User talk:AnonUser

Welcome!

Hello AnonUser, and a belated Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some good places to get you started!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes (~~~) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, please either visit the help desk, or leave a new message on my talk page at any time. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold!

Fir e Fo x 18:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

WikiProject Washington Metro

Just wanted to let you know that WikiProject Washington Metro is now alive, and hope that you'll join the project. If so, just sign your name under mine on the list of participants using ~~~~.

Hope you'll join us! Schuminweb 00:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WMATA project

Rarely ride is still fine by me. If nothing else, a tweak here or there would still be a big help. SchuminWeb | Talk 03:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

changing "around"

Why are you changing around to other prepositions like "at" or "on". The changes do not, IMO, clarify anything and in some cases sound somewhat stilited. older≠wiser 22:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing "center around", "centering around", etc., because they are oxymoronic, IMO. These expressions are often associated with inanimate subjects, e.g., "The plot centers around ..." -- in this case, I believe that "The plot is centered on ..." is better English. When I encounter these oxymorons I try to tailor the preposition to the noun that follows it. I hope this clarifies the situation somewhat. AnonUser 02:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what is oxymoronic about this. It is common English usage and in many cases sounds better than "on" or "at". older≠wiser 03:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think of a geometric area -- its center is a fixed point. So, the center can be "at" or "on" something, but it cannot be around anything. So, IMO, "centered around" is oxymoronic. You haven't indicated a particular article where you object to this change. In any case, if this discussion is not persuasive, any editor can revert the change (indeed, someone may have done so already). AnonUser 03:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think of an area that is irregular or where the exact shape is undefined. The "center" in this case may not be not known with any sort of geometric certainty. The usage describes the core around which such an area is generally understood to be centered. To say centered "at" or "on" implies a precision that is simply misleading. I have already reverted a few of you changes that were on my watchlist. older≠wiser 23:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, even as you describe it, this usage is not oxymoronic. It may have a degree of redundancy, but there is no inherent contradiction in the terms. older≠wiser 23:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The center of an irregular area may be defined as the fixed point where a sheet of uniform density and thickness will balance. The center is fixed -- it is our knowledge that may be uncertain. If I was uncertain of the exact center, I'd try to avoid using "center" or any word stemming from it. If I was certain of the exact center, I'd try to use "centered at" or "centered on".
Regarding oxymoronic, IMO, "centered" implies "fixed", and "around" implies "not fixed" -- so "centered around" would be self-contradictory. In any case, we simply disagree (agreeably, I hope). AnonUser 02:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I guess so. I still do not see how your interpretation is oxymoronic. How does "around" imply "not fixed"? As for your first point, not all uses of the word "center" should be understood in the context of geometric precision. older≠wiser 03:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit other users' signed comments on talk pages

Altering other people's signed comments on talk pages, as you did on my user talk page, is not OK on Wikipedia. Signed comments are the words of the person who posted them -- even if they are, in your opinion, ungrammatical or oxymoronic. Feel free to reply to talk-page comments, but please do not edit them for spelling, grammar, wording, or the like. (It is OK to remove a comment entirely if it is pure vandalism.) Thank you. --FOo 04:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I apologize. AnonUser 04:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Arlington County, Virginia

Hey Anon, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated Arlington County, Virginia as a candidate for US Collaboration of the Week. The article is in need of much help and with a little group effort, it could be brought to Featured Article status! I brought this to your attention as I have seen you have contributed to the article in the recent past. Please cast your vote with your signature at the US Collaboration of the Week page under Arlington County, Virginia. --Caponer 04:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers game in New York City

How did you get interested in the Numbers game in New York City? Can you peek at Media:1910 census Matthews.jpg and let me know if you think this is the same person as Peter H. Matthews --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]