User talk:Centpacrr/Archive4

Wikipedia Style guide

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)

I changed this because linking "Overland Route" to an entire eight word phrase seemed excessive. Also please be careful about breaking up any existing compound sentences which are often used to make clear a relationship between the information in clauses which would be lost or "muddied" if they are separated. (Another editor seems to be doing some of that today which I will have to repair in order to restore the intended meaning,) Centpacrr (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I think how it looks now is an improvement over both earlier versions.Dave (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Inline external links

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)

Cool user page

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)

Thank you for your note and kind words. You may find my books on the Pacific Railroad in California, and classic western railroad routes of interest. I have also worked in hockey for forty years and am the lead statistician and historian for the telecasts of the NHL Philadelphia Flyers. Centpacrr (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm more a west coast fan of the Sharks, Ducks and Kings. However, I really don't follow hockey. It's March Madness, baby!!! --Morenooso (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Airmail stamps

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)

Hello GW. Thank you for your note. The issue I have with including a table with large images of C 1-3 in the Airmails of the US article is because that entry is about the history of the establishment and operation of the Air Mail Service (AMS), not its franking which has its own separate article to which it is linked in both the text and in the "See also" section. The images I uploaded for use in the article when it was created as a separate entry from material I had written for the main Wikipedia Air Mail entry are not of franking, but of relevant items of its postal history taken from my collections that were carried on first flights, etc. Moving your large images of C 1-3 to the US postage stamps article, as you have already done, seems to me to be a far more appropriate place for them to reside. Centpacrr (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the images were too large, and perhaps they were too 'up front' for a page whose theme is 'Air Mail'. However my thinking was that the three stamps in question were the 'first', marking the beginning of US Air Mail, and that they depict an actual bi-plane (Curtis-Jenny) used to first carry the Air Mail. As you must realize, even though the individual pages here at Wiki' indeed have their own subject and theme, the area of subject overlap is often considerable, and that such overlap is often appropriate to include, to a point, of course. For example, on the Thomas Jefferson page much more is covered than Jefferson the man. For instance his role in the Louisiana Purchase is discussed, as is Montecillo, his home, even though there are separate pages for these subjects. There are also images of coins and stamps and paintings with his portrait...offered not to discuss coins, stamps and paintings but to offer illustrations, background, etc. As there is already an image of a stamp (Scott 1684) by itself on the Airmails page honoring the 50th anniversary of CAM airmail I first had the impression that including the first three Air Mail stamps would also serve to honor the beginning of Air Mail itself and thought they would be a welcomed addition to the fine account of airmail history you (and others?) have provided.

A hockey guy, aye? I grew up in upstate New York and was a fan of the 'Clinton Comets'. They were not NHL, they were in the American Hockey League, but they were almost as popular as the NY Rangers throughout New York. Remember Ian Anderson? (1960's) Always in a fight at almost every game. Some say he should have taken up boxing! GWillHickers (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional comments. I have expanded the paragraph (including an image of C-3) on postage rates in the "U.S. Government flown Air Mail" section to incorporate information on the first U.S. Air Mail stamps in a way that seems to me to best fit the article's formatting. Centpacrr (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah-Hah! Just as I suspected.. A gentleman and a scholar! GWillHickers (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Soul man

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)

Thank you for your note. For clarity, I have added a footnote to the article for those readers who may not be familiar with the technical term "souls on board" as it has long been widely used in aviation and maritime contexts to formally designate the total number of living persons making up the passengers (men, women, children, and infants) and crew on board an aircraft in flight or a vessel at sea. This should eliminate any further confusion for these readers, and perhaps will even educate them on this point as well which is the whole point of an encyclopedia, Centpacrr (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, it's not me you have to explain that to... :) That's why I changed it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I understood that it is not you who was unfamiliar with the term. I added the footnote for those readers who might not be so that they understand what it means. Thanks for the follow up. Centpacrr (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Airmail Map

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)

