User talk:Centpacrr/Archive8

FedEx Express Flight 14

You editing on this article is bordering on disruptive, the maintenance templates you keep removing there to help attract other editors to the article to fix the issues with the article they are perfectly valid and appropriate for this article. The coverage of this event does not demonstrate any lasting significance, the NTSB report is a WP:PRIMARY report it is "written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event" the report from Flight Safety Foundation is also not appropriate as they are a air safety advocacy group and don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that I can see. I am not prepared to get into an edit war over this, however you leave me little choice but to nominate the article for deletion if you are not prepared to have these issues addressed. I therefore ask that you restore the maintenance templates with your next edit or I will take it to AfD. LGA _talk^edits 08:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, LGA, the NTSB is the independent federal agency first originated under the Air Commerce Act of 1926 (Public Laws of the United States, 69th Congress, Public No. 241, Chapt. 344, May 30, 1926) which is charged by Congress both with "investigating every civil aviation accident in the U.S. as well as significant accidents in other modes of transportation-railroad, highway, marine and pipeline" and to "determine the probable cause of each accident investigated and to issue safety recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents." In addition the NTSB "carries out special studies concerning transportation safety." An NTSB accident report is not only a reliable source for facts, determinations of probably cause, and safety recommendations arising therefrom, it is also the only reliable source. The NTSB is not a party which is "involved in the event" (which is the accident itself), but is the official government organization charged with determining what happened during and as a result of the "event". Quoting the NTSB as a source is no different than quoting directly from, for instance, statutes, treaties, court opinions, regulations, or any other types of official government documents, reports, studies, or publications.

As a result of the investigation of this accident, the NTSB determined that the MD-11 type aircraft has a serious flaw in the design of both its tail control configuration and auto-throttle system operation that led in this case to an unstabilized landing flare from which the aircrew failed to recover. The long term significance of this finding has been the establishment of new aviation safety aircrew training protocols on how to recover from these situations, including proper high sink rate recovery techniques during flare to landing, techniques for avoiding and recovering from overcontrol in pitch before touchdown, and techniques for avoiding overcontrol and premature derotation during a bounced landing.

As for the Flight Safety Foundation, this is not a commercial trade group or organization, but an internationally recognized and respected non-profit NGO based in Alexandria, VA, that was founded in 1947 and is formally affiliated with many international aviation safety organizations as well as ICAO, the United Nations' International Civil Aviation Organization. Where you come up with the speculative claim that ti doesn't have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is just beyond me. Centpacrr (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hamidian refugees

I wanted to personally thank you on your talk page. You did a wonderful job on the photograph. I just wanted to say I nominated the photograph on Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates. Thanks to your work, I am hoping it does good. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, happy to help you with your project. I worked from the 25MB LoC tiff which mafe it easier to fix the details. If this is a satisfactory result feel free to add the "Resolved" tag. Centpacrr (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Quick question. Although its a .jpg, the file now is no different from the quality of a .tiff right? I tried uploading it but it only wanted jpeg's.. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes the file is a high resolution .jpg. I did the restoration work on it while it was a .tiff because there is no compression made to it during intermittent saves. When I was finished I converted it to a hi res .jpg which is a much smaller file size (9MB as opposed to 25MB) but still retains virtually the same quality. Centpacrr (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ping

I smell a fellow railfan! See the brief answer here, especially the P.S. and a thought of a fix here. Have a great day! // FrankB 15:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

afterthought

Got any meat you can add to Philadelphia and Columbia Railroad I stubbed in yesterday? Do you Trainz or model? // FrankB 15:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I do "real" trains (see my 10,000+ page family run railroad history website here) Centpacrr (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Took a quick peek. Nice! ping2. RU plugged into the Pennsylvania Historical Society circles? I'm a native son of Western PA and belong to an international group thinking of doing a historical recreation of the boom years of the Anthracite fields regions in V-scale. Which areas and when are in a thirty-plus member international negotiation (Getting Dutch and Australian members to appreciate Pennsylvania Geography has been fun!), but we're likely to settle on the lower Wyoming Valley as a main group effort (Lot of modeling in a big town or city!) with splinter groups doing 'wing sub-projects' incorporating longer road sections. One of the nice things about doing DEM maps using USGS data, is they can be merged and done in sections and Trainz lets us put together long roads, so my buddy and I (small world, lives the next town over) are thinking a long term side-project would be to make the route from Easton, PA to Buffalo (Lehigh Valley Railroad, and connecting & competing lines, like the CNJ, Erie, PRR, NYC, & Reading). Looking into this and that about that matter is how I got to your article... Just spent a week down that way following various rail rights of ways, visiting train yards and took over a thousand pics I'm slowly getting up on the commons. I'll have to look for your books! // FrankB 17:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL - thanks for that lightbuld essay! Since you don't have email 'on' this deadlink found on your History links section www.nhmccd.edu#work and "American Popular Music before 1900 - Railroad." [Lesson PlanAdobe Acrobat PDF format]-- gave a wayback machine error and dumped me into a Microsoft site. // FrankB 17:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ping3 my talk! and...

re: "... the schedule for the Phila & Columbia RR as it appeared in the American Railway Guide and Pocket Companion in 1851 here."
Any chance I can persuade you to rotate that and upload it to the Commons? Would make a nice link to the RR article stub. // FrankB 03:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Hamidian_refugees

First off, thank you for the work you've done on the image. It turned out great. The FP didn't go through. Is there any way you remove the leftover scratches and the other minor issues as stated by a user in the FPN? If you can, I'm going to renominate this to FP and see what happens. I would greatly appreciate it. If not, thank you nonetheless. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Proudbolsahye, I have been off Wikipedia for a few days so did not see this message until just now. In the interim, however, it looks as if somebody else has claimed the project. Centpacrr (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent touchups on the photograph. Feel free to support the FP renomination [1]. I'm still perplexed over some of these opposed votes. The restoration has significantly improved its quality by eliminating the scratches found all over the photograph. Some have even stated that they would support the original version with all those scratches. Unfortunate indeed. Nevertheless, your restoration is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are some folks in here who would rather "pick nits" in an image instead of looking at it as a whole. The only way that the "scratches" and other "flaws" were visible was when the image was displayed at a resolution that you could only see a tiny fraction of it and thus ignoring the "substance" of the image in favor of elements of "style" that are invisible when the image is viewed as it is intended to be. Centpacrr (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have now added a comment to the FP nomination page. Centpacrr (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Centpacrr. Do you recommend that I upload the non-altered version as another option? What do you think? Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a puzzlement to me as the same crowd that is now complaining that the image has been devalued because it has been restored will then complain that the original needs restoration. It seems to be a Catch 22 among this bunch. Centpacrr (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

for "tweak forehead" . Begoon ^talk 14:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

John Baker White image

Centpacrr, first and foremost I would like to sincerely thank you for capturing and editing the image of John Baker White from the History of West Virginia, New and Old (1923) text! If it wouldn't be too much trouble, I have one slight request for a modification of the image. Would you be able to separate out Col. White's signature from the image so that I can utilize it in the signature section of the info box template? The article feels more complete now that the image is included within the text, and I cannot thank you enough for your proactivity in editing this and including it in the draft. Thanks again for all your tremendous contributions to Wikipedia! -- Caponer (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Centpacrr (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! The signature and portrait look great! -- Caponer (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Centpacrr, per my comments on Jbarta's talk page, I'll move the photo you kindly edited and uploaded to the Commons after January 2, 2014, as it will be free without controversy. I thank you again for all your help, sir! -- Caponer (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually the image can be moved now as the copyright for the overall 1923 work in which it appears is not listed in either of the two volumes of the Library of Congress Copyright Office's "Catalog of Copyright Entries and Renewals (Third Series)" covering 1950 as having been renewed during that, the final year of its first 28 year term, and therefore its copyright expired and it entered the public domain on January 1, 1951. If, however, it had been renewed during 1950 for a second 28 year term as provided for by §23 of the 1909 Act then in effect, that second term would have been later automatically extended by the 1978 Act to 95 years from first publication (i.e. to January 1, 2018) so the date of January 1, 2014 would have no baring on its copyright status whether or not it had ever been renewed in 1950. Centpacrr (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again Cemtpacrr! Move templates have been added to both images of John Baker White, so hopefully they are moved to the Commons soon. In the meantime, my article for James Sloan Kuykendall is queued up for DYK and I found a rather small black and white photograph of Kuykendall in a 1907 text published by the West Virginia Secretary of State (p. 139). Would you be able to extract this image from the text and upload it to Commons? I would immediately categorize it and add it to Kuykendall's article. I would do it myself, but then it usually requires further editing! :) Thanks again for all your guidance and support Centpaccr! -- Caponer (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Centpacrr (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Centpacrr! It looks fantastic and I've categorized it in the Commons! Much appreciated! -- Caponer (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

FA Nomination

I noticed you were on of the contributors on the Article of George Washington. So I just wanted to drop you a message to let you know I have nominated the article for FA status, you can see the nomination here. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Maria Theresa signature

Hi! You recently submitted the JPEG File:Signature Maria Theresa (Vectorized).jpg, marking it as a "vectorised" image. I'm not exactly sure if you captured the request properly. You did remove the background, but it is still a raster image, not vectorised. Are you currently working on a vector version of this file? Do we need to open up the request again for vectorisation? I'm confused. Niamh (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Andrew Foldi as Dr. Dulcamara.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Red Fort

hi Centpacrr, thank you for your help, it's great. I have one last request on that one about the edges, I forgot to mention it earlier. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Centpacrr (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the coat of arms. Is it possible in any possible ways to modernise the lamb and the flag? Meaning to input a newer version of lamb holding a banner with sword in it? Thanks again. Jaqeli (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I did a Google image search for another version of that but have been unable to find one. If you can provide the URL for such an image I'll take a look and see if it can be substituted. Centpacrr (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I found this lamb in the commons section. Can you please use it if you can? But the lamb needs to lay down. Jaqeli (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix mugshot image

As you commented in a previous deletion nomination of this image, you may be interested to comment on its renomination. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:B&MLRR Belfast, ME Yard Map 1875.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:B&MLRR Belfast, ME Yard Map 1875.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Colross

Centpacrr, I'm expanding and improving upon an article I wrote for Colross. I found several images at this Google book published in 1916. May I humbly ask if, when you have time of course, you could copy and transfer the images of Colross from pages 205, 206, 207, and 208 to Wikimedia Commons. I can add all the text and categories once they've been transferred. Please let me know if this is doable, and let me know how I may return the favor! Thanks again for all your extraordinary efforts in improving the quality and amount of Wikipedia' available images! -- Caponer (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I have created .jpg files of the four images (rotating the fourth 90º) from the pdf "The Brickbuilder" and uploaded them to my server as a "zip" file here which you can download, open, and then add to Wikipedia Commons as I don't know what you want to call them there or what information and licensing you want to use. Centpacrr (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Centpacrr! The images look great! I'll work on getting these added to Wikimedia Commons and into the article! You're the best! -- Caponer (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jules Verne

File:Félix Nadar 1820-1910 portraits Jules Verne (restoration).jpg

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Félix Nadar 1820-1910 portraits Jules Verne (restoration).jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 17:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Frederick_G._Coan.jpg

Hello Centpacrr,

It's Proudbolsahye, I have this new username. I requested that this photograph be improved at the graphics lab. If there's any way you can expedite the improvements I would greatly appreciate it. The only reason why I ask is because it's going to go up for DYK and I want to photograph to go up along with it. As you may well know, if the article is over 5 days old, a DYK nomination cannot be accepted. If you don't have the time to make the requested improvements, that's fine with me. Once again, thank you for all the work you do around here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Can we have the hat area and the body back to a more darker form? Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks great now..thanks!! Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

FAC support

Thanks for your support !vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix/archive1‎. While I hate to pester you, its generally accepted that support statements that lack a strong FAC criteria-based rationale carry little weight. Delegates will essentially disregard supports from editors who did not either present a strong FAC criteria-based rationale, and/or provide a detailed review. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Centpacrr (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for this excellent addition! It really helps to flesh-out the issue and set the context of an unwelcoming society. Nice work! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, GabeMc, happy to help. Centpacrr (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your speedy help,
I am really very greatful
Aftab Banoori 13:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Aftabbanoori (talk • contribs)

Thanks!

