User talk:Centrx/Archive7

Saxo Bank

I noticed your comments on the FXCM wiki page, and I was wondering if you could also evaluate Saxo Bank It seems like they are basically two different companys in the same industry --DrewWiki 05:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Saxo Bank has the same problem with sources and unknown notability, though it is not written like an advertisement. —Centrx→talk • 05:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Panorama Tools

I have added some sources concerning the notability to Talk:Panorama_Tools#Notability. --Wuz 13:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I also try to add content (see talk page diff and article diff), but it is very annoying when John Spikowski always tries to start some fight. Sorry, I had to revert his new/old/new/old edit in his favourite External link section diff. Is there a chance that someone moderates his edits? I have no problem to contribute under the same conditions. --Einemnet 00:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the reason that all three of you seem to be interested only in this article? —Centrx→talk • 01:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at my contributions and you will see that I am also interested in other articles (also in the German Wikipedia) when there is enough time... Only someone disturbs constructive work all the time, and that leads to endless talks like this one. That particular person has a very long list of contributions, please have a look at that, too, and then compare the quality of the edits. And since this is definitely not the first time we try to explain this, please have a closer look at the RFI you recently deleted. It is all explained over and over. Another good read is that section on Wangi's talk page. Next question, please ;-) --Einemnet 02:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And while we are talking here John Spikowski claims some copyright problem he is not able to prove and deletes the link to panotools.org for the n-th time. Can someone please block him? He has a real world copyright problem on his site panotools.info, and that is the reason why the link to his domain is deleted from the Panotools article on Wikipedia. He doesn't know the difference between terms like trademark and copyright, copies content wherever he is not stopped and builds a Potemkin village to fake members of his non existent group. The whole panotools community left him but he is not able to accept that. --Einemnet 02:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please block Einemnet from editing here on the Wikipedia. His group took the PanoTools groups copyrighted resources to start their group. They violated the Yahoo Groups Terms of Service by using our groups member list and sent a false and deceptive e-mail to our members saying the group has moved. John Spikowski

Centrx, I won't revert his latest destructive edit. This already leads to another little edit fight and I don't want to end on the Lame edit wars page). May I just point you to Durova's final warning. It's not possible to insert all the information that Wuz and I parked on the talk page today into the article with those endless crap over the links. And no, that's no reason to delete the link to panotools.org since it's a valuable resource. John has no interest in creating a good article. --Einemnet 03:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The two authors posting here (Carl & Thomas) were part of a small group of PanoTools members that used our member list, use our group name and advertise they are the new PanoTools group. They have taken the PanoTools archives and wiki. Just look at the page hit counts between wiki versions and you will see that the PanoTools group is the caretaker of the original PanoTools wiki project. They left an establisted group to start another of their own free will. The were never ban or asked to leave.

I have tried to add content here but Thomas and Carl delete, revert or redirect all my contribution. (view history of the Panorama Tools page. John Spikowski

The content on the PanoTools site is property of the PanoTools group members. The NG group has taken these resources without permission.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Spikowski"

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Fresheneesz may be placed on probation if he continues to disrupt policy pages. Such action shall be by a successful motion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions_in_prior_cases by any member of the Arbitration Committee after complaints received from one or more users.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 03:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

All Saints Academy

hey, why was the All Saints page deleted from wikipedia? Me and a few other people from the school had spent a lot of time editing the page with newer information.

This article contains no reliable sources independent of the school. Wikipedia is not a directory of schools. —Centrx→talk • 22:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The 7th Portal

Why was the article for this topic deleted?!?!

If you are referring to Seven sorrows, it was deleted because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the articles of which must be verifiable in reliable published sources independent of the subject. —Centrx→talk • 22:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what the 'Seven Sorrows' you are speaking of, I am referring to the Stan Lee online comic called "The 7th Portal" -- as can be found here (not the article in question, but an archive of T7P webisodes): http://www.stanleereturns.org/7thportal.php -- which was linked to the Stan Lee article

Responded at Talk:The 7th Portal. —Centrx→talk • 00:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, still awaiting a response from you..?!

Response was already given, see link above. —Centrx→talk • 22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You gave a response that has NOTHING at all to do with Stan Lee's -- you know the comic book creator -- "The 7th Portal" webisodes that came out in '99...I still have no idea what the "Seven Sorrows" you are refering to is; but the one thing I do know is it not part of "The 7th Portal" and do you see the difference between the names? You really need to go and do some research!

Note above where I said: "Responded at Talk:The 7th Portal. —Centrx→talk • 00:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)" and also at that talk page where I said: "This article was deleted because it contained no reliable published sources independent of the subject and there was no reason to think that such sources could be found. —Centrx→talk • 22:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)". —Centrx→talk • 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Centrx,

Just added a bunch of links and relevant info about the 7th Portal series on the Talk page you mention, in the hope it'll be sufficient to re-instate the page. :)

+ Justin Clift

Hi Centrx,

Added further info to the talk page.

+ Justin Clift

Template talk:Afd

Please see this talk page, I've made a suggestion about the template which is worth considering. --SunStar Net 01:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Responded there. —Centrx→talk • 06:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Special Request

Hi, since you're awake, and aware of the background, would it be possible to Sprotect User talk:Scherf ? The IP's are starting to turn up...Doc Tropics 06:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: It's not actually bad, yet...I'm just anticipating a flood : ) Doc Tropics 06:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I am familiar with this...? —Centrx→talk • 06:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course you're not; I'm losing my mind and my vision at the same time. I was somehow convinced that you placed the tag at the top of Scher's talkpage. I have no idea why...I'm really losing it. Please disregard, I promise I'll get some therapy, or at least some sleep. Doc Tropics 07:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello- Your Revision Was Appreciated.... Mine Was Blocked!

Recently Gwernol removed my addition of a non DMOZ listing, and ignored my request that DMOZ not be the only listing reference as it has been a CLOSED directory for years riddled with problems or self interested editors.(Wikipedia article).

When Gwernol (admin) complained about an alternate refernce which unlike DMOZ had articles, and was NOT advertising site, I corrected the link and discussed it... Updating it to the exact article which was a longer URL. Within mili-seconds I was "Blocked" and Gwernol assumed the worst, and used his advantage as a speed admin to block my correction, frustrating my good efforts... to fix the problem.

It was very upsetting and the site is Wikipedia, not GwernolPedia.. he had an ethical obligation to read the changes and notes.. before showing his swiftness at Wiki!

Please review my last change and the link and determin if it was appropriate for Gwernol to not have checked!

Thanks..

Link to history with Gwernol and my corrections

[[1]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.83.180.170 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Removing.

Hello! Please don't take offense in my saying but, why did you remove my "deception"? I don't mind that it's gone but only if there is some kind of rule saying I shouldn't have it. I'm sorry for the inconvenience and misunderstanding. Cheers! (Could you respond on my talk page, please? Thanks!) —¡Randfan! 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just think you should reply to his/her quary since the rules say that you shouldn't edit smeone's user page unless if you have their consent. 76.188.7.83 22:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I know the rules quite well, and that does not apply in this case. —Centrx→talk • 22:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I for one would like to know the reasoning behind the removal as well. -- AuburnPilot^talk 22:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of user pages is to facilitate contributions to the encyclopedia. They are not for juvenile practical jokes. —Centrx→talk • 22:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is John Zachman protected?

I understand that the material was deleted because of copyright violation, but wouldn't it have been simpler, and kinder, to have simply replaced the article with a few words and a pointer to the copied URL, plus references to his book, the Zachman framework, etc. I believe John has quite enough stature in his chosen area of the IT business to be "notable", and this way colleagues and admirers will be free to add material if they wish. Jpaulm 19:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• The copyvio had been repeatedly re-created over several months.
• The text was an unorganized dump. It was not even clear what the person did, let alone if he was notable.

—Centrx→talk • 20:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Centrx, I didn't see your response although I am watching this page... I think he is notable, and the Zachman framework for application architecture is spreading worldwide. Google gives 140,000 hits (including Wikipedia itself)! What if I took a stab at doing an article and attached it to your User_talk for you to look at...? Just curious. Jpaulm 18:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page. Keep in mind that notability on Wikipedia does not simply mean a lot of Google hits; a topic must be supported by multiple reliable published sources that are independent of the subject and cover the subject non-trivially. See Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll get started on it in the next day or so. Jpaulm 19:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Me again. Could you take a look at John Zachman and see if it is closer to what you want. Thanks. Jpaulm 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that looks nice. —Centrx→talk • 04:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your help! Jpaulm 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Riveros11 and the BKWSU

Hi Centrx,

you were used by a contributor Riveros11 engaged in a content dispute on the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University page to block me via a sockpuppet address using bogus IPvandal notices so that he representing the organization and its interests can dominate the page. You locked the page [2] and removed the evidence [3] I presented to you.

• I put in a request to have the page unlocked, I would like you to do so. The difference of opinion is not vandalism.

Thank you. 195.82.106.244 22:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You do not appear to be blocked. The page is protected against edits by new and unregistered users. —Centrx→talk • 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There was never the IP problems you locked it for.

