts: Aggregate non-borrowed reserves: 41653, 43948, 40973, 42252, 42281, 27154, 8732, 209, -8758, -18007, -17265
  • Knowledge: Credit contraction and depreciation of assets underlying securities held by banks; Term Auction Facility.
 
  • Facts: 520nm light waves, 520, 590, 590, 590, 590, 520
  • Knowledge: Green then yellow; trees then school bus then trees again; children; automobile; etc.
Facts make sense when integrated into, and explained in the context of, an article. We might have lists, which point to topics without articles or which supplant deficiencies in categories, but these are otherwise replaced by categories. We might also have lists or facts temporarily appended to an article if an editor researched them from newspapers and compiled them but they have not yet been integrated; not applicable in this case because the data is copied from one source from which an editor can get it anytime as it is an external link. We might have lists that duplicate facts that might otherwise be difficult to find, but they must originally have been verifiable and are still verifiable if you go to the library; not applicable in this case since the original source is unreliable and if it disappears no other editor will be confident of the facts or able to find them again, perhaps even if they travel to the local library of the town in question. —Centrx→talk • 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teresa Bright copyvio

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

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

Okay; should I delete all the revisions before your latest? —Centrx→talk • 03:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but can we give credit to Dondt1 for "early version and reference hunting", then JLaTondre fixed cats, and I don't know if Nakon's {{cleanup}} tag should be credited. I mean I didn't do very much, I just cleaned up what Dondt1 gave me as much as I could. Would I just add that to the talk page or something? JackSchmidt (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah that sounds good. —Centrx→talk • 03:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Horked

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

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

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

[edit] Vanishing

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

Unless your real name is <>, you are just making a bunch of useless or destructive edits. —Centrx→talk • 01:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion, but I don't see anything destructive about the edits so far as I can tell, and I decline to risk my privacy further by specifying my reasons in public. Sorry, but if you have an issue with this, I'm going to suggest discussing it with others. I can't even offer an explanation without countering the purpose of doing it. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It is destructive in that you are tampering with archives, which can alter their meaning and contradict their purpose. Because you are changing so many pages, you flooding everyone's watchlist and advertising your user name change, including your old user name, to hundreds or thousands of people on Wikipedia, which may contradict your own purpose. If massive changes like this were allowed on flimsy grounds, it would be disruptive. Since it is easy for anyone to view your old username, and since any one who stumbles upon any of these great many archives has no good reason not to restore the original archive as commonly occurs, and might even accidentally do so, you cannot hide it, even if such a blatant pseudonym had privacy implications. —Centrx→talk • 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion, but again, I cannot engage in discussing it with you, and I'll ask you to keep this discussion here, and to avoid unneccessary references to my old username. If you have any further concerns, please take them elsewhere, as again, I'm not able to discuss this with you. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You can easily describe what kind of situation would make this pseudonym a privacy concern. —Centrx→talk • 01:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't believe I can. My actions don't violate anything stated at WP:UNC or WP:RTV as far as I can tell, and since I know the situaton, again, all I can suggest is seeking discussion with others about the subject. Try to leave me out though, since I can't really defend my actions by discussing them. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I cannot conceive of a situation where you would not be able to describe generally how your pseudonym could compromise your privacy, and you have not e-mailed me privately even with such a general description, and making mass edits without stopping or discussing when people object is disruptive and falls under Wikipedia:Blocking policy. —Centrx→talk • 02:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, your ability to conceive of the situation isn't something I can address, but this is the first time you, or anyone has asked me to discuss it with you through e-mail. Unfortunately, I don't know that I should, since I don't know who you are, or whether you'll respect my privacy concerns. And could you please refrain from trying to discuss this on my talk page, I'd much rather not discuss it there. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You have to discuss it somewhere, or you are prohibited from making these edits and the existing ones will be reverted. And since you continued to make these edits without responding on my talk page, there is no other place to respond to you except your talk page. —Centrx→talk • 02:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, because I believed your objection to be in error, and you failed to convince me otherwise, and failed to give me another forum to discuss my concerns in private. I certainly don't expect you or anybody else who doesn't know the full situation to understand it, and I knew I couldn't explain it further in public, so what I can do? My hands are very much tied here. I have concerns. But to share them, I'd expose them, which would violate my concerns. I can't discuss it, since my intent is to leave Wikipedia, and further discussion wouldn't help. I am in quite the pickle, you understand. However, since nobody was able to point to any policy pages where any kind of ban was expressed, and the pages I did link to earlier did include text that covered what I wanted to do, and others did tell me to use AWB myself, I feel it is acceptable conduct. If not, then please tell me how else I can solve my problem? FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Radio Chick needs semi protection