I'll see what I can find. Centpacrr (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

CSD Tag on image

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)

OK. Centpacrr (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've now deleted the image page; you can see that it doesn't look any differently from how it did before. Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Ambrose

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)

What I "revert" and restore to the article is the removal of fully sourced material which is directly related to the subject of the section ("Inaccuracies") which have been deleted without explanation by anonymous IP editor 75.2.209.226. (See "Talk"). Centpacrr (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Fully sourced" does not equal "encyclopedic". 75.2.209.226 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this section is to document poor research and/or inadequate fact checking by Dr. Ambrose, his research staff, and his publisher's editors in a number of his books which is exactly what this sourced material documents. Please explain, therefore, how the material in this section could possibly be "unencyclopedic" as all of it directly illustrates and documants that very point. Centpacrr (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not the content; it's the tone, the excessive detail, and the atrocious writing. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am pleased that you acknowledge that you are not challenging the content of my contribution re: the inaccuracies in Nothing Like It in the World. I have no idea, however, what you mean with regard to your complaints about "tone, excessive detail, and atrocious writing." I have been writing professionally for more than forty years including two currently in print books on the Pacific Railroad and Western American railroads: "Riding the Transcontinental Rails: Overland Travel on the Pacific Railroad 1865-1881" (Philadelphia: Polyglot Press, 2005; 445 pages. illustrated), and "The Classic Western American Railroad Routes" (New York: Chartwell Books (US) / Bassingbourn: Worth Press (UK), 2010; 320 pages, illustrated), and in all that time have never had a complaint from anyone about my writing in any of the three areas about which you apparently disapprove based on just a three sentence example. As you have chosen, however, to remain completely anonymous as to who you are, and have provided no basis or specifics to support your complaint, I guess there is no way I can meaningfully address your concerns. Perhaps when you have gained a little more experience in Wikipedia as a collaborative project you will become a little less dogmatic and judgmental about the contributions of others. Centpacrr (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture books don't count as "writing professionally." Nor do vanity press books, which typically undergo little, if any, editing.

I've been editing Wikipedia (and professional publications) longer than you have. I just choose not to assume some silly user name, which is every bit as anonymous as an IP address. 13:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 75.2.209.226 (talk) 13:03, 6 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)

• NOTE: The following posting was made to the talk page of anonymous IP editor 75.2.209.226 relating the the article LZ 129 Hindenburg which he/she immediately deleted apparently without reading, so I have reposted it both here and on the article's talk page.

• I gather your sudden interest in the LZ 129 Hindenburg article stems from seeing a request made on my talk page from another editor seeking my assistance on that subject, and not from some previous or abiding interest in the topic on your part. Presumably you are now editing this mature article to change its "tone," remove what you consider to be "excessive detail," and save its readers from having to be assaulted by what subjectively strikes you as "atrocious writing." In doing so, however, you have also introduced changes rendering some material in the article to no longer conform to the sources cited which I gather that you have not consulted. Unfortunately you have also introduced blatant errors such as claiming (for a second time now) that the Hindenburg left for Rio on its first commercial flight on March 4 (actually the first time you had it as "4 March" which also violated the date style used throughout the article) when in fact that flight departed Germany for Brazil on March 31. (March 4 was the date of the airship's first test flight which lasted just three hours.) I will again correct any factual and contextual errors for you that you have inadvertently or unknowingly introduced, however if you are going to make wholesale changes to long standing, well researched and sourced articles on subjects about which you are apparently not well versed (although as you are completely anonymous I have no way of knowing that for sure), please be careful that your changes do not contain false information and that they continue to accurately reflect the facts in the sources cited in the footnotes.