Thanks for your work on Schinus areira. I would have given you a barnstar, but I've just seen that you don't like awards. Take this as a "virtual barnstar" ;-)--Carnby (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Techwriter2B

My edit didn't remove the page from the category. The category tag is provided by {{Infobox vandal}}, which now also provides the desired sortkey, so the manual tag is no longer needed. I admit my edit summary could have been more descriptive. — HHHIPPO 20:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Understand. I just want to be sure that it is clear that the LTA is still an active abuser who resurfaces from time to time to disrupt and/or vandalize Wikipedia. Centpacrr (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Centpacrr Userpage Hockey Tripych.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Centpacrr.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Centpacrr G&M Howe.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix

What's your take on Hendrix and the so-called "counterculture?" I've been chatting with GabeMc, and while we both essentially agree that JH was apolitical in the main, I contend he was an importart figure within that larger anti-establishment era. Thoughts? Learner001 (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is not a subject with which I have much expertise. My primary interest in this topic had to so with images. Centpacrr (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

US Airways Flight 1549 detail discrepancy to resolve

Hi. Would you please take a look at this detail re. US Airways Flight 1549 and contribute to resolving the discrepancy b/w what's stated in the article, what's logically possible, and what's reported in at least half of the sources cited? Greatly appreciate your attention to this matter and hope it is something that can be resolved quickly and w/o complication. Thanks, Azx2 19:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

PS. I checked out your user page - fascinating! It was a pleasure to read such interesting content (including the images)... Azx2 19:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

PSS. I hope I don't seem pesky, but just wondering what "klaving nachus" means? Azx2 19:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. "Klaving nachus" is a Yiddish expression meaning "seeking glory". I have also posted verbatim in talk for the Flight 1549 article Capt. Sullenberger's account of his actions relating to this issue from his 2009 book "Highst Duty" in which he says that "I walked all the way to the back and then returned to the front. Then I took the same walk again." Centpacrr (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the favor of your reply, both here and on the article talk page (I responded there to your reply, asking if it was appropriate to remove the citations that didn't support the statement about which I was concerned, and replace them w/ the book citation you provided). Best wishes, Azx2 02:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Citizens Bank Park Temporary Seating (2012 NHL Winter Classic).jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair use question

Hey Centpacrr, I wanted to touch base with you regarding whether I could upload the linked image [2] to Wikipedia for inclusion in the article, Charles M. Williams (American academic). It's an image of Williams from the 1970s published by Harvard Business School. Would it become fair use if it was scaled to approximately 300px before uploading? If so, would you be able to re-scale it? I'm not technically included and I've always valued your exceptional graphist skills! Let me know if this is doable, or if you have any further suggestions! Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Caponer. It would seem to me that this image at 300px is perfectly acceptable for fair use under both Wikipedia's policy (with the appropriate rationale) and Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law (14 U.S.C. §107). I have reduced the image to that size which you can download from my server here. Centpacrr (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Centpacrr! Do you know which of the copyright templates I would utilize when uploading this image to Wikimedia Commons? -- Caponer (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You can't upload it to Commons which only permits image files which are in the public domain or have been released by the copyright holder under a Creative Commons license. Instead you will have to upload it to the English Wikipedia under WP:NFCI with the appropriate rationale and template. Centpacrr (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Centpacrr, thank you for all your guidance and for providing such useful information. I also thank you tremendously for rescaling the image and providing it for download. I've uploaded the image to English Wikipedia, and provided the necessary justification and rationale for its usage in Williams' article. The image is available at File:Charles M. Williams.jpg for your review. Thank you again for everything! -- Caponer (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

An issue of WPAGF

Hi Centpacrr, thank you for your commitment. I'm not a native speaker and this quarrel is not easy for me anyway. Could you please give me the explanation for WPAGF? It seems to have nothing to do with "Assume good faith". Best Regards, MagentaGreen (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That appears to be his claim -- that this somehow is a breach of assuming good faith although I can not possibly understand how anyone could come up with that. Also the fact that this user currently lives in Japan and says that he is a huge booster of Scouting, both of which cultures place very high emphasis on the practice of politeness and good manners, and even has his "own talk page rules" on this topic, makes his attitude here all the more puzzling. Centpacrr (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I really had no idea and would certainly have omitted my comment when I should had to expect it. I'm from Germany and I am used to read some harsh tone in the local WP, but this was new to me. No matter, thanks again. Let's hope he calms down due to your help. MagentaGreen (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry, I have been contributing to this workshop very actively for several years and have had much worse encounters than this one but always with other graphists who believe that there is only one way to do things which, of course, is theirs. Fortunately they tend to move on after awhile and there are not any of them around right now. This is the first time, however, that a requester has "acted up" this way that I can recall. Calling your comment "trolling", a "rant", and in violation of WPAGF is just bizarre. Instead I found it was absolutely appropriate, very politely phrased, and something I had considered putting up myself for quite awhile. Instead I had just stopped working on image requests from people who didn't say please (at least once in awhile) or thank you after I had restored an image file. I don't know why this user got a bug up his ass about this (especially since he lives in Japan where such politeness is a fetish) but these things happen. So just ignore the requests of those who demand and soon enough they will figure out why their requests take much longer than others to get done. Cheers. Centpacrr (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Commercial House image

I just realised that I forgot to specify something: I drew the image note quickly and without precision, and I wanted to have it cropped to what the cropper thought best. Did you do what you thought best, or did you simply follow the image note? And if you followed the image note, would you be willing to recrop to what you think best? But if you like the current crop, please don't spend any more time on it. Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I cropped the image to what I thought best showed the building and also rotated it very slightly to be plumb. Centpacrr (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, then; thanks again. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Colorization

I've gone to Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop#Policy regarding colourisation of images and tried to steer that discussion towards arriving at a consensus regarding colorizing grayscale images. Since this affects you as well, I wanted to let you know. I agree that colorization should be limited to specific cases, and that new files should be created for them (though I hadn't created new files previously because I never gave it even a passing thought). I've proposed some guidelines there and your input would be appreciated. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Paul Holmgren

Any chance you may have an image of Paul Holmgren that you can upload here? I've been looking to no avail... Connormah (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have uploaded a photograph I took of Homer at the May 7, 2014 presser announcing his promotion to being President of the Flyers and Ron Hextall replacing him as General Manager. I have also added the Holmgren image to the infobox on his WP article. Centpacrr (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! Connormah (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Debbie Rodella

Hello, I reduced the prose per request. It is definitely suffering WP:UNDUE. The rest of the article is two sentences. Please consider restoring my edit which I have posted to an enquirer as a fix for the WP:UNDUE. The article is not a bio of her son or husband, and though the info is relevant, why don't you break into a separate article about the husband? ~ R.T.G 13:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Note:Please examine the edit. It is just a copy edit to reduce verbosity. It is standard MOS treatment. The information is preserved without niggling details like times and irrelevant place details. It really does unbalance the article and we are supposed to be at our greatest care for BLP. I only ask this because someone from the public has expressed concern on the help desk, and it is true, the prose about the husbands offense does make up for 1000% of the info about the articles subject. Cheers, ~ R.T.G 13:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact I've read it again and the only information I removed was fine details about the offence and the exactness of dating various stages of incarceration which was at some length (compared to the rest of the "article"). It was not her offence so I am going to insist. I only reduced the prose. If the event was so notable, make him an article. This is a BLP and the offense was not committed by the subject. Sorry for all the pings but I actually do want to see this edit, or one to the same effect, to hold please. ~ R.T.G 13:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, sir or madame, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you in this case. First you say you had reduced the text "per request", but not per the request of who. I also, for the reasons below, do not agree that this is a case of WP:UNDUE. While the rest of the article is only a few sentences, it is my understanding from other news accounts that Rep. Rodella is a very prominent and powerful state politician who has served in the state legislature for 21 years. According to her state bio she is the Chair of two important Committees of the New Mexico State Legislature as well as a member (or advisor) of ten others. As such, the conviction at trial in Federal Court of her husband as a sitting County Sheriff on civil rights and firearms violations which will subject him to imprisonment by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for up to 17 years is a very significant — if not the most significant — event in her life, both private and public, as well as his. The details of those Federal felony convictions are thus, in my view, absolutely appropriate for inclusion in this article. Rep. Rodella's husband's conviction on 18 U.S.C §242 is an especially egregious violation for the spouse or family member of a sitting State legislator in New Mexico or any other state. If you feel that more detailed information about Rep. Rodella should also be added to the article (or a separate new article be created about her husband) you are, of course, free to do either or both. As for this article, however, all of this material about her husband's conviction for federal civil rights and firearms felonies is appropriate, significant to Rep. Rodella, and are all both properly and reliably sourced. Centpacrr (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia:Help_desk#Politician.27s_spouse. But... my argument is not to change the factual nature or the severity of the crimes... but that my edit merely reduced, or was intended to merely reduce, the length of the paragraph without actually changing the amount of pertinent information in accordance with copy editing principles i.e. WP:MOS (concise). All of the important info was still there. I removed half of one date and the titles of the charges which were presented in full official detail (statute numbers and amendments are not necessary after you've said what the crime is, not for this type of article). The rest of the edit doesn't even seem significant enough to discuss. Please check the diff carefully. Size reduction is basic copy editing, hence my edit summary "ce". ~ R.T.G 16:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added considerable detail on Rep. Rodella's political career to opening section and trimmed the section on her husband's conviction a bit. It is clear, however, that their political lives are deeply intertwined as she has funded his campaigns for office by many thousands of dollars from her own re-election war chest in races for which she was running unopposed. (See "Wife filled Rodella's coffers" The Albaquerque Journal, August 5, 2007) The very nature of the charges for which he was convicted makes their specific citation (including the sections of the US Code) not only important but essential in my view. This is the material which you removed that I restored. Centpacrr (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That looks better so I am prepared to compromise, but even if not expanding the article, I am going to add a sentence to reference that link and it will be available to other editors interested in expanding. ~ R.T.G 17:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Could be exanded into a DYK actually "... know that Debbie Rodella shared campaign funds with her husband?"  :). ~ R.T.G 17:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In the case of the Rodellas, their political careers are clearly inextricably intertwined and thus these convictions of Mr. Rodella represent a very significant event (if not the most significant event) in Rep Rodella's political and private life. Centpacrr (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's ready for a DYK so I will file it. ~ R.T.G 17:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi-I added a section about Debbie Rodella's education and occupation to bring more balance to the article that she has a life other then politics. I hope this will improved the article. Thanks-RFD (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me. My main interest was really the conviction of her husband on the 18 U.S.C. §242 count. You should read the indictment and other news accounts. They are chilling. This guy is a really bad dude.Centpacrr (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

postcards

hello;

thank-you very much for doing the work on my postcard art uploads!

one request: in future uploads, you could please leave a small margin around the edge of the card, when you crop then?

as i said, i'd like to preserve a sense of the cards as physical objects, not just for the illustrations they contain. this is going to be particularly important in the next batch; after i do the 2nd "occupied belgium" drawing, i'll be uploading a series of french art-cards that have an irregular border, as part of their design & it's an "identifying-feature". i'm working on an article about the organization that produced them, the Comité des Étudiants Américains de l'École des Beaux-Arts (war-relief charity), & it's important to show what their postcards looked like, "as postcards".

Lx 121 (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Recropped all six images to show physical borders. Centpacrr (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

thank-you! you didn't have to do that, but i do appreciate it. ^__^

the next card is up (a german view of occupied belgium 2), & in a few days, i'll start on the french art-cards. those will be a bit more colourful & exciting.

Lx 121 (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. They look better with the natural borders. Centpacrr (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Spirit of St. Louis (film)

B, check over the plot section. It had been tagged as too long or detailed, so I did some scalloping. I hate those tags as they really detract from a viewer coming upon the article. Check to see if the plot section still makes sense, as I tried to keep the gist but throw out the gee-whiz. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected and/or removed numerous factual errors. I'll look it over again when I have more time to fix its style. Centpacrr (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Remember, the object is to make the plot section more readable. Adding detail makes it more unwieldy, try to condense, condense, condense. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed some erroneous material altogether that clearly seemed unnecessary even if corrected, and I also corrected many specific items that I knew were clearly wrong because I could do all that quickly. A complete rewrite will take a good deal more time which I don't have right now as the NHL season opens this week (tomorrow night) and so I am very busy with that right now as I prepared for working on my first network telecast of the season on Thursday night (NJ@PHL on MSG Network). You should feel free to rewrite it in the interim if you care to. What I thought I should do right away, however, was to correct details and other factual statements that I knew on their face were wrong as they stood.Centpacrr (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, how about them Jets! As to the film article, too much detail overwhelms the plot section. Do we need to know it was an Excelsior "X" motorcycle, when that is not mentioned in the film? BTW, my wife and I recently spent a delightful afternoon at the Charles A. Lindbergh National Park site at Little Falls, Minnesota. Have you been?FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No "Excelsior "X" doesn't need to be there, nor does the whole bit about the motorcycle. I just changed because I knew it wasn't an HD. Although I have a very extensive collection of Lindberghiana including some very rare items such as his last paycheck from Robertson Aircraft as an Air Mail pilot; a piece of fabric torn from the Spirit at Le Bourget that he later gave to the Belgian Ambassador to France; a Registered USPOD Penalty cover autographed by him and the other five CAM 2 pilots that he flew in February, 1928 in the "Lindbergh Again Flies The Air Mail" promotion; six of the very rare B.L. Rowe overs representing the only Air Mail he ever flew in the "Spirit", and a program from his welcome home banquet in New York on June 14, 1927 (my grandfather attended that event), I have not been to the Lindbergh National Park site but would love go there one day. As for hockey, I'm afraid it will be another long season for the Jets this year, but their director of pro scouting (Mark Dobson) is a good friend of mine and I see him fairly often when he scouts games here (he is based in Atlanta), and the club's GM, Kevin Cheveldayoff, is another old friend (and a good guy) so I try to keep up on what they are doing. Centpacrr (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the impressive aspects of touring the Lindbergh home is the dedication and commitment displayed by the staff of the History Center. located adjacent to the site. Many artifacts, including Lindbergh's 1959 Volkswagen Beetle are in the center. A prop from his Jenny, memorabilia from the media blitz accompanying the transatlantic flight are only part of the displays. The most impressive aspect is a cut-away Spirit that allows visitors to sit inside the authentically outfitted cockpit and even try their hand at a computer-assisted flight. Trying to get in the air with a heavy aircraft while looking out the sideways periscope (I always thought the periscope was on top of the Spirit) is daunting enough, but then trying to land in a rain-soaked Paris airport, is very taxing (I crashed). The Lindbergh house is only accessible by tour but the guide is typically a very knowledgeable staffer (my guide gently and correctly fielded my forest of questions and never faltered once). Themes such as "A Young Boy's childhood" are part of the year-long program. The restored 1916 Saxon Six sits in the garage, while many of the artifacts on display are from the Lindbergh family. All-in-all, a visit that inspired me to write it up for Trip Advisor. Seethe Review and a snapshot of me. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The Jets owners and management pulled off an impressive coup when the team was re-located to Winnipeg. With the outpouring of public support, so many fans signed up for a five-year long season ticket package, the new arena is sold out every game and will be for at least five years, giving the club a financial boost. We inherited a so-so group that only once managed to make the playoffs, so the prospects aren't good until Chevy's picks come home. The first two youngsters, Jacob Trouba and Mark Scheifele have already become impact players. Now we need at least two more big changes, acquiring or mentoring a league leading goalie and getting a defensive unit that may or may not include the absolutely talented and absolutely frustrating Dustin Byfuglien. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on the CAL historic site. I especially enjoyed all the images of the grounds and museum on the tripadvisor site. Paul Maurice will probably do a good job as the new coach although I was sorry to see Claude "Christmas" Noel go as he has been a friend of mine from his AHL playing days in Hershey in the 1980s. Byfuglien has always ben a puzzlement even when he played for the AHL Norfolk Admirals. Centpacrr (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Another photo

Hi Centpacrr - any chance you have the high res of File:Philadelphia Flyers and New York Rangers Alumni Game Group Portrait.jpg on file still? A number of the players in the group shot lack photos here on Wikipedia and I think that could help fill some of those voids (like Dan Blackburn). Thanks! Connormah (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Centpacrr (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Email

Hi. Did you get email from me?--Anatoliy (Talk) 10:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not really an expert on images on this subject and thus not sure how valuable my input would be. Centpacrr (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

more postcards

(continuing from our previous discussion)

i think so too, & i'm glad that we agree.

did you want to keep doing the rest of the cards? (4 more up thus far @ my user-page, & there will be lots more coming... i have placements on articles ready for at least 3 of the ones already uploaded)

as i said, i'm looking for somebody to just do them (orientation & cropping, as previously discussed), without having to fill out a work request each time; & it's good that we are agreed on how they should look.

