User talk:HQCentral

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

HQCentral (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not Primetime.

Decline reason:

There is covincing evidence, collected by many well-respected admins, that you are -- M a rtinp23 00:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Welcome to wikipedia, first of all. Let me point you to a couple of policies regarding wikipedia. The point of cleanup tagging an article is to allow editors with more experience on a subject or more time to devote to a subject to be aware of an article in need of attention. In regards to your comments on my talk page, you should read up on Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and Wikipedia:Civility. We are all here to work on making wikipedia better, and my goal by tagging the article is so that people experienced in Ohio politics can make the Betty Montgomery article eventually look like the Bob Taft entry. If you have any questions about wikipedia culture, please feel free to ask any of your fellow wikipedians or refer to the helpful guides that have been created. Youngamerican 17:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, HQCentral, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

A lot of what you are doing looks really great. For example, you added a ton of highly informative material to the Collier's Encyclopedia article. However, I woudl suggest that you familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV. Some of your work really violates this policy, which is one of our most basic:

"The set's physical format is well constructed and aesthetically appealing. The binding—black Fabrikoid with red panels and gold lettering—is both sturdy and attractive. The paper is of very good quality and particularly suitable for color reproduction. The two-column page layout lacks flair but is clean and functional. The many new color illustrations add much to improve the set's overall appearance. In sum, Collier's is not a flashy encyclopedia, but it is a well-built, smartly put together set of reference books"

This is book review material, very far from writing from a neutral point of view. It is so far out of our style that if it weren't for your contributions elsewhere in Wikipedia I would have thought I was looking at a plagiarized book review. - Jmabel | Talk 03:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#When_not_to_cite_sources.2C_round_III. Probably a better place to take it up than the individual article, because this is about a general principle more than about one article. - Jmabel | Talk 00:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting. Until the matter is resolved, perhaps we should remove those repetitive, unprofessional citation-needed tags that you're using to make a WP:POINT.--HQCentral 03:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT is against violating policy to prove a point. I am doing nothing of the sort. I am marking places where opinion is stated and no citation is given. This marks statements that violate our policies. The alternative would be to remove them, which I don't particularly want to do. I think it is best to leave them there and leave them marked for follow-up. - Jmabel | Talk 18:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
—Wikipedia, "Wikipedia: Don't Disrupt Wikipedia to Prove a Point"

Removing requests for citations

Clearly you have made some good contributions to Wikipedia. Equally clearly, you are trying to pick a fight with me.

You have now three times removed my requests for citation in the Collier's Encyclopedia article (all of them requests for citation of opinions), without satisfying any of them. In addition, almost certainly on a WP:POINT basis, you arbitrarily asked for citation on every single statement in two articles I wrote (Corneliu Baba and Spitalul de Urgenţa); I dealt with every single one of those requests, and you responded not merely by ignoring my requests for citations, but also by removing them. I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view if you have not already done so; you are obviously alreadyfamiliar with WP:POINT, because you had the audacity to cite it to me when you were blatantly violating it.

I believe you are totally in the wrong in this matter, and that is something I rarely say to anyone. This particular article is simply not important enough for me to keep fighting over it, so I will not repeat my request for citations, although I reserve the right to cite this as an example of your behavior if you behave similarly in other articles. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Unsourced

Given the subjective nature of the statements in question, I think it's appropriate to ask which of the listed sources are responsible for them, no? Kirill Lokshin 03:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps some other kind soul will look them up for you, then ;-) But we really must indicate the source of those opinions more precisely; and the {{citation needed}} tags are as good a way as any to indicate that for future editors. Kirill Lokshin 03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Farrow Maxwell

This text in this article appears to have been derived from another source. If that is the case, could you mention the original source of the content at the bottom of that article. btw, welcome to wikipedia! Jayvdb 08:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, are you saying this is verbatim from another source, or nearly so? In that case there would be copyright issues. On the other hand, if it is merely a broad paraphrase of another source, that's OK. - Jmabel | Talk 18:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to know because I cant check all possible sources; the original appears is as if it is directly copied from another source. Upon inquiry, a source has since been removed because the contributor didnt know what it referred to (see the talk page). If I was a betting man I would put money on it at low odds. In cases like this, I believe the onus is on the author or the wikipedia community to verify it is kosher rather than look away. I have done a bit of background research on the topic and made a number of edits to the article while waiting for a response (good faith and all), so I am happy to replace it with a simple biog from my own fact-base, and let it grow from there. The article is not referred to from other articles so it could also be deleted. Jayvdb 01:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that confuses me most is where you people think I copied the material, given you can't find it online or in print. The constant haranguing of me over the matter stikes me as incivil and not of good faith. If you wish though, Javdb, I can continue the argument over formatting with you (I'm sure, ad infinitum).--HQCentral 08:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spitalul de Urgenţă

At Spitalul de Urgenţă, I believe I have satisfied all of your requests for references, except one. I do not have a citation for Helciug's wit being "bitter" or hard to translate. I believe that the article is still better with that statement left in, and I have left {{citation needed}} on that statement; I won't object if you remove the statement, but I think it would be a loss.

Your request for citations on simple matters of fact—none of which I can think why you would doubt—makes me strongly suspect WP:POINT with respect to my issues with your lack of citation on opinions expressed in the Collier's Encyclopedia article. This is only enhanced by the fact that you seem to have made similar requests in Corneliu Baba. Both of these are articles I have worked on heavily, and which are linked from my user page. Neither is in an area where you have generally worked, and as far as I can tell, you do not have a pattern of usually requesting citations (rather the contrary: you seemed to view as hostile a citation request that I think fell well within the realm of reasonable, and that was on a matter much more subjective than anything that you tagged, at least in the Spitalul de Urgenţă article).