• As are most of the major articles on Wikipedia, this is one which a number of editors (myself included) with strong interest and/or expertise in the subject have been working on for several years and had brought to a level when it become quite stable. The language and facts which you apparently personally consider to be "too much detail" and "POV" have actually been carefully worked out by the group over time to provide context to the story of the airship, and are all fully supported by the sources. I'm sure, for instance, that you would not be happy if one of our group or some other editor were to "parachute in" and make wholesale changes to the Charles McCarthy (American football) article, for instance, purely to make it fit the tone, level of detail, and style of writing that would please one of us. That, of course, would be counterproductive and unhelpful. Wikipedia is designed to be a collaborative project with its articles "built" over time on reliable sources and with the consensus of the contributors who develop them. Please therefore respect the many hours of effort that the primary editors of this article have put in over the years to develop it as we will do for the work and effort that you have put in on those articles which you have helped develop. Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

LZ 129 Hindenburg

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)

You can find the information you are looking for on the Hindenburg's specifications here. I'm afraid, however, that I am not familiar with the workings of conversion templates. Centpacrr (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, Centpacrr. I'll see about ensuring everything matches the sources and add proper inline cites. Just have to RTFM and work out the templates myself ! Happy editing ! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Written off"

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)

Thanks for the note. "Written off" is a standard term used in aviation to designate the total hull loss of an aircraft, or technically that it is "damaged beyond practical repair." The origin of the term is with insurance underwriting (hence "written off") and also for tax purposes (as in a loss that can "written off" against income and/or one's other assets). A Google search for it returns more than two million hits. Don't worry about the kerfuffle over the LZ 129 Hindenburg article. Every once in awhile one comes across an editor who "parachutes in" to an article that you have worked on developing for a couple of years and decides that he/she knows better than anybody else. I've dealt with my share of them over time, as you will too I'm sure. Centpacrr (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, I have already! Seems like a whole airborne brigade at times. Wish I had a big 'vandal whacker', but I know those who do have 'em! I'll be around If you have any more problems. Cry Havoc! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and have a "g'day"! Centpacrr (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ambrose

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)

You're welcome. Some of my work was also quoted in the Ambrose book, but they were all correctly acknowledged and footnoted and thus not among the errors and corrections noted in the researchers' paper. Centpacrr (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"WARNING" (Actually a difference in views of the relative meanings of "enquired" vs "inquired")

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)

As I noted in a posting I placed on your talk page on May 6 which you immediately deleted apparently without reading, your sudden interest in the LZ 129 Hindenburg article appears to stem from seeing a request made to me on my talk page from another editor seeking my assistance on that subject, and not from some previous or abiding interest in the topic on your part. Presumably you are now editing this mature article to change its "tone," remove what you consider to be "excessive detail," and save its readers from having to be assaulted by what subjectively strikes you as "atrocious writing" which were complaints you made about a three sentence paragraph I had added to the Stephen Ambrose article about inaccuracies in his book, "Nothing Like It in the World." (You also added six tags to the Ambrose article questioning both my "neutrality" and "motives", and claiming the paragraph included "excessive detail", constituted "debate", that its cited references were from sources that were "not reliable", and that the section required "authentication or verification by an expert".)

Some of the changes you have made have also caused some material in the article to no longer conform to the sources cited (which I gather that you have not consulted) as well as blatant errors. Among these was your claim (inserted twice) that the Hindenburg left for Rio on its first commercial flight on March 4 (actually the first time you had it as "4 March" which also violated the date style used throughout the article) when in fact that flight departed Germany for Brazil on March 31. (March 4 was the date of the airship's first test flight which lasted just three hours.) Your also changed a Wikilink for Friedrichshafen to that for Friedrichshafen Airport which was also incorrect as the six March, 1936, trial flights of the LZ129 took off from the Zeppelin dockyards in Friedrichshafen, not the airport which is located in nearby Löwenthal. I will continue to correct any factual and contextual errors that you or any other editors inadvertently or unknowingly introduce to this article which I have been working on now for two years. As far as I can tell, the majority of your other “complaints” seem to stem from you personal views on word selection, grammar, and context. A fair number of your changes seem appropriate and I have not reverted them. Others, however, have made meaningful changes to the content and/or distort the context of facts as they relate to each other which I have corrected.