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

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

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

[edit] {{Infobox School}}

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

Ultimately, the instances where the template is used should change; in the mean time we could create a template that either converts the name if the ISO code is used or passes it through if not. —Centrx→talk • 16:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, the template did not use ISO codes six months ago, so either the ISO codes were fine then or someone went through with a bot or semi-automated tool and changed them all. —Centrx→talk • 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dumbass

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

[edit] Insurgency rewrite?

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

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

[edit] Hello? Yes, question.

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

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

[edit] DreadStarr

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

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

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

[edit] Ranked

Hi Centrx,

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

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

Hi Centrx,
I haven't heard from you in six days, so I'm going to recreate the redirect. If you disagree with this action, please respond with your reasoning on my talk page.
Neelix (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Centrx,
I spend a fair amount of time creating redirects that are variants of words (such as rank, ranks, ranked, ranking, etc.). I feel that these redirects are helpful because the singular noun is not always the form that a user will type into the search bar. I understand your aversion to switching red links to blue without actually creating new articles. I would, however, suggest that the majority of links to the past participle of a verb would be sufficiently redirected to the present form. By creating these redirects, I am not in violation of the guidelines you suggested, which state:
Per the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), single-word article titles are usually nouns or verbal nouns (i.e. participles or gerunds), such as greengrocer and camping. Per the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals), article titles are singular. Other inflections, if they exist at all, are redirects.
By this standard, creating redirects of other inflections is more than acceptable. For a good article about how to treat redirects, please see On redirects. A user named Rossami wrote it, and I believe it to be a healthy guideline to the maintenance of redirects.
If you have further concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Neelix (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
"Other inflections, if the exist at all" means that the inflections are unlikely to exist, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The variants of words typically come up in the Search feature, which, though, does need to be improved. The question is, who is typing "Ranked" into the search box, and what are they looking for? A person who is looking for the meaning of the word "Rank" should be looking at a dictionary, rather than a disambiguation page of irrelevant terms. A person not looking for the meaning of dictionary words is better served by search results of articles related to "Ranked", not a single irrelevant article. —Centrx→talk • 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hilo

