FYI, the wikipedia style guide at WP:MOS, specifically the section at Wikipedia:Linking#General points on linking style discourages text that is both bolded and linked, except in a few specific situations. That's why on the article about the First Transcontinental Railroad I de-linked "overland route" and instead linked an added clarification clause. Bringing this article up to compliance with the Manual of Style has long been a goal of mine, and while I've only made a few changes, I'll get to it, I promise. =-) Dave ( talk) 20:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Centpacrr
Please do not replace internal links with links to external sites as you did here.
One of the great strengths of the MediaWiki software is that editors working on articles can create links to relevant topics even when those topics do not yet have an article. When an article is created, the existing "redlinks" throughout the encyclopedia automatically point to the new article. Redlinks are great -- they help us grow and show us where the gaps are.
When you replace a redlink with a link to a external site, it means that when an article on the DZR is created one day, the articles that should link to it (like the Hindenberg) will not link to it, because somebody has gone and broken the link...
Cheers -- Rlandmann ( talk) 20:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I'm impressed! I'm a member of the CA WP and really enjoy historical articles like this one. Thanks for all you do with it. BTW, do you really announce hockey games? -- Morenooso ( talk) 02:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Greetings 'Centpacrr', I am the fellow who included images of the first three airmail stamps on the ' Airmails of the United States' page, as these three particular stamps marked a major turning point for the US Post Office. Stamps were offered as historical markers. Do you really think it was inappropriate to include images of the first three airmail stamps in an article that covers the birth of airmail? GWillHickers ( talk) 10:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not looking to get in an edit war, so I'll leave it be, but I wondered why you changed this. I do know it's the usual, but it's already been "fixed" & rv'd twice in the last couple of months (that I've counted), & I'm betting "souls" will get it changed a few more times. I hoped to avoid that with language that's accurate & IMO less...provocative. No? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Found an interesting Airmail map in my travels I thought you might be interested in. It depicts the routes used when the Army was flying the mail in 1930's. Resolution is not too good so I declined adding it to the Airmails ' page. Looked for another example with no luck. Thought perhaps you would have more of an idea where to look. http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Government_Role/1930-airmail/POL6G4.htm GWillHickers ( talk) 01:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The tag used was G6 IIRC which is a housekeeping tag. The reason that the image was to be 'deleted' was because the image description page appears to be for an image now at commons. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do not assume
ownership of articles such as
Stephen Ambrose. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.
You revert every single edit to the
Criticism section of the Stephen Ambrose article. That qualifies as
ownership.
75.2.209.226 (
talk)
17:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt and gracious reply. If you chose to remain completely anonymous as an unregistered (IP) user with no userpage that is, of course, your right. (The disadvantage to the project of this approach, however, is that it also denies other editors any basis on which to help them evaluate unregistered users' contributions to the project as to their objectivity, substance, POV, familiarity with the subject, etc.) I registered on Wikipedia when I joined the project in September, 2006, and selected the username "CentPacRR" (a contraction of "Central Pacific Railroad") because that is how the project is set up. I created a userpage in December, 2006, on which I completely identified myself, my interests, background, publications, websites I own, etc, to the extent that I am probably one of the least "anonymous" users on Wikipedia as you have no doubt discovered.
As for my two railroad books, the just published Western American Railroad Routes volume does contain over 400 historic color illustrations and maps (a good number of which came from my personal collections), but also has about 100,000 words of text on the history of the lines it covers. I wrote a considerable portion of the text myself, and was also responsible for editing, fact checking, and rewriting as necessary that contributed by a small number of other railroad historians as the Consultant Editor for the project. (My name is the only one that appears on the volume's title page.) I have also since been engaged to do three more similar volumes to be published over the next two years on Canadian routes, Eastern US routes, and on the "Golden Age" of railroading. My 2005 volume on the Pacific Railroad was not as a "vanity" project which I paid the publisher (Polyglot Press) to produce, but one I did under contract and for which I was paid. In the interest of full disclosure, an earlier published monograph of mine entitled "Lewis Metzler Clement: A Pioneer of the Central Pacific Railroad" was used as a source in Dr. Ambrose's book Nothing Like it in the Wolrd in which my work was correctly acknowledged in the introduction, footnoted in the chapter notes, and included in the bibliography.