I am blocked, and it was designed to block me out, because I choose not to have a user name. If I take one now I am going to be accused of sockpuppetry by this guy that used his IP address instead of his user name to list the bogus complaint. 195.82.106.244 12:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit War at User:Certified.Gangsta

He's removing your warnings and reinstating the deceptive banner. |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 23:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. —Centrx→talk • 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mind explaining your page move on wigger? How is your 1 second block on me justified?--Certified.Gangsta 00:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The 1 second block is so that you cannot remove the administrative warning. --tjstrf talk 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not move the page; I redirected it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The 1 second block is explained in the block summary, and is to record the warning that you removed from your talk page, to ensure that this sort of behavior does not slip by unresolved. —Centrx→talk • 00:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see you in any position to block me since we're in a content dispute. The page history is itself an archive. Also note that, your edits on "Chinese" have been reverted by another admin. You are also wrong since wigger is not necessarily an ethnic slur so your page move seems more or less personal opinion. people who are unaffected by hip hop culture fail to understand the meaning of the term. Wigger is not derogatory. It can be a compliment. Some rappers are self-proclaimed wiggers. Merging this article to a List of ethnic slur is very offensive to the people who use the term in good faith and distort a lot info. for people who are really wanting to know the meaning of the term. It needs to be cleanup not merge.----Certified.Gangsta 00:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that a content dispute does not begin by you accusing the other party of vandalism and threatening to have them banned, I have little interest in the minutiae you are arguing. Chronic revert warring is not allowed. Accusing established editors of vandalism and threating to have them banned is not allowed. Whatever the term "wigger" means, you can add that to Wiktionary. —Centrx→talk • 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, I'm very concerned at your one-second block of Certified.Gangsta. Removal of warnings is discouraged, but not forbidden, and the block seems an inappropriate form of intimidation, regardless of your intentions. As I said here, people have the right not to have their block logs tainted for trivial reasons. In that section of the Noticeboard, there was no support for the idea of giving one-second blocks. The argument is sometimes made that warnings need to be left in place in order to save time for RC patrollers who might want to know if a vandal has been warned before reporting him at WP:AIV, but in the case of a logged-on user who isn't a vandal, there's no urgency. It's not as if he's adding the word "poop" to four articles every minute and you need to see all the previous warnings before blocking him. If you warned him for something, and he removed your message, you could simply keep an eye on him. There's absolutely no need to force him to keep displayed on his talk page something that he doesn't want. And the bad feeling that might potentially arise from the practice of admins giving one-second blocks in order to enforce something that isn't even policy by far outweighs any possible benefits. Please, please don't do that again. By the way, I know nothing of his history. Your accusation that he spends a lot of time revert warring and making false accusations of vandalism may well be accurate, in which case I wouldn't oppose a proper block for disruption, provided that warning was given. But a one-second block for removing warnings, for someone who must already have been annoyed at others descending on his talk page, could never, in my opinion, be justified. AnnH ♫ 19:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The 1 second block was not some punishment for removing warnings. It is to record the situation, whereas otherwise the next time he revert wars, removes other users comments from article talk pages, or accuses established editors of vandalism and threatens to block them, some other admin is just going to give him another warning, etc. He does not have the privilege, by removing warnings and apparently ignoring them, of creating a time-consuming obligation on my part to monitor his contributions endlessly, nor to require that I look through all his contributions to determine whether he has been entirely disruptive rather than there being some benefit to having him around, and some hope of remediation; or to determine exactly how many warnings he has gotten previously or their validity; or to determine whether he is actually a sockpuppet of banned User:Cute 1 4 u. He has the opportunity to amend this behavior, but that does not equate to a misleading clean slate when he has been given that opportunity several times before. —Centrx→talk • 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason i posted on your talkpage was not accusing you of vandalism, I said you redirected it out of process. There is a major difference.--Certified.Gangsta 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Votes

Most were left bare intentionally. At most, I can share privately by email - if you care - but I submit you're a grown wo/man and can figure it out. I'll be happy to share if you direct specific questions. - crz crztalk 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Miami Coral Park High School

Not that I disagree with you deleting the article, it really was possibly the worst one out there, but the article was part of an entire group of articles about every public high school in the Miami Area, and now it's missing, so I'm just here to say that I may go ahead and rewrite that page (not restore it, but rewrite it anew) that way it's the not the only school missing from the list, so if you see it pop up again with me as author, then don't redelete it, unless you have any objections, then feel free to voice them! Thanks. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering it is just going to sit there for another year gaining dust, and it is going to be a maintenance hassle due to all the vandalism, I doubt that's a good use of your time, or a good use of time for anyone trying to correct errors later. It makes more sense to get rid of the template that makes it falsely appear like there is some important gap in coverage. —Centrx→talk • 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to merge all the verifiable information into one, good article on the Miami-Dade public school system rather than have several articles with no reliable sources. —Centrx→talk • 02:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, but I don't have time to delete and merge these articles like I did a million years ago when i wrote them. Really, only articles that have wikipedian alumni tend to be any good, like Miami Springs High School, which I went to, and Michael Krop High, which User:AAAAA attended; those probably can stay, but all the others are kind of crappy. Let's just keep Coral Park out of the loop, then, until some alumni decides to fix it up. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 22:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

For future consideration, about merging in general: if the articles are combined, all the people who would otherwise be only maintaining the individual articles, by themselves, would have their efforts consolidated on one, far superior article. Also, consider that even articles with alumni will eventually degrade, because the alumni will leave Wikipedia, whereas because the school system in total is much more notable, that is much less likely to happen. —Centrx→talk • 22:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course... I'll see what i can do to get together with the Miami alumni and create what you're talking about, but later when i got vacation time. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 16:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

* poke *

--Cat out 11:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sakura Avalon

Would you be willing to give her a try? She looks regretful about her past actions and her involvement with Bobby Boulders [4] and is contributing well to the Star Wars Fanon Wikia, so i thought she could also redeem herself here. — Canderous Ordo 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

He said that before. He is also perfectly capable of quietly creating an account and not being disruptive. —Centrx→talk • 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you really have to be so inane? I have mentioned time after time that I am not a man, but a woman. If you want to believe whatever made up fantasy that pops into mind, go ahead. But, I've already mentioned that I am a woman twice, and I am beginning to think you are sexist. Ciao. 151.196.43.207 00:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if what I said seemed to be a bit harsh. 151.196.43.207 02:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

One-second block

Hi, Centrx. I don't know if you've noticed that your one-second block of Certified Gangsta (about which I share Ann's opinion) is being discussed here on ANI. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Numbers in Text

I see I'm not the only one who hates seeing numbers in text (although I resisted the temptation when making my change to WP:ITN). -- tariqabjotu 23:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Manual of Style has good guidance on this matter, that any number that can be written out as two words or less may be written as words, because the guideline is supposed to be somewhat a description of common practice. I think it should be changed to a more firm recommendation, because it is the more professional practice of encyclopedias, books, or any work that does not have space restrictions, and it is partly only common practice because it is easier to type, just as using "--" instead of "—" is easier to type and commonly used, despite the em-dash looking better and being more professional. —Centrx→talk • 23:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Katherine Gerdes Deletion

I am new to Wikipedia, and such. The first article I created was about Katherine Gerdes, my favorite contestant on Project Runway Season 3. I then noticed that Bradley Baumkirchner's page has been deleted also. I looked at Keep/Delete discussion page and found more numerous keeps than Deletes. And I also felt that there were better reasons for the Keeps. One said on Katherine's Keep/Delete Discussion that being on tv doesn't make you interesting. I disagree with that statement, she was not only on the reality competition, but she is also an active designer. In my honest opinion, I feel that there is no reason for the article to be deleted. The main use of Wikipedia is to find more information on things and people you find interesting. I myself find Katherine Gerdes, and many of the other people whose articles were deleted interesting, and there is no reason for it to be deleted.

Tinkleheimer 02:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is that the information in the article must be verifiable in reliable published sources independent of the person and the show's producer. These topics may warrant merging with the main article on Project Runway, in proportion to their part within the show. See also Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and information in an encyclopedia must be authoritative and without the doubt that arises when the source of information has a vested interest in the presentation of the information, does not have a fact-checking or editorial review process, etc. —Centrx→talk • 02:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

Thank you for your revert on my talk page. :) I owe you one... NCurse _work 14:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

University Hill Elementary School

I have listed University Hill Elementary School at deletion review. It survived an AfD in September. One of the issues was notability. While my opinion at the AfD was delete, given that the notability issue was canvassed I don't think a speedy A7 is appropriate. Agent 86 23:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Scott Keith

Why did you tag Scott Keith for deletion? There already was a vote on this where the result was a unanimous vote fro KEEP. The man has 4 published books to his credit, and is frequently referred to in other publications/columns. What exactly do you consider a "reliable third-party source"? That term is entirely subjective, and can vary enormously as to one's own personal feelings/criteria. That tag should NEVER have been placed on that article! Unless you have a personal vindictive reason to do so.... 6 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.158.128.106 (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC). If he is frequently referred to in other publications, please add these references to the article. —Centrx→talk • 08:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm, publications by their very nature are copyrighted. Anyone uploading magazine articles to websites without the express written permission of the publisher etc can be taken to court. Why not head over to the nearest newsgaent and see for yourself? I am anot going to risk legal action by uploading copyrighted material just to satisfy your petty vindictive mind. 6 December 3006

You don't need to upload them, you cite them. —Centrx→talk • 08:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Multiple category showup