Lx 121 (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I am tied up the next few days...I'll get back to you on Wednesday. Centpacrr (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

i understand & thanks Lx 121 (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

hey; i don't want to be a pest, but haven't heard back? hope you are ok & things are going well. Lx 121 (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I have been very busy of late and have not had the opportunity to work on this. I suggest you post it in the graphics lab photography workshop where any image restorer (including myself as time permits) can work on these. Centpacrr (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering

Hey there, just wondering if you would mind trying to clean up this photo/image:

Thanks, Spy007au (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to get to this later this week. Centpacrr (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Regards, Spy007au (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I don't want to appear pushy, but if you don't have the time for this (we are all busy in real life), just let me know and I'll see if I can find someone else to assist. Kind regards, Spy007au (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I have been very busy of late and have not had the opportunity to work on this. I suggest you post it in the graphics lab photography workshop where any image restorer can work on it. Centpacrr (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Spy007au (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Howard Llewellyn Swisher

Centpacrr, because you have so kindly done similar favors for me in the past by retrieving images from free sources, I wanted to seek your assistance in retrieving a photograph of and signature by Howard Llewellyn Swisher. I'm currently working on Swisher's article, and would like to include both of these items in the article. For the signature, please include the "Most Truly." I can retrieve these from a site, and post them to Wikimedia Commons if that's easier for you. I will more than understand if you do not have time for this endeavor; I just thought I'd ask! Thanks again for all your contributions to the Wikiverse! V/r Caponer (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The photograph and signature are located here

Oh, and there is an advertisement for Swisher's land company here and another photo of him here. Any of these would be helpful--let me know how I can return the favor! Caponer (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Retrieve image one Here and image two Here Centpacrr (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Centpacrr! I've incorporated both images at Howard Llewellyn Swisher; they most certainly improve the article's overall quality! Please let me know how I can repay your hard work and efforts! -- Caponer (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. No repayment necessary. Centpacrr (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Debbie Rodella

Hello! Your submission of Debbie Rodella at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

While I have contributed to this article, I did not make such a DYK submission relating to it. Centpacrr (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand. I've been trying to expand and source the article a little more so it qualifies for DYK. Can you add any information about her parents? Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Debbie Rodella

Please note that I changed the words "due to medical reasons", which was in the AJ source, to "pre-existing medical disability" to avoid close paraphrasing. The latter term does not need to be in quotes. Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I wonder if it's time to break out Thomas Rodella as its own article? Best, Yoninah (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not see Mr. Rodella as being particularly notable outside rural Rio Arriba County, NM, as opposed to his wife who is a long serving senior member of the NM state legislature. I do not see any reason that he would have even been mentioned at all in Wikipedia other than he is the spouse of a sitting senior elected state official who was convicted of multiple serious Federal felonies. I do not think that is enough for a separate entry for him, but his arrest and conviction are certainly an important factor to be included in the entry on his wife. Centpacrr (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Revert at Pilot (aeronautics)

Hi: I've re-reverted and done some cleaning up in the last paragraph of the lede, the one that sets aviatrix (and aviator) in context, including bolding aviatrix there since it redirects to the article. (I may also try to find that missing source for the quote.) The IP provided a valid reason for their edit, and I wonder if you may have confused them with the other IP editor you've been recently reverting. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. Centpacrr (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Lou Nolan

Just wondering if you have photos available for Lou Nolan? Connormah (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No but I can take one. I'll see him in the Flyers' pressroom on Friday. Centpacrr (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks so much. Connormah (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Centpacrr (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Connormah (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, one more - do you have anything for Marcel Pelletier (ice hockey)? I recall seeing some photos of him at a Fred Shero statue dedication and was curious. Connormah (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Centpacrr (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have also replaced the Lou Nolan image with a better one that I took last night. Centpacrr (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I see the photo was from the ceremony for LeClair and Lindros - are there any shots of Lindros? Connormah (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Lindros image added. Centpacrr (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Winter Classic image again

Any chance you can upload the full resolution to File:Philadelphia Flyers and New York Rangers Alumni Game Group Portrait.jpg if you have it? There are a few players in the pic that can be extracted for use on their individual articles, which lack images. Thanks! Connormah (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not release high res files of images like this one online without copyright protection. If you want details from this of specific players, however, then let me know which ones and I will create them. Centpacrr (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see - I just thought it'd be easier if I could do the cropping (not sure if we can work something out). From my count, the following alumni in the game lack photos on their articles (I don't know if they are distinguishable in the group shot though). Tom Laidlaw, Ron Duguay, Paul Broten, Ron Greschner, Nick Fotiu, Kris King, Darren Langdon, Dave Maloney, Stéphane Matteau, Darren Turcotte, Bill Barber, Terry Carkner, Eric Desjardins, Larry Goodenough, Derian Hatcher, Al Hill, Bob KElly, Mark LaForest, Orest Kindrachuk, Reggie Leach, Neil Little, Brad Marsh, Shjon Podein, Dave Poulin, Brian Propp, Kjell Samuelsson, Chris Therien, Rick Tocchet, Jim & Joe Watson. Not sure if the coaches/ambassadors are in the photo but most of them are missing pics too. Connormah (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to do some of these as time permits. Centpacrr (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so so much. A question- were the all the coaches/ambassadors at the event? I've been looking for a pic of Eddie Giacomin for a while and it looks like most of them are missing pics too. Connormah (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Giacomin was not at the Winter Classic. Centpacrr (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Reed Harris (1953).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Reed Harris (1953).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for "Reversing" the Photo of JFK's West Berlin Speech

Hi, Centpacrr,

Last night, on the John F. Kennedy "talk" page, I posted a message asking about the photo of JFK's West Berlin Speech being "backwards." I was pleasantly surprised to see that a couple of guys (DePiep and Kierzek) had already replied.

Thus, I wrote again on the "talk" page...

Thanks, Guys!!

Thanks for getting JFK's Berlin Speech photo "flip-flopped," especially so fast!! (His hair part, not to mention his breast-pocket handkerchief.) So, I went to the article's edit section (the West Berlin Speech section) and "flip-flopped" the photo in the article, also. Now, I need to see about his photo "facing in."

Take care, Rob

When, I "looked deeper" (the photo's "File history"), I saw that you were involved in this, too. Thanks! And, I have already made the "right" or "reversed" photo appear in the JFK article. Now, I need to get JFK "facing in," which I've done before with other Wiki articles. But, if you look at the current layout of the West Berlin Speech section, you'll see that it is a bit challenging.

I have never uploaded a photo to Wiki even though I want to. My problem has been finding the proper copyright/ownership/author information. Maybe one day?

In the meantime, I have an admitted "trivia question," please. In the photo's "File history," is there any way to "reverse" the thumbnail, also?

If you have time, please let me know, OK? And, if you do reply, please reply on my "talk" page so that I know that I have a new message, OK?

Thanks in advance. And, thanks again for "fixing" President Kennedy's photo! (Oh, especially since my parents and I saw him arrive at Carswell AFB, Ft. Worth, Texas, the night before he was killed.)

Take care, Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome for the fix. The thumbnail is actually correct in the Wikipedia server. What you are seeing is the thumbnail stored in your computer's cache. If you reload the image file's host page it should display correctly (as it does on my machine). If not thn clear your machine's cache and load the page again and it should load the new thumbnail. Centpacrr (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and, thanks again for fixing the JFK photo. Wish me luck with that "cache thing," eh? Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

List of NHL head coaches

Under NHL Official Rule 33.3, the head coach of each team is required to provide a list in writing of the 18 skaters and two goaltenders dressed for each game (with the six designated starters' numbers circled) to the Official Scorer within five minutes (visiting coach) after the end of the warm up, andby the home team coach shortly thereafter after he has seen the the visiting team's playing roster and starters. The lists for both teams are filled out in ink on a from supplied by the NHL and signed by the Head Coach (or in the case of NJ the two Co-Head Coaches). Copies of these completed forms are then provided to both team's coaches and the game's referees. They are then published by the Official Scorer in a computer generated "Roster Report" produced using the NHL's "HTS Real Time Scoring" system. This Report is published both on-line on NHL.com and photocopies are also distributed in the pressbox prior to the start of the game. This "Roster Report" includes the names of the head coaches of both teams who created and signed the roster forms submitted to the Official Scorer.

The only names listed as the New Jersey Devils' coaches on the official Roster Reports for both games (12/27 @NYR and 12/29 vs PIT) that team has played since the coaching change have been Adam Oates and Scott Stevens. The same holds true for the Edmonton Oilers with only Todd Nelson listed by the NHL on that club's roster reports for all four games it has played since December 18. So no matter what you think Lou and Craig may have implied at their pressers, the only absolutely definitive documents designating who are the Head Coaches for every NHL team in every game played are the names of the individual coaches who signed and submitted the written lineup cards to the Official Scorer who then published them. In the case of the New Jersey Devils the only names that have appeared since the coaching change have been Adam Oates and Scott Stevens, and for the Edmonton Oilers since December 18 it has been only Todd Nelson. Therefore listing Lou and Craig on the List of NHL Head Coaches is incorrect as neither of them have signed the roster cards submitted to the league for any of the games in question. Centpacrr (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

About my Talk:List of NHL general managers#Playing career & Family relations comment

Sorry, no criticism of the original addition was intended, instead my use of boldly was meant as a complement in that it followed the WP:Be bold guideline which we should all strive to follow and as another anonymous editor I believe we are significant contributors to WP. I also mean no disrespect to you or your experience which greatly exceeds mine, I merely disagree with your opinion about the relevance with respect to this page. When you reverted my revert, I accepted it, but when this discussion was opened, I decided to add my 2¢ (CAD). For now, I've decided that my edits should stand for themselves rather than any reputation I may have. So far I've found that WP:DONTBITE seems to work better for me than the immediate personal biases I've observed some editors have for other editors based on their account rather than the content. To not side-track the talk page, with this discussion, I've made this comment here, and deleted my second comment on the talk page and I've hopefully improved my first comment. 69.158.124.30 (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and explanation. I appreciate your courtesy in doing so. While much of what is contributed to WP by unregistered IP editors is useful, I nevertheless believe that allowing the project to be edited so anonymously constitutes a fundamental weakness of the project for several reasons. As a professional writer and author (including seven non-fiction books) for almost half a century, I have always felt that it is important for all editors on Wikipedia to be registered and identified. No other major encyclopedia or serious reference work is published without its authors being fully identified and accountable for his and/or her work. IP editing also makes it virtually impossible to follow the history of contributions of those editors over time and to specific articles. Another reason is that I have found that a relatively large percentage of the disruptive editing, vandalism, trolling, and wikistalking that plagues the project is committed by a small but significant number of anonymous IPs. Especially when this is done via dynamically assigned IPs it makes it virtually impossible for the rest of the community to control and prevent. Finally I find that anonymous editing also leads to the majority of the incidents of serious incivility that happens in the project because it eliminates the necessity for those who commit it having to be publicly accountable for their actions. I compare this to road rage where people who are perfectly civil to each other face to face nonetheless can become aggressive monsters when on the road where that are protected by the anonymity of a protective steel bubble provided by their vehicles. For all of these reasons, I registered a WP account as soon as I began contributing to the project in 2006 and immediately also created a detailed userpage for myself so that any reader or member of the WP community can know who I am and how to evaluate the reliability of my contributions. Centpacrr (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm the same editor as 69.158.124.30 now with a new IP address. I agree with most of what you wrote above however I believe you're missing one critical point. WP accounts are free, disposable and still completely anonymous. In my experience the majority of the incivility is by a few registered users. As a minor example, you can read Brmb101's comments from the previous couple days on my previous talk page from a single revert of his incorrect edit. Meanwhile I believe for the most part the disruption by anonymous users is limited to childish immature vandalism which is easily reverted and ignored. License plates can do a better job identifying road raging drivers than WP accounts. I commend you for posting a real profile and if all WP accounts could be traced back to real people as you have done then I agree Wikipedia would be a much better place to interact. However it would be a much smaller community. 70.27.117.89 (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I will not remove the information because it is correct if you watched hockey or even new a damn thing about researching you would know that I am correct. Cut your crap and all your empty threats about blocking me because you do not own Wikipedia. I happen to know a thing or two about hockey And know for a fact that I am correct. You need to stop acting like your own self appointed police man and stop being a complete waste of Internet space. It's people like you who cause the the people of the world to get false information. Oh and one more thing, team websites don't always put current information on there pages. If you want to learn who the coaches of these teams are then go on TSN.com and watch the press conferences following the firings of Dallas Eakins (Oilers) and Peter DeBoer (Devils) and you can hear it from both MacTavish (Oilers) and Lamoriello (Devils) that they are I fact both currently behind there respective benches as coach. And please stop acting so formal. Brmb101 (talk)

Well that was quite a diatribe. As for my background in hockey, I have been working professionally in the game at both the NHL and AHL levels continuously (over 3,000 games) since 1969 as a team executive, broadcaster, historian, journalist, author (three of my seven published books are on hockey), and consultant which you would have known if you had bothered to look at my user page. I have been a consultant to and appeared on screen in major documentary films on hockey history produced by both NHL Productions and HBO, am currently co-producing a third hockey history documentary for Green Creek Films, and also have served for many years as the consultant on NHL rules to the Head of NHL Off Ice Officials in Philadelphia. As for your purported background in the game, neither I nor the WP community has any way of judging as you have never created user page and instead have chosen to post on Wikipedia completely anonymously.