The Wikipedia contributions page for the IP 75.2.209.226 shows all but one of the edits to have been made since March 24, 2010, so that is the only evidence available to other editors as to how long you have been active in the project. (The only other things that it reveals is that you apparently live near Hartford, CT, and have a particular interest in subjects relating to Wisconsin.) One's individual views on the "tone, the excessive detail, and the atrocious writing" of the contributions of others are, of course, personally held and by definition completely subjective. Without at least some minimum explanation as to what one finds objectionable and why, however, they are also utterly meaningless terms to anyone else as being undefined and ambiguous. That being the case, other editors would have no basis on which to meaningfully respond to concerns so expressed in these subjective areas. (By the way, the only section of the Ambrose article that I have worked on is one sentence at the top of the "Inaccuracies" section that is no longer in the article, and the three sentence paragraph relating to the issues with Nothing Like It in the World. All of the other material in the article was contributed and written by other editors.) Centpacrr ( talk) 19:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Centpacrr,
I note you are a major contributor to this page. I was looking at adding some
metric conversions to the units used ie. length, when I noticed there are no direct citations for any of the specification of the airship (that I could see). I also found that some of the manually entered conversions are, a little, innacurate. ie. using this conversion template syntax: {{convert|41|m|ft|1}} gives "41 metres (134.5 ft)", whereas it is written in as "41 m (130 ft 0 in)"
Any idea what the source of these measurements are? The
Hindenburg class airship page seems to have a similar 'problem'. Any help would be appreciated, esp. if you are familiar with conversion templates! --
220.101.28.25 (
talk)
06:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Centpacrr,
Regarding this term, I found that
Written off can be linked (via a redirect) to
Write-off, which is covering it in more of an accounting/financial context.
Hull-loss also re-directs to Write-off, but
Hull-loss Accidents goes to
Aviation accidents and incidents. Perhaps
totaled may be closer to the required meaning? Or perhaps a link to Wictionary may be better?
I regret the problem which I appear to have inadvertently brought to
LZ 129 Hindenburg. :(
--
220.101.28.25 (
talk)
01:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for following up on my edits. I try to get it all, but an expert in the subject always has an inherently greater grasp of the context. As this seems to be a contentious article, I entered into the copyedit with more than a little trepidation. Respectfully -- Bullock ✉ 17:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article
LZ 129 Hindenburg has an
edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use
the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you.
In other words, don't claim to be making "corrections", when what you are actually doing is edit warring about wording that has nothing whatsoever to do with historical accuracy, and don't claim to be making "grammar tweaks" when all you're doing is changing the wording. Professional writers make a distinction between word choice and grammar.