Please check me again TWiStErRob 22:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hey Centrx, could you please try to provide descriptive edit summaries along with the edits you make, especially when editing in the MediaWiki namespace? It would be highly appreciated :D. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is a minor edit with no summary it is invariably a minor change in wording or grammatical change. —Centrx→talk • 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but from a purely selfish standpoint it's less work (total) for you to leave a summary of grammar, or speling, or tyop, then for the next few dozen people to see an un-summarized edit and want to review it in case it represents a major change, made by someone who forgot to untick the 'minor edit' box. Much obliged, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Death Valley Driver Video Review

Just thought I'd let you know that the link to this page's AFD links to the first AFD for it, not a new one.BooyakaDell 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking the 166.102.136.58 IP. If you respond please do so here. WikiMan53 T/C 19:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

166.102.136.58

I sent an email to the school district about the block. Perhaps they can prevent further vandalism internally. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment roster

Do you know how increasingly redundant it would be to give an external link citation to this list. It's very obvious by already reading the external links given at the bottom of the article and other links that the people listed are working in WWE. Why bother linking a external link hundreds of times? I don't think we need other sources other than WWE unless it's something that needs to be proven. Most of the roster (I would say 90%) is already common knowledge since the people are on television shows and don't need verifibilty to know that they are contracted to WWE. The other 10% can be gathered by WWE sources alone anyways because the other 10% are corporate owners, so corporate.wwe.com meets WP:V and WP:RS. semper fi — Moe 04:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I added other external links at the bottom of the article despite this. semper fi — Moe 05:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not about citing each individual entry, it's about having, in general, reliable third-party sources. —Centrx→talk • 08:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Aust school

How do you get the optional image to work? The image doesn't seem to be appearing when you edit in the way you used to be able, so could you show me how it's done. - King Ivan 06:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

After trying again, I still couldn't do it, so I reverted to an earlier version of the template. King Ivan 06:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dually licensing my logo proposal

Done!

Cheers, --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

One-second blocks yet again

Hi, Centrx. I've edited the thread on one-second blocks on WP:AN, and also edited the blocking policy to reflect what seems to me to be the consensus on AN. I know you've already made your opinion clear, but in view of my bold policy edit, I would really appreciate it if you would respond--just briefly, if you prefer--to what I say on AN. Bishonen | talk 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

This looks like instruction creep. The paragraph is longer than the much more important points about blocking users with whom the admin is in a content dispute, the link to RfC, and about blocking users who may be acting in good faith. —Centrx→talk • 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be shortened. But I meant I would appreciate it if you'd respond on AN. Bishonen | talk 04:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

My first and otherwise only interaction with this user was [5], and as far as I can tell the note in the block log is accurate. You are free to note that there is no consensus for making notes with which the user disagrees in the log, but other than that what would be an appropriate note to make? —Centrx→talk • 04:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No consensus for making such notes? Come on, the point is that there's consensus for not making them. That's why I thought it especially valuable to get your input on AN about how you intend to act in the future. But I'm not going to nag you any more about responding there, I'm as tired of saying it as you must be of hearing it. Bishonen | talk 05:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Stubs

How long does it usualy take for someone to notice a stub and start working on it? I just created this article and no on else has started to work on it. Sir Intellegent 19:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends entirely on whether someone is interested in working on it. There are thousands upon thousands of stubs, and thousands of other articles that need some sort of assistance, and whether someone works on any one of them depends on whether the editor is interested in the subject or considers it essential to a complete encyclopedia. So, given the subject matter here, it is quite possible that no one will work on this stub for years, or ever. Keep in mind also that Wikipedia articles must be verifiable in reliable published sources independent of the subject. In addition to this being necessary to write an accurate encyclopedia article, it is also necessary for others to find information on the subject. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability for further information. —Centrx→talk • 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dread Central

Hi, What did you delete Dread Central from wikipedia while other similar sites such as RottenTomatoes remain? Both Dread Central and RottenTomatoes make available reviews for movies and video entertainment in the External Links sections.

Dread Central is an actual highly traficked website that is NOT non-notable, even as defined by Wikipedia.

Why did you accuse me of an "advertising spree" when other LESS notable links are added. Rottentomatoes has just as many links to its wikipedia page as Dread Central did. Other links such as Metacritic & WashingtonPost link to the offsite article without any reference to the Wikipedia posting at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kwlow (talk • contribs) 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must be verifiable in reliable published sources independent of the subject. Also, it appears your sole purpose here on Wikipedia has been to advertise this website. This is not allowed. See also Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If this website is in fact sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, someone else will create the article with the necessarily third-party sources. —Centrx→talk • 23:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please return the original text that you have deleted and I will add all the necessary third-party sources, including press mentions, accredited university associations, publications, etc. I will also have personnel at those institutions add to the text and source them.

In this particular case, because there has already been an AfD on it and you have been advertising throughout the wiki, you should write a sourced article beforehand. —Centrx→talk • 23:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So now that I have written a sourced article (did you see it?), it is still being deleted by someone else. Did that sourced article not meet Wikipedia standards? What exact criteria did it not satisfy? Now that it is deleted again, can you even see that? Does the other admin have a different set of criteria from yours? Please advise.

Sorry

Sorry for the welcome edit conflict on Apssen's user talk. We must bothe been saying "Welcome!" WikiMan53 T/C [My editcounter] 02:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Uncyclopedia talk page archives?

There's lots of funny stuff in there. BJAODN it if you must. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem was that it is so broken and incomplete that the page history is a better source for the page history. I salvaged what I could. It would be helpful if you would archive the talk page properly rather than letting it be blanked and archived brokenly by a bot that should not be used on article talk pages. It only takes a few seconds every few months. —Centrx→talk • 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Cicero Dog

Why did you delete User:Cicero Dog? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Computerjoe's talk 18:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Responded there. —Centrx→talk • 21:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Accounting copyvios

Quick question - I see you deleted International Accounting Standards Board on grounds of copyright violation. Where did you think it had been copied from - I had thought it was probably legitimate given the users who had contributed to it. (No problem with the other similar articles on accounting standards deleted, which looked suspiciously like copyvios). Thanks, Enchanter 21:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

See, for example, [6]; search for "Board is committed" (which itself is a clear tip off that it is either vanity or is copied). —Centrx→talk • 21:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That sentence does indeed seem to have been copied from the press release in question (probably in good faith; there's a good case that this would be fair use, especially from a press release). The rest of the article looks ok (and was generally produced by other editors). Any objection to recreating minus that sentence? Enchanter 22:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is the whole first paragraph that is copied, without which there is no sensible article. (I also would not be surprised if other parts were copied or mutated from other places.) —Centrx→talk • 22:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied from where? It doesn't look it has been copied from the link you have supplied - the similarities are pretty superficial. Enchanter 22:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

See, for example, [7] (highlighted text) and in the previous URL, "with national accounting standard-setters to achieve convergence". It just keeps going. —Centrx→talk • 22:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It looks like in this instance, although several different editors had been working on the article, they had each been lazily lifting sentences from copyrighted sources. I'll have a go at a replacement article with the copyvios reworded out. Thanks for your diligent copyvio-hunting! I would however encourage you to give a bit more explanation in the delete summary; in instances like this it can be hard to distinguish genuine copyvios from coincidental similarities. Enchanter 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Block?

Hi,

User:Supaflywilly has recently vandalised again[8]. Would you have the curtesy to block him/her? I've warned him/her again after your {{test4}} warning, and he/she has had more than enough warnings in my opinion. Thanks, lovelaughterlife♥^talk? 22:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Thank you. —Centrx→talk • 22:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Uncertainty About A Mirror

I believe I have found a site which mirrors the page Britney Spears. The site is at [9]. Checking with Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance I am uncertain if I should enter this in, or how I would do it. Not even positive of what "level" of compliance it has. I think medium. Do you know what to do with this? -WarthogDemon 01:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it may be Low compliance. They have a copyright notice on each page claiming they hold the copyright and there is no mention of Wikipedia or the GFDL. Wikipedia is mentioned briefly on [10], but again there is no mention of the GFDL or the free-ness of text. It may be best to e-mail them asking politely to include such a notice. —Centrx→talk • 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure I would know how such a letter would sound or how it should be typed out. Are you or someone you know able to? ^_^; (I'm still learning the ropes here so I don't think I'm experienced enough in that sort of thing...) -WarthogDemon 01:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Action Zone Wrestling deletion info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Action_Zone_Wrestling

I have placed this article up for deletion, you are welcomed to contribute to the discussion if you would like.BooyakaDell 01:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Salafism

I think you should put back the {sprotect} on Salafism. A string of anons keep reverting to an extremely old version. Cuñado - Talk 02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, done. —Centrx→talk • 02:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

RfB

Have you ever considered nominating yourself for Bureaucrat? Before I got a user account, I was an IP, and you seemed capable of doing the job? I doubt you've had any issues with anyone, so why not. Just my two-bits. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 03:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

25 hours and 23 minutes...