I have gone back to the NHL head coaching list and have made some changes that may be more accurate to the current information. I did not intend any hostility I was just frustrated because I thought I was right. Clearly I was not. I hope one this that we can agree on is that both Craig and Lou and overseeing the bench for there respective teams. For me I would rather hear the correct information from someone that knows what their talking about then someone who has no real proof behind them. I appreciate your in depth explanation I would be more then pleased if could share more of your knowledge with myself of other people in the community. Again I do apologize for my comments on my previous messages. Clearly I didn't know who I was talking to. Message from Brmb101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brmb101 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk: Railroads

I happen to have a model railroad N gage layout in my basement I would also like to know if you have any experience in that area. The model railroad community is huge where I live. (Brmb101 (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC))

My area of interest in railroads relates primarily to 19th and early (prewar) 20th century North American railroad history which is the subject of my four railroad books and website. I have no experience in model railroading. Centpacrr (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Centpacrr,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

Thank you, Bzuk. Same to you. Centpacrr (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Retouching request

I know your retouching skills are rather good, so perhaps you could remove the watermark from a commons image I listed at: c:COM:GL/P#Mexican guitar duo. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Centpacrr (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thanks so much. ww2censor (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Image cropping request

Happy New Year Centpacrr! I was wondering if you could do me a favor by extracting two free use images for me to include in the Eugenia Washington article? They are located here and here. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can do anything for you in return! -- Caponer (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done You can download the new images here and here. Centpacrr (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Centpacrr, you always come through and make my day! Thank you for continuing to bring images to Wikipedia's articles! -- Caponer (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Devils coaches

Howdy. The reason I added Lamoriello to the article List of NHL head coaches, is due to his being included at New Jersey Devils. I won't argue over whether to include him or exclude him, but we do need consistancy across these articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed Lou as a Head Coach from the Devils infobox for both correctness and consistency. Centpacrr (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Image request

Centpacrr, I'm in the early stages of drafting an article on the West Virginia state flag at User:Caponer/Flag of West Virginia. I found an image of an earlier flag here. It is a free image, and I can upload it to Wikicommons once you've worked your magic in retrieving it. Thank you for all your assistance! -- Caponer (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Restored image available for download here. Centpacrr (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Centpacrr, you're amazing! I've uploaded your restored image to Wikimedia Commons and it is now proudly displayed in the the draft article. I'll keep you posted should I find any more early versions of the flags for which there are no existing commons files. Thanks again for your time and effort! -- Caponer (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Another request

Centpacrr, since you've been of so much assistance and help in the past, I was wondering if you could extract a few more images for me to be included in an article I'm working at User:Caponer/Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge. It involves getting the image of the old South Branch covered bridge from an 1874 source. Please let me know if this is doable. Thank you as always. -- Caponer (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

http://centpacrr.com/Romney_Bridge.jpg Centpacrr (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you tremendously for your assistance and support Centpacrr! I've uploaded the image here. Because of you, another Wikipedia article can be beautifully illustrated. -- Caponer (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Centpacrr, I'm currently drafting an article at User:Caponer/Archibald Wager in the early stages, and came across this document. It was a statement signed by Archibald Wager on December 7, 1763. Given the age of this document, would it be licensed PD with credit given to the Marietta College archive? If so, I'd like to see if it's possible to save a copy from this website and then I can upload the document to wikicommons. Perhaps even get a single image of just Wager's signature. Please let me know if this is doable. As always, I appreciate your assistance and graphist mastery! -- Caponer (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The document itself would certainly be in the public domain and so would the digital image of it created by the library as an uncopyrightable "slavish copy" under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) which held that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality despite the fact that accurate reproductions might require a great deal of skill, experience and effort as the key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is "originality". Centpacrr (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information Centpacrr! You're always a source for knowledge and guidance, and it's much appreciated. -- Caponer (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• It would certainly be appropriate and courteous to give credit to the Marietta College archive that owns the original and produced the image of it, but the digital image itself is in the public domain under the "slavish copy" principle. Centpacrr (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Undo

Hi, I'm hoping that this edit was undone in error. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it most certainly was. See here for what happened. Centpacrr (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Aah, alright. Thanks. Happy editing. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal Request

Hello Centpacrr-

I know my request does not fall within Wikipedia project, so I am making you personal request about File:UserAbhi.jpg. Please make the background neutral black. It is only good photo of myself I got in entire lifetime. Thanks. Abhi (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Centpacrr (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, but can you make background COMPLETE black or grey (like you did to File:Maneka Gandhi.jpg)? Sorry for troubling you. Abhi (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic ! Thank you very much ! Abhi (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Grand_Central_Terminal#Platforms_and_tracks

Regarding your reversion of my edit, while I appreciate the refs you added, they don't address the core problem. I don't think the list of specific platforms and service assignments belongs here at all. I know train buffs are into this sort of thing, but it's fundamentally directory information which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. In any case, it's unreferenced. It's also ephemeral. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I find your reasoning here to be quite puzzling. The whole raison d'être for any railroad terminal or station is to house and support the platforms and tracks which service the trains and passengers that use the facility. Without this crucial infrastructure there would be no purpose for having anything else associated with such a facility. Even though I did not originally add this material, including the information about the Terminal's platforms and tracks and what they are used for certainly seems to me to be relevant and encyclopedic material for inclusion in the article and of interest to far more than just "railroad buffs". If you disagree with inclusion of this section (which appears to have been in the article since December 4, 2013) I would suggest that you make your case in the article's talk page for others to comment on. Centpacrr (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Continued at Talk:Grand_Central_Terminal -- RoySmith (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your re-addition of the content, by the way. I have commented at the GCT talk page as well. Epic Genius (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

re: John du Pont

I think that's the first time I've ever made a bold edit on an article I've never seen before and it wasn't simply reverted. I assumed I would need to go 37 rounds on the talk page with all of the regular editors of that article to sneak through a minor revision to the previous wording. You have temporarily restored my faith in Wikipedia. I wish it were always this easy. I think your new wording is fine. Thanks. Handpolk (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Mr. du Pont's estate and the murder of Dave Schultz happened just a few miles from my home so I am very familiar with the circumstances. A few weeks ago I created an extensive set of footnotes which you can see here detailing the discrepancies between the events as shown in the current feature film Foxcatcher and how they actually occurred in real life which you may find interesting. Centpacrr (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Haven't seen the movie yet. Think I'll watch it first and read that after. Handpolk (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Palace Hotel Bar c1895.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Palace Hotel Bar c1895.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Billytanghh (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Palace Hotel Front Desk 1920.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Palace Hotel Front Desk 1920.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Billytanghh (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Palace Hotel Reception Desk c1895.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Palace Hotel Reception Desk c1895.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Billytanghh (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Palace Hotel Conservatory Floor.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Palace Hotel Conservatory Floor.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Billytanghh (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Overland RR Ticket Office in the Palace Hotel SF.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Overland RR Ticket Office in the Palace Hotel SF.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Billytanghh (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Robert White (attorney general)

Centpacrr, I am putting the finishing touches on the expansion of Robert White (attorney general) and I wanted to include the image of him on page 972 of Prominent Men of West Virginia. Would you be able to copy this image from this book so I can upload it to Wikimedia Commons? Thank you in advance! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Image of Robert White available for download here. Centpacrr (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Centpacrr, thank you tremendously for saving such a high quality version of this engraved image of Mr. White. I've saved it and will upload it to Wikimedia Commons for inclusion in his article. As always, your work is greatly admired and appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help. Centpacrr (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Centpacrr, I'm sorry to bother you with another request, but as I continue to expand the article for White, I continue to find portraits. I've uploaded the above engraving to Wikimedia Commons. Would you be able to capture this portrait? I will add this to Wikimedia Commons, too. There of course is no rush on this, but I of course wanted to see if you would be able to beautifully capture it for the article. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Image of Col. Robert White available for download here.Centpacrr (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Centpacrr! I've uploaded this photo to Wikimedia Commons and it is now the main photo in the Robert White article. Thanks again for all your great work! -- West Virginian (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Centpacrr, please tell me if these are too many requests, but as I continue to research Mr. White, I find additional free images that can be added to the Commons. On this page, there is an image of White, in addition to Governor Henry M. Matthews, Auditor Joseph S. Miller, and Secretary of State S. Brady. I will load each to Wikimedia Commons. Again, there is no rush on this, and I'll understand if it's too much to ask as you've already so kindly scanned so many other images recently! ;) Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• The images of all four are available for download in a zip file here Centpacrr (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Centpacrr, thank you tremendously for uploaded these four images. I've added White's to Wikimedia Commons, and will be adding the other three as I work on updating those respective articles. Thank you for all your help, as always! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

AHL teams vs. franchises

I think it's more accurate to render the histories of AHL teams by franchise, not individual team/city. After all, it's beyond dispute that the Wolf Pack are the successors of the old Providence Reds and the Comets are the successors of the old Springfield Indians. We don't consider the New Jersey Devils to be a different team from the Kansas City Scouts and Colorado Rockies, for instance. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 19:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have been working in, broadcasting, managing and writing about professional ice hockey and its history (both AHL and NHL) for more than 45 years (especially the Hershey Bears -- see here, here, here and here) and cannot agree with you on this contention that sports "franchises" are the same thing as "teams". A professional sports franchise is nothing more than a license granted by a league to operate a team in a particular geographical market, not the particular team itself that is operated under it. Unlike with the NHL NJ Devils or the AHL Lehigh Valley Phantoms (p. 272), there was no continuity of players and player rights, management, staff, affiliation, etc in the case the original Providence and Springfield franchises that ever inured in any way to the Hartford Wolfpack and Utica Comets. The "AHL Record Book and Guide" lists the Hartford Wolfpack (p. 75) as existing since 1997-98 and the Utica Comets (p. 155) since 2014-15 while the Providence Reds and Springfield Indians/Kings are both listed as defunct teams. The Reds (p. 277) ceased operations in 1977 when its franchise to operate a team in the AHL (but not the "team" itself) was transferred to new ownership in order to operate a new AHL team in Binghamton, NY (the Binghamton Dusters). The Indians/Kings (p. 281) ceased operations in 1994 (and also did not operate a team from 1942 to 1946) and a new completely new unaffiliated club, the Springfield Falcons, began operations there in 1994. Therefore -- according the the AHL's own published official records -- the Hartford Wolfpack and Utica Comets are not the "two oldest teams" in the AHL (or in any other professional hockey league in North America other than the NHL), let alone have they been continuously operating longer than the Hershey Bears Hockey Club. Centpacrr (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Edwin Maxwell

Centpacrr, I have another request. I'm working on an article for Edwin Maxwell, an Attorney General of West Virginia. There is an engraved portrait of him here, which I'd like to add to his info box. Thanks for all your previous help, and for considering this request! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Maxwell image available here Centpacrr (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Centpacrr, thank you for your speedy response and for making this available for upload in such a timely fashion. Your images have really improved the quality and aesthetics of many an article, and me and many other users are eternally grateful to you. Please let me know what I can do in return to repay the many favors. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Centpacrr, as always only at your leisure, I've found another photo of Edwin Maxwell and his signature that I would like to upload to Wikimedia Commons. What software do you use to lift and clean up the images? Perhaps you can teach me to fish? :) Thanks again Centpacrr! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I use Snapz Pro X to screen capture the images although there is probably a built in screen grab app on yout computer's operating system that you can use. I use Photoshop with PhotoZoom Pro 5 to adjust them but you can use GIMP to do that which is a free download. Maxwell zip file here. Centpacrr (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Centpacrr, the images have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and are incorporated in the article Edwin Maxwell (attorney general). Thank you for all your assistance with this one. I'll try to extract these on my own, but don't be surprised if I come calling for assistance! Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Give Gimp a try, it is pretty user friendly. Centpacrr (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

AMTK 188

Hi. You changed this to a Boston destination, but 188 goes to NYP only, according to the Amtrak timetable. Was it scheduled for Boston on that day? If so, one would need a source for that. The Amtrak timetable says something else, and the train tracker as well. --Thogo 22:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

My bad. I misread the schedule. It only went to NY and I have now removed the incorrect reference to Boston as its final destination. Thanks for the spot. Centpacrr (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Image request

Centpacrr, I have had some trouble capturing the image of the West Virginia Schools for the Deaf and Blind located at this source. Would you be able to capture this image using your phenomenal graphist powers? Thank you! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

FYSA, this will be used in Romney Classical Institute and other articles mentioning the history of the West Virginia Schools for the Deaf and Blind. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Image here. Centpacrr (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you as always Centpacrr! This image will be nominated for the Romney Classical Institute submission for DYK. I appreciate all your assistance! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Graf Zeppelin 3 Reichsmark 1930.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Graf Zeppelin 3 Reichsmark 1930.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. —Darkwind (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Huckabee

I see you aren't too impressed with what Nagualdesign did. In my opinion, your version would be a lot better if the background wasn't so dark. Note that we're in the middle of a vote about images at the article talk page. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll lighten the background up a bit. Centpacrr (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I recently became the first Wikipedia editor to use the word "eggcellent", and do so again now. Thanks. 😊Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"stated" vs. "claimed"

Hi! I saw your edit summary.

