User talk:Centrx/Archive5

Wii60

Could I ask why you deleted Wii60, which was a protected {{deletedpage}}? It just been recreated and speedied, yet again. It was originally deleted following this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viva_La_Wii60!. Thanks, Gwernol 16:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Old protected-deleted pages are being cleaned out. They come up as articles from Random article, etc. and discourage the creation of legitimate articles, depending on the title. Deletedpages is not a permanent tool. —Centrx→talk • 22:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case the Wii60 article had been repeatedly deleted and recreated and a quick glance at the Talk page would show that there were a number of users waiting to recreate it with no additional understanding of notability or verifiability. Could you also point me to the policy under which the deletedpages tags are being removed after a couple of months? I haven't been able to find it. Thanks, Gwernol 23:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The talk page yes, but for other cases otherwise the repeated re-creations occurred months ago, with the time between the last deletion and now being greater than the time between the first deletion and the last deletion. Off-hand, pages with information about this are at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of pages protected against re-creation and Template talk:Deletedpage. Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages is a newly created migration from the old List of.... There are also a couple of rather recent discussions about it on AN, and at least a couple older ones as well which you can scour up by searching for combinations of "deleted pages", etc.. In general, the reasons I cited above are the relevant; easing creation of legitimate articles is less relevant to titles like Wii60, but are highly relevant to names where many people have the same name. Truly thousands of these pages have been deleted in the past couple of months alone; a few have been re-created illegitimately and they are simply deleted again and re-salted, and I at least do monitor them for a while. —Centrx→talk • 01:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2L programming language

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The guideline is at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I just checked, that's the only one. Thanks. —Centrx→talk • 01:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Smotherbox

You requested references for article Smotherbox. Please conclude your request by adding {{cn}} after each line which needs a reference. Note that trivial information does not need references. I'm not sure which parts of the article are trivial, but it is certainly going to be an interresting topic to discus. --Easyas12c 23:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of general sources (preferably something vaguely canonical) would be fine. I wasn't concerned about every particular being precisely sourced. —Centrx→talk • 01:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Would the old removed links had answered this need at all? --Easyas12c 09:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with those is they are to sales websites. There must be some BDSM informational website that has something on this? —Centrx→talk • 19:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hi, I have requested arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration. This concerns a couple of your edits I found questionable. Please add your statment to it. Thanks. Fresheneesz 04:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing user talk pages other than yours!?

My dear little friend of logical fallacy and rhetorical nonsense,
I strongly object against you editing my personal user talk page unless you have something to say to me, but deleting other users' editions on my own user talk page is my prerogative (and my alone). If you find some editions to be objectionable, let me know by adding a message. That people don't necessarily agree on interpreting Wikipedia's rule, esp. on notability, is perfectly understandable, but don't try act unjust and irresponsible. JM.Beaubourg 13:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This was using admin rollback on internal spam. —Centrx→talk • 19:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Cute 1 4 u thread on ANI

Whoops, I misread the timestamp on Ed's last post. I'll leave it. :P --Coredesat (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Prot

Maybe we should ask to have WP:N protected for the time being? There are new people coming in to rehash the same points all over again. I'd like to have your opinion on this. >Radiant< 20:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection is not warranted. There is no point in revert warring. —Centrx→talk • 21:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability

The problem here is that the page was *recently* changed from proposal to guideline without any discussion whatsoever. I reviewed the history, back to the beginning of this page's existence. The change to guideline was almost immediately disputed and then a low-level revert war began. That is not the proper way of achieving consensus, stepping on the views of others. The proper way is to leave the page as it was, until consensus is achieved. The process was not followed in this case. I will continue to revert to "proposal" until those wishing to make it a guideline, follow that process of achieving consensus. Wjhonson 21:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There was substantial discussion among many people; read the talk page. If you disagree with the page, explain its problems. There is no point in revert warring. Removing the guideline tag is not going to stop any non-notable articles from being deleted. You must explain what is wrong with notability as a guideline; you must convince others, or Wikipedia will continue as it has been continuing for a long time now deleting non-notable articles and it will only be that the tag on the page is misleading. —Centrx→talk • 21:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand my objection. It is not whether this page *should* be a guideline. It is that, almost immediately after it was *made* a guideline, a revert war began. Instead of attempting to resolve the issues, people engaged in a war. That is not constructive whatsoever. Removing a poll is further, into destructive and inflammatory. There is no call for that sort of behaviour. Wjhonson 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Getting involved in a revert war does not prevent revert wars. —Centrx→talk • 21:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Abusive editor returned

An editor you indef blocked has returned to harrass myself and another, [1], [2], [3], and [4] --Crossmr 23:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with, for the time being. —Centrx→talk • 01:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Adriano da Gama Kury cleanup tag

Hi Centrx. Lately I have noticed that cleanup tags inspire puzzlement, because it's not always clear what to do. Did you make an entry about this page in the central cleanup list? If not, could you at least add something on its Talk page? Thanks, EdJohnston 01:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 01:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!.. I just noticed that the page was created by the subject of the article. Is this completely against policy, or would we tolerate it if it was a good article? EdJohnston 02:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is discouraged, but if we have an article with good information it just means we should be a little more careful to make sure it is accurate. The problem with the subject writing an article is that it is often not neutral, vanity, or not notable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. —Centrx→talk • 02:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Roitr

Please be aware that the user in question has hundreds of anon ip addresses and will commence at once to attack and vandalize the long term abuse page now that it is unprotected. This is why it was protected for so long, since any unprotection brought countless ip anon attacks by the user to whom the page referred I guess we will see, mabe he won't come, but unpotecting the article might not have been the best idea. -Husnock 05:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It can be easily reverted and the page protected again. —Centrx→talk • 05:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:PDC

Yes: was that not clear from the description on the category page? I've modified it slightly to be clearer (I hope). --RobertG ♬ talk 08:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The scenario you suggest hasn't ever happened, I doubt it will. If it does then it'll probably be part of a concerted attack and will be picked up by vandalism patrol before the bot gets to it; if not, I usually keep an eye on the bot as it runs (about once a day), and will spot if it appears to be eating through a valid category; if it all slips through, then we examine the bot's edit history for articles that it took out of the category (easily identified from its edit summaries) and we reinstate the category. If an attacker becomes determined to abuse the process then we review whether the bot is more bother than it's worth. At the moment the bot is surely a benefit. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

deleted category template

I see you redirected {{Deletedcategory}} to {{Deletedpage}}. I'm not clear why and also how this impacts upon the bot used to patrol Category:Protected deleted categories and empty the categories placed there. Appreciate your thoughts on all of this. Steve block Talk 10:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have changed Template:Deletedpage so that if it is placed on a category, the category is put in Category:Protected deleted categories. In addition to keeping everything in one, standardized place, it means that categories will be dealt with by the bot when admins use the more common template. —Centrx→talk • 14:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'm still not clear on why this has to happen, but if the bot matter is addressed, that's all that really matters. Steve block Talk 15:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This makes deleted pages uniform. {{deletedpage}} already has parsing to give a unique message when it is used on category or other pages, so any special wording can be done similarly. The use of {{deletedpage}} is more common, so it needs to have Category:Protected deleted categories anyway, and there is no reason to have a duplicate template. —Centrx→talk • 15:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think I get it. Words like parsing confuse me slightly. :) Apologies. Steve block Talk 15:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Centrx