...between unsalting Myg0t and someone recreating it. I agree with the general practice of deleting redundant salted pages, but surely this one should have been passed over? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 05:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was deleting en masse. I used to check each one for the dates of past re-creations but there are thousands of these protected-deleted pages and I am the only person who does anything about them. —Centrx→talk • 11:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

function creep controversy

you note that it was being used as a blog ad. total rubbish. i don't have any blog or any stake in anything other than noting that the proper term is "function creep" not "functionality creep". the entire world recognizes the validity of the former. therefore the "function creep" wikipedia page should be allowed to exist independently of any other page.

trsc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Therealscottc (talk • contribs) 12:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Then the article can be moved to that title if there is consensus for it. Adding links to some unrelated blog is not appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 12:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Even though I agree with you in that the page should be function creep and not functionality creep, you are however associated with the blog or so it would seem from the username you have on wikipedia being the same as with the blog. Mathmo ^Talk 12:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

{{otheruses}}

I don't like the current wording very much, but I've explained on the talk pages that I don't like the blatantly false statement about other pages having similar names. The disambiguation isn't just based on similarity of names, and implying such ends up with every similar-sounding thing on a disambig page. Bolt links to mostly pages that aren't titled anything remotely close to bolt, but explain senses of the word. I'd rather an "other meanings" or "other senses," which keeps the concise wording and doesn't mislead. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to {{Country}}

What was the intent of your edits to that template? You have broken thousands of instances of {{flagcountry}}, which are supposed to render a flag icon before the nation name. Please revert your changes. Andrwsc 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting

File:In-the-dark.jpg

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection of WP:NC-TV

Hello. First off, please forgive the lateness of this message. Someone should have spoken to you sooner. Now, I noticed that you unprotected the page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). Unfortunately, there is still an ongoing dispute and a user who wishes to add, without consensus, an inappropriate, unofficial template to the project page. I'd appreciate if you reprotected the page as it was in this version to prevent further issues. I'm also sorry if you're upset at the result of your own debate at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef block

Dear Centrix,

I saw that you blocked indef. User:Metb82 due to conversation with User:Ozgurgerilla. I dont aim to judge your decision but please consider the following points;

• Here (in message) there is no direct attack to User:Ozgurgerilla himself, to the member of PKK. Metb82 states that; he will join army( is a must in Turkey at 20 years) and he follow his natural mission to PKK since PKK takes a mission to daily attacks to the Turkish army members.(You can see daily events in Turkish media). Briefly; if any one is willing to join PKK( to kill the people) any other people can say something to that one.
• Please also consider the general behaviour of User:Ozgurgerilla. He is distruptive, fanatic user. I also reported him due to personal attack here.

Sorry for my intervene. Kind regards. Must^TC 06:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cquote deletion

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 12#Template:Cquote

We already have {{Quotation}}, which doesn't have any of this template's problems. — Omegatron 15:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I undeleted one of your speedies from a few months back

Since I 1) don't want to give off even the faintest appearance of wheel-warring and 2) I've always respected your work as an editor and an admin, I wanted to tell you that I have undeleted Jack Whittaker (lottery winner) for reasons given on the article's talk page. While I respectfully disagree with the notion that CSD:A7 applies to this article and instead think that the article merits inclusion in the 'pedia, I totally agree with your comments on the tabliod-tastic nature of the article. I will work to improve the quality of the article over the next few days. Feel free to comment on my progress. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. —Centrx→talk • 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be best to merge it with an article on the Powerball, or an article on gambling, or the lottery in general. That is, the person is not notable independent of this single event, and all sources on the person are in direct relation to that event. It appears the Washington Post article is the only source that could be used to create an encyclopedic article. See [11]. —Centrx→talk • 22:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Point taken. Mangojuice^talk 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Kofi Annan in the news

Hey, Centrx. I agree that the current description of the Kofi Annan story is too long — I put it up because several users suggested that my previous wording wasn't NPOV. I'm having trouble finding a summary for this item that is accurate, NPOV and reflects Annan's diplomatic language. Your help at Template talk:In the news#Kofi Annan would be greatly appreciated. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

ABF Freight System, Inc

IMO the protection of this page is not warranted. I don't see any acts of vandalism from a novice user. What is more, I don't see any reasonable dialog with him in talk pages. Experienced editors engaged in revert war with him bear evel larger burden of guilt.

I wrote some polite explanation in Talk:ABF Freight System, Inc and I would ask you to unblock the article and see what happens. If the user ignores my warning, the protection may be restored.

Don't bite newcomers. For example, I would not say that this version was a particularly blatant advertisin, just a company info dump, easily cleanable of certain brag words. `'mikkanarxi 00:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

PS it seems that the person even does not know about the existence of his talk page. I am reblocking him so that he at least know what struck him. `'mikkanarxi 00:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There a glowing orange message at the top of the page whenever a user gets a message. He sees it. This is also the same person as User:Ashlee31; see [12]. Advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Never seen this glowing orange message :-) OK then. `'mikkanarxi 01:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am not the same person as User:Ashlee31. Yes, I made some mistakes on my first time out and was disciplined accordingly. Now I'll let my contributions speak for themselves. That said, you sir (or madam, as the case may be) are one shoot-from-hip leap-to-conclusions act-on-unsubstantiated-assumptions kind of guy. All I can say is ... damn! Hatbird 21:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Replacing quote templates with blockquote tags

Before an edit war gets started (on History of the board game Monopoly), I want to understand this. I used the cquotetxt template to give a long quotation a much more professional appearance than simple blockquote tags are capable of doing. Viewing the source, it creates a table within the document, around the quotation. Your edit summary indicates your preference for blockquotes, because of CSS-enabled screen reading. So, what does the blockquote do in that regard that the table does NOT or can NOT do? You may want to go say something on that talk page too so it doesn't keep getting reverted. --JohnDBuell 03:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See the bottom of [13], and [14]. There may be less of a problem because there are no images, but there is a similar problem. If this quotation style is appropriate for the encyclopedia, it should be added to <blockquote> or as a CSS class of blockquote. —Centrx→talk • 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The specific practical example that is clearly understood by everyone is that of a blind person being read the article by a screen-reader, but there are other problems with it. —Centrx→talk • 03:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good to see that the issue(s) are being taken up with the template writers. Aside from the basic navigation templates, it's not an art I'm fully conversant in. And thanks for the information. --JohnDBuell 03:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mheckman1978 matter

I want to clarify on what was going on here. Mheckman1978 is a member of the berks blog network which the content that Berksguy was using against Matt Heckman was in direct violation of our copyright laws. Berksguy in no way shape or form has gained permission to use our sites content on his user talk page or any other page. We have provided information to other articles in the past for educational purposes, and what Berksguy did with our content was not for "educational" purposes. I will admit that Mheckman1978 may have gone over the top, but was justified in removing copyright protected content. Furthermore Berksguy was also the one that started this affair that caused things to blow out of control as shown in the history trail in both the discussion and usertalk pages. For that I request that Berksguy is equally banned for the same thing Mheckman1978 was.

Regards,

Administrator for the berks blog network —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.78.174.93 (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Template:Autoblock protection

Your protection

I'm all for pragmatism, but unless I can't read a history, this template has never been vandalised. Please unprotect it, for the love of all us motherless IPs everywhere. - 152.91.9.144 07:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Same again

At Wikipedia:Username. Here there was some vandalism, but not to the level that needs protection. Can I get you to please lift the protection you placed, the page is all over the shop like a mad woman's breakfast and I'd like to tidy it up.
152.91.9.144 22:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry

I hope you understand. - BanyanTree 19:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? —Centrx→talk • 19:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In reference to this. I winced a bit at implementing the subpage given the likely immediate result, but it was the logical solution. Sorry for being ambiguous. - BanyanTree 20:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the whole system of doc subpages is sort of a hack, the subpage is the right thing to do. —Centrx→talk • 20:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sikkim Himali Rajya Parishad

Hi,

I've just noticed that an article I created, Sikkim Himali Rajya Parishad, was deleted a month back. What were the reasons behind the deletion? --Soman 15:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Same case with Telangana Sadhana Samithi and Telangana Communist Party. --Soman 15:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

These articles had no evidence of notability or, more importantly, any reliable published sources. I would be happy to restore them, but please improve the articles; don't let another two years pass with the articles in this state. If this is all the information to be had on them, and winning 1 or 0 seats in a municipal election with no information about the party's positions, they may warrant merging into a general article on political parties in the region. —Centrx→talk • 16:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Give me a few days to add references. As per notability, SHRP is linked in three election articles, in one getting around 2,5% of the votes in Sikkim. --Soman 07:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I already restored them, when I responded before. —Centrx→talk • 07:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

ABF Freight System, Inc.

Regarding your complaint that this article reads like an advertisement: The article has been extensively revised, rendered in NPOV, and is now supported by numerous reference citations. Please remove the notice. Thanks. Hatbird 21:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

New User Help

Just wanted to thank you for the assistance. I appreciate it. --NinjaJew 06:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Change to Frederick Guy Butler

I feel that it is a pity that you chose to change the disambiguation of "Guy Butler" to refer to Guy Montagu Butler. Frederick Guy Butler was known commonly as Guy Butler and that is how his books are published. Nobody who looks up his name will think to consider typing in "Frederick Guy Butler". I am not going to undo your change as I have no intention of provoking a war. But could you please consider changing it back. Perhaps you could leave a message here as a reply.

See [15]. If there are only two persons, this is the typical way to do it. —Centrx→talk • 20:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Help Please

Hi, I'm Tellyaddict and you helped me with the citations on Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service. I noticed you were an administrator so I would just like to ask you a question. Is there an quick and easy way to count up your total number of contributions because when you view your own contributions they are listed with bullet points and it would be easier if they were numbered, and when you click 'next 50' or 'next 100' or whatever it repeats the ones you've just viewed so it makes it very confusing to count, can you suggest an easy way or a wikipedia tool which counts them? Please help! Thank you, hope you reply soon.Tellyaddict 14:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

See [16]. This also has other interesting information about contributions. —Centrx→talk • 21:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎8) -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please help...seeking fairness

Dear Centrx,

Pablo Ganguli has earned his reputation as a leading literary and cultural impresario. Why was his page deleted? It is unfair in our opinion. On the deletion logs, the comments that editors have made are incorrect.

