Central and Adams

Welcome

Hello, Central and Adams, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Central and Adams, good luck, and have fun. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, friend! Central and Adams (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Important notice

Hi Central and Adams,

You probably already know about this; for example, you have mentioned WP:BIO in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sal LaBarbera. This message is a formal requirement when determining an editor's "awareness" about Wikipedia's special treatment of biographies of living persons, so I got accustomed to placing it on pretty much everyone's talk page. The Arbitration Committee is currently working on improving this somewhat-outdated process, but that's the way it currently is:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Please be specific. You say it's a "formal requirement when determining an editor's "awareness" about Wikipedia's special treatment of biographies of living persons." What makes it a requirement? Is it required to "determine an editor's awareness"? I can't find that policy either. As far as I know it's a formal requirement to drop that notice before you turn someone in for special sanctions. Is that your plan? If not, delete the warning. If so, why not discuss it first? If neither, why place it? It's bizarre and in my experience unprecedented to drop warnings like this for no discernible reason. Central and Adams (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no matter how I attempt to explain it, it always comes across as a kind of warning. It theoretically isn't. Practically, I mostly use it when I expect possible problems in the future that could one day end up at WP:AE, so it practically isn't the nicest thing to receive. I know. Again, the process is currently being improved, and it probably should be for reasons like this one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

No, really, I'm interested in why you said it's a formal requirement. Why is it a requirement at all? Please cite some kind of source for this claim. The fact is that it's not a requirement, it's your choice. There's no reason to use it unless someone's misbehaving, and no one is, or at least not me. Please remove it or explain why you're required to place it. Also interested in official WP processes for "determining an editor's awareness..."Central and Adams (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no requirement (nor practice) to add {{DS/alert}} to all talk pages of people editing in the area. What I'm trying to say is: There is a term defined at WP:AWARE as "awareness", and this template is a requirement for such "awareness" to exist in someone. You are now formally "aware" and the message has fulfilled its purpose, making you "aware". I've rarely seen something more bureaucratic than this, but I value the existence of WP:AE, and I'd like to allow users to voice their concerns there, if concerns occur. This can't happen without awareness notices, so I distribute them relatively liberally. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, so you said it was required but it's not. You said it's not a comment on my editing but now you're saying it is. You ought to stop doing this. It's upsetting, you know it's upsetting, and it contributes to editor loss. You're part of the problem despite your self-serving rhetoric. Wait till someone does something dicey, like dropping aggressive templates on a talk page for no reason at all, before you use it.Central and Adams (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, and regarding deleting/removal, do feel free to do that. It has already served its formal purpose and can be removed at any time, like every message you'd like to remove (see WP:UP#CMT and Help:Archiving for two possible approaches). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

So you said it was a formal requirement to shift your responsibility onto ARBCOM? And now you want me to remove it even though you dropped it on my page for no reason and tried to pretend you had no choice? Central and Adams (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

(see above / 20:28) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

...and because {{DS/alert}} is a boring template, here's something more enjoyable. Thank you very much for the reasonable, detailed explanation at Talk:Sal LaBarbera. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Edition

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1952_USSR_Chess_Championship&curid=65432817&diff=1167352667&oldid=1167352276 I can understand why you might think that "edition" is only applied to printed material but that is not so. For example, see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/edition which includes the defintion "one of the forms in which something is presented" with usage examples "this year's edition of the annual charity ball" and "The last two editions of the World Cup featured 24 teams.". Per the WP:3RR I ask that you not change this again without first getting consensus on the article talk page. Quale (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nat Turner

My edit should have pinged you but didn't. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

——Serial 14:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

GMAFB, there's absolutely no need for this kind of officious BS. Did I do something sketchy? No. Are you required to drop this notice on me? No. Ask yourself why you find yourself voluntarily acting like this. Consider spending more time editing main space. Central and Adams (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at User talk:Central and Adams. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! ——Serial 15:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Every accusation is a confession, friend. Look to the beam in your own eye. Central and Adams (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Serial Number 54129. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Serial Number 54129. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. ——Serial 15:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

LOL, like I said, every accusation is a confession! Central and Adams (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	But well done on your concerted efforts to keep notable individuals—particularly women—from deletion at AfD. ——Serial 16:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

And you people wonder why you have trouble retaining editors. Central and Adams (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Tate

My goal isn't to be bothersome, and FWIW I appreciate your responses in the deletion discussion. It does seem a little much to be bringing up badgering/protesting my request for clarification of another editor's !vote. They are completely capable of ignoring my question if they wish, and to be mentioning badgering to my and not the article author who's been replying to everyone seems a bit lop-sided. VQuakr (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The article author isn't replying directly to !votes, which makes all the difference. Central and Adams (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

1. How so? 2. [1]. VQuakr (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one time, not every time. The rest of their replies are to replies, which strikes me as fair game. It's very different from challenging every !voter to further justify their take on the matter. The closer is perfectly capable of judging the proper weight to give !votes. Central and Adams (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if someone challenges every !voter we can address that when it occurs. A reply asking for more info isn't badgering. No need for you to police the discussion; if the admin I asked for more info from doesn't want to elaborate that's fine. VQuakr (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you mean well but it feels aggressive. In any case at this point I'm happy to wait for the closer to sort it out. Central and Adams (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, well I'll echo that I know you mean well also, and wish you happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)