Hi Centrx, sorry if my 'broken' message was too cryptic - I thought you'd get my drift. But hopefully no harm done - I can live with the current nut size (and definitely the caption needed fixing). Thanks, Crum375 13:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot template question

Can we get the bot to do something about removing the templates from user pages of userboxes that were deleted? —Centrx→talk • 15:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know which high use templates have been deleted. I have done some in the past because by chance I came across the redlinks of them on the user pages.--Andeh 15:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been going through old deletedpages, and one way would be to put them in a category that the bot goes through and removes items whereever they are transcluded. —Centrx→talk • 15:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

But how are you finding the deleted ones? (the deletion log is huge)--Andeh 16:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedPD (there are also others at Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages). —Centrx→talk • 16:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I may do it later. But the actual CAT:GUS is higher priority.--Andeh 16:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. —Centrx→talk • 16:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess that is also considered a backlog, it's much easier to tackle too. I'm setting it up now for later.--Andeh 16:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

See Template:Deleteduserbox. Should there be a separate category for the deleted userbox? —Centrx→talk • 17:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably, so I did, Category:Deleted userboxes. —Centrx→talk • 17:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Bobabobabo/works

Bobabobabo needs another reminder not to put fair use images into userspace. She certainly isn't listening to me. Interrobamf 17:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WTF

Why did you remove Anti-Colonel Sanders from the long term abuse list? Also why did you write "rm-likely frivolous complaint". WTF is that supposed to mean?!--B&W Anime Fan 21:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

regarding your block on 218.186.9.1

just would like to point you to this article about ip address, 218.186.9.1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:218.186.9.1

any way to let other administrators know about this? i've messaged quite a few in the past 2 months. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liptonslug (talk • contribs) 18:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really, aside from encouraging admins to block "anon. only" more often. Some of these IPs are extremely disruptive, and when blocked anon. only, all it takes for someone to edit Wikipedia is to create an account. —Centrx→talk • 20:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Wrestling Spirit

You removed semi-protection from this page on October 2. Due to repeat vandalism by multiple IPs, I have requested that semi-protection be restored. -- Paleorthid 19:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I will watch it. Semi-protecting talk pages should be rare. —Centrx→talk • 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A Riddle of Roses

Hi! You deleted A Riddle of Roses as A7. I'm pretty sure that it wasn't the case, having an assertion of nobility in the award won in Canada, among other things (it not being a vanity publication, etc). Please restore. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Please improve the article. —Centrx→talk • 01:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, I'll get it on my to-do. Also, what was the deletion rationale for 666 Revealed: True Stories Of Real Evil? I saw that got deleted as well without anything lodged in the deletion log about it. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This was a "direct-to-video documentary about the number 666, etc.". You are welcome to try to improve it, but all it has are dead links and the only information I can find about it is that you can buy it on Amazon.com or find an overblown summary on All Movie Guide. —Centrx→talk • 01:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I honestly hadn't looked at it in a while, but I'm just thinking you may have deleted a copyvio version accidentally as opposed to a viable stub. I can't see the history, only the answers.com cache, but if I'm wrong, let me know and leave it deleted and I'll try to redo it later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling Spirit

You installed the templates to the article which I have since removed because the "editor" in question is banned user JB196. They were locked in the first place due to superflous additions of templates to have articles he didn't like removed. He's just doing this to cause trouble and doing the things by proxy is against wikipedia rules as we have been told to revert him on sight. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I added the specific templates I thought were appropriate and which I would have added if I had looked into any other such article. —Centrx→talk • 02:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how the topic is notable, even moreso because it is a game created by a single person. There are also no third-party sources in the article. —Centrx→talk • 02:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing infoboxes

Hey, regarding the removal of Alfonso Cuarón's infobox, I believe that consensus is that infoboxes are included in Directors articles regardless of whether the info is there. Cheers, Jack 13:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

declined my unblock request / any specific reason?

You removed the unblock-request-box from my talkpage without adding a decline reason as is suggested in the box itself. Instead, you just told "not unblocked" in the edit summary. You are the expert, so I assume your edit was in good faith and in compliance to Wikipedia policy, but I'd have liked a decline reason anyway, simple and short as it may be. Please don't "nothing" me like that, I regard it as bad style as I am surely no persistent bad faithed vandal or the like. Thank you. 84.44.170.194 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly the sockpuppet of someone, using this account to engage in peculiar possibly harassing behavior not encyclopedia-building. —Centrx→talk • 16:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have created three accounts so far on Wikipedia. My first account created ever was user:Tit_for _tat on September 24, 2006. After that, I created on obvious sockpuppet, user:Tat_for_tit, honestly exposing myself on AN/I and being banned the same minute. After that I created a third account, using it to act like the IP-WikiGnome I have been for two and a half years now on en.Wikipedia.org. I have apologized on the formerly harassed users talk page and he has accepted my apology. I am not going to tell you my current username, though, because there is no need to. I am behaving, I am copyediting articles like I have done for so long, I stay out of all debate that brought me into this mess. But, just as a gesture from WP, I'd like to have my unjust indef. block undone. That is the truth and nothing but, take it or leave it. 84.44.170.194 16:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but you are fine with your other account; there is no reason to unblock this odd one. —Centrx→talk • 16:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with my current account. But I could and would relate to WP a lot better knowing I will not be indef. blocked without a reason that still holds true. 84.44.170.194 16:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This account was blocked with reason. You will not be blocked without reason. —Centrx→talk • 16:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My account user:Tit_for_tat was blocked for a) being a sockpuppet of another user (Dabljuh), and b) the alleged sole purpose of harassing another user (Jakew). Checkuser has proved that I am not Dabljuh and I apologized to Jakew meaning it and demonstrating it by sticking to more unproblematic areas of personal interest in Wikipedia (namely, copyediting and reverting obvious vandalism). But I am actually evading an existing ban whenever in the future (indef.) I make any edit. And I do not like that very much, can't you understand that? 84.44.170.194 17:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I honestly appreciate it. Now this account can at last rest in peace. Tit for tat 21:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#If_you_disagree_with_a_block: If you disagree with a block placed by another admin, do not unblock without first attempting to contact the blocking admin and discussing the matter. If the blocking admin is unavailable for comment a discussion on WP:AN/I is recommended. Blocked users commonly e-mail several admins claiming to be the victims of injustice, and because it is not always obvious from the blocked user's contributions what the problem was, it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking admin if they are available. The editor was not blocked because of "mistaken identity", and this has already been discussed at length on WP:AN/I. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, he continues to edit as a dynamic IP, but that doesn't change the fact that the userid itself should not be unblocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

user:Jayjg permblocked my account user:Subversive_element for reasons he has given on my talk page. His reasons are not sufficient at all, I believe, for a permblock without warning.