75.2.209.226 (
talk)
20:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
In case you need to refer to it in the future (i.e. he makes an involuntary appearance on the Noticeboard), I wanted to make you aware of this: [1]. He undid the entry immediately. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Fraktur is a font type (not a font), like serif or sans serif. To say that something was written in "'Fraktur' script letters" makes no sense at all. It's like saying that something that was written longhand was written "in Latin writing letters." Beyond that, it's an absolutely trivial detail to include in an encyclopedia article. It was the typeface used by German language printers for ~150 years. It would be the equivalent of saying that one of the space shuttles had "Atlantis" written on the side in large sans serif letters. The only purpose I can see to including that information in the Hindenburg article is to inflame anti-German bigotry among those who equate everything German with "Nazi." 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 23:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Please used the preview option when editing articles such as LZ 129 Hindenburg. Thanks. Gerardw ( talk) 01:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
It's unfortunate you didn't understand my comment about Fraktur. Basically what I said was: (1.) the term "Fraktur script letters" makes no sense; it's incoherent; and (2.) the font type used to paint a name on the side of an airship seems trivial and pointless (i.e., unencyclopedic). I hope this makes sense to you now. 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Am I to gather from your comment that you are saying that unless the entire "general public" (for which you seem to be designating yourself as spokesperson) is interested in a particular piece of information, such a detail would be, by definition, forever inappropriate to be included in Wikipedia? If that is the case, then would not such a view of the Wikipedia project constitute the ultimate example of "egocentrism" by establishing oneself as the sole arbiter qualified to decide what is — and what isn't — encyclopedic based on that single editor's own personal interpretation of what is universally interesting to everyone? If this "lowest common denominator" view of information were the rule, then the entirety of Wikipedia could probably fit on a single webpage — with plenty of room to spare. I, on the other hand, believe that a widest variety of relevant, verifiable, and sourced information should be provided which each reader can then decide for his or herself what they are interested in knowing, and what they don't care about, rather then leaving that to be determined by the personal views of a unitary, anonymous, and presumably self appointed gatekeeper. Centpacrr ( talk) 19:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this discussion mentioning you and reply, if you think it necessary, there appropriately? Many thanks,-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's ISBN feature is pretty neat. When readers click on an ISBN, it takes them to a page where they can use many different resources to locate a book, in libraries, bookstores, and electronic sites. It offers them a lot of options, from finding a book for free (e.g., in a library) to purchasing one. And it's all automated, so the reader doesn't even have to enter search terms for the book. For that reason, when a book has an ISBN link, additional linking of a book title to a particular library is totally superfluous. 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 16:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I am wondering why you did not also delete my other book on the subject
Because it was on the subject. I'm objective. I'm not out to get you.
I am wondering if you have read or seen this book either
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. On the first page I perused, I saw one of the longest sentences in the history of the English language. The second page brought a glaring grammatical error, and there were stylistic inconsistencies and random capitalization throughout. I was wondering why the publisher didn't employ a copy editor, and then I saw this. Oh, well. At least it kept you in pocket change.
By the way, conflict of interest doesn't just mean a financial conflict; it includes self-promotion. It's all laid out int the COI guideline. 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 23:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
As for my other railroad book published last month (which the publisher told me that Barnes & Noble, for instance, recently took delivery of 2,500 copies and expects to order more), now that I have informed you how it directly relates to the CPRR, I will assume that you have no further objection to its relevance to the article, no longer consider it just a "picture book", and that your only concern was that I added to the list as opposed to some other editor doing so.
You may be interested in this COI noticeboard report: [2]. 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 02:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The IP has started a new discussion re you here.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)troll through
You may want to check out User:Noraft/Sandbox/5. That's a draft that's going up for RfC soon. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
As you seem to revert lots of vandalism, have you ever considered requesting the rollback tool? It looks like you could make good use of it, as it will enable you to use tools such as Huggle to revert vandalism very quickly. Connormah ( talk | contribs) 22:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
If you wish, note [9] (or not - whatever your preference). Eurytemora ( talk) 04:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a thought; I notice that having setup automatic archiving for you some time ago, you are manually archiving everything after a short time and never letting the bot do the job for you. If you change the parameters to: counter = 4 (this is the current archive page being used and is incrementally increased by the bot when needed), minthreadsleft = 0 (you usually don't leave any posts), minthreadstoarchive = 1 (you archive a minimum of 1 post), and algo = old(2d) as these parameters might suit your style and archive a minimum of 1 post, leaving 0 after 2 days (you could change this to (1d) if you prefer. Hope all is well. ww2censor ( talk) 02:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
At The High and the Mighty (film), you recently reverted with the edit summary "rv edits by 64.252.0.159 and his/her sockpuppet Filmcracker, an editor with a long history of disruptive editing" but to me, not being tied down in personality clashes with these editors, the changes that they introduced are good ones. The lead section discusses the director and the writer first, including the source book. The casting difficulties come under the Casting heading. The discussion of the first half of the film comes under Plot rather than Ensemble cast. It makes more sense! As well, my corrections of grocer's apostrophes and en dashes were thrown away in your reversion. I have restored their version, with my corrections. I think the edit itself should be judged on merit rather than making it about the personality clashes among editors. Binksternet ( talk) 22:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:
"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false. [1] A "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with commonly accepted belief as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task. Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and, in the USA, kook.