For the moment, I will reluctantly presume good faith and (barely) extend the benefit of the doubt. I have addressed the issues in one article; I will try within a few weeks to get to the other. However, be forewarned that if you systematically follow me around making similar requests, I will consider it unreasonable to presume good faith; I will follow then my hunch that this is harassment, and will proceed accordingly with a formal request for comment on your conduct.

When I first remarked on your contributions at Collier's Encyclopedia, I described them as "massive and mostly useful". That was praise, in case you didn't notice. Unless I have misinterpreted your actions, you then reacted by taking my rather standard request to cite the source of opinions as hostile, and have responded by trying to retaliate instead of by trying to satisfy a reasonable request. Again, for the moment, I will allow for the shred of possibility that this is not what you are doing, and that this is simply coincidence, but with you doing this to two articles in succession, it does genuinely strain my credulity.

In any event, I believe I have fulfilled your requests for citation in the case of one article, and will do my best to do so with the other. - Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Thank you again for the half-hearted praise. But, I never saw any need to remove any material from your articles or mine. They're simply requests, and I think you're getting a little worked up over nothing. I am a very busy man, and minor mistakes I make cost thousands of dollars. This project is not real life. Still, I cannot stand having my hard work called "plagiarism," so perhaps I over-reacted a bit, myself.--HQCentral 08:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now supplied all of the citations you asked for. I am also, by the way, a rather busy person. - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House Made of Dawn

Hi there. Just to give you a heads-up, I have removed your literary analysis in its entirety from the House Made of Dawn article. While it is an interesting, well-written and well-researched essay, it unfortunately falls foul of the WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) policy and is not encyclopedic material - though it might very well be publishable in another sort of project. Do please take a look at the paragraph headed "A simple formulation" in WP:NPOV for a better explanation than I could give of why this is, especially if you look at your own sentence in the deleted section that goes "the positive outcome of Abel's migration between two worlds can be seen as a hopeful beginning of a new period of Pueblo culture."

I have also alerted the other editors who have been working on this page and will place a statement on the talk page so that a group discussion can take place there. If you want to dispute my edits, then please let's continue the conversation there so that everyone can have input.

Again, I was highly impressed with your analysis and (speaking as someone who is professionally engaged in the study of American Indian literatures) would urge you to attempt publication. Cheers. Vizjim 09:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

The question of keeping or removing the material is now in mediation. Please come to the page and post your opinion and arguments. I'd also suggest to consider Wikibooks for the analysis. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 22:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions (see case or article talk page for further discussion)

It's quite clear that the way it is now the analysis doesn't fit Wikipedia standarts. It's a good work, and we actually value original research. There's WP:IAR, and no rules are strict boundaries, but IAR works when there is no controversy or doubt about positive effect. Since several editors argue the analysis is not for this article, it is the case when the policies take priority.

The article is excessively long, and the complete analysis makes it hard to read, but, being valuable for understanding the book, it must be kept. First of all, I suggest you make a brief summary of it, restricted to about 1-2 kilobytes, and just mentioning what are the main concepts of the book. This analysis will be kept in the article.

For the full analysis, I suggest two main options:

If your analysis is based dominantly, especially in conclusions, on other publications, please wikify it and add inline references, mention authors of specific arguments and conclusions in the text, and so on. If this is done, the article can be put in the main namespace with name like Analysis of House Made of Dawn. The section with brief summary will link to it as the main article (see World War II as example).
If your analysis contains original thought, it's fine, and it can be stored in Wikibooks, which has less restrictions. Formatting is still needed, but referencing sources in the corresponding section is more than enough. See the Bookshelf for similar works. Either me, other editors of the article, or some editors at Wikibooks can help you with formatting. In this case I suggest we don't creep the guidelines and anyway keep it as the main article for the analysis section.

So it will be not much difference for article readers, it's just about how much original thought was applied. I personally feel the second option offers much more freedom in editing and requires less effort.

CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 22:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article

So, since we decided to move the analysis and add a short intro, could you do it? I'm sure you can do it better than me or most other editors, since you are well familiar with the subject.

CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you clearly are here and watching the article, could you please implement this compromise as agreed? The redundant analysis is still cluttering the main text, the duplicated information has been placed back in there, the separate article has not been created, your introduction has not been written. It's been over a month now since this compromise was agreed on. Vizjim 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing and Style in Collier's Encyclopedia

Hi HQCentral,

per comments from myself on the talk page of Collier's Encyclopedia (and a number of editors) this article is in need of sources the the WP:CITE conventions. Reading the article, the style you're keeping in is often unbalanced and needs some editing. Consensus per the edit history and talk page is for the citations to be inline or have a {{fact}} tag against them and you need to stop just reverting other's changes. I'd think you would do well to relax on this article and let others edit - keep the finger off the revert button and see what consensus comes out - Peripitus (Talk) 08:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop reverting?

Could you stop reverting the article? It may be considered violation of reversion rules, and generally non-collaborating action. As it was suggested, it could be moved to Wikibooks. I can help with the technical aspects if needed. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House made..

See User:HQCentral/House --Improv 02:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Not sure about HQCentral being a sockpuppet. Lack of attention to some things may suggest that; however, he was editing quite actively, and at least at times constructively. Seems to have at least some real intents, though often fails to listen to others. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 02:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convinced now (on my talk page). CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]