My former account user:Tit_for_tat had already been indef. blocked by Jayjg without any warning or preceeding temp. block. (and without sufficient reason). In my opinion, he is biased against me and neither of his blocks against me is sufficiently backed by policy.

I'd love you or any admin (we talked before, that's why I'm here) to just take a look at this. I did not campaign for user:Hex's RfA at all because he's anti-circ, I do not even know if he is, I just liked his general attitude and his approach and humor on the RfA. I posted to him as well, explaining and apologizing for inconviences on his RfA that sprung from user:Jakew's personal attack against the users I presumedly "urged" to vote for Hex.

Jakew prominently mentioned their "anti-circumcision stance", and the fact that, yes, one of those users I contacted with regard to that RfA, is in fact a self-proclaimed white supremacist - which I do not approve of, but it's his business, as far as I am concerned. But both things (anti-circ attitude and political attitude as well) cannot be used to descredit another user, according WP:NPA. The reason they are anti-circ is just coninciding with the fact that I believe those users are trustworthy. (I come from a non-circumcising culture and indeed all of my friends are very much opposed to circ).

Yet another user, User:Haber, who has attacked me before (without ever apologizing), did jump in. I had requested a mediation on MedCab (concerning his PA against me), and User:Kilo-Lima asked him to apologize, which Haber just replied to that I was blocked.

All this is so frustrating. I feel I have not done anything wrong (as in "so wrong it gets you immediately permblocked without any warning or temp. block). And if anyone cares to know: I believe Jayjg has been abusing his admin-powers to an intolerable degree. Jakew has personally attacked users in a very inappropriate place. User Haber has personally attacked me. Please comment. 87.78.178.9 18:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks regarding America Ferrera

Hopefully your support for the image's use will be enough to end the silly edit war that had started. Curious... why do you think that mentioning Ferrera's endorsement of the image "degrades" the quality of the fair use description? -- Zanimum 16:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The permission is not necessary for fair use. The notice was unnecessary and also peculiar: Like "her brother's dog's former owner's aunt told me", and how do you know this person is her brother. —Centrx→talk • 16:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Her official site has a link section, the link section says "my brother designed my site" or something like that, and then the web designer brother's site has an email address. -- Zanimum 15:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Hi, Could you please not remove functional code from {{WPBiography}} without discussing it first? By all means improve it, but don't take substantial stuff away without discussion.

You might want to revisit to reapply formatting changes, as I just rolled it back.

(Warning: With this and your changes to other templates the job queue is at over half a million entries! 700,000 now) --kingboyk 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This was not a candidate for a wholesale revert. The code in question is confined and easy to copy. —Centrx→talk • 18:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, instead of reverting solely with reference to "it was not discussed", you should briefly explain why you disagree with the change in the edit summary and/or explain in the talk page. Otherwise, the result is only that the originator of the change initiates a section with "Why was this reverted" and then the reverter, if they come back, responds "This is why", and only then would the discussion begin. What's more, there may not even be a need for a discussion if you would explain your reasons in the edit summary. —Centrx→talk • 18:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, for the very reason that it is a high-use template, you should especially in this case not do a wholesale revert because all it means that the changes with which you did not disagree are just going to have to be added again in yet another edit that adds to the job queue. —Centrx→talk • 18:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I agree with the other changes, but that's not really the issue. I have a splitting headache and no wish to go through code, nor do I want to have wade through diffs later to restore working code that was zapped without discussion. If you're removing other people's work you ought to be discussing it first. But, look, I don't wanna argue about process, looks like we have the working code back in place and a smaller template so job done, all well and good. Cheers. --kingboyk 18:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fire + Water

Hi. I'm wondering why you deleted Fire + Water. You did you tag it with Template:copyvio, right? and where is it a copyvio from? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You can find a copy at Lostpedia. —Centrx→talk • 20:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

They are barely even alike tbh (original wiki article) - and if anything I would expect Lostpedia to be the culprit of copyvios they have a history of plaigrism. Either way did you not follow template:copyvio? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it appears the text is originally from ABC, [5]. While there were parts of the article not copied from there, most of it is the same with slight re-wordings. You are welcome to write an article that does not copy from it and is not such a derivative work. —Centrx→talk • 21:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started a stub, me or annother project member will likely write a full synopsis, please do not forget to follow the correct procedure in future however, you may also liek to leave a notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost where you would likely get a pretty quick reply. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, I just noticed this myself, and wanted to add a note of concern, since I know for a fact that the article was not a copy/paste of copyrighted information. It had multiple editors (including myself). I guess we can re-create it from cache, but can you also please undelete the Talk page? --Elonka 02:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the original creation of the page was a copy and most of the wording from that remains. It is a derivative work, with many parts remaining identical. You are not allowed to re-post it. —Centrx→talk • 03:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally rewrote the page, so I know that it is not a copyright violation. I was also one of the editors involved with previous editing of the page, and recognized my own text still in there. If the current text is similar between the sites that you linked, it is because they are all summaries of the same television episode. I have reviewed all of them, and am comfortable that the Wikipedia version is not similar enough to warrant a claim of copyvio. Is there a particular sentence or turn of phrase that is causing you concern? If so, please tell me, and I will happily rewrite it, but right now the page is locked so that I can't get at it. If you unprotect it, I will proceed with re-writing to ensure that the Wikipedia version is original. --Elonka 03:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have (again) rewritten the plot summary, which can be seen at Talk:Fire + Water/Temp. Do you feel that this is sufficient, or do you still feel that it is too derivative? --Elonka 04:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Should be wikified too. —Centrx→talk • 04:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete the talk page? Is there some way to resurrect that? -Anþony 11:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot

I've noticed that it adds some of mine, but not others; and removes some, but not others, so I've stopped relying on it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Quill

It seems to me that by tagging WP:N as a 'principle' we're back to square one, which is that people will oppose its usage on the grounds that "it's not a guideline". >Radiant< 08:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

For the moment, it's better than it being reverted constantly. —Centrx→talk • 15:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it opens the road for people to argue that it's a 'principle' rather than a guideline. Given the current status, 'proposed' would be better. >Radiant< 15:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:WP:RM