I am aware that "claimed" gives the connotation that it may not be true. The word technically doesn't mean that, so the use comes off as evasive and weaselly. If there is a belief it isn't true, it's best to be direct about it. For example, if the cited source argues that the poll results were faked, say "Joe Somebody, author of ABC, said that the results were likely faked." WhisperToMe (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually the opposite is the case. Using "stated" implies a verifiable belief that the claim IS true and constitutes an accurate real result of the "referendum" for which no source is provided it had been legitimately approved by a "98.79% 'Yes' vote". Centpacrr (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I have never heard that before. All I know about the connotation of "stated" is matter-of-factly "he said this". For example a politician stated the reason why this-and-this happened is because of that-and-that. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Synonyms for said: "Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." while it says "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." - The guide on words says that "stated" is a neutral word. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. Such an actual "98.79% 'Yes' vote" result to the 1936 referendum being legitimate is not sourced anywhere as being either true or believable, either then or now. While it was "claimed" by the German regime to be so, it was not proved to be accurate. This is exactly what the March 30, 1936 New York Times story entitled "Hitler gets biggest vote: Many blanks counted in, 542,953 are invalidated" that I provided as the source for this reflects. The subhead for the NYT article also reads "SOME 'NOES' NOT COUNTED Confusion Causes Counting of Blanks and Many May Have Shown Opposition". Thus using the word "claimed" as opposed to "stated" is correct in this circumstance and is supported by the source I cited. Centpacrr (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe "claimed" should not be used period, and any proof and evidence of irregularities doesn't impact that. If there's a statement of inaccuracy, it should be direct and explicit. Say: "German government(regime itself has the same issues as claimed) says this-and-this, but so-and-so from the New York Times says this-and-this." Instead of waffling around and being sneaky, the words are clear and direct: "German government says one thing, New York Times says German government is lying." That is how things on Wikipedia should be written. If there's definitive proof the German government's lying, it will be there anyway. BTW if the discussion on the German government lying about its election results isn't directly germane to the topic it can be made into a footnote. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

To use the term "stated" in this context implies that the "results" reported by the German regime of the Die Reichstagswahl vom 29. März 1936 should be understood both then and now as having been an accurate and verifiable reflection of the views of an unintimidated electorate in a free, secret ballot plebiscite which they were not. The term "claimed" indicates that the "results" were correctly seen then and now as unproven and unreliable political propaganda advanced by the German regime. This is supported by the reliable contemporary New York Times story cited as the source which makes it clear that this was a faux or "show" plebiscite. It should also be understood that all Jewish and other non-Aryan German citizens had already been disenfranchised by the 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws and were prohibited from participating, the single issue ballot [3] did not provide a specific space to vote "no" (and many written in no votes were invalidated), blank ballots were counted as "yes", and that appearing at the polls was mandatory. If you have some source that reflects otherwise then feel free to provide it. Absent that an argument for the use of "stated" in place of "claimed" in the context of this entry strikes me as being without merit as it is both misleading and inconsistent with the cited reliable and verifiable sources. This is not "waffling around and being sneaky" but is instead the way WP works. Centpacrr (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• An article in the April 6, 1936 issue of TIME Magazine entitled "Foreign Affairs: May God Hlp Us!" about the March 29 election states:

"There was nothing free about the election. Voters could not even choose names from the long list of hand-picked Nazi candidates for the Reichstag posted inconspicuously in the polling places. They could only write Ja or put an X in a circle, voting full confidence in Adolf Hitler. To be sure they did this bright & early, brass bands were tooting in the streets and Nazi children banging on dishpans at daybreak.

"With Sunday's sunset came the results: 44,952,937 votes had been cast. Out of every 100 eligible Germans 99 had voted for Hitler, a world's record in national unity. To reach this figure, pollwatchers had counted not only the ballots marked Ja or X, but almost all the ballots that weaselers had left blank. Foreign correspondents were more interested in the 543,026 Germans so opposed to Adolf Hitler that they risked their necks by definitely defacing their ballots."

This "election" was clearly held for show and political propaganda purposes. Centpacrr (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

So all of that should be in a footnote. Somebody can "say" a lie. Somebody can "state" a lie. By using "claimed" without showing the evidence seen here somebody will be wondering whether Wikipedia is being underhanded. The evidence and statements from the NYT and TIME that the German government is lying should be directly printed in the article and/or in a footnote in the article. I started a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard to get more feedback about the issue Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#It_is_justified_to_say_.22the_German_government_.2Aclaimed.2A_something.22_when_western_newspapers_present_evidence_that_it_lied_about_an_election_result.3F. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, the use of the verb "claimed" as opposed to "stated" is not "sneaky and evasive" and I would appreciate it if you would cease falsely referring to it as such. Instead, as I have now pointed several times, it accurately reflects the two March and April, 1936 news articles (New York Times and TIME Magazine) that I cited as sources. Dictatorships such as that of the NSDAP which controlled Germany in 1936 have universally held faux elections, referenda and plebiscites for show that they manipulate to achieve false results which they then claim to represent virtually universal (98%+) approval. This is a well known tactic of such governments for propaganda purposes in an attempt to feign democratic legitimacy. (See for instance further discussion of this issue in 2011 the book "Voting for Hitler and Stalin: Elections Under 20th Century Dictatorships" Ralph Jessen, Hedwig Richter, Editors (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag GmBH), and especially two of the papers contained therein entitled: "Elections in Modern Dictatorships: Some Analytical Considerations" by Werner J. Patzelt, and "The Self-Staging of a Plebiscitary Dictatorship: The NS-Regime Between Uniformed Reichstag, Referendum, and Retchsparteifag" by Markus Urban.) To ignore this reality of how dictatorships customarily conduct "elections" in the false name of "neutrality" does not promote neutrality at all, but instead introduces an element of misleading POV itself. User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr]] (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It is justified to say "the German government *claimed* something" when western newspapers present evidence that it lied about an election result?

@Centpacrr: Would anybody mind having some input on this matter? This revision has: "With the completion of voting on the referendum (which the Government claimed had been approved by a "98.79% 'Yes' vote""

• One Wikipedian's position is that the New York Times article ("Hitler gets biggest vote: Many blanks counted in, 542,953 are invalidated." New York Times, March 30, 1936.) has shown evidence that Hitler's count is lying (See talk page) so the article should say that "the government claimed" and that saying "the government stated" would bring a connotation that the German government was telling the truth.
• My position is that the use of "claimed" is sneaky and evasive: "claimed" has connotations that one side is lying, but the word doesn't technically mean that, so it is an underhanded way of saying the government is lying. Instead there should be a direct statement such as "the German government says one thing, the New York Times says the German government is lying because of this evidence and TIME magazine says the German is lying because of this evidence." or "the New York Times stated there is evidence of a lie because..." - something to that effect (if it's not directly germane to the topic it can be explained in a footnote)

The Wikipedian posted extracts from TIME and New York Times stories that show evidence of the German government lying: User_talk:Centpacrr#.22stated.22_vs._.22claimed.22. That does not change my belief that "stated" should be used. Instead I believe there should be a footnote that explains that TIME and New York Times stated that the German government was lying. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

See my earlier comments on this issue here. As I pointed out there, the use of the verb "claimed" (which means an "assertion") as opposed to "stated" is not "sneaky and evasive" or is it "underhanded" and I would appreciate it if you would cease falsely referring to it as such and instead at least assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. Instead it accurately reflects the two March and April, 1936 news articles (New York Times and TIME Magazine) that I cited as sources. Dictatorships such as that of the NSDAP which controlled Germany in 1936 have universally held faux elections, referenda and plebiscites for show that they manipulate to achieve false results which they then claim to represent virtually universal (98%+) approval. This is a well known tactic of such governments for propaganda purposes in an attempt to feign democratic legitimacy. (See for instance further discussion of this issue in 2011 the book "Voting for Hitler and Stalin: Elections Under 20th Century Dictatorships" Ralph Jessen, Hedwig Richter, Editors (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag GmBH), and especially two of the papers contained therein entitled: "Elections in Modern Dictatorships: Some Analytical Considerations" by Werner J. Patzelt, and "The Self-Staging of a Plebiscitary Dictatorship: The NS-Regime Between Uniformed Reichstag, Referendum, and Retchsparteifag" by Markus Urban.) To ignore this reality of how dictatorships customarily conduct "elections" in the false name of "neutrality" does not promote neutrality at all, but instead introduces an element of misleading POV itself. Centpacrr (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM says that we should be careful with such words as "claimed", but it does not say that they should not be used. Generalised opinions about the dishonesty of dictators, however, should not be the criteria by which we make judgements. We should be looking at what historians say about this specific plebiscite. However, this is an article on the LZ 129 Hindenburg. The plebiscite is just mentioned in passing. Frankly, I see very little difference between stated and claimed in this instance. Paul B (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The use of the term "claimed" is not based on the "generalized opinions about the dishonesty of dictators", but on the information included about this specific 1936 plebiscite in the news accounts by the New York Times and TIME, the two sources cited. Why this is such a matter of concern to this thread's OP that he felt obliged to change this long standing text is a puzzlement to me. Centpacrr (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Those are not good sources. They are journalistic responses at the time - primary sources. We should be using the views of specialist scholars, not quoting primary-source journalism. As for the OP, he has stated (or perhaps claimed) that he wants to eliminate the word 'claimed' from Wikipedia, which is not an aspiration supported by policy. Paul B (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

While I do not agree that the 1936 New York Times and TIME accounts are "not good sources" simply because they are contemporary to the event, if you will look above you will see that I have already cited in this thread two such recent scholarly papers that are included in the 2011 book "Voting for Hitler and Stalin: Elections Under 20th Century Dictatorships" ("Elections in Modern Dictatorships: Some Analytical Considerations" by Werner J. Patzelt, and "The Self-Staging of a Plebiscitary Dictatorship: The NS-Regime Between Uniformed Reichstag, Referendum, and Retchsparteifag" by Markus Urban) that directly address and support the use of the term "claimed" in relation to Die Reichstagswahl vom 29. März 1936 in its context here. If the OP of this thread is in fact on some sort of personal campaign against policy to eliminate the word "claimed" from WP that seems to me to be a troubling endeavor -- especially for a sysop who should really know better. That would also seem to explain why he keeps using such inappropriate and intemperate terms as "sneaky", "evasive", and "underhanded" to describe its use by his fellow editors. Centpacrr (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You referred to those sources, but did not say how they support the word 'claimed' specifically. Most sources I am aware of take the view that the reoccupation of the Rhineland (the main subject of plebiscite) was extremely popular, and that the plebiscite genuinely reflected that, even though the approval figures were almost certainly exaggerated. However, the precise ins-and-outs of the referendum are not relevant to an article on the Hindenburg. As I oppose the Orwellian aspiration to eliminate any word altogether, I see no problem with either word in this case. Paul B (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

While the claimed excuse to the March 29, 1936 plebiscite was to justify the the reoccupation of the Rhineland three weeks earlier, the ballot made no mention whatsoever of that but instead was designed to turn the membership of the Reichstag entirely over to the NSDAP. I addressed the specific issue of why the cited sources support "claimed" over "stated" earlier in a thread on my talk page here. Centpacrr (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

March 1936 plebiscite ballot

This is the second time you linked to an open edit on your talk page. The link should be to a diff or section (but since there only is one section, just User_talk:Centpacrr will suffice). However, what you says there about those sources is the same as what you say here. I am perfectly well aware of what the plebiscite said, and why it was worded in the way it was, but why do I have to keep repeating that we are talking about a passing sentence on the Hindenburg airship article? This is not a discussion of detailed content regarding the article on the plebiscite. As for the picture. I think that's the ballot paper of the plebiscite held after the death of Hindenburg, but I wouldn't swear to it. Paul B (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• I linked again to the thread on my talk page because you asked about specific language in the NYT and TIME sources which appears there but not in this thread. As for the image of the ballot, it comes from the German WP article on the March 1936 plebiscite and also conforms to the description of how it was conducted in order to suppress virtually all potential votes against it in the paper "The Self-Staging of a Plebiscitary Dictatorship: The NS-Regime Between Uniformed Reichstag, Referendum, and Retchsparteifag" by Markus Urban which reads in part:

"Hitler resorted once again to the referendum in March 1936, when German troops invaded the demilitarized Rhineland and made military action—especially by France—a real possibility. In the same Reichstag assembly of March 7 in which he announced the invasion. Hitler declared the Reichstag dissolved and proclaimed that a ballot would take place on March 29. The tactical nature of this decision is shown by the fact that the Reichstag was not dissolved immediately, as would have been the case in the Weimar Republic. Rather, Hitler scheduled the dissolution of the Reichstag officially for election day. Thus, any semblance of an intermediary phase was avoided, and it would have been possible—should the need have arisen—for Hitler to have convened the Reichstag to make a formal declaration on foreign affairs. The election result was once again a great success for the NS regime, which won 98.7 per cent approval.