Hold all the crackpot ideas you want, but keep them off my page. Filmcracker ( talk) 01:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to
User talk:64.252.0.159, you may be
blocked from editing.
64.252.0.159 (
talk)
16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (Ex. 20:16) 64.252.0.159 ( talk) 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:DC4 engine fire.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:N4726V.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Damaged engine.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Your good-faith choice of naming and description for File:Oakland_Bay_Bridge_from_Yerba_Buena_Island.jpg have ended up in a mild edit war in San Francisco, and will likely continue to be used so by trollers. There is no such thing as an "Oakland Bay Bridge" (it's either "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge" or just "Bay Bridge" when used locally). In my opinion, the best solution is renaming to "File:Bay_Bridge_from_Yerba_Buena_Island.jpg" You're the CC licenseholder, so it would be great if you did it. I will, if you prefer. -- Lexein ( talk) 13:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Just and FYI: you and I are mentioned in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse this thread. I posted my .02, up to you if you feel like commenting. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
And you may want to consider letting this go. Long term vandal/troll fighting can get very personal. I have engaged in "battles" with such users that lasted months, others have gone years locking horns with the same user, day after day. In the long run you may find you are giving them exactly what they want: drama. It may be best to back away from them, unwatchlist the pages they frequent, and find something more enjoyable to do with your time here. These things can turn into an obsession for both parties involved. Any user with an WP:LTA entry is bound to have someone else keeping an eye out for them anyway. Just some free advice for you to take or leave as you see fit. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Was there a previous SPI for that guy? It's not listed on the user pages. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI, the wikipedia style guide at WP:MOS, specifically the section at Wikipedia:Linking#General points on linking style discourages text that is both bolded and linked, except in a few specific situations. That's why on the article about the First Transcontinental Railroad I de-linked "overland route" and instead linked an added clarification clause. Bringing this article up to compliance with the Manual of Style has long been a goal of mine, and while I've only made a few changes, I'll get to it, I promise. =-) Dave ( talk) 20:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Centpacrr
Please do not replace internal links with links to external sites as you did here.
One of the great strengths of the MediaWiki software is that editors working on articles can create links to relevant topics even when those topics do not yet have an article. When an article is created, the existing "redlinks" throughout the encyclopedia automatically point to the new article. Redlinks are great -- they help us grow and show us where the gaps are.
When you replace a redlink with a link to a external site, it means that when an article on the DZR is created one day, the articles that should link to it (like the Hindenberg) will not link to it, because somebody has gone and broken the link...
Cheers -- Rlandmann ( talk) 20:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I'm impressed! I'm a member of the CA WP and really enjoy historical articles like this one. Thanks for all you do with it. BTW, do you really announce hockey games? -- Morenooso ( talk) 02:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Greetings 'Centpacrr', I am the fellow who included images of the first three airmail stamps on the ' Airmails of the United States' page, as these three particular stamps marked a major turning point for the US Post Office. Stamps were offered as historical markers. Do you really think it was inappropriate to include images of the first three airmail stamps in an article that covers the birth of airmail? GWillHickers ( talk) 10:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not looking to get in an edit war, so I'll leave it be, but I wondered why you changed this. I do know it's the usual, but it's already been "fixed" & rv'd twice in the last couple of months (that I've counted), & I'm betting "souls" will get it changed a few more times. I hoped to avoid that with language that's accurate & IMO less...provocative. No? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Found an interesting Airmail map in my travels I thought you might be interested in. It depicts the routes used when the Army was flying the mail in 1930's. Resolution is not too good so I declined adding it to the Airmails ' page. Looked for another example with no luck. Thought perhaps you would have more of an idea where to look. http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Government_Role/1930-airmail/POL6G4.htm GWillHickers ( talk) 01:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The tag used was G6 IIRC which is a housekeeping tag. The reason that the image was to be 'deleted' was because the image description page appears to be for an image now at commons. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do not assume
ownership of articles such as
Stephen Ambrose. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.