Do you really like your version much better? To me it seems much harder to just glace at and see, and the link to the talk page is even more hidden. I don't think the two line thing was a problem either, basically no one was discussing things at that page anyway. — Mets501  (talk)  11:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It has increased the length of the requests and the number of requests that have discussion in the wrong place. Having the rationale at the RM listing is only for those perusing who want to comment on the subject. If it were for admins only, we wouldn't need any information about why to move because the admin has to go to the talk page anyway, whereas someone perusing might decide they don't have any particular knowledge on a topic, etc. —Centrx→talk • 15:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see what you're saying. I made a "compromise" edit, see {{WP:RM}} now. It has everything on one line, but the "discuss" link is prominant, so it's obvious where to go to discuss the move. — Mets501  (talk)  18:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Alienus

Hi, your change to this page has been reverted by another user who apparently thought that you were mistaken about the ArbCom decision. My impression is that you were updating it to reflect a ban due to exhausting the community's patience, but obviously I'm only guessing. [6]. Jakew 13:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use second opinion

Could you take a look at the batch of images I just moved to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/Fair_use_claims? I've been discussing them with the person who reported them, and I'd like to get the opinions of people experienced with this sort of thing. Thanks, --Robth^Talk 19:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OhioLINK Article Deleted; Permissions request denied?

I see from the log page for OhioLINK ([7]) that it was deleted over the weekend. I never heard back from the two e-mails I sent to permissions @ wikimedia . org, so am I to assume that -- despite the contents of that e-mail and the discussions here and here -- that the permissions request was denied? --DataGazetteer 20:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a backlog on those e-mails and most don't have them; when it is received the page will be restored. —Centrx→talk • 21:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to the wikipedia community so this may be common practice, but it strikes me as poor form to remove a page while the process is in motion. To apply a pseudo (only because it isn't international) legal precedent: Innocent until proven guilty? How long will it take to work through the backlog? Should I just put the page back myself? --DataGazetteer 23:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty is for cases where the damage of a faulty judgement is great, as with limiting a person's liberty by confining them to a prison. In this case, the only difference is that there will not be a big copyright infringement notice on that page and the page history with the text is not viewable. The page will be put back when permission is processed, which will not be very long. —Centrx→talk • 23:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If we were to use this analogy, and it is not a good one, this would be more analogous to the time after arrest but before the trial is concluded, during which a suspect may be jailed. —Centrx→talk • 23:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

BDORT

Hi Centrx, that article was protected due to edit warring and is now in the middle of mediation. Is there a special reason why you decided to unprotect it in the middle of an active case? Crum375 22:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Full protection is a temporary measure because it blocks everyone from editing. If anyone edit wars, I will block them. —Centrx→talk • 23:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. We'll see what happens. Crum375 23:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

LTTE Article

Are you sure removing the protection from the article is the right thing to do? There have been many edit wars over that article, and most of the people who want to change it have themselves been involved in edit wars. As Ulflarson, suggested, I think we major changes to the article should be discussed before been carried out, and also be approved by a nutral editor (preferably an admin) cos otherwise things may get out of hand again. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 00:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Full protection is a temporary measure because it blocks everyone from editing. If anyone edit wars, I will block them. —Centrx→talk • 00:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I guess, but I hope you'll keep monitoring the page cos I'm pretty sure things will be back to the way they were before. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 00:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I will. If I'm not around you can ask another admin. What I will do in the future is make it clear in the unprotection summary that edit warring is strictly forbidden. —Centrx→talk • 00:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

My problem is, for example, the 1st thing they want to edit is the sentence

Supporters of the LTTE refer to them as freedom fighters; however, 29 countries (see list) have listed them as a terrorist organisation (another 161 countries, as well as the UN - which only has a terrorist list devoted solely to individuals and organisations believed to be connected to al-Qaeda and the Taliban[1], and therefore does not have the mandate to ban any other group - have not)

When you say "29 countries have banned the LTTE", do you really have to say "161 countries and the UN have not"? That's just trying to make the ban statement less credible, and that's a pure POV edit, in my opinion. I added the UN list part to try and balance that, and they want to remove it.
Its things like that which will be dispued, and I hope you'll watch for that. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 01:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know if various parties are partisan fanatics, but everyone should be discussing it. See also Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and everyone should keep in mind that a temporary bad version is not a big deal and there's no use edit warring over it. —Centrx→talk • 01:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well anyway I hope there won't be any edit wars. I guess will find out pretty soon. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 01:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning, RE: Tree List

Any blanking edits to my personal space are regarded as vandalism. This is a reference list that is to be used to create wikipedia articles based on tree species in the future. Please refrain from blanking or otherwise editing this list, all personal site pages should be treated likewise. Thank you. Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 04:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like an automated spam catcher caught a false positive rather than a true "who cares" message. Carry on, and cheers! Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 04:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not adding them with all CAPS would probably relieve this problem. —Centrx→talk • 05:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

revert to riana_dzasta's editor review

Thanks for this; it's OK, it wasn't malicious. We cleared it all up on 71's talkpage. Cheers! — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 05:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM

Hi Centrx! Would you like to comment on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves about {{WP:RM}}? We're thinking of removing the rationale from the template altogether. Thanks. —Mets501 (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Alienus

Why have you changed the tag on this users page and protected it so that I can't restore the correct tag as laid down by the Arbcom case? Sophia 08:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Arbcom remedy is not the maximum remedy. If, after an Arbcom decision a user continues to be disruptive as is the case with Alienus who has in addition stated that he will not stop, they can be indefinitely banned. Since he keeps editing despite his Arbcom ban, which resets such a violation of it, and has stated he will continue to do so, he was effectively indefinitely banned anyway due to his actions, but a continued flouting of the rules cements that. —Centrx→talk • 14:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - I was unaware that any editor could decide the arbcom decision was incomplete and implement bans based on undiscussed facts. I'll bear this in mind in future. Sophia 17:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Immigration arrangements article

Immigration arrangements for British passport holders from Hong Kong visiting the Republic of China (Taiwan)

This article was deleted by you without any notice or warning or discussion. After it was deleted, there was no reason given. Even it was not a well written article, it has been retained for 2 years and nobody proposed a deletion. I feel this is unfair.

Why should you delete the article instead of improving it? Even if it has NPOV problems, why don't you place a NPOV tag?