Thanks.

The best way to allay these concerns is to have multiple reliable published sources independent of the subject and which cover the subject non-trivially, such as books, magazines, and academic journals. See also Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 00:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification please

Centrx, it seems from this edit that you believe that assuming good faith means assuming people make mistakes because they are stupid. Are you then advocating that we treat our fellow editors as stupid when they make mistakes? Thanks for clarifying. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, we should not treat other editors as anything in particular, but if someone asks a question or does something that could only have been the result of non-high intelligence, we cannot both assume high intelligence and assume good faith. If someone asks a question that cannot be the result of an intelligent person being curious or understanding plain words, the question must be answered directly on what it is asking, not on assuming that the person asking it must already know the answer. I used to assume high intelligence in my everyday life—I did not know I was doing this, it was a fundamental assumption of my understanding of humans—and every time someone did something stupid I thought they were joking or that they were being malicious. —Centrx→talk • 00:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think you misunderstand the aim of that addition. The point is to make it clear that the purpose of AGF is to make people assume that others are stupid. We assume good faith, but secretly, we know that this is only necessary because everybody else is stupid. Those sorry fellow editors who haven't a scrap of brain to help them fulfil their good intentions. *sigh* Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The more significant reason for AGF is that when communicating with others who may be from various cultures around the world with varying competence in English over a cold medium that does not convey emotions, a seemingly malicious comment may simply be a misunderstanding or the person just happens to be distressed for other reasons and did not intend malice. There is also the possibility that a person is mistaken or whatever—there are after all children or technically inept or autistic people editing Wikipedia. There is no need to assume someone is intelligent or stupid, one must simply deal with an issue on its merits, and with text on its wording ("comment on the content, not the editor"). With good-faith, at least, it is much more likely that someone spending their time contributing to Wikipedia is doing so in good faith (though with advertisers or others manipulating Wikipedia for their own interests, this is not true) and anyone who is contributing goodly to Wikipedia can apply AGF to themselves; some persons do not think they themselves have high intelligence, and whereas contributors of non-high intelligence are welcome, bad-faith users are absolutely not. —Centrx→talk • 03:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Specifics on Citatation Request for Maryville High School (Missouri)

Can you be specific on what needs cited on the Maryville High School article? There's not much there that's controversial and what is cited. Thanks. Americasroof 10:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Primarysources

Template:Primarysources is looking like an edit war. I post the tag on a page and it says one thing by the time I post it on another page it says something else. I am sure that the template needs work and that all of you making changes have the best interest of Wikipedia in mind, but it is unseemly to keep changing the template without coming to consensus on what it is going to say first. When you edit the template you are editing a post that I have made on and that still lives on multiple pages. If you want to change it, that’s fine, it’s the wiki way. Please bring it to the talk page and work out what and why it should say before you change it.

Posted to talk pages for User:Jossi, User:Cryptic, User:Centrx

Please keep in mind it is my signature on a whole bunch of pages that that template is living on. The people that are seeing the template are seeing my post keep changing with no idea why.

Thank you Jeepday 15:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeffree Star

Same again - this was always going to be recreated the second you removed the salt. But although that seems obvious to me as a DRV regular, I understand that you can't be expected to know of every article which is vulnerable to this sort of thing. I've been thinking that I could create a list of pages like this, including Myg0t, GNAA, the Briefsism articles, etc, so that you (and anyone else clearing out old salt) could refer to it occasionally check which articles should not be unsalted just becase it's a month old. If I did that, would you use it?

(I wouldn't expect the list to be longer than about a dozen articles, incidentally - it should be something that you could occasionally refer to and carry in memory, not something you'd have to continually check on.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, kinda new. . .

. . .I am laid up with nothing to do. A friend suggested this site as I used to love reading enclyopedias as a kid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morenooso (talk • contribs) 05:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Cool!

I have editted a couple of pages that I felt relatively comfortable or dead certain on. I don't to offend someone's else's contributions and that is why I am asking for help on some that are puzzling to me. I will remember your offer on the "finer points". Morenooso 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Un-noteworthy page

I was reading another random page, Joe Forehand, and fail to see any noteworthy achievements by this individual other than that he was a corportate chairman (which is a dime a dozen these days). What do you think of it? Morenooso 06:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I was curious about this revert. What am I missing? What about it is worthy of rollback? Guettarda 13:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bishop McDevitt High School

I was surprised to see this deletion. Perhaps I missed an AfD notice on the page, or perhaps I misunderstood the process, but this kind of summary deletion with no discussion seems highly unusual to me for a page that has been around for a while. Please enlighten me, or consider undeleting it. Thanks. —johndburger 19:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to vanish

Just so you know, I reverted user talk:Hanuman Das to his version and full protected it there to respect the user's right to vanish, but I'm leaving it restored so the history remains for the course of the arbcom case. I'd appreciate if you could leave a note on WP:ANI#Leaving_WIkipedia as well. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 21:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. It was at his version when I restored it. —Centrx→talk • 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

American University International Law Review deleted-protected?

Hello. I was just perusing the category of protected deleted pages to humor myself, but I saw American University International Law Review and did a double-take... I realize I may have missed some very weird shenanigans, but as a lawyer (and former law student ;-) ), I do know for a fact that this is a significant law review, found here. On my own I've created a handful of law review articles, like The Green Bag; and there are others like Harvard Law Review. Can this protection be removed? I'll happily make a stub to place-hold it. --Bobak 00:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It was first deleted as a copyright infringement. Then, the copyright holders allowed the text to be licensed under the GFDL, but it remained in the form of glowing description/advertisement (e.g. "ILR's broad subscribership and distribution promotes visibility and a productive dialog among a scholarly readership."). The user account tending over the article then refused to allow changes to it, despite it not having any independent sources and not being written from a neutral point of view. You are welcome to create a proper article there if you'd like. —Centrx→talk • 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Edward Hayter article?

I'm wondering. It seemed somewhat even-handed.

71.139.162.253 05:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It was filled with unsourced and angry accusations. —Centrx→talk • 20:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wes Bergmann

I'm curious what speedy criteria you invoked in this deletion? The afd in November couldn't reach a consensus... ---J.S ^(T/C) 06:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi & some info?

Apologies for bugging you but a bit of background info might be useful to me. I am a Wikibooks admin and we "acquired" a new user yesterday b:User:Bobabobabo who helpfully placed a link on their user page to WP's user page. I placed a 7 days block pending review but WB has no real policies for dealing with such users. I see you were the admin who actually blocked the user - any useful info to share? Talk page here will be fine as I check back from time to time. Hope you don't mind - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This user originally had fair use images in his userspace and kept replacing them. This is not allowed (probably illegal). I forget what else happened at the time but it progressed to being vandalism and other disruption. Since then, he has repeatedly created disruptive or vandalism accounts, and spammed the whole list of admins with e-mails with various not-so-clever e-mails. He continues to be a nuisance to this day; see WP:AN#More_Bobabobabo. I'm sure User:Ryulong would be happy to tell you all about it as he has been a target of Bobabobabo's nonsense. —Centrx→talk • 21:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - in the end the opinion moved to indef block anyway which I did. Not sure it is the same person but if not its a wind up and I can spend time on better stuff - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dread Central - seeking advice to republish

So now that I have written a sourced article (did you see it?), it is still being deleted by someone else. Did that sourced article not meet Wikipedia standards? What exact criteria did it not satisfy? Now that it is deleted again, can you even see that? Does the other admin have a different set of criteria from yours? Please advise.

---

kwlow

See Wikipedia:Notability. These sources do not cover the topic non-trivially. A list of a couple neat websites in a local newspaper column and a passing mention on a blog are not sufficient. It is quite possible the website may not be included on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 21:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Published=reliable?

moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability

Thanks

Thanks for showing me how to use the IRC...I am a complete newbie when it comes to that. Thanks again. — Seadog^Talk 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know if some sockpuppets are at work

Thalía's article has seen a lot of edits on album sales within the past week. To a certain degree, this singer and the other article editted by that IP, Paulina Rubio, compete in their fans' heart for who is the best singer with wider appeal. I don't have the time to verify the album sales but watch over the Thalía article for inflated edits. I don't know if something should be done about her album sale edits but you can review her History page to get a flavor of what I have seen this week (one user will come in, change sales and then another user do a different edit. Tonight's edit was easy to catch because the IP tried to change birthdates. While Thalía's age is disputed in some circles, I know the general dates and it was easy to catch this malicious edit. Thanks. Ronbo76 06:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet may be active on the Paulina Rubio article

Some other IP just jumped on the Pauina Rubio. It reversed my edit to that of the IP you blocked. Coincidence? I think not! Ronbo76 06:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

7th Portal, relevant info added. :)

Hi,

Just left info on the 7th Portal talk page, with links and things as you mention requiring for it's re-instatement. :)

+ Justin Clift —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.69.57 (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Bishop McDevitt High School on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bishop McDevitt High School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —johndburger 13:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks + 2 requests

Thanks for the nice note about open proxies. It made my days since I had spent a number of hours on all of that. I responded in more detail on my talk page.