You revert every single edit to the
Criticism section of the Stephen Ambrose article. That qualifies as
ownership.
75.2.209.226 (
talk)
17:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt and gracious reply. If you chose to remain completely anonymous as an unregistered (IP) user with no userpage that is, of course, your right. (The disadvantage to the project of this approach, however, is that it also denies other editors any basis on which to help them evaluate unregistered users' contributions to the project as to their objectivity, substance, POV, familiarity with the subject, etc.) I registered on Wikipedia when I joined the project in September, 2006, and selected the username "CentPacRR" (a contraction of "Central Pacific Railroad") because that is how the project is set up. I created a userpage in December, 2006, on which I completely identified myself, my interests, background, publications, websites I own, etc, to the extent that I am probably one of the least "anonymous" users on Wikipedia as you have no doubt discovered.
As for my two railroad books, the just published Western American Railroad Routes volume does contain over 400 historic color illustrations and maps (a good number of which came from my personal collections), but also has about 100,000 words of text on the history of the lines it covers. I wrote a considerable portion of the text myself, and was also responsible for editing, fact checking, and rewriting as necessary that contributed by a small number of other railroad historians as the Consultant Editor for the project. (My name is the only one that appears on the volume's title page.) I have also since been engaged to do three more similar volumes to be published over the next two years on Canadian routes, Eastern US routes, and on the "Golden Age" of railroading. My 2005 volume on the Pacific Railroad was not as a "vanity" project which I paid the publisher (Polyglot Press) to produce, but one I did under contract and for which I was paid. In the interest of full disclosure, an earlier published monograph of mine entitled "Lewis Metzler Clement: A Pioneer of the Central Pacific Railroad" was used as a source in Dr. Ambrose's book Nothing Like it in the Wolrd in which my work was correctly acknowledged in the introduction, footnoted in the chapter notes, and included in the bibliography.
The Wikipedia contributions page for the IP 75.2.209.226 shows all but one of the edits to have been made since March 24, 2010, so that is the only evidence available to other editors as to how long you have been active in the project. (The only other things that it reveals is that you apparently live near Hartford, CT, and have a particular interest in subjects relating to Wisconsin.) One's individual views on the "tone, the excessive detail, and the atrocious writing" of the contributions of others are, of course, personally held and by definition completely subjective. Without at least some minimum explanation as to what one finds objectionable and why, however, they are also utterly meaningless terms to anyone else as being undefined and ambiguous. That being the case, other editors would have no basis on which to meaningfully respond to concerns so expressed in these subjective areas. (By the way, the only section of the Ambrose article that I have worked on is one sentence at the top of the "Inaccuracies" section that is no longer in the article, and the three sentence paragraph relating to the issues with Nothing Like It in the World. All of the other material in the article was contributed and written by other editors.) Centpacrr ( talk) 19:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Centpacrr,
I note you are a major contributor to this page. I was looking at adding some
metric conversions to the units used ie. length, when I noticed there are no direct citations for any of the specification of the airship (that I could see). I also found that some of the manually entered conversions are, a little, innacurate. ie. using this conversion template syntax: {{convert|41|m|ft|1}} gives "41 metres (134.5 ft)", whereas it is written in as "41 m (130 ft 0 in)"
Any idea what the source of these measurements are? The
Hindenburg class airship page seems to have a similar 'problem'. Any help would be appreciated, esp. if you are familiar with conversion templates! --
220.101.28.25 (
talk)
06:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Centpacrr,
Regarding this term, I found that
Written off can be linked (via a redirect) to
Write-off, which is covering it in more of an accounting/financial context.