BN(O) 09:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been tagged for cleanup for over a year and you never improved it; you also need to cleanup all your other articles. See Wikipedia:Guide to layout for help on one part of the problem. Wikipedia is not a free web host for your essays. Your contributions need to be in the form of encyclopedia articles and should probably be merged into the respective articles on the main topics. —Centrx→talk • 14:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Immigration arrangements on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Immigration arrangements for British passport holders from Hong Kong visiting the Republic of China on Taiwan. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Thryduulf 12:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering

Why did you revert my edits on a vandalbox?--B&W Anime Fan 14:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Insofar as it is a vandalbox, anyone can revert it as freely as anyone can add junk to it. Regardless, you should focus on writing encyclopedia articles rather than fiddling around in user pages referring to long-term abusers. —Centrx→talk • 14:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

{{bv}} template

Hi, Centrx! I wanted to talk about the edit you made to {{blatantvandal}}. I use {{bv}} for users whose first edit is to create an attack page, and they may not consider what they're doing to be vandalism. The {{test4im}} is more appropriate for users who are editing existing pages. I'm okay with altering the phrasing of {{bv}} (one user has recently suggested the change on the talk page), but I think there needs to be a distinction. I reverted your edit, and then rereverted it, so maybe we should open a discussion on the appropriate talk page. -- Merope ^Talk 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Do whatever you think is right. I think the many warning templates need to be simplified and consolidated. —Centrx→talk • 15:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't disagree with you there! I get that they're similar and we should really streamline them, but bv is very useful when doing new page patrol. I'll revert them. (Again.) -- Merope ^Talk 15:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CHILL redirection redirected!

On IRC ... yesterday? Day before? You asked about an essay that was up about how the world won't end tomorrow and such. I pointed you to WP:CHILL, but it's been pointed out that for some reason, WP:CHILL has been redirected to Wikipedia:No angry mastodons instead of Wikipedia:The World Will Not End Tomorrow as it was when I first ran across it. My apologies, and feel free to beat me up on chat when you get an opportunity for the gross error! (Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 16:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Some poor newbie must be very confused right now! —Centrx→talk • 16:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your edits to the Vandalism page

Thanks for cleaning up Wikipedia:Vandalism. I however feel that the previous version with all the templates and examples made it easier for newer editors, such as me, to use those templates. Could you please re-add that structure of information in a new article and then provide a link to it in that little box that you place to the right of the article? I would appreciate that very much, as the new version of the list of templates confuses me somewhat. Thanks. --Adriaan90 17:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

They are at the list of templates linked at the bottom of the table. I changed the link to indicate that is hows "examples of output", change the wording if you think it need to be clearer. —Centrx→talk • 17:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see, I probably skipped that part, but thanks anyway. --Adriaan90 17:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

protected "Lost" article

You recently protected the Lost article on October 5th, however there wasn't serious cases of vandalism to warrant the protection, and even worse is that the page is still under protection today with no explaintion or {{protected}} at the top of the page. Please see about removing the protection.24.151.195.127 22:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I unprotected it, we'll see. You may be interested in creating an account. —Centrx→talk • 23:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, uhh...

I put the trolling back in, and you removed it a second time. I sort of wanted it there, ya know? There is really not much reason to remove such stuff, we are an open and transparent community and if someone wants to threaten the plague, well, you know, no harm done. :) Could you put it back? --Jimbo Wales 00:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know you put it back. I thought it was re-posted by the same person, partly because you neglected to restore my undoubtedly woefully unclever supremely brilliant response. —Centrx→talk • 00:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles D'Aprix (again)

Dohertydot/Urbanrevitalization/etc. has posted a response on User talk:Urbanrevitalization concerning his previous actions on spamming/astroturfing Charles D'Aprix. In my opinion, he does make a point this time that I didn't realize. I already posted a response to it, although I thought I would request you'd go through my response to see if it is valid, and possibly provide a comment. Regards, Tuxide 00:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe him, that's what he said last time. There is no evidence of notability. All those websites are made by him or his organizations. He is mentioned in fluff pieces in some newspapers, but even if that were sufficient—which I don't think it is—he has been spamming Wikipedia to advertise himself and there's no need to assume good faith, we already have evidence that it's not good faith. —Centrx→talk • 00:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. What I don't understand is that if this is him, then why the hell would he write an article about himself instead of his company? I just don't get it, unless I missed out on something. I'd just rather assume he's a newbie that made the fatal mistake of not responding to his own edit warnings, for least he has started using talk pages to communicate. However, it is clear that he is non-notable. In comparison to when I submitted my AfD nom last month, "Charles D'Aprix" now returns 171 results on Google and 8 on Alexa. Regards, Tuxide 01:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

deleted "Lady Wakehurst Sydney Ferry" (Copyvio)

Can I ask why this page was deleted ? Thanks 202.81.18.30 03:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Copyvio" is Wikipedia shorthand for "copyright violation" or infringement. This particular article was a hodgepodge copied verbatim from several different websites. You are free to create another article on the same topic that is not copied, though there may be issues with the subject being notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. You may also be interested in creating an account. —Centrx→talk • 03:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

consensus for community ban?

I saw that you gave Al a perm community ban. Shouldn't there be a first discussion and consensus before a perm community ban is effected? Also, should we not consider the merits of his edits, even if they are from illegal puppets? We don't really hunt down puppets of banned users unless they they are doing something very bad like vandalism, etc. Al's edits are good and helping WP. If Al was given a year he would be welcomed back after "time served," but there is no reason to bother with his puppets if they are not doing anything terrible to WP, and esp. not use that as an excuse to arbitrarily issue a perm community ban. I think until there is a clear consensus that this is ther right thing to do you should reverse the perm ban to the ruling by the arbcom of one year.Giovanni33 04:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

His 1-year ban is reset every time he circumvents it and he has continued to use an array of IPs to war over some changes he wants and stated that he will not stop. No one would notice or care much if a banned user were to come back and edit productively and civilly on other subjects, so all unbanning does is give someone his nickname and a history of contributions, but instead he has chosen to just play games and edit war in favorite areas. This may not answer all your specific points, but I would be happy to answer follow-up questions. —Centrx→talk • 04:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I am still not wanting to register...