"A closer scrutiny reveals two radical features to this vote, however. First, the mechanism to exclude so-called Germinschaftsfremde (aliens to the community) from the group of eligible voters was already in operation, since the German Jews were no longer allowed to take part in the election. Second, those arguing for a legalistic course within the regime found themselves increasingly on the defensive as it became known that Minister of the Interior Frick, under the directive of the Ministry of Propaganda, was no longer allowed to make a separate record of spoilt ballot papers. Furthermore, the Reichstag, in the absence of occasions suitable for propaganda, did not convene once for a constitutive meeting during the first nine months following the election, which clearly violated the procedure stipulated in the Reich's constitution.

"The reason why Hitler decided in March 1936 to hold a Reichstag election rather than a referendum can no longer be determined with certainty. More important, though, is the fact that the National Socialists themselves barely distinguished between these two modes of balloting at the time. This is evident not only from the numerous intentional and unintentional terminological muddles, which can be attributed in part to a certain secretiveness, but also from the fact that Hitler liked to take decisions at short notice."

The form of the ballot illustrated above also conforms to the description in the April 6, 1936 TIME Magazine article "Foreign Affairs: May God Help Us!" which reads in part:

""There was nothing free about the election. Voters could not even choose names from the long list of hand-picked Nazi candidates for the Reichstag posted inconspicuously in the polling places. They could only write Ja or put an X in a circle, voting full confidence in Adolf Hitler."

While the overall matter of the use of the word "claimed" in this article is not in and of itself a huge deal, that of a single WP editor (and a self identified sysop at that) going on a personal "crusade" to eliminate the use of any perfectly good word in the project is a matter of considerable concern to me. I find this especially so when such an editor employs such inappropriate and intemperate terms as "sneaky", "evasive", and "underhanded" to describe its use by his fellow editors. If that is indeed the intent of this editor (the OP of both this thread and the one on my talk page), then I would ask him to admit that and counsel him to desist in this practice as it is both against WP policy and results in a huge waste of time and effort on the part of other editors in the community in unnecessary exercises like this one. Centpacrr (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Centpacrr, this is becoming ridiculous. I never asked "about specific language in the NYT and TIME sources". I asked about the scholarly sources which you claimed to support the word claimed. You still have provided no evidence that they do, though it's a rather marginal question whether they use that exact word or not. Your interminable quotations about the ballot paper are also rather irrelevant. It seems to be one of the unused ballot papers that could be bought from this website, which does indeed say that it's from a different ballot (but that's hardly an authoritative source, nor is this even important). As I've already said, I see no problem with either the word claimed or the word stated. Paul B (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have simply tried to answer your questions as I understood them. If these answers are not satisfactory to you I'm not sure what else I can do. I do believe, however, that the quotes I have supplied from both TIME and the Urban paper are more than sufficient to show that the way the process was structured, the ballots counted, and the large numbers of German citizens virtually certain to oppose the NSDAP who were unable to participate because they had been disenfranchised by the 1935 Nürnberger Gesetze (Nuremberg Race Laws) that a claim by the German Government of "98.7%" real support among the German people for the March 1936 plebiscite was a very significant exaggeration.

As for the ballot illustrated, it is completely consistent with what is described in both sources as having been that used in 1936. I very much doubt the similar ballot illustrated in the website you referred to was actually used in the March 1933 Reichstag election as that was an actual general election with candidates running from 15 different parties and in which the NSDAP finished with under 44% of the vote. March 29, 1936 was not such an election but was instead a plebiscite with "candidates" only from one party, the NSDAP. That is what the above illustrated ballot shows.

That being said, please note also that I am not the one who started either of these threads complaining about the use of the term "claimed" both in this instance and, as you have noted, Wikipedia-wide, and doing so using uncollegial and inflammatory language. As I have said now several times I find this attempt to be unwise, unencyclopedic, against WP policy, and thus a matter of very considerable concern to me. Centpacrr (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Centpacrr: I was talking about the word choice and the word having the problem and the word itself in that usage being sneaky and evasive, not a user. I was arguing why the word shouldn't be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

They do not appear to be saying it was used in the March 1933 election, but that it was a "replica of the election ballot" that contained different wording. Admittedly, it's not clear. But this is all marginal. As has already been said, no-one doubts that the plebiscite did not really give the electorate any choice, though of course that does not technically invalidate the result that was claimed/stated. If your electors have no real option but to vote yes, you are very likely to get a 90+ percent result, especially if you try to disregard spoiled papers too. Your source bluntly says, "The election result was once again a great success for the NS regime, which won 98.7 per cent approval." So it seems to me that "stated" is legitimate (they did get some sort of big 'yes', however it was achieved) and "claimed" is too. For some reason, the OP has not so far chosen to engage here, but I would add that his suggestion that we should add the following is impractical: "the German government says one thing, the New York Times says the German government is lying because of this evidence and TIME magazine says the German is lying because of this evidence." Sure, that could go in the main article, but for this article concision would be appropriate. Paul B (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow: What if there was a short footnote pointing to the main article and/or a section of the main article that explains the issue in more detail? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be rather overkill. It's just one word, but I've no objection. Paul B (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe if it's a simple article link, like <ref>[[Example article|Explanation of results]]</ref> or something like that? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes Urban says "The election result was once again a great success for the NS regime, which won 98.7 per cent approval" but he also clearly explains why that number is bogus in the following paragraph which begins "A closer scrutiny reveals two radical features to this vote, however". These relate to the overt disenfranchisement of all Jewish and other non-Ayrian voters and the dishonestly skewed method of counting votes. Context is important in understanding the results claimed by the German Government. I am also not particularly surprised that the thread's OP has fallen silent in the light of how the discussion has gone. Centpacrr (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• My take on this is that "claimed" is the appropriate word in this context. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• My feeling is that some users misinterpret WP:CLAIM, which (like all the words to watch) says to use those words with care and to be mindful of their implications, not to never use them at all. It is entirely appropriate to use the word "claimed" in a context where the overwhelming majority of sources throw someone's claim into question (and where it is near-universally described as merely a claim in reliable sources); in that case, we are neutrally reporting the fact that their claims have little backing. I would argue that insisting on always using "said" is actually a violation of WP:VALID; the point of words to watch is to be careful to avoid using language to make someone's position appear weaker than it is (to avoid words that "suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.") But when it is verifiable -- when reliable sources are nearly unanimous in talking dismissively about what they said -- then it is entirely appropriate to use "claimed", because in that case the implication is intentional and backed by good sources. Presenting all claims equally is not WP:NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion: - So if it's okay to use claimed if sources are unanimous that a party has lied, should someone make a talk page section, catalog all of the relevant sources, and point out how they all say that the party lied (assuming the party does not make/has not made an admission that it lied). That way it confirms that "claimed" should be used here. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• The real issue is apparently not the appropriate usage of "claimed" in this particular case, it is whether or not the OP is attempting to ban the term altogether from Wikipedia. If that is indeed the OP's intention he should either admit it, or if not deny it. Either way, however, the use of such pejorative terms as "sneaky", "evasive" and "underhanded" by any editor (and especially a sysop) to describe his fellow editors use of terms such as "claimed" is both inappropriate and against the tenants of WP:AGF. I therefore ask the OP to clarify his position on this issue one way or the other. Centpacrr (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Centpacrr: Okay, I'll clarify it. The issue is not preventing the word "claimed" from being used at all. The issue is using the word "claimed" specifically to insinuate some entity is lying: this is exactly what Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Synonyms for said is talking about. I believe the accusation of trying to "ban the word altogether" is unwarranted.

When I said "the use of the word is sneaky" I wasn't talking about any particular editor, but rather about what the word does: the word itself in the way it's being used: it insinuates that somebody is lying, but it isn't actually saying that. Therefore I believe it's a poor choice to use the word. I don't believe there is an AGF problem in saying "the usage of a word is sneaky and underhanded". I am not talking about an editor. I am talking about the word choice and why it's being used.

However if the Wikipedia community agrees that this is an appropriate use of claimed, then that is that. If "claimed" can be appropriately used to say that a party is lying if all reliable sources agree that the party is lying (without the party having made an admission that it lied) I think the sources should be documented on the talk page.

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, the word "claimed" does not imply that the person/government (whatever) is lying. For example politicians regularly claim that their views represent the interests of the people - "Politician A claimed that his policies would put the economy back on its feet, while politician B claimed that they would lead to disaster". Sure, you could replaced it with "said" in both cases, but there is no implication in the original from the word "claimed" that either politician is lying, nor is there anything "sneaky and underhanded" about the use of the word. Also, words can't be 'underhanded', only people can. So it difficult not to interpret such a comment as an attack on an editor. We don't need sources to agree that a claim is a 'lie', only that it is problematic. Paul B (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow: - Okay.. I guess I should think about how to rephrase that. I was trying to say that the word is problematic and unclear and it's better to be direct. Saying, for example, "the people were only allowed to vote for one candidate in the election in such-and-such country" is a direct way of showing how the result is illegitimate. It shows the reader proof that the election was bad. A reader can understand seeing this that the result is not to be trusted. Anyway, I'll let the other editors decide what's best.

@Centpacrr:, I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In general, I would say that the point at which we should report something as a "claim" is when we have sufficient sourcing to describe a contradicting view as flatly true in article voice. For instance, if we're reporting a historical claim that the world is flat, it would be appropriate to call it merely a "claim." It might also be appropriate for claims about BLPs that have been unequivocally dismissed by reliable source -- writing that "the police said the article's subject stabbed the victim to death", in a situation where the accused was found innocent, actually strikes me as less neutral than writing "the police claimed that the article's subject stabbed the victim to death". I don't agree with the assertion that "said" is automatically more neutral in all cases; again, it's a violation of WP:VALID to try and make every claim look equally-valid across-the-board. --Aquillion (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• I concur with both Paul B's and Aquillion's comments. All that WP:CLAIM says that applies in this instance is: "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." That is why I use "claimed" here and provided citations to two reliable sources to support it. I really don't see that anything more is needed. Centpacrr (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enemy of the State (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jason Lee. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Amelia Bence

Hi, is it possible you could boost the colour of File:Amelia_Bence_classic_image_crop.jpg/clean it up a bit?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Centpacrr (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Beautiful, thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ted Scott Book cover 1927.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ted Scott Book cover 1927.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Image not orphaned. Centpacrr (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Executive Suite

No real argument - I agree that the longer version is accurate, but it is accurate to a fault. For example, for the purpose of a synopsis, it works fine to say that everything happens within 28 hours, no real need to provide the date and time stamps for the telegraph, the clock outside the office, the exact location of the office, the exact name of the company of investment bankers, the time of the final board meeting, the time of the planned Friday board meeting, the time of the train leaving and arriving, etc. Another example, the length of time to get through the opening plot line about the short-selling and the Stork club and then the champagne celebration after confirming the guy's death went on so long that it appeared to be the crux of the movie, rather than an opening part of the much larger interesting plot.

Also found that the first two paragraphs were a significant repeat of each other, almost looked like an old opening-paragraph that someone had improved upon, but then they decided not to delete the paragraph that was being replaced.

There was so much of this "extra" stuff in the previous version that "general cleanup" was a fair representation of what the edit was doing. The previous version wasn't inaccurate, it just was way too long and repetitive (like this explanation has now become... sorry, just wanted to be fair here and explain that it was not some random edit attack that had been done in my original adjustments)

I'll look back here for your further comments - hope we can sort this out. Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Webster Sycamore image

Centpacrr, I was wondering if you'd be able to do me the favor of extracting this image from the following source:

• Mosely, Edwin Lincoln (1922). Trees, Stars and Birds: A Book of Outdoor Science. Yonkers, New York: World Book Company. OCLC 1081568. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I will be using this image in the article for Webster Sycamore which I'm currently developing in a sandbox. Please let me know if you have any questions. I'm assuming this will be PD since it was published in a book in 1922. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• In an older version of the book from 1920, this image is also printed. I'm not sure which has the better quality for extraction. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• http://centpacrr.com/trees.jpg Centpacrr (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Centpacrr, the image looks stunning! Thank you for your beautiful work, as always. This will greatly enhance the article! -- West Virginian (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mike Richards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NHLPA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sinatra

Hi, could you clean File:Frank_Sinatra_in_1962.jpg up, boost the colour/contrast/hue or whatever you do and perhaps recolour the background? Perhaps a slight crop on right too to centre it. Whatever you think you can do to make it look the most pristine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Hersehy Bears Hockey Club Logo.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hersehy Bears Hockey Club Logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hersehy Bears Hockey Club Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hersehy Bears Hockey Club Logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Hersehy Bears Hockey Club Logo.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Hersehy Bears Hockey Club Logo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hershey Bears Hockey Club 75th Anniversary Logo 2013.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hershey Bears Hockey Club 75th Anniversary Logo 2013.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hershey Bears Hockey Club Logo (2011).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hershey Bears Hockey Club Logo (2011).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hersheypark Arena last AHL season logo 1938-2002.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hersheypark Arena last AHL season logo 1938-2002.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Hershey Bears Hockey Club 75th Anniversary Logo 2013.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hershey Bears Hockey Club 75th Anniversary Logo 2013.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Hershey Bears Hockey Club Logo (2011).jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hershey Bears Hockey Club Logo (2011).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Hersheypark Arena last AHL season logo 1938-2002.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hersheypark Arena last AHL season logo 1938-2002.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Hersheypark Arena final AHL season logo 2001-2002.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hersheypark Arena final AHL season logo 2001-2002.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Hersheypark Arena final AHL season logo 2001-2002.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Hersheypark Arena final AHL season logo 2001-2002.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hersheypark Arena last AHL season logo 1938-2002.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hersheypark Arena last AHL season logo 1938-2002.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I googled, and there *is* such a word as trailled...