If you are going to make wholesale changes to long standing, well researched, and extensively sourced articles on subjects about which you are apparently not well versed (although as you are completely anonymous I have no way of knowing that for sure), please be careful that your changes do not contain false information and that they continue to accurately reflect the facts in the sources cited in the footnotes.

You have now also twice accused me of “vandalism” -- the first time relating to whether and/or how to use academic titles within text, and the second time over my choice of the word “enquired” (which means to have asked for a piece of information, i.e., the name of the airship) instead of "inquired" (which implies a more formal process for seeking information such as used in an investigation). Neither of these instances in any way constitute "vandalism" which is defined on Wikipedia as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW)."

As are most of the major articles on Wikipedia, this is one which a number of editors (myself included) with strong interest and/or expertise in the subject have been working on for several years and had brought to a level when it become quite stable. The language and facts which you apparently personally consider to be "too much detail" and "POV" have actually been carefully worked out by the group over time to provide context to the story of the airship, and are all fully supported by the sources. I'm sure, for instance, that you would not be happy if one of our group or some other editor were to "parachute in" and make wholesale changes to the Charles McCarthy (American football) article, for instance, purely to make it fit the tone, level of detail, and style of writing that would please one of us. That, of course, would be counterproductive and unhelpful. Wikipedia is designed to be a collaborative project with its articles "built" over time on reliable sources and with the consensus of the contributors who develop them. Please therefore respect the many hours of effort that the primary editors of this article have put in over the years to develop it as I will do for the work and effort that you have put in on those articles which you have helped develop. Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

For your reference

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)

Yes, I saw that. Alas, however, I don't think trying to carry on a meaningful dialogue with him/her is ever going to be is a very productive exercise. Centpacrr (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fraktur

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)

Huh? I don't follow that logic at all, but there is no need to explain. Centpacrr (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Preview

Please used the preview option when editing articles such as LZ 129 Hindenburg. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually make the vast majority of my edits using a sandbox first, and only make additional small changes (using preview constantly) on the page itself if I see that I have missed something. Centpacrr (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fraktur

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)

The primary reasons why it is there are: A) the controversy about the selection of the airship's name (Hindenburg vs Adoph Hitler) and its addition to the hull just prior to the four day referendum flight caused a great deal of friction between Zeppelin Company Chairman Eckener and Propaganda Minster Goebbels leading to his declaring Dr. Eckener to be a "non-person" in the German media (although this was later reversed after considerable adverse international publicity about the matter), and was also a factor in his being denied the position as head of the DZR which was instead given to Ernst Lehmann, and; B) the name displayed in Fraktur script not only identified the LZ 129, but also was designed to serve as an instantly recognizable iconic "logo" for the airship. Of all the Zeppelin airships ever built, only the Hindenburg and its sister ship, the Graf Zeppelin II (LZ 130), used this script. on the names on their hulls. All earlier Zeppelins had their names displayed in a plain font that was very close to Helvetica. What I don't understand, however, is your statement: "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.' " I really don't have any idea where you might have come up with that, or how could remotely be related to the airship's logo. Centpacrr (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't see anything in all this rambling that explains why the font style is of any real importance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia geared for the general public, not a fan magazine aimed at fervid enthusiasts. Although the latter might be interested in that factoid, it's of little use to most people. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your own personal opinion, and if it this bit of detail is of no interest to you that's your business. But just because any specific detail in any particular article does not interest an individual reader or editor, that does not mean that is not of interest to others. I'm sure that you and every other editor has also added information to articles on Wikipedia that are of no interest to me, but that does not mean that I should therefore be free to unilaterally delete them. This bit of detail is accurate, sourced, and relevant to to topic and therefore encyclopedic. Centpacrr (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, you intentionally misconstrue what I said. Wikipedia is written for the general public, not for me, or for you. In Piagetian cognitive psychology, the inability to see things from the perspectives of others is called "egocentrism". Egocentrism, lack of perspective-taking, or self-centeredness (e.g., "This what I want to say, and the way I want to say it) is anathema to good writing. It's also detrimental to Wikipedia, IMHO.75.2.209.226 (talk) 16:01, 13 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)