Hi Centrx, you wrote something on my "user page", which - using dynamic IPs - is actually fairly pointless. :D You "advertised" registering on WP, but I tell you - NOT YET. I like to keep it the way it is now. I'd like to stick to that "solution" because something which i profoundly hate is that I have to bear open discussions on MY OWN page about each and everything from all and sundry. Even if I purge the discussions, they're still in history. But if the bullshit rate is too high, I'd like to remove them irreversibly as the owner of my user page. Everyone can see arguments, even if the conflict is long lost gone. Like a freaking Google Groups thing where past conflicts are visible for the next 50 years. So some users' most embarrassing moments on Usenet are engraved FOREVER, without any way to WIPE it. Yes, wipe. Do you know Norton Utilities? Here you can wipe, WITHOUT a trace. That does concern me a lot, and hence I am not so keen on registering. My user page should be "private with public access," that is with a kind of admin rights: the ability to purge page history so that past things I do not want to have for the after-world are irreversibly deleted. So might think 100,000s of anonymous editors who do not want that either. Sorry. -andy 80.129.122.8 06:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I was just letting you know about it. That message needs to be changed so it sounds less like an advertisement. Also, you could have one account for a while and then decide you want vanish, you can make a clean break, create another account and start over. —Centrx→talk • 06:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No. I agree on becoming a trustworthy person by using ONE nickname once and for all. But I just request a little more admin rights. If this is planned, I have no problems in waiting and register next year or so. But something must change. If I completely change a discussion page on my site because I just removed lots of crap, any other user coming to my site CANNOT have a way to just look up what was there before. This should only be possible for me, the owner of MY page, not for all and sundry. I like open concepts, but please not TOO open. Hold on .. here's a wonderful example: Imagine you're a free-lance journalist and you're writing an essay. This essay is put into a .DOC Word document, and you must have been edited it a zillion times at least. Now you, the journalist, send this .DOC file via e-mail to a magazine editor. Do you want to give the magazine editor a way to "rewind" the document and sniff behind all those changes you did until you finished the document version ready for sending? :) No, you'd send a PDF file. And a user's discussion page should be like a PDF file. Current edition is available to arbitrary visitors, and no reverts. -andy 80.129.122.8 06:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could always page-move archive your talk page every couple weeks without linking to the archive from the page. That would get rid of the edit history for all practical purposes. However, your idea is never going to be implemented code-wise, because the whole purpose of the edit history is that it BE transparent and open. --tjstrf 16:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the main problem. It is transparent to an extent that it may almost be considered a bit "exaggerated." I like transparent concepts; but this kind of transparency feels like some Big Brother (tm) "residents": they are objects of the public eye 24/7, even if they have sexual intercourse (!). Transparency MUST have its boundaries, too, IMHO. And if it's too transparent, we could as well put everything on public discussion pages/forums and stop having personal (read: P E R S O N A L) user pages. But yes, the trends are coming: all and sundry would "blog" all their life openly for gazillions of people to see, they put their most intimate photos on a web site also viewed by gazillions of people, and regard this as the most ordinary thing in the world. Gladly MySpace has the possibility of having a friends-only page; so that at least the majority of strangers is locked out from the most intimate moments. No folks, that is too much. By keeping up with this kind of attitude, the staff might breed a zillion more anonymous editors. At least make history sniffing optional for personal pages then. -andy 80.129.122.8 01:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You could just... not use your userpage. I mean, I see what you mean, but I don't see how getting a username would force you to tell everyone everything about you, or something. The only reason anyone suggested that you get an account was probably because they figured it would be more convienient for you.--Anaraug 03:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. —Centrx→talk • 03:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Very true. We don't force you to reveal your name or personal info, and unless you start vandalizing pages or something the worst your talk page might have would be some vandal cursing at you, which would actually reflect well on you, since if you're annoying the vandals that badly you must be doing something right. --tjstrf 20:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

multiple 3RRs

An IP editor (User talk:81.66.48.22) violated 3RR on several occasions. I warned him/her about it, but I believe all the edits are absolutely good-faithed. Nevertheless, the IP did another 2 edits to Dreyfus Affair after that. AGF, I think it maybe a computer novice who doesn't know about talk pages etc., but should be warned again, maybe by an admin like you. Subversive element 16:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no edit warring. —Centrx→talk • 16:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR applies only in the case of edit warring, I see. I didn't know that. Alright then, sorry for bothering you. Subversive element 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 3RR is the Three Revert Rule. Anyone is free to make as many edits as they like, though he doesn't need to make so many minor ones in succession. —Centrx→talk • 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand, now :-). I actually thought (please don't laugh) that revert was a synonym for edit... Subversive element 16:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Xena episode article delete

Could you point me towards the prior version of the content for this article--I'd like to confirm that the content can't be redeemed after extensive editing. I don't know how to view prior versions of deleted articles.

Also, I suggest you respond to the related question here Antonrojo 18:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

All or most of it was copied from [8]. You may be able to find a Google cached version of the former article, but you cannot view the deleted text on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 18:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Antonrojo 18:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of Mathewignash

Hi, you blocked and unblocked me today. Reason given was that I used copywritten info on a page. Let me know what page and I'll attempt to rewrite it in a correct fashion right away. Thanks! user:mathewignash

I was looking at some of your reverts for Transformers articles and trying to fix the articles. I reverted to the last version of the article for Terrorsaur, but removed the text I could tell was from a bio page in a Dreamwave comic book. Is this good? I'll go over the others and remove anything taken from another source or reword it as I have time, but until them I'll leave them in your reverts. Also, could I get a copy of the deleted Air Raid (Transformers) page so I can post it wtthout any questionable text in it?

Just wanted to let you know I started fixing more Transformers articles to removed any tech spec or bio text from the comics. I also added Reference links to the pages that the info came from, so is anyone wants the info, they can just link to it. I just redid Ironhide, and will do more soon. Thanks for the info on how to write up an article user:mathewignash

boajredleif.jpg

Hey, do you mind deleting my image for me? I don't want it up here anymore BojacRedleif 23:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 23:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Pakuranga College deletion

Can I ask why you deleted the page on Pakuranga College? it was part of a wiki project to document all of the secondary schools in new zealand, and the page content from the Pakuranga.school.nz page we had permission to have on the wiki page??????--Subwaynz 08:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Explicit permission releasing the text under the GNU Free Documentation License must be sent by the school to permissions, at wikimedia dot org. —Centrx→talk • 17:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done

Thanks :) Petros471 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

On notability

Hi Centrx. I wanted to thank you for your thought-provoking comments on my personal essay. I so rarely have a talk page discussion with anyone that disagrees with me on Wikipedia other than unreasonable POV-pushers that I'm finding our discussion to be a breath of fresh air. Obviously, we disagree somewhat on the subject of our conversation, but I'm glad we're discussing it. That's it, and thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your deletion of N. G. McClernan

Since I was involved in a lawsuit that was important to the American theatre world, and written up in the NYTimes, on what basis did you delete my entry?

At what point does information about a person no longer fall under the category of "vanity"? Other than some apparently arbitrary Wikipedian insider definition of famousness? Nancymc 17:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Articles for deletion states: ... The accusation VANITY should be avoided [3], and is not in itself a reason for deletion.Nancymc 17:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Autobiography. —Centrx→talk • 17:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Dcflyer

Please see Dcflyers discussion page. He has violated 3RR on numerous occassions, deleted reasonable warnings about 3RR and removing warnings on his talk pages, and continues to start revert wars. Would you please warn him to stop. He seems to think only his edits are reasonable. Thanks. 67.162.212.254 19:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleshlight (third nomination)

I just rolled back your comment here as the discussion was closed. The deletion review is still ongoing, that's where you can make that point if you'd like. - brenneman ^{L} 04:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Template

Please say you're satisfied with this layout. ;) After all, it's compact and it should save enough space on talk pages of articles. —Mirlen 05:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Vagina