Hull-loss also re-directs to Write-off, but
Hull-loss Accidents goes to
Aviation accidents and incidents. Perhaps
totaled may be closer to the required meaning? Or perhaps a link to Wictionary may be better?
I regret the problem which I appear to have inadvertently brought to
LZ 129 Hindenburg. :(
--
220.101.28.25 (
talk)
01:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for following up on my edits. I try to get it all, but an expert in the subject always has an inherently greater grasp of the context. As this seems to be a contentious article, I entered into the copyedit with more than a little trepidation. Respectfully -- Bullock ✉ 17:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article
LZ 129 Hindenburg has an
edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use
the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you.
In other words, don't claim to be making "corrections", when what you are actually doing is edit warring about wording that has nothing whatsoever to do with historical accuracy, and don't claim to be making "grammar tweaks" when all you're doing is changing the wording. Professional writers make a distinction between word choice and grammar.
75.2.209.226 (
talk)
20:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
In case you need to refer to it in the future (i.e. he makes an involuntary appearance on the Noticeboard), I wanted to make you aware of this: [1]. He undid the entry immediately. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Fraktur is a font type (not a font), like serif or sans serif. To say that something was written in "'Fraktur' script letters" makes no sense at all. It's like saying that something that was written longhand was written "in Latin writing letters." Beyond that, it's an absolutely trivial detail to include in an encyclopedia article. It was the typeface used by German language printers for ~150 years. It would be the equivalent of saying that one of the space shuttles had "Atlantis" written on the side in large sans serif letters. The only purpose I can see to including that information in the Hindenburg article is to inflame anti-German bigotry among those who equate everything German with "Nazi." 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 23:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Please used the preview option when editing articles such as LZ 129 Hindenburg. Thanks. Gerardw ( talk) 01:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
It's unfortunate you didn't understand my comment about Fraktur. Basically what I said was: (1.) the term "Fraktur script letters" makes no sense; it's incoherent; and (2.) the font type used to paint a name on the side of an airship seems trivial and pointless (i.e., unencyclopedic). I hope this makes sense to you now. 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Am I to gather from your comment that you are saying that unless the entire "general public" (for which you seem to be designating yourself as spokesperson) is interested in a particular piece of information, such a detail would be, by definition, forever inappropriate to be included in Wikipedia? If that is the case, then would not such a view of the Wikipedia project constitute the ultimate example of "egocentrism" by establishing oneself as the sole arbiter qualified to decide what is — and what isn't — encyclopedic based on that single editor's own personal interpretation of what is universally interesting to everyone? If this "lowest common denominator" view of information were the rule, then the entirety of Wikipedia could probably fit on a single webpage — with plenty of room to spare. I, on the other hand, believe that a widest variety of relevant, verifiable, and sourced information should be provided which each reader can then decide for his or herself what they are interested in knowing, and what they don't care about, rather then leaving that to be determined by the personal views of a unitary, anonymous, and presumably self appointed gatekeeper. Centpacrr ( talk) 19:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this discussion mentioning you and reply, if you think it necessary, there appropriately? Many thanks,-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's ISBN feature is pretty neat. When readers click on an ISBN, it takes them to a page where they can use many different resources to locate a book, in libraries, bookstores, and electronic sites. It offers them a lot of options, from finding a book for free (e.g., in a library) to purchasing one. And it's all automated, so the reader doesn't even have to enter search terms for the book. For that reason, when a book has an ISBN link, additional linking of a book title to a particular library is totally superfluous. 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 16:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I am wondering why you did not also delete my other book on the subject
Because it was on the subject. I'm objective. I'm not out to get you.
I am wondering if you have read or seen this book either
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. On the first page I perused, I saw one of the longest sentences in the history of the English language. The second page brought a glaring grammatical error, and there were stylistic inconsistencies and random capitalization throughout. I was wondering why the publisher didn't employ a copy editor, and then I saw this. Oh, well. At least it kept you in pocket change.