...But I still wanted to change that, too. Thanks! TJSwoboda (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Not, however, applying to court trials. Centpacrr (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Lindbergh

Wanted to give you a heads up as to this edit. As I said I may have reverted too much, including some good parts of your recent edit. No offense taken if you restore some of that, my main objective was to correct the IP's mistake. It would have been cleaner if someone had noticed the IP's bad edit and reverted it before subsequent edits; I should have been watching more closely but must have been occupied elsewhere. So it goes. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Caine Mutiny

Please be mindful of the three revert rule. Also I notice that an IP made an edit along the lines of some you've made. Please be careful not to edit when logged out. Coretheapple (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have made over 22,500 edits on Wikipedia since registering in 2006 and have never once edited as an IP, logged out, or under any other account name than this one. The IP you apparently are referring to (208.72.73.187) geolocates to Dyer, Tennessee and is not me. If you were to look at my user page you would see that I am located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Centpacrr (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:The Caine Mutiny "Yellow Stain".jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Caine Mutiny "Yellow Stain".jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Advice

I strongly urge you to read the section of WP:Gaming the system called Gaming the consensus-building process, where you will read the following:

1. Stonewalling or filibustering – repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution.

You would also do well to read the page WP:I didn't hear that. You are perilously close to violating these -- in fact, many would say you have done so already -- so I advise you to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, unless you want your behavior to be brought to the attention of an admin, or brought to the noticeboards. You are making a mockery of the purpose of the article's talk page. I would point out to you that, quite recently, an editor was topic banned from posting on an article's talk page for doing very much the same kind thing you're doing to Talk:The Caine Mutiny.

Look, you seem like a nice enough person, and I have no reason to dislike you or to hassle you. I'm sure you're not out to cause problems, but, in fact, you are, and you need to stop it now before it goes even further and you get into trouble. BMK (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

There is really only one editor—Coretheapple—who seems to be objecting to my contributions to this page, however unfortunately when I question him or her to engage in reasonable discourse and provide reasons or support for his/her objections all I get is basically "because I said so" while not addressing and ignoring any points that I raise, instead calling them "trivia" or "funcraft" (whatever that is supposed to mean) and then he/she "hangs up" and declines to support his/her position or basis of objection. A single tendentious editor like this one who disagrees with another one but refuses to engage in a discussion of why does not in any way constitute "consensus of the community". Centpacrr (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Queeg A.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Queeg A.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Queeg B.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Queeg B.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• I just wanted to point out that you uploaded the two photos above after deletion discussions commenced at Commons on the same two photos. Why did you do that? Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

x== Harmar, Marietta ==

Thanks for the image help; the Harmar, Marietta article is now a good deal better. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring and NFCC violations

Your recent editing history at ‪Charles Lindbergh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
It is evident you do not properly understand our policy regarding the use of nonfree images. The images you have repeatedly restored, in this article and articles like George P. Putnam and The Caine Mutiny (film), are textbooks examples of policy violations. Absent unusual circumstances and significant related textual discussions, nonfree book covers may not be displayed in articles about their authors. Nonfree magazine covers may not be used merely to illustrate statements about their publication. Under NFCC#8, implementing WMF policy requirements, nonfree images may not be displayed unless they significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article statements about them -- a standard which is never met when the article content simply reports publiucation without discussing the cover image itself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dustjacket for the book "WE" by Charles A. Lindbergh (First Edition) published July, 1927.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dustjacket for the book "WE" by Charles A. Lindbergh (First Edition) published July, 1927.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Spirit of St. Louis book cover 1953.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Spirit of St. Louis book cover 1953.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Spirit of St. Louis film poster 1957.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Spirit of St. Louis film poster 1957.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Humphrey Bogart TIME cover June 7, 1954.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Humphrey Bogart TIME cover June 7, 1954.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

WE book

Hi, while I can appreciate your enthusiasm with Charles Lindbergh, articles about bibliographies do not take on the attributes of the subjects themselves. I encourage you to review how other bibliographies are categorized: Category:Biographies of Nelson Mandela. This Nelson guy has a lot of categories, books about him don't. Same goes for books about this guy. --Hooperbloob (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This is his autobiography and all of those subjects are mentioned in the book. Centpacrr (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thats right, and those are properly listed/mentioned in the article text. But categories apply to the main topic - the book in this case, rather than the person. You're likely going to get a lot of edits cleaning out those non-book categories.--Hooperbloob (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I've trimmed it back quite a bit to the absolute essentials. Centpacrr (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Graphics lab

I'm not going to continue to argue what I've already clearly stated there. I don't see any benefit to that. I will say however, that I'm just asking you to please make more of an effort to work with the rest of us. You're at the center of virtually every disagreement there, and even without casting blame, that puts you in the best position to do something about it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Again, sir or madame, if I (or any other editor) has views different than one (or more) other contributors on issue(s) being debated in any talk section on WP, it is the purpose of these threads to provide a place for such differences to be resolved and consensus reached. That often takes more than one posting per participant to accomplish resolution especially when, as in the instant case, multiple editors choose to participate. Stating and vigorously supporting one's views in response to those of others is not being "argumentative" in, as you apparently imply, a pejorative sense, but is engaging in WP's designated process for achieving community consensus. Editors who are uncomfortable in fully engaging in the give and take of this collaborative process and/or are unable or unwilling to assume good faith on the part(s) of others in such discussions who may disagree with them, should probably refrain from entering such discussions altogether.

In the case of the 1878 Vanity Fair illustration entitled "A Conservative", an acceptable resolution was reached with my making available two versions of the image in which the toning of the original image file was retained in one, and altered in the other, and in which I also restored the text and caption on both. The OP, who had specifically requested for me by name to remove the watermark, has already expressed satisfaction with how I met that request, and a second version with the ivory toning removed is also available if another editor wishes to use that image elsewhere. That being the case, I am puzzled by your postings both above and in the discussion of this image in Graphics Lab page (which appears to have now since been closed by the OP), especially when you also admitted there that with regard to the image under discussion you actually didn't "care which version is used". Please also remember that there are no "Editors-in-Chief" on Wikipedia, and therefore thorough "argument" to resolve editorial differences is not only permitted, it is encouraged by WP guidelines and policy as the proper way to do so. Centpacrr (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

When you state clearly and unambiguously false claims in an attempt to forward one's opinion, that is not discussion, but argument.

Your claim that Hohum's version was lower resolution was false, as his version had the exact same pixel dimensions as yours. You attempted to defend this assertion to him and to me by arguing that he'd used a higher compression ratio. You were either implying that you mistakenly said "lower resolution" instead of "higher compression ratio", or you were implying that the two terms are synonymous. They are not, and someone with your skill level would not be expected to make either of those two mistakes (mistakes which you tellingly only implied, but never actually claimed). However this attempted defense completely ignored the fact that the assumption upon which it was predicated was false: Hohum's higher compression version had no more visible compression artifacts than yours at native screen resolution. I cannot believe you weren't aware of this, and so I cannot make sense of any rationale for that claim aside from you knowing you were wrong, but being unwilling to concede the point.

Your claim that we don't know what color paper the original caricatures were created upon is not only obviously false, but frankly, utterly ridiculous. What editor in their right mind would intentionally print their magazine on paper which looks old and ready to crumble to dust, as the paper those scans were taken from looks? Again, you clearly have a level of skill that comes with experience, and as such, I cannot for one second believe that you take this position with any seriousness. I believe you were grasping at straws to avoid admitting any error.

These are not the only examples. There are others which I have avoided bringing up because I'm not here to pile on a list of your errors and demand you account for them. They range from poor handling of conflict to utterly atrocious image editing (far below your usual level of quality) which you defend. In fact, I've yet to see you acknowledge any error or correction, in any way. Even when you seem to privately agree that another of us improved upon your work, you go on and make additional 'tweaks' to the image to make sure your name is on the final version.

You can sit here and attempt to lecture me about discussion and your rights to argue with people, but I've seen you growing more and more argumentative and less willing to take criticism. I'm trying to reach out to you to work this out, but an outstretched hand is pointless if you won't reach back. How difficult can it possibly be to say "Okay, obviously there's an issue, and maybe I'm partially to blame for it. I'm willing to take some of your advice if you're willing to take some of mine." ? You've already gotten the two other most prolific volunteers on the page complaining about you to each other and to me. How long do you think it will be before you end up getting sanctioned over this? I'm not denying that this is a two-sided issue. But I'm sitting here telling you plainly that I'm willing to work with you, and I'm willing to try to help the others work with you. If you can't reciprocate, well, then frankly, you need to learn a few things about working with others, and you should probably take a break from editing until you do. I'm sorry if any of that sounded overly harsh. I honestly mean it with concern, not judgement. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I was specifically requested by name by the OP to remove the watermark on the image he/she had uploaded which I did. A second editor then almost immediately summarily overwrote what I did with a version that significantly altered the colorization of the image to something he/she speculated was "original". I restored the version I had done for the OP but as a compromise and indication of my assumption of good faith on the part of the other contributor, I also created a second hosting page for a version of the image with altered colorization so that it would be available if the OP or someone wanted to use it someplace else. After viewing both versions, the OP then expressed preference for using the original "ivory" colorization that I had done and rejected the other one as not meeting his/her request.

So what exactly is the problem?

I did exactly what the OP asked me by name to do and produced a .jpeg file of the image saved with as little compression as I could -- exactly as I had done earlier with a number of other 19th century Vanity Fair caricatures for this OP -- and that's the one the OP selected for use. It seems to me that you are therefore creating a manufactured controversy about an image that you also admit that you "didn't care about" where there actually isn't one. I regret that you are once again apparently unable to assume good faith on the part of fellow contributors to the project, but again I ask you to understand that there are no "Editors-in-Chief" on Wikipedia. Differences of opinion are fine and I am perfectly willing to engage in such discussions as I did in this instance, but such discussions (or "argument" in the legal sense of "presenting reason or reasons with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong") do not in any way constitute sanctionable activity on WP such as vandalism or disruptive editing. With respect, sir or madame, I therefore really do not appreciate your implication that anything I have ever done in WP is in any way such prohibited activity subject to sanction -- or threatening me or any other member of the WP community with formal accusations of such.

I note in reviewing your user contributions log that the vast majority of your postings appear to be in various administrative forums and to user talk pages while virtually eschewing contributing to any informational content of the Wikipedia Project itself. I'm not really sure how you feel this helps build the project for its readers or what your objectives may be. For the ten years I have been on WP, however, my objective has always been very different, i.e, to expend the majority of my efforts to build and expand the informational and graphic content of the Project and to avoid the muck and mire of its politics and omphaloskeptic wikilawyering which I find to be a largely unproductive circular activity. Centpacrr (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

A crappy image

I know you have some really great graphic skills, so I don't know if you think you can do anything with c:File:James Johnston, Lord Mayor of Belfast.jpg considering how bad it is and how low the resolution is. Thanks in advance. ww2censor (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Centpacrr (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

That's really a good job for such a lousy image. Thanks so much. I promise I won't bug you too often. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hockey on the ice listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hockey on the ice. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. . Right now this links to bandy, which is quite ridiculous if you ask me. Hockey on ice is ice hockey, and the redirect should justifiably go to that page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Of severed hands and Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau

Thanks for chopping off Michael Laucke's hand. I see from your userpage you're into opera, and saw a photo of you and a baritone. I've never been into opera, but I deeply appreciate the Lieder of Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, esp. Schumann's "Mondnacht". Cheers!   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

He was a great singer, especially of Schubert leider. Thanks for the note. Centpacrr (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Trini76.jpg

When you remove a watermark from an image, please also remove the {{imagewatermark}} template. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Photograph of Sadiq Khan

Hi! Thank you for your kind work cropping the photograph of Sadiq Khan that I took at Pride in London. I have now revisited this with the benefit of the raw files and some alternates and uploaded a new version, retaining the idea with blurring the background. I hope you're happy with the result and thanks again. Katy Blackwood (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

And thanks again! Incidentally Wikimedia UK have publicised the photo's use here. Katy Blackwood (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. It is a nice image of the Mayor. Centpacrr (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Thank you for your continued work at Image Workshop. VarunFEB2003 I am Offline 17:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

== Talkback ==

Hello, Centpacrr. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop#Clock.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 06:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh you did it Thanks a lot VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 07:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Mariah Carey - Love Takes Time US cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mariah Carey - Love Takes Time US cover.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Toggle-green.png File:Toggle-blue.png File:Toggle-orange.png File:Toggle-grey.png

Can you remove the background please of all those images once more. I'll be using them in a template Thanks a lot Which tool do you use to do this? --VarunFEB2003 11:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot VarunFEB2003 14:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Query

Hi hi. What were we trying to do here? --John (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this message the first time. What were you trying to do? --John (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