You might want to add Image:Sarahvulva crop.jpg to the restricted images list (or whatever it's called) since it seems a likely target for vandals now that the penis is protect :-P Nil Einne 10:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, (MediaWiki:Bad image list). —Centrx→talk • 17:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, i didn't really know what to do. THe Community Portal is kinda hard to navigate. It is really hard to find all the stuff about what to do when a new user is not following policies. I am sorta new myself, but I haven't been involved in vandalism disputes like that. -- ¢² Connor K.   22:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Smallville

Please stop moving pages and adding merge tags. That tag was already there and if you go to the discussion it was clear, by the only two people that actually responded to it, that they did not agree with the merger. Regardless of the fact that only two people responded, it was a clear consensus. The tag was there for 4 days, and you (the one that put it there in the first place) didn't even cast a vote. I have turned Smallville into a disambiguous page, and redirected Smallville (comics) to Smallville (fictional town). There is already a link from the town page to the show page. Bignole 15:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Smallville (fictional town) is now at Smallville (DC Comics) in keeping with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics). CovenantD 16:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The merge and the move are two separate issues. With regard to the merge, there was no previous discussion about it on the talk page, a merge decision is not a vote, and I explained the reason for merging in the edit summary when I tagged the article. With regard to the move, a disambiguation page may or may not be appropriate but, as both the comics and the general Naming conventions indicate, the most common usage belongs at the main title. In this case, that is the television series, certainly not the fictional town. —Centrx→talk • 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you keep removing Anti-Colonel Sanders from the long-term abuse list? He is a massive vandal. Just recently he started to attack Wikipedia. He used to only attack Wikinews.--B&W Anime Fan 20:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That page is not a list of all long-term abusers. Obvious vandalism is irrelevant. —Centrx→talk • 20:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What!? That makes no sense at all! He is a long term abuser!--B&W Anime Fan 15:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

An entry is only wanted when it is important to help identify the vandalism. Otherwise, it is not needed. —Centrx→talk • 16:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean!?--B&W Anime Fan 21:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your recent semi-protections

Is there a reason why you aren't adding the {{sprotected}} tag when you semi-protect articles? This can really confuse new users when they try to edit a semi-protected page. —Whomp ^(myedits) 20:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a clear message when they try to edit the page. —Centrx→talk • 23:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletions of my Personnal Attack noticeboard

Dear Centrx,

I have written a notice for personnal attack in the noticeboard.

My original notice was here: [9]. Then, the user I wanted to signal Hkelkar, with some of his friends, edited my notice, changed it, completely modified it. Their edits are here:

• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

And it resulted in your final cancel of the notice:

• [13]

I am completely appaled at the manipulative tricks used on me by Hkelkar and his friends, which resulted in the disparition of my notice. But the problem is that I have really been attacked by this user. What can I do ? Is it possible you put back my original notice ? Who is the "disruptive user" you mention in your summary ? I don't understand what can I do.

Thank you very much. TwoHorned 19:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no evidence of personal attacks. They did not alter your original notice. —Centrx→talk • 19:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Unbacked accusation of antisemistism is not a personnal attack ? TwoHorned 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Centrx,

I am sorry to insist but I've been accused of antisemitism without any proof, and I think that is a personnal attack. I would want to resolve this issue by usual means. If not, I will be obliged to level things up to arbitration. Please take into consideration my demand: I think I've been attacked, and severely. Moreover, please clarify about the "disruptive user". Thank you TwoHorned 19:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

His comments were rather anodyne and do not directly call you antisemitic. This would certainly not warrant a block, and he is adequately warned. You were the "disruptive user"; it may have been an excessive characterization, but edit warring is unacceptable and disruptive. You can resolve these issues without administrative intervention by being calm, civil, and focussing on the content of articles, with reference to reliable sources. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. —Centrx→talk • 19:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not directly antisemitic ? Please have a look of his first intervention against me:

If you continue to violate WP:BLP in this manner and make the "neocon" anti-semitic canard (you actually mean "Jew", right?)

And then his second intervention:

The term "neocon" is a pejorative for neoconservatives generally regarded as an insult and with connotations of an ethnic slur as, historically, anti-semites have used it to make accusations of neoconservatism being "dominated by Jews"

Don't you think this is a direct attack ? Well, I'm a pretty calm guy, and I usually always try to resolve things by discussion. But this guy is making war-blocking at me, instead of discussion. I'm sorry but I consider I've been attacked. And severely. I think that the removal of my notice does not go in the right direction: he is still attacking me, as these events in the notification web page show. Thank you. TwoHorned 19:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If there is another incident, you are free to report it. —Centrx→talk • 20:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Colipon semi-protect

Yes. if you don't mind doing that it'd be great. Colipon+(T) 20:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ban question

Hi Centrx,

Sometimes when I edit wikipedia, I don't sign in because I want to do it quickly. Today it has come to my attention that I have been IP blocked (but not user blocked) for vandalism. I am surprised by this because I have never vandalized wikipedia and would therefore like to have my IP ban revoked because I don’t want to have to sign in every time I want to make a minor edit.

Thanks for giving this matter your attention :)

Baronjim 01:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I would need to know what the IP is to see if anything can be done about it. —Centrx→talk • 02:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply - My IP address is xxx.xxx.xxx.xxxBaronjim 19:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved :) Baronjim 04:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:People Powered

Glad to see I'm not the only person who finds this mildly disturbing. Is there anything anyone can do to fix this? I feel bad. I mean, how many people do you think are involved in New Hampshire politics?

Would it be too much trouble to request a CheckUser? riana_dzasta 04:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Salaheddin Ali Nader Shah Angha

Can I ask why the article on Salaheddin Ali Nader Shah Angha was deleted and protected?! All of the sources were referenced and he is a public & religious figure. If there were any errors in the article why wasnt there a talk about it to be revised so it can still be there? You can go to www.mto.org or search him under yahoo or google. Please reply.--Adam255 08:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Centrx,

What were the grounds for the deletion of this article? what needs to take place to recreate an entry that meets Wikipedia guidelines (assuming the previous one did not)? Dose the deletion process include a notification?