By the way, conflict of interest doesn't just mean a financial conflict; it includes self-promotion. It's all laid out int the COI guideline. 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 23:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
As for my other railroad book published last month (which the publisher told me that Barnes & Noble, for instance, recently took delivery of 2,500 copies and expects to order more), now that I have informed you how it directly relates to the CPRR, I will assume that you have no further objection to its relevance to the article, no longer consider it just a "picture book", and that your only concern was that I added to the list as opposed to some other editor doing so.
You may be interested in this COI noticeboard report: [2]. 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 02:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The IP has started a new discussion re you here.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)troll through
You may want to check out User:Noraft/Sandbox/5. That's a draft that's going up for RfC soon. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
As you seem to revert lots of vandalism, have you ever considered requesting the rollback tool? It looks like you could make good use of it, as it will enable you to use tools such as Huggle to revert vandalism very quickly. Connormah ( talk | contribs) 22:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
If you wish, note [9] (or not - whatever your preference). Eurytemora ( talk) 04:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a thought; I notice that having setup automatic archiving for you some time ago, you are manually archiving everything after a short time and never letting the bot do the job for you. If you change the parameters to: counter = 4 (this is the current archive page being used and is incrementally increased by the bot when needed), minthreadsleft = 0 (you usually don't leave any posts), minthreadstoarchive = 1 (you archive a minimum of 1 post), and algo = old(2d) as these parameters might suit your style and archive a minimum of 1 post, leaving 0 after 2 days (you could change this to (1d) if you prefer. Hope all is well. ww2censor ( talk) 02:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
At The High and the Mighty (film), you recently reverted with the edit summary "rv edits by 64.252.0.159 and his/her sockpuppet Filmcracker, an editor with a long history of disruptive editing" but to me, not being tied down in personality clashes with these editors, the changes that they introduced are good ones. The lead section discusses the director and the writer first, including the source book. The casting difficulties come under the Casting heading. The discussion of the first half of the film comes under Plot rather than Ensemble cast. It makes more sense! As well, my corrections of grocer's apostrophes and en dashes were thrown away in your reversion. I have restored their version, with my corrections. I think the edit itself should be judged on merit rather than making it about the personality clashes among editors. Binksternet ( talk) 22:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:
"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false. [1] A "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with commonly accepted belief as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task. Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and, in the USA, kook.
Hold all the crackpot ideas you want, but keep them off my page. Filmcracker ( talk) 01:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to
User talk:64.252.0.159, you may be
blocked from editing.
64.252.0.159 (
talk)
16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (Ex. 20:16) 64.252.0.159 ( talk) 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:DC4 engine fire.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:N4726V.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Damaged engine.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Your good-faith choice of naming and description for File:Oakland_Bay_Bridge_from_Yerba_Buena_Island.jpg have ended up in a mild edit war in San Francisco, and will likely continue to be used so by trollers. There is no such thing as an "Oakland Bay Bridge" (it's either "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge" or just "Bay Bridge" when used locally). In my opinion, the best solution is renaming to "File:Bay_Bridge_from_Yerba_Buena_Island.jpg" You're the CC licenseholder, so it would be great if you did it. I will, if you prefer. -- Lexein ( talk) 13:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Just and FYI: you and I are mentioned in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse this thread. I posted my .02, up to you if you feel like commenting. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
And you may want to consider letting this go. Long term vandal/troll fighting can get very personal. I have engaged in "battles" with such users that lasted months, others have gone years locking horns with the same user, day after day. In the long run you may find you are giving them exactly what they want: drama. It may be best to back away from them, unwatchlist the pages they frequent, and find something more enjoyable to do with your time here. These things can turn into an obsession for both parties involved. Any user with an WP:LTA entry is bound to have someone else keeping an eye out for them anyway. Just some free advice for you to take or leave as you see fit. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Was there a previous SPI for that guy? It's not listed on the user pages. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)