And again. Either "two months later" or "on November 8" will suffice; we do not need to state the same information twice. --John (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to understand there is a specific reason to include both in context of the relation of this move to two different events in the history timeline of the Pacific Railroad. The reference to "two months" later" relates to the time difference of the physical move from the Alameda to Oakland wharfs as the line's terminus. Mentioning November 8 as the date specific is made in context of the eventual establishment by the Supreme Court in 1879 of the "legal date of completion" of the Pacific Railroad under the provisions of the Pacific Railroad Acts as being November 6, 1869 which wastwo days before the move. I have written two published books on the history of the Pacific Railroad and have a pretty good understanding of the significance of time relationships of these two aspects in its history. Centpacrr (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks for eventually replying to my queries. When you wrote your two books, was your work subject to editing for readability? --John (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not really sure what exactly that comment is supposed to mean, or why it is that you believe that you are somehow entitled to instant replies to postings on other volunteer editors' talk pages. With respect you should understand by now that being a sysop does not give one any special status or authority to act as an "editor in chief" or "final authority" in how any article on the project is structured. That belongs to the community and is achieved by the process of consensus in the event of difference in opinion. This is also not the first time you have taken this approach with me and many other editors. (Your "anti-however" campaign is an example that comes to mind.) Please, therefore, try to be more respectful and collegial of your fellow volunteer contributors to the project. (I have written seven books overall by the way.) Centpacrr (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Mmm. I will take that as a "yes, but I don't like the question". If you have time in your exacting schedule and the willingness as a volunteer to do so, perhaps you could attend to the question I asked at article talk. --John (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You should take all my comments herein exactly as I wrote them without making any assumptions and/or false interpretations. Centpacrr (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? Well, let's try again then. My question was: When you wrote your two seven books, was your work subject to editing for readability? If you can give me a less evasive answer, it will help to avoid any risk of my seeming to make any "assumptions and/or false interpretations". --John (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the basis and point of such a foundationless and unfocused question? Your supposed disagreement with how and why I used two three-word phrases in a single sentence in the First Transcontinental Railroad entry? Who edits what you write "for readability" and is that something I or any other contributor to the Wikipedia project should care let alone ask about? Have read any of my books? Do you even know what they are entitled and/or are about? Your "question" seems to me to have been "posed" for a wholly non inquisitive purpose. I don't spend the time I do contributing to the project (which I have been doing for a decade now) to waste it playing pointless games. If you are actually interested in my books and/or other information about me and why I contribute to the project, you are free visit my highly detailed user page. That's what it is there for. But please, "however", don't waste the time of myself and other contributors with vacuous, solipsistic bloviation. As a sysop you should really understand the purpose of the project -- and know better. Centpacrr (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

So, definitely a "yes, but I don't like the question" then. Thanks. See you at article talk. --John (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

See supra, and please stop being a troll. Your petulant behavior is contrary to the objectives of the project, and egregiously so for a sysop. Centpacrr (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not acting as a "sysop" here but as a regular editor, so hypothetically if you were to continue to edit irregularly by restoring poorly written material, refusing to discuss proposed changes, owning articles and using offensive language like "troll", it would not be me who would block you but another admin. I see you have not been blocked for a good long time; let's try to keep it like that. I sense this conversation has reached a natural end and so I look forward to reading your contributions at Talk:First Transcontinental Railroad. --John (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You, sir, are the one who started this thread in my talk page over the use of six words in a single sentence that had been in place for a long period of time which for some reason you found inappropriate. I explained to you in great detail, "however", why both three-word phrases were used, and in an attempt to quell your angst over them have now further rewritten the paragraph to create a context that elucidates why they are significant. The Pacific Railroad is a subject about you have indicated no expertise or previous interest while I, "however", have written two published books on the subject and have also been operating with my brother-in-law a website (CPRR.org) which now has grown to over 10,000 webpages and 5,000+ illustrations and has been online since February, 1999.

My point of mentioning that you are a sysop is that as one who has been entrusted with the administrative tools of one by the community should know better than to gratuitously interact with myself and other editors as you have in the past and are again doing now. And I certainly do not appreciate your making thinly veiled threats to have me blocked from editing because of unsubstantiated accusations of "editing irregularly by restoring poorly written material, refusing to discuss proposed changes, owning articles and using offensive language".

As I mentioned this is not the first time I have observed you manifesting this sort of solipsistic behavior in here that has involved articles to which I have been a major contributor, and that I have also seen you cross paths in this way with other editors in similar patterns of what appears to be disruptive editing in the past (2013). I also see that you are now engaging in what I consider to be behavior that can also be considered to be a manifestation of an element of "trolling" by now clearly "targeting" another article to which I have been the major contributor, that on the Belfast and Moosehead Lake Railroad, a rural short line railroad in Waldo County, Maine which I have been photographing and writing about for over 30 years, but to which you have no logical connection or any reason to involve yourself with now other than to "provoke" me. There is no other logical reason why you would have immediately made changes to this article (including employing your personal "anti-however" campaign) except by having reviewed my ten year contribution history for the sole purpose of finding another article to which I have made major contributions.

Finally the obvious real purpose behind your repeated gratuitous "question" to me of "When you wrote your two seven books, was your work subject to editing for readability?" is transparently infantile for the reasons I have pointed out above, and again as a sysop you should really know better. Frankly it is this kind of behavior that drives good contributors away from the project. With respect I am really not interested in playing your game here again. Centpacrr (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This is why I never edit my own photos

Swami, I have a photo of a beautiful 80 year old badge that needs to go in the Egyptian Scout history section. When I tried to Photoshop out the background myself, I butchered it so horribly it's embarrassing. I'd like your help before I upload it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

I'll assume this was a mistake. Please be more careful in future. --John (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This is why I never edit my own photos

Swami, I have a photo of a beautiful 80 year old badge that needs to go in the Egyptian Scout history section. When I tried to Photoshop out the background myself, I butchered it so horribly it's embarrassing. I'd like your help before I upload it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:B&ML Station, Brooks, ME.jpg

What's going on with this image? --John (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Statutory 3RR warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --John (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you give up on the photo lab?

Hope not, your skills are really good!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I am taking a bit of a hiatus. I will be back eventually. Centpacrr (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear it!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Railroad

Thanks for restoring the link to the suburban electrification. I deleted it in error whilst intending to remove the item related to a vice-president who was lost to the sinking of the Titanic (per WP:TRIVIA). KirksKeyKard (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Humanities ref desk...

...has a question about railroads which I suspect would be right up your alley. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Image you may be interested in cropping

Hi again Centpacrr. Given that you did such a great job with the Sadiq Khan image, could you have a go at cropping this image with Theresa May in it? See Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop#Theresa May. Many thanks and godspeed.--Nevé–selbert 19:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: the image was cropped, but could you work around the lighting (e.g. cleaning up transition borders between subject and bg, agma)? Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 19:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done I also "fixed" her pearls. Centpacrr (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Please could you reduce the image noise a touch? Thank-you.--Nevé–selbert 21:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

If you don't mind, could you yourself crop the image and save it in .PNG format? I'm not a fan of how Begoon did it, really.--Nevé–selbert 22:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Centpacrr. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jesse B. Jackson

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:JesseBJackson.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 21:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! Go Jets! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Abebe Bikila

Thanks for your work on the photograph of Abebe Bikila. I hope I didn't seem thankless. I think your version is 100x better than the original. If no one can do better, I hope you will allow me to go back to your version in the article.— አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Myhockeyoffice.jpg

The file File:Myhockeyoffice.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned "keep local" file.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Image Capture of Olga FitzGeorge and family

Hi Centpacrr, I am in the very early stages of drafting an article in my sandbox at User:West Virginian/Olga FitzGeorge and I found a fair use photo on Google Books here and I was wondering if you would be able to capture this image for me to include in this article as you have kindly done for me in the past. Please let me know if you would be able to do this for me. I would owe you big time! Sincerely, West Virginian (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Centpacrr, I captured this photo and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons at File:FitzGeorge Family Four Generations Portrait 1900.jpg. If you could make any adjustments to improve its overall quality, I would greatly appreciate it! It is also located at this source below:

• Ingram Brothers (1903). Sketch: A Journal of Art and Actuality. Vol. 32. London: Ingram Brothers. p. 177. OCLC 1765600. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

-- West Virginian (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Philadelphia Firebirds

Hey Bruce, it only took me nine years... but I finally overhauled the Philadelphia Firebirds (ice hockey) article! I hope you enjoy. Jason, Cheers! Flibirigit (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Centpacrr. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Chrono order

It is convention to put information in chrono order, as it was, before you inverted the order here. --2604:2000:E016:A700:B01C:978D:2B04:D832 (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I wrote this in this order as the clause element I put first directly related to the content of sentence immediately before and that was followed by a second clause in the same sentence giving the reason for the suspension. I thus found the change reversing putting the "reason clause" before the "action clause" to be awkward. Centpacrr (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's decidedly backwards. Normal editing at wikipedia is chronological. Person A was born. Went to school at B. First job was C. Last job was D. Was accused of harassment. Was fired.

They all relate, of course, to the items before and after them. But we follow a chronological construct. Thus ... man commits act, man is tried, man is convicted, man is incarcerated. We don't say, "Let's say the man was incarcerated, because he was convicted, after he was tried, for committing an act." Nor would that be logical, or helpful to the reader.

Just look at the suggested templates for bios. They follow this approach. You have Birth before Education before Career, for example. It's basis Wiki editing. --2604:2000:E016:A700:B01C:978D:2B04:D832 (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

First you only started editing under this account TODAY so there is no way to tell if you have ever edited on Wikipedia before. Second my rewritten version is now in chronological order although I stand equally by my original posting as being acceptable as well. Third, please stop edit warring and removing both verified material and NYT story citations. Centpacrr (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

First, IPs are allowed to edit on Wikipedia. Second, thanks for adhering to chronlogical order -- you will find it the typical standard throughout Wikipedia, and throughout formats for bios. Third, when have I ever removed any verified material? Or NYT refs. I thought I only used a short form of an existing NYT ref, while you kept on using a long form for referencing a NYT article that was already referenced in the article. 2604:2000:E016:A700:B01C:978D:2B04:D832 (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The ref removed was to a second NYT article from December 4th reporting on a fourth victim. Centpacrr (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. Your edit summary said 5th ... 2604:2000:E016:A700:B01C:978D:2B04:D832 (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, as to the MOS for MONTH YEAR (no comma in between), check the MOS. Specifically MOS:DATE.2604:2000:E016:A700:B01C:978D:2B04:D832 (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Your changing the active voice to the passive voice

You repeatedly change the active voice -- which seasoned editors will tell you is clearly preferred -- to the passive voice, in your editing of the writing of the others. For example, you change "The Met summarily terminated ..." to "The Met would summarily terminate". That is poor writing, and a disservice to the reader. --2604:2000:E016:A700:11BC:600C:96E1:BB37 (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

My use of the passive voice "would summarily" as opposed to active voice in the particular situation noted is done so to make it clear that the very sudden and complete change in status of Levine's relationship with the Met has a very specific cause (i.e. made in response to the charges of sexual abuse) as opposed to being simply chronological which is something quite different. I'm sorry you failed to understand that, however as such it is neither "poor writing" nor is it a "disservice to the readers". Centpacrr (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Poor practice; conflict of interest considerations

It is poor practice for you, as you did here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2604:2000:E016:A700:B01C:978D:2B04:D832&diff=814603838&oldid=814603492, revise your statement that has already been replied to. Above the reply.

Also -- as asked but not answered, have you considered the COI issues inherent in your editing articles where you have a COI? Including your insertion of photo(s) of yourself into Wikipedia articles?

--2604:2000:E016:A700:11BC:600C:96E1:BB37 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind response on my talkpage. Ammarpad (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevance of the day of the week 30 years after something happened

Re your edit summary here:

"Tha accident happened after a team party following a Saturday night game with Boston in the early morning hours of Sunday."

Can you explain to me how this is different from, say,

"The accident happened after a team party following a Friday night game with Boston in the early morning hours of Saturday."

or

"The accident happened after a team party following a Thursday night game with Boston in the early morning hours of Friday."

All I see as relevant (and I am old enough to remember when this happened) is that he died in the early morning hours after a game the previous evening. I do not see why the day of the week is, over 30 years after this happened, so essential we have to use it in the text. Using the actual dates is enough for the reader to know and distinguish between the two days. There is nothing about his death that requires knowing which day of the week it happened on to understand.

I would point out that neither Death of Diana, Princess of Wales nor Pearl Harbor attack give the day of the week those events occurred in their ledes. And those events were of much more moment than the death of Pelle Lindbergh. (Also, none of our biographical articles give days of the week for their subjects' birth and death dates). Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It puzzles me why you are making such a big deal about two words of relevant, accurate information which has been in this entry for more than two years. It certainly does not in any way violate any guidelines or policies of the Wikipedia Project. I was in fact with Pelle, who was a good friend of mine, until just a few hours before his accident. He did not play in the game on that Saturday night against Boston in which he served as the backup to Bob Froese. The reason that the team had the party at the practice facility after the game that night was because a) it was a Saturday (as opposed to a weekday) night, and b) that the Flyers had an unusual six day break before the next game and so would not practice or play the next day (Sunday). Had one or the other of these not been the case, the team would not have had a late night/early morning team party that Saturday night and Pelle would not have been involved in the accident that killed him. Thus the day of the week and time of day (i.e. "early Sunday morning) was a significant element in why the accident happened. Centpacrr (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, responding after about two and a half months, I see your point (and I am sorry if I came across as brusque; I was unaware that you had known him and I apologize for any hurt feelings).

It would be helpful if we got some of this context in the article—I remember when this happened the unusual in-season near-week off was cited as a reason why the Flyers would have a party that Saturday, something not otherwise done by NHL teams during the regular season. Perhaps, if the sources cited have that information (or if not, we can find them), we can begin that section on his death by giving that context (which the article doesn't really have as written). I would be happy to draft some text for that for your approval before putting it in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I have added the following sentence to the lede: "Lindbergh died at age 26 as the result of a single vehicle auto accident following a late Saturday night in season team party." Centpacrr (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)