I have two requests:

• When you get the chance, could you check those 3 candidates related to the Kafenio and Suite101.com AfDs? I'm trying to figure out whether to reopen a couple of AfDs and also whether to take some editors to checkuser. Checkuser is an implicit accusation of bad faith and a big deal in my mind -- I don't take it lightly.
• Give me some feedback on what to look for using Completewhois and what other tools/approaches I should use as I process anon IPs we come across at WP:SPAM

Thanks.

And thanks again for handling all those OPs.
--A. B. ^(talk) 14:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For checking proxies, I use CWI (Completewhois), the "tor" link (which I just added to replace an old broken open proxy checker), and nmap, a port scanner, which does require some technical knowledge to evaluate the responses well and a bit if options to use effectively. If a host is confirmed to be a proxy or similar machine by the Completewhois, it is not really necessary to check further. On CompleteWhois, it may just say that it is a "dynamic IP", which means that the host at one point sent SMTP (e-mail) messages, despite it not being any sort of proper server. These are the least likely to still be open proxies or to continue to be. Some just have an "improper Whois response" or something, which may be nothing. Others have no flags at all. I check these using nmap. The ones we can be much more confident about are the ones that are flagged 7 times with "Open proxy" or "HTTP proxy" or "Exploited server". —Centrx→talk • 01:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

my rfa

Thanks for commenting on my RfA. I am open to sugestions where I can improve. Apart from that I was wondering if there was a particular reason for deleting the entry by User:Searchme? Agathoclea 21:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that admin tools is a lot more than reverting vandalism or even the most complex sockpuppetry, and you need to know about some of those other areas before being an administrator. See Category:Administrative backlog: you have no experience in all but one of the areas; an administrator can't have one hand tied behind his back. —Centrx→talk • 21:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I can see what you mean. Looks like I have been too invisible. Agathoclea 22:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Did You Delete This Page?

You deleted Adtunes.com [[17]] but I do not see a summary as to the reason per guidelines. Why did you delete this page? Jca2112 22:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on reading the deleted text, there is no assertion of notability or any other evidence of and in addition it is looks to be an advertisement. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. —Centrx→talk • 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cquote

Re [18]: where? Why? Mikker ^(...) 23:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This was the alternative option presented to resolve the CSS problems, etc. There might be a better option, but as it stands no one was doing anything about fixing the template. —Centrx→talk • 01:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus to redirect it to bquote. Please put it back as it was, and stop editing a protected template you're involved with. If you want it changed, make a protected edit request. --*Spark* 01:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The template is broken. It stays redirected to bquote until someone fixes it. — Omegatron 04:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Request deletion of an article

Hi! I am requesting the deletion of the article Kristen Blake because another article already exists, Kristen Blake DiMera. So the one that is Kristen Blake should be removed. Thanks. User:VeronicaPR

This looks like it is copied directly from http://www.soapcentral.com/days/whoswho/susan.php ? —Centrx→talk • 01:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made some recent edits to the page for Kristen Blake, removing the information that was copyrighted to soapcentral.com. Much of the information that was on the page was incorrect, but has been corrected now. There is a lot of information on Wikipedia that has come from soapcentral.com, which I try to filter out as I find it. The correct page for the character is actually Kristen Blake -- DiMera was a married name for a marriage that was annulled after only a few months. D'Amico 13:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Help!

I want do delete my userpage, but i don't know how. Could you help? ScreamAtMe 02:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Put {{delete|User requests deletion}} on the page you want deleted. Note that you could just blank it instead. —Centrx→talk • 02:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Vanessa Amorosi

Thank you for your easily understandable help with Trivia in Vanessa Amorosi!!! I will remove the trivia section. Once again, thnak you!!! Ansett 02:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing that ref tage in Kraft Foods Samuel 03:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My welcome

Good catch on the wording! Thanks! - Kukini 17:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging

Proposing a merge according to WP:Merge does not require one to open the discussion but it would certainly be useful explain the proposal. In this way you set the tone. I'll go ahead and open it myself. Please discuss there. frummer 01:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what is says on WP:MERGE, but if it says that it is documenting what is appropriate to working with pages. If it did not say that, it would not work to just remove the merge tag on a point of process that "there is no discussion section created". The reasons for merges are usually clear, and are usually given in the edit summary. —Centrx→talk • 01:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

1 second block

Hopefully both me and you had enough time to cool down from this unfortunate incident. I hope you read over the discussion on AN/I thoroughly as well as my explanation for my action. An apology is respectfully requested. (you can use 1 second block to do that lol)--Certified.Gangsta 02:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AFD/Old

See the discussion at User talk:Oleg Alexandrov. I deleted the page now since it was only for demonstration. ~ trialsanderrors 07:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which did not succeed and was closed early at 2/10/9. I am not discouraged, however, and will use the experience to improve my skills until a later date when I may succeed. Yuser31415 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Block IP address?

Hi, an anonymous user using IP address 82.123.2.117 has vandalized my user page and left me a message in Arabic transliterated to English, the message says "**** you and **** the Druze, they are a bunch of traitors" and gave me examples for their treason. His contributions suggest that he is a Lebanese Shiite who hates Druzes for political reasons. I searched and discovered that he might be using other IP addresses such as 83.202.114.168 which was blocked this same day (22 December) because it was used to vandalize the Druze page where he left a similar message. He also seems interested in the user page of User:Jaber where he might have used another blocked IP address 82.123.154.25 and I think that all these IPs maybe sockpuppets of the same user as Jaber as this user page shows.

I've always edited per NPOV policy, and I usually avoid political edits, maybe he's done that because I reverted edits in the Druze article that he may have made using another IP 82.35.116.171 on 21 December. Or maybe just because I contributed to Druze-related articles in the past weeks.

I hope you take necessary action as fast as possible (as I don't really know how to report these acts). And is there something you can do to make me the only one who can edit my user page?

Thanks in advance! --Orionist 00:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked 82.123.2.117 and semi-protected your user page, so that new or unregistered users cannot edit it; eventually it will be unprotected by another admin. There is no way to allow only you to edit it. If there is a severe, persistent problem from this IP range (82.123.0.0/16) it can be blocked temporarily, but this would be a large number of IPs blocked so it is not preferable. You can report issues like this at WP:AIV and request page protection at WP:RFPP. —Centrx→talk • 00:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gotta say I'm really impressed with your quick response! Thank you so much and Merry Christmas! --Orionist 09:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!!

Thanks for your help!

Merry Christmas

Romper 02:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Price is Right redirects

A couple days ago, you deleted several redirects to Price is Right pricing games that were closed as a "keep" on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. This is a reckless abuse of your administrative privileges and you have accordingly been blocked for a week. If you promise to be more careful in the future I can unblock you, but you made a pretty significant mistake without explanation or justification. Philwelch 08:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Um ... Philwelch, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to have asked an experienced administrator what happened before you blocked him for a week? Newyorkbrad 23:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

{{Cvgproj}}

Hi Centrx, I've undone your changes on the template, since I don't think there is consensus to remove the parameters you did. Things like indicating whether an article is nominated for the WP:GCOTW or whether a WP:CVGPR has been archived are important pieces of information that need to be included. I've started a discussion here if you want to discuss it. Perhaps there are some parameters that could be removed, but certainly not all the ones you removed. Cheers, jaco♫plane 17:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for unblocking after unfounded block

See example links [19], [20].

Deceptive edit summaries

Hi there. I saw this edit you made, and I was wondering what incidents you were referring to. I am asking because I saw the thread at WP:ANI and I then went to your talk page and Philwelch's talk page to get some background on what was going on. Philwelch's talk page was already archived by the time I got there, and as I was looking through the history to find the bits related to the WP:ANI thread, I spotted your edit. Carcharoth 02:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"deceptive edit summary" is the block reason used for the two most recent user blocks in his blocking log, of users he was involved in a dispute with: [21], [22]. He apparently has a history of blocking established users with whom he is involved in disputes, based on some diffs in the ANI discussion, and opaque block summaries (ironic) that can be found in the block log. —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I feared it might have been that. I've seen him accuse at least two people (including me) of wiki-stalking when these previous incidents are mentioned. What can be done? Carcharoth 02:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There is talk of an RfC (which has no teeth) or ArbCom (as there has been previous attempts at dispute resolution). I am not going to initiate it though. He was also removing my comments on ANI when I mentioned the above and being very uncivil with personal attacks all over the place. —Centrx→talk • 02:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:MediaWiki longpage talk message

Thanks for the update, I thaught I tested it OK, guess it just hadn't replicated around yet. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

William Granzig

On October 17, 2006 you deleted this article on the grounds that William Granzig was a "non-notable" person. Had you done any actual research on William Granzig? Enter the name on a search engine and read the many articles published in newspapers and magazines all over the world refering to or quoting him. How exactly is he a "non-notable" person? Just because you haven't heard of him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dockimo (talk • contribs) 22:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must be substantiated by multiple reliable published sources that are independent of the subject and cover the topic non-trivially, such as books, magazines, and academic journals. This article had no independent sources whatsoever; books written by William Granzig are not sufficient for this purpose. If there are independent reliable sources, please substantiate the article with them. —Centrx→talk • 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for restoring the article on William Granzig. I will edit it providing the sources you require. As this may take a few days to make all the corrections, and as it is the Holidays, may I ask how long of a time limit I will have to do this? I do not wish the article to be deleted again while I am still working on it.Dockimo 18:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't be deleting it any time soon; you can have as long as you want. It is possible that it could be deleted by others in the normal course of going through articles, but it looks like it has at least the beginnings of something substantial so that would be unlikely. —Centrx→talk • 01:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agathoclea's RfA