FYI

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)

ISBN

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)

COI

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)

We all have our own writing styles, so I guess that we will just have to agree that your's and mine are very different. (By the way, my question was have you actually seen a physical copy of the book, or is your critique based on just looking at its introduction posted on CPRR.org?) As for the issues its publisher had in Indiana, those happened three years after my book was published and had nothing whatever to do with either me or my book. (They have also all since been resolved.)

Comment That wasn't a critique; it was an observation. I saw the two pages on the web, and from what I saw there would be little point in trying to obtain a physical copy. I generally only read non-fiction published by reputable publishers and authors.

It doesn't matter how long ago the problems occurred, they speak to the quality of the publisher and his products, loudly and clearly.

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.

Comment Read the WP:COI guidelines. Planting references in WP to one's own publications is considered a conflict of interest. Those aren't my guidelines. They're Wikipedia's. If you don't like them, work to have them changed instead of harassing me when I try to uphold them. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the Wikipedia CPRR article itself, about all that I have contributed personally to that are a number of historic images, some of the introduction, details about the two year legal battle between the CPRR and the City and County of San Francisco fought out in the California Supreme Court between 1863 and 1865 relating to the issuance of that city's reluctance to issue Pacific Railroad Bonds, and adding some more titles to the "Further Reading" page. The rest was written by other editors unknown to me although I am planning to eventually work on it over the some time in the next few months after I finish my current book project on Canadian railroads. In its current form, the Wikipefia article has a fair number of errors and lacks many specific references. As my personal railroad history library and collection contains many hundreds of both modern and period books, travel guides, Government reports, CPRR company and engineering reports, and a wide variety of original source documents, maps, photographs, artifacts, etc., this should not be a problem for me.

I have also already spent literally thousands of hours transcribing, annotating, illustrating, and posting hundreds of these documents, reports, articles, photographs, illustrations, etc on CPRR.org in the eleven years since the site was launched in February, 1999, so I should be able to find the best possible original sources to expand and footnote the article. In addition to that, have ridden over the CPRR's original Sierra grade by train a number of times as well as having also personally walked and photographed much of it as well, so I feel quite comfortable writing about this subject. Centpacrr (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• There is another long standing Wikipedia guideline that covers the non-stop dilemmas that you seem to constantly be having in your Don Quixote-like "tilting at windmills" relationships with so many other editors in the Wikipedia community called WP:IAR which states very simply: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, Ignore it. "

• With all respect, I seriously suggest that you think about applying it to the way you interact with the Wikipedia community. I think it might very well make your Wikipedia experience far more pleasant then constantly looking for a proverbial dark cloud that comes from always favoring "process over substance." If that doesn't work for you, however, then I would suggest that you find yourself another hobby. Centpacrr (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's something for you to chew on: Assume good faith But, of course, you'll probably just continue to ignore that. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• I truly regret having to be so blunt here, sir or madam, but the unremitting hostile approach and condescending tone of your comments and actions over the past week toward myself and others leaves me no choice. In the light of that record, now asking me to "assume good faith" on your part when you have not exhibited even the slightest manifestation of assuming the same on the part of myself or any other editor on Wikipedia over the last week is really beyond the pale. I have seen nothing from you but non-stop invective as well as a litany of condescending, demeaning, and eldering comments directed at me and a variety of other editors who have commented on the Ambrose, Hindenburg, and CPRR matters in here no matter how hard any of us have tried to engage you in meaningful discourse. (I find this approach on your part to be especially galling as you continue to carry it on while literally hiding behind a wall of absolute anonymity.) Therefore demanding any assumption of good faith on your part when you appear completely disinclined to assume (or even consider) such good faith on the part of anyone else seems to me to be completely unjustified. Now of course I suppose you are going to again deny this, charge me and everybody else with egocentrism, unprofessionalism, bad faith, bullying, vandalism, atrocious writing, and the like, and claim that all you are really trying to do is just protect the integrity of Wikipedia, but I'm afraid that argument rings completely hollow based on your record. I wish that this were not the case, but res ipsa loquitur. So again I advise you to please just find yourself another hobby. Centpacrr (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