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

[edit] WGBH

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

[edit] alice walton

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

No, Category:Drunk driving is not a list of people who have been caught drunk driving. That list was at Category:People convicted of drunk driving, which was deleted at CfD. Regarding ordering, you need to actually explain what is wrong with ordering categories by relevance, which is normal practice. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is not a catch-all spell to cast whenever you disagree with something. —Centrx→talk • 22:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
i'll give you the drunk driving category, you are absolutely correct about that...I wasn't aware that was even in there. with regard to accidental killers, i'm sorry, but it is very relevant and accurate, and npov claim is based on the decision of what is more or less relevant. an alpha list is completely and inherently without bias. --emerson7 22:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much every single article on Wikipedia has its categories ordered by relevance or importance, not alphabetically. Ignoring the "Accidental killers" category for the moment, there is nothing biased about the fact that Alice Walton is primarily included in Wikipedia because she is in the "Walton family" and is a "billionaire (American)", and that those classifications are much more specific, relevant, and important than the fact that she happened to have been born among the thousands of other "People from Arkansas", where she no longer even lives. —Centrx→talk • 22:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
by your deciding which cat is more or less relevant-in ordering or inclusion-is a purely subjective interjection, inherently in violation of npov. given fifteen people with the very same information, there is no doubt there would be little consensus over which is more important as each individual adds his or her own subtle bias. that phenomenon is eliminated by alphabetic listing. --emerson7 23:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Making decisions is inherent in writing any Wikipedia article; the purpose of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is not to eliminate all potential subtle bias by arbitrary rules (and in fact this would be easily gamed by naming your favorite category with a higher letter in the alphabet). Also, actually, fifteen Wikipedia editors would all agree that "Walton family" is more specific, relevant, and important than "People from Arkansas". If you want a mechanical rule, the same order could be obtained simply by the rule: "a category with fewer members goes before a category with more members". As I said before, this ordering is standard on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 23:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
although i appreciate your position, i just think it is wrong...particularly the 'fewer members rule', and that it is the wikipaedia standard. i can come up with a dozen flaws and examples for the former; and for the latter, it would be no problem coming up with more listings by 'alpha' over 'relevance' by two-to-one or more. to be perfectly honest, however, since this particular article is relatively obscure, and contains so few categories, it is really not that important to me which method is used. cheers! --emerson7 18:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits in Cooking

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

Images can certainly be more or less prototypical, and soldiers cooking, especially one with a goofy expression, is far from prototypical. Also, depending on what you mean, adding a multitude a pictures would not improve the article; Wikipedia is not an image gallery. —Centrx→talk • 03:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
No, wikipedia is not image gallery, but an image showing soldiers cooking is certainly encyclopedic. Your grandmother picture is far less prototypical. Why you are repeatedly removing a harmless image? You are ignoring a vast scope of military cooking. The image is about military cooking. If you disagree, try Wikipedia:Third opinion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
One is a picture of a woman actually baking in the kitchen of her home while a child licks her finger. The other is a picture of one soldier peeling an onion and another soldier emptying some sort of cat litter. You are deluding yourself if you do not find it clear which is a more historically common and typical example of people cooking. The article is not about "military cooking". —Centrx→talk • 07:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the article is not about military cooking, but military cooking is a part of cooking. Military cooking forms a large aspect of cooking. Hotel cooking is not the only form of cooking. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Home cooking feeds 95% of the population, today and throughout history. Hotel cooking, for that matter, which is relatively rare, probably accounts for more cooking than military cooking. That picture is not even a good representative of military cooking; it is not a mess, and they are not cooking in the picture, they are merely in a kitchen. We could put a picture of some homeless people cooking in a trash barrel, which is a part of cooking, but it would be a poor representative and we must choose which pictures are most representative. They did not put pictures of paraplegics with elephantitis on the Voyager probe. —Centrx→talk • 23:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If this image does not represent cooking, then the grandmother image also does not represent cooking because "cooking is the act of preparing food for eating by the application of heat". The grandmother is not applying heat to prepare cookies. Hence she is preparing meal, but not cooking. Similarly the image Image:Chef preparing food 2.jpg which was present in Food#Cooking, also did not show cooking because it did not show the application of heat. Since we can call an act cooking only when it applies heat, I am removing both the soldier image and grandmother image. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Even with so strict a definition, the grandmother is clearly preparing food to be cooked, but it is not even clear what the soldiers are doing. One soldier is peeling something, perhaps merely a fruit to be eaten directly; the other soldier does not appear to be doing anything related to cooking. Aside from whether military cooking would be the best example for "cooking", this picture would not even be the best picture for an article devoted to "military cooking" because it is so unclear. Anyway, having the one picture with the Wok is fine. —Centrx→talk • 03:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Bot approved: dabbing help needed

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

[edit] Porter Ridge High School

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

[edit] blocked open proxy

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

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