Hello, and thank you for commenting on my recent RfA. The final tally was 63/3/2, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I hope I will not cause you any worries, and certainly welcome any and all feedback on how to improve. All the best, and thanks again! — Agathoclea 14:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that. It's been a long day and I'm starting to get a bit sloppy. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 11:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Common/monobook

Monobook is for style information about the monobook (default grey) skin. Common is for style information about all the skins. Anything about grey borders and backgrounds should therefore be on monobook.css. ed g2s • talk 15:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

WBT

I was headed out of town and I found his argument ever so slightly compelling enough that I wanted a wider opinion. --Golbez 17:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm just saying that the way you said it encouraged him to just keep on edit warring. —Centrx→talk • 21:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong

Greetings. Reversions are slowly heating up again at the FLG article. People have been using the talk page somewhat, one editor received a 3RR block two days ago, but has come back and interest seems to be widening. An uninvolved admin keeping an eye on the article would be a good thing, if you are so inclined. Regards, --Fire Star 火星 23:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Calli Cox article

I see you prod'd the article for Calli Cox, saying: "No evidence of notability, no reliable sources". Could you undelete the article? Calli's notability lies in her prolificness (over 150 films listed on IAFD) plus a mainstream mention as a Eastern Illinois University alumni as well as a mention on Inside Edition (peripherally mentioned here. As for reliable sources, I've come across a number of interviews online which I believe I can use to bolster that part:

• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]
• [28]
• [29]

Thanks. Tabercil 03:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

These are all interviews of her, some on personal websites. These are not independent sources and there is no fact-checking in them. There is no independent corroboration, for example, that she was born on a certain day in a certain place, went to a certain school, etc., all things which the subject of an article especially has incentive to state falsely. These sources are not sufficient to make an accurate encyclopedia article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. —Centrx→talk • 04:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

But if you read WP:LIVING, it says "they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography" and "(i)nformation supplied by the subject may be added to the article" (given that it passes some requirements). So in my perspective, an interview is fully equal to a press release, etc. Tabercil 05:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP is specifically about being concerned with potentially defamatory information, privacy, etc. The section there is in relation to that; it often happens that the subject of an article will try to edit the article about them to correct falsities or remove demeaning information, etc. or will attempt to have that done by contacting the Foundation. The issue for WP:BLP is what to do when the person's statements contradict some mediocre sources and whether it is allowable for the person to correct errors. This is still in the context of Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography, however, and the article must still satisfy Wikipedia content policies. An article cannot consist entirely of information provided by the subject. —Centrx→talk • 05:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

userpage

let me tell u your userpage is really really boring. -- Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipediawanna Talk? 04:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is functional. The farcical pages section has some non-boring links though. —Centrx→talk • 04:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

7chan on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 7chan. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 72.70.19.171 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't. —Centrx→talk • 04:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hey Centrx, would you mind protecting Chiţcani, Moldova and Media in Transnistria? Another edit war has broken out, but I'm too lazy to list them at WP:RPP. Thanks, Khoikhoi 05:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Jediism

Two things. Firstly, it is sad to see you have resorted to wikistalking me. I had assumed that once our dispute had been resolved you would be able to let it go, but unfortunately this is not the case, and you have developed an obsession with following me around.

Secondly, I protected the article against recreation because there are persistent anonymous contributors trying to contribute hoax content along the lines of saying "Jediism" is an actual religion. I've dealt with this before with a "Matrixism" link-spamming vandal (see Talk:The Matrix). Matrixism at one point was redirected to The Matrix in order to merge the suspected content, but once it was discovered to be a probable hoax, the merged content was removed and Matrixism was changed to protected-against-recreation because it no longer had any bearing to The Matrix. You allege that "Jediism" is the name of one of the groups behind the Jedi census phenomenon, but this is an unsupported assertion. The decision was made to redirect because the two subjects seemed closely related enough, but I came to the conclusion that, like "Matrixism", it would be best to protect Jediism against recreation.

Feel free to escalate this issue to a noticeboard or something. Philwelch 21:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been no other edits to the page Jediism except for the redirect, since January 2006. If it had been protected at that time, the deletedpage template would already have been done away with. If there were such a problem, the standard practice is to protect the redirect. Replacing it with {{deletedpage}} deletes the redirect, and is not necessary to prevent a hoax from being added to that page, if there were such a problem. —Centrx→talk • 21:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As I explained above, the redirect itself is inappropriate, and the reason there have been no other edits to the page is because the original hoax article was deleted. Simply re-deleting it may be appropriate if you feel there is a low risk of re-creation—I leave that to you. Philwelch 21:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Then put it on WP:RFD. —Centrx→talk • 21:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

I assume that if I was insulted, like I was, the rules are of no value anymore. This guy reverted all my changes and insulted me. What you are saying makes no sense. --hdante 22:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land protection

This article has been under protection for months now. Is this an oversight? You appear to be the original one who protected it. --70.48.71.15 23:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected it. We'll see if all is calm. —Centrx→talk • 23:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria

This one has had some rough days. If you thought that Media in Transnistria was bad, wait till you see what happened on Transnistria recently. I have requested full protection. - Mauco 01:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

Why, in this revision, did you replace wording that we knew with 100% certainty to be accurate with wording that we knew most likely wasn't accurate? And why did you use such a rude summary? I don't know if you were addressing me personally, but my edit was the most recent that you were reverting. In typing that wording, I was attempting to remove the hasty speculation. I don't appreciate being scolded in that manner. —David Levy 03:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking generally. A more accurate statement in the summary would have been "If a new change is supposedly so immediately necessary that it must be done before there has been any approach to consensus on the talk page, then it does not belong on the main page of an encyclopedia." —Centrx→talk • 03:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rudeness aside, please explain why you replaced wording that we knew with 100% certainty to be accurate with wording that we knew most likely wasn't accurate. —David Levy 04:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I await your reply. —David Levy 18:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it was accurate. It may have been "old news", but that's not the same as being inaccurate, and it is better to have old news on an encyclopedia than to instantly report sources of uncertain reliability. —Centrx→talk • 21:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

1. No, it wasn't accurate. The claim that a dead person will be executed in the future is false. In fact, while the original wording ("Saddam Hussein ... is executed") was added hastily, it actually was less inaccurate (given the ambiguity of the present-tense format).

2. My wording (which I wrote in an attempt to halt the edit war that you decided to resume) was backed by such sources as the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN and the BBC. Do you question their collective reliability? —David Levy 03:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There were no reliable sources as to his death. A past statement about the future is not false. Iraqi television reporting an event is exactly the sort of thing that is put on news tickers, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia. The forward-looking statement about a scheduled execution did not belong either. —Centrx→talk • 04:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The wording in question was written after the execution occurred (which we knew was more likely than not). It was false from the moment at which it was added by Michael Hardy.

2. My wording didn't claim that Saddam Hussein was dead. It correctly claimed that this was reported by Arabic language news outlets. I don't know why you believe that factual information from reputable sources "does not belong in an encyclopedia."

3. I agree that the entry shouldn't have been added until official confirmation of the execution was released. Again, I was trying to halt an edit war. —David Levy 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Madness combat, reopened/unsalted?

Hi,

Scientizzle recommended that I contact you. I have been communicating with a few editors (User_talk:Mr._Lefty & User_talk:Scientizzle) about a page on Wikipedia that was "salted" in September after a vote: Madness_Combat - But it appears that recently you "unsalted" the page? Before investing time in helping to recreate this article, I want to make sure that this page is likely to remain legitimate. I'm hoping to confirm that this article is open for creation?

To add to the confusion, this page Madness_combat is still protected (note lower case second word). If we are really re-opening this article for contributions, we should have one page disambiguate to the other, not be locked/salted, as this will confuse users. I have no idea how to accomplish this when one article is locked. Any recommendations (what admin can unlock the second page? Can any? Can you?)

For the article itself, if we can obtain copyright/permission, I'd like to propose that we simply use the content that has been created on this page (which is a MediaWiki site). I guess that these editors would be happy to post their content to Wikipedia:

http://www.madnesswiki.com/index.php/Madness_Combat

There are also a couple of critical analyses that merit attention:

Total Drek

Gina Burgese

It's strange I've been drawn into helping to get this article back into circulation because I'm not really that big a fan of the series! But maybe that's how people get involved in Wikipedia.. I think the popularity of the content is strange and noteworthy enough to merit space in Wikipedia (I came to Wikipedia about this article because I saw an episode and wanted to know more about the social and cultural implications of the series - Wikipedia is my reference of first resort for this type of information now)..

Anyway - I appreciate any help and advice you can provide about how proceed. Thanks for all the work you do for us users.

Stevemidgley 03:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsalting pages is regular housekeeping; it is not license to re-create it. An article would need to be substantiated by multiple reliable published sources independent of the subject and which cover the subject non-trivially. That is books, magazine articles, articles in academic journals, etc. which have the topic as their main subject. Online sources are sufficient if there is a fact-checking and editorial process by researchers or journalists. Blogs and wikis do not count for that, and given the sources above and in the article on that wiki, I don't think it would qualify. —Centrx→talk • 04:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Death threat" vs. Feldspar

I was writing regarding the so called "death threat" written by a friend of mine using my computer towards Feldspar.