You may be interested in this COI noticeboard report: [2]. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In case you are not aware

The IP has started a new discussion re you here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)troll through

I notice that since the IP editor started this new "discussion", he/she also now seems to have embarked on a campaign of trolling through every one of the 7,000+ edits I have made since 2006 in order to remove every link, reference, or citation he/she can find to pages residing on CPRR.org alleging that their existence constitutes "Conflict of Interest." (As he/she still choses to do this from behind an arras of complete anonymity, however, there is no way of knowing what COI he/she is bringing to this exercise.) The pages that he/she is deleting and/or replacing with sources of his/her own are virtually all of verbatim transcriptions or facsimiles of original historic source materials many of which are also annotated, illustrated, and contain many links to other original source materials and relevant web pages located on other sites. (He/she, for instance, has already replaced [3] with [4], [5] with [6], and [7] with [8] in the past couple of hours.) This behavior is both disruptive and again shows his/her continued failure to assume any good faith on the behalf of other editors while insisting that such an assumption always be afforded to him/herself no matter how he/she behaves. Centpacrr (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC

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)

Thanks, much appreciated. Centpacrr (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

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 asHuggle to revert vandalism very quickly. Connormah (talk |contribs) 22:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think that would rather be just a plain vanilla user with no special rights or powers. I see that you are interested in hockey .... I have worked in the game for forty years (over 3,000 NHL, AHL, and other pro league games) and just finished working on the telecasts of the Stanley Cup finals to 160 countries on NHL International. Centpacrr (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

If you wish, note [9] (or not - whatever your preference).Eurytemora (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

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)

Thanks for the note. I haven't really had that much posted on here in recent months so sometimes I just manually archive what little is there when the spirit moves me if it has been a couple of months since the last one. If it gets busy again I'm sure the current setting will be fine. Other than that, all is well. Centpacrr (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds logical to me. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting because of person rather than content

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)

Please see the history of this user (See [10]) which is now also linked in the article's talk page and has been reported to AN/I. His/her revisions are never made to make an article better, but to disrupt the consensus already achieved by other editors over time. This is a long standing practice of this disruptive editor. This user never operates in good faith as his/her record clearly shows. Centpacrr (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Crank (person)

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. 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)

Thank you "Filmcracker" for confirming exactly who I had already determined you to be. See here for the current AN/I discussion of your case. Centpacrr (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:64.252.0.159

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)

The IP 64.252.0.159 resolves to a Dynamic IP registered to SBC Internet Services in New Britain, CT, not a static IP registered to an organization. You have now three times placed a false tag on this page identifying it as belonging to an unspecified organization. There is no proof whatosever that this is true. The ONLY edits on Wikipedia made from this IP were made by an otherwise blocked multiple sock puppet user. Unless you can IDENTIFY AND PROVE what "organization" you claim to be, this will be reported to AN. Centpacrr (talk) 16:26, 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)

Thank you for again confirming and proving exactly who you are. Centpacrr (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: IP 64.252.0.159 has been blocked from editing and the sockpuppet user has been banned by the community from editing on Wikipedia. Centpacrr (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DC4 engine fire.jpg

⚠

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:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:N4726V.jpg

⚠

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:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Damaged engine.jpg

⚠

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:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo rename?