Though Wikipedia does not have a death penalty for poor behavior (since obviously that is outside the scope of its authority) it is important to recognize the difference between a death threat (IE Person A says to person B "IM GOING TO KILL YOU") and an argument for executing someone who the person arguing believes habitually acts immorally or even just arguing for someone's execution in general.

The latter case is not a death threat, but rather a persuasive argument designed to convince others it is in everyone's best interest that such a sentence be carried out. Such an argument can be debated and is a far cry from any action related to actually carrying out or promising to carry out such a sentence. Sometimes it is simply used as a tool to show someone who thinks that they should be provided immunity from such punishment even as they commit repeated immoral acts and show that this is the only type of reaction that will prevent them from doing so.

For instance, Saddam Hussein might argue that the prospect of his execution is ludicrous because he acted as he felt he had to as a leader. But others might still say that he did not need to execute all the people that he did and that such use of force to inflict his will on others makes it so that he must be dealt with in such a way to show that such behavior will not be accepted. -K99

PS - Wikipedia itself defines a threat as a promise to inflict harm, and intimidation as something that needs a criminal purpose. Anotherwords a police officer yelling at someone or a judge threatening contempt of court charges for poor behavior in the courtroom would not be considered intimidation. Nor would a suggestion that someone be punished for poor behavior, even by death because it is not criminal to try to force someone to realize that their behavior might warrant death as the most effective countermeasure.

Giano block

Your input please at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Giano_II_blocked_.28duplicate_note.29. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Ben Aveling 20:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Protecting Falun Gong page

There are also revert wars on these Falun Gong pages: Li Hongzhi, Suppression of FAlun Gong, Teachings of Falun Gong and The Epoch Times Why don't you protect them all?

The version of the Falun Gong page that is being protected is unbalanced and filled with the POV of Falun Gong practitioners. Critical material of the group has been removed. Such edits violate Wiki policy; I thought you should know that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.He (talk • contribs) 07:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

See m:Wrong version about protecting the wrong version. Protection is usually done blind of specific content. —Centrx→talk • 12:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Centrx. I know we usually meet on the DPRK's six-party talks discussion page but lo and behold we meet again about Falun Gong. I read the m: Wrong version page with some interest. If I haven't read it incorrectly, it says that if the sysop refuses to revert the page back to its pre-offensive/biased version then a CAUTION! label should be attached (as shown on that m:Wrong version page) to the Wiki article concerned. Since you refuse to protect that page under its previously agreed (i.e. pre-edit war) content, then can you please at least attach the CAUTION! sign at the top of that Wiki article concerned? Thanks. Jsw663 19:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The caution label is a joke ("...is requested to change this article to another wrong version.", note that if this every sysop who came across it were to follow it, you would have another edit war, but a nonsense one, etc.). Actually, the whole page is a satire, but it illustrates the issues with protecting the wrong version. The reason for not deciding between which version to protect is so that the sysop does not take sides in a dispute. Part of the reason why edit warring is not a good thing is that it is not so immediately urgent for the "right" version to display on the page for a few days. Another thing that is sometimes done to ensure that a "wrong version" is not displayed is to revert before the edit war occurred, to a stable version. In this case, though, it does not look like it would be easy to find such a revision. I don't know what to do about these articles. —Centrx→talk • 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you that the Falun Gong page is a total nightmare. The ArbCom refuses to arbitrate it and the Mediation Committee has shied away. All mediators who took the case have since abandoned / recused. However, admins like Fire Star and mediators like myself have tried to put the page sort-of on the right track by at least preventing wholesale section blanking and mass reversion, edit warring, etc. I also despise edit warring, and this should be obvious from my talk page / edit history / mediation cases I've taken up. But like you say, where do we find a 'right' version? I contend that such a version for that page simply does not exist. However, there are relatively more 'Wikified' versions whereas others are simply draining articles of its encyclopedic content and replacing it with advertising propaganda. May I suggest having a look at Fire Star's version of the page, , 23.23 Dec 28 2006. This version seems to have avoided most of the edit war by BOTH sides (ie reverted changes made by pro-FG and anti-FG people) and keeps sections to what it was when constructive debate was still engaged in. I fully understand you don't want to be seen taking sides, but when an edit that has been the result of a persistent vandal (Omido would qualify as a vandal because of persistent section blanking despite warnings), it would be unfortunate and damaging to Wikipedia. There were MANY agreed versions / paragraphs - agreed on the discussion page between pro-FG and anti-FG people - that have undergone wholesale reversion, which is the greatest shame of all - and would be if the present version was left to stand. After all, we should all take the WP:NPOV policy very seriously and it would be a shame to keep that Wikipedia entry at its present version, blatantly unencyclopedic as it is, for any longer than a week. Jsw663 03:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Further reference material added to 7th Portal topic

Hi Centrx,

Took some time a few days ago to follow up on your previous response to my 7th Portal info.

Have found new source material you can use for online 3rd party reference (NY Times, the part not requiring registration), and a few other bits and pices.

Hope that helps.

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.128.39 (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

I re-deleted (and re-salted) this page; was there some discussion that reached a consensus that this page should have been un-salted that I missed? If so, feel free to undo my action. I'm currently assuming this was just a mistake.

Thanks!

Nandesuka 17:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See [30]. Deleted pages are regularly undeleted, and Wikipedia:Deletion review was a consensus to keep the previous page deleted, not to protect the page forever. —Centrx→talk • 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ayles Ice Shelf on ITN

Excuse me, Centrx. What do you mean by "There is nothing whatsoever in the article about this" ? The Ayles Ice Shelf article was created after the announcement of the collapse yesterday. Ellesmere Island also has a good paragraph on related breakup of the ice shelves. The collapse may be in 2005, but it wasn't discovered till recently in satellite pictures. Please see the external newslinks at the bottom of the Ayles Ice Shelf article. -- PFHLai 03:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. I think you're confused because the article notes that the breakup occured in August 2005. It did, but that was only discovered recently. -- tariqabjotu 03:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That was more than a year ago and there is nothing about its discovery in the article. "It was only discovered from recent analysis of past satellite images." Who? When? How? Is not someone clicking on the In the news link going to ask "What does this have to do with current events?" —Centrx→talk • 03:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an indication of global warming. Some maps may need to be tweaked. And the giant loose piece of ice may pose a threat to oil platforms nearby. It's science news. Not politics nor war. Impact maybe 'slow' but real. --PFHLai 03:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about someone linking to the article from the main page. I know what it is about, but the article does not say what it is about or how it relates to current events. —Centrx→talk • 03:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The discovery itself is the current event. --PFHLai 03:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, but as I said above the article does not describe that at all. —Centrx→talk • 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not important. The important thing is that the landscape had changed and we didn't even know about it till now. --PFHLai 03:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In other words, what was discovered was more important than how the discovery was made, esp. when it was sth as boring as looking at old photos. --PFHLai 03:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is not important enough for the article, it is not important enough for the Main page. An encyclopedia article must have the information I am talking about, and it must be in the sources listed. Why was it not discovered earlier? Were there scientific reasons related to the break up that made it impossible to discover before now, or is there little scientific interest in the subject? Was the discovery made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or by a Russian submarine that ran into it, or by a scientist at Stanford University or by a graduate student at Podunk Community College? —Centrx→talk • 04:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, I do not wish to revert another admin on MainPage. Before I go off-line, I'd like to ask you to please reconsider Ayles Ice Shelf (or Ellesmere Island) for ITN. Thanks. Take care. --PFHLai 04:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also commented at Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/Candidates. (Why is this being discussed here and not there, anyway?). I suggest the following wording:

• Scientists discover a 16-month-old collapse of the Ayles Ice Shelf at Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. The resulting 66 km² (25 mi²) ice island in the Arctic Ocean may drift south in the spring and threaten shipping and oil platforms.

And Ayles_Ice_Shelf#Breakup answers most of the questions you've posed above. The reason it was not discovered earlier is likely because these events are not that easy to monitor. One source says "because it is so remote, no one saw it". This source gives more details. The article already explains that the break-up was discovered by studying satellite pictures, and that earthquake data then provided more evidence. The stuff that is not yet in the article is all in the articles linked to at the bottom of our article. This is something that could be added in a day or two after the article has been expanded some more. It is not that time-sensitive an item. If your concerns were met, would you not revert the addition of this ITN item? Carcharoth 05:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, I think you are looking for the trivial and missing the bigger picture. Anyway, David Levy has nominated this item as a DYK. The same item should not be on MainPage twice within a span of a few days, so let's not worry about this as an ITN item. --PFHLai 15:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I see nothing "trivial" about the lack of a linked recent date (one of the basic ITN inclusion criteria). Someone who visited the article upon viewing the entry that you added was informed only that the discovery was "recent" (a word that shouldn't even be used in that context within Wikipedia). —David Levy 15:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh... the linked date. That one, indeed, I missed. But I don't think that's what Centrx was asking for. Good removal of the word "recent", btw. --PFHLai 20:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

I noticed you removed my RFC post. I read in your history that the username is blocked, did you remove my comment because it was already blocked, or did you remove my comment because it was inappropriately placed on the wrong board? Note: I do not object to the removal. Navou ^talk 21:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because the username is already blocked, probably shortly after your request was added. Usually they are just let sit there for a couple of days so there isn't this sort of confusion, but I thought the username was sufficiently inflammatory that it should be removed. For blatantly insane usernames, you could also post at WP:AIV, but RFC is a fine place for it. —Centrx→talk • 22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)