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)

The name of the file is of no great concern to me one way or the other. If it will resolve an issue to rename it "File:San_Francisco-Oakland_Bay_Bridge_from_Yerba_Buena_Island.jpg" you should feel free to do so. Centpacrr (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

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)

Thanks. I've commented with links to the sorry history of this disruptive editor. As I figured when he/she was banned from editing by the WP community last month that we had not heard the last from him/her. Centpacrr (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been where you are

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)

Thanks. I agree with what you say, and this user has a history of stalking many other editors as well who I assume will chime in now that they have been advised. The problem with him/her doing so under many different IPs is that he/she can continue to stalk, libel, and slander me (and other editors) in AN/I and elsewhere and by pretending to be an "inexperienced innocent" to "sucker" other editors who don't know who he/she really is as proxies. He/she started this latest thread without ever advising me (another violation of WP policy) and I would have never known about it if I had not been advised by the admin (whom he was also trashing in it) that he/she was back. I surely do wish that I would never have to deal with this wikistalker again (and I have advised the admins who have blocked and banned him/her in the past), but I will not let myself be accused and libeled without "outing" him/her. I have my own reputation to protect. Now that there is an LTA page on him/her, however, I think referring to it in the threads he/she starts is about all I need to do. At least he/she is no longer vandalizing my contributions to articles -- at least for now. Centpacrr (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate to see you go through all this, but if you follow Beeblebrox's advice of ignoring the user and not taking the attacks personally, you should be fine. So... the purpose of my visit. I've updated the long-term abuse report with some templates and deferred it to abuse response for contact with the user's Internet service provider so they can take action as deemed necessary. Due to the level of abuse, we'll call the ISP and report the abuse that way. However, I've noticed that most of the abuse comes from IP addresses and not accounts. Are there anymore accounts used by this user that are not reported on the long-term abuse page? If you want, you can check the status of the abuse response case by visiting Wikipedia:Abuse response/Techwriter2B. I'm at both long-term abuse and abuse response, so feel free to drop me a message if you have any questions regarding the cases. Thanks. Netalarm^talk 04:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I am not familiar with how the "Abuse response" system works, and (to be perfectly truthful) am really fed up with dealing with this troublesome individual so I will be happy to leave that to you and others who are expert in this. I think you will find the current AN/I thread that the IP sock foolishly started today provides a pretty good microcosm of the situation. I have only been a wikistalking victim of this user since May, but it is clear that he/she has been at this for at least three years and has many other victims. As long as he/she continued to only stalk me (and others) from anonymous IPs, there didn't seem (to me at least) that much that could be done. His/her big "mistake", however, was to create two named user accounts (User:Techwriter2B and User:Filmcracker) to stalk me in two particular articles (Stephen Ambrose and The High and the Mighty (film)) which finally provided a "hook" to which all the anonymous IPs could then be related to. The only other named account that I am aware of was User:Sift&Winnow which he/she apparently "abandoned" last year when it became the subject of another investigation and got "too hot" for him/her to keep using.

His/her usual MO appears to be to "crawl in a hole" when outed, but this also usually doesn't last for more than a couple of weeks before he/she resurfaces. I will gladly "lay low" while you proceed with the Abuse investigation (Techwriter2B has wasted way too much of my time already), but will be happy to answer any questions you may have. You may also find it useful to contact some of his/her other victims as well as User:Eurytemora who has done a great deal of leg work into finding his/her many IP accounts as well as analysis of his/her abusive techniques and practices. Centpacrr (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

misc.

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)

I believe so, but it would have been before I became a stalking target of this sock last May and I don't know the details or when it happened. I believe, however, it had something to do with his/her account as User:Sift&Winnow but I'm not sure. Centpacrr (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: Is this what you are looking for? Centpacrr (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've put that one on my watch list. What I'm wondering is whether there was a formal case tying the Film guy to the Writer guy, or if it merely passed the "duck" test and were indef'd on that basis? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No SPI on that, I "outed" and confirmed both myself in a few minutes as they were painfully obvious. Centpacrr (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya, I think they're related, but I've placed a CU request on both to get the IP information for calling his service provider. Netalarm^talk 06:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)