Thanks for your help Centrx! --Jamak 15:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have restored it per your request. Please improve the article to follow Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view with reference to reliable sources or it will end up being deleted again. Look at other articles for example. —Centrx→talk • 20:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Centrx. I will have to study other articles and improve this one per your instructions. Thanks again.--Jamak 06:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How's it going Centrx. I came to revise and edit this specific article today and as I was working on it, it was once again deleted. Is there a timeline that it needs to be revised in? If so please let me know. I am adding the required references and removing any "un-encyclopedia" worthy material out of the article. Thank you. --Adam255 19:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, when and if the article is removed from protection, can you also remove the protection from the redirect sites and names such as "Nader Angha" and "Hazrat Pir". Thanks for your help.--Adam255 19:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep deleting and restoring the article. The old version was junk and I would be happy to replace it with a new version at any time. There's no timeline, you can work on it at your leisure, but it's not important to keep the old version up in the mean time. —Centrx→talk • 23:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So, do I send you the new revised version of the article to be replaced under that name, since you deleted it?--Adam255 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now unprotected it. —Centrx→talk • 18:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Lid

Just so you know, Lid has removed your tags from the Wrestling Spirit page. I have readded them; I don't know what the guy's problem is that he keeps removing them.64.12.117.8 15:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi User:JB196, well, personally it could be that we've been given permission from an admin to revert your tag additions on sight, because you were indefblocked/community banned for your actions on the Death Valley Driver Video Review, Vic Grimes, Extreme Warfare and other pages?. Centrx, I was going to come over here to discuss the issues with Wrestling Spirit and saw JB196 had already got here.. SirFozzie 21:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Wrestling Spirit

I do think that there needs to be a notability about WP:Games, because as things stand, about 90% of the video/computer games on Wiki would be non-notable per WP:Software. However, the release of the game by Grey Dog Software and the review of it by multiple sites INCLUDING PC Gamer in the November 2006 article more then satisfies WP:N. It is a commercial game, not freeware, via online licensing software, so the "one-person design team" canard does not apply. SirFozzie 21:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I should think before I hit submit (a thought I had right after hitting submit): Perhaps the Wrestling Spirit article can be merged into the Extreme Warfare page, for the whole "CornellVerse" series of games? I mean, four commercial releases (TEW04, TEW05, Wrestling Spirit 1 and 2) and the upcoming TEW07.. well.. think that works, what do yoou think? SirFozzie 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Drini 22:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My profile

Somehow you removed images [[14]] which you judged to be obscene. Neither User:Zorath nor myself can figure out how to restore them. Please fix this. --Oreo Priest 23:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

To prevent vandalism, those images are disallowed except on specific articles where they are relevant. My removal of them from your user page only removed the poorly formatted link that remained and was perhaps done with an undescriptive edit summary. You are free to put that link back, but the images will not be presented on your user page. —Centrx→talk • 01:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, that helped a lot--Seadog.M.S 15:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Cogito ergo sumo

I want to ask you if you could please personally check (again) this issue... allegedely user Cogito ergo sumo "quit" Wikipedia... this new registered user Ex post factoid, is editing the same articles Cogito used to... very suspicious... I made a request for investigation, you can see my whole argument there. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias 15:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Gerard Doyle

Please could you review the talk page (and it's recent history) of this user. It's been made pretty clear that when the block expires, he's going to be just as bad (if not worse) than ever (of course, being called a "welsh slag" isn't something I relish either lol). --Crimsone 17:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Banned. —Centrx→talk • 17:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My word, that was quick. It seems somebody reported it at ANI as I left a message for you - the ANI section seems to be a story of you beating everybody else to it lol. I think the customary phrase would be "thanks" :) --Crimsone 18:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem with LTTE Article

Hey Centrx, about the LTTE article again, the same user Elalan and I'm pretty sure his sockpuppet Trincomanb (I'm not certain but I'll try to prove it) keep removing a part of the intro which pretty much everyone had previously agreed on [15]. Can you do something about it? Thanks. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User snowolfd4 has gone on a spree blanking, vandalizing and pushing his POV on numerous Sri Lanka related articles. Here are the diffs: [16] on LTTE, where he seems to have an deleted entire section coming up with some nonsense reasons. On Tamilnet: He is seeking to push his POV [17], on STF he has done the same : [18], on this page he has reversed the changes of a number of people [19]. All of this has been done with no discussion, consultation with other users and unilaterally. He has thrown NPOV writing out the window and needs to be stopped. I think his problem is that I am not the only one complainning, number of editors have complained about his POV pushing and blanking. Thanks,Trincomanb 19:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been following the changes in Tamilnet article and also Velupillai Prabhakaran and I've noticed a number of blanking outs made by user snowolfd4 without discussing in the talk page and this definitely counts as vandalism as sections cannot be blanked out completely without citing reasons and verifiable content. Tamilnet had the maximum no of blanking outs and the Prabhakaran page had a million uncited bits which eventually had to be cleaned up with collaborative efforts. Putting the blame back on Elalan as trying to create sockpuppets when there is a very big mistake on your part, that of blanking out articles is completely against Wiki Policies. This might lead to action for sure.

The mistakes are:

1. Blanking out, which resorts to vandalism
2. Reverting changes and edits made with a cooperative effort and also cited evidence.
3. Removing tags without discussing them in the Talk page

All these three resort to vandalism and this cannot be allowed as per Wiki rules and guidelines. Pls stick to NPOV and try to assis people working on NPOV without resorting to bashing or vandalism. Sudharsansn 10:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Adriano da Gama Kury reverted my ISBN fix

Hello Centrx, I have no idea how this happened, but your recent cleanup [20] of Adriano da Gama Kury put back the ISBN to a bad value (flagged by SmackBot) that I had just replaced with the correct one. I fixed the article again. EdJohnston 21:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner

Centrx, you put a merge template on Rudolf Steiner. Would you might sharing your thoughts with us at Talk:Rudolf_Steiner's_views_on_race_and_ethnicity#merging? A merge of the two articles will result in a very long article. Something should be split out or deleted. — goethean ॐ 22:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick request

Would you mind undoing this protection you made a few weeks ago on Dick Cheney: [21]? I know it's a high vandalism target, but it would be appreciated. Perhaps just as a "test run"? Things really shouldn't be protected for too long anyways. I thought I'd ask here first before WP:RFPP. Thanks. --198.185.18.207 14:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 20:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Wow, action actually taken by an admin... what a shock. ;-) --198.185.18.207 21:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Steiner edit wars

Hi Centrx,

I don't want to be the first to tell you but the articles on Steiner were unlocked too soon. The edit wars are beginning again and it's the same people (I'm one of them) arguing over the same material. Please have a look. Thanks! Pete K 21:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A page you deleted

About a month and a half ago, you deleted a page I created called "Treasure Box" (log history: [22]). The reason was because part of it had a copyright violation on it; however, very little of the article was a copyright violation. Is there any chance you could undelete the article, and remove (or let me remove) the copyrighted content? I did work a while on the summary. Thanks. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz

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

Based on his representations to the Arbitration Committee, Ackoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unblocked. Ackoz is placed on probation for one year. Should he edit in a provocative manner he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time, up to a month in the case of serious offenses. Should Ackoz edit while blocked all accounts may be blocked indefinitely. Should Ackoz revert to his previous pattern of sustained trolling a community ban may be imposed. All blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ackoz#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, with the reason given.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 23:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

White Guard

You recently placed a 24 hour block on my account with no discussion whatsoever. As soon as I discovered what was happening I lodged an immediate appeal, which you can read, if you wish, on my talk page. I am still not sure what is going on, but I feel intensley aggrieved by this arbitrary action. I did not violate any Wikipedia policy, nor knowingly in any way take action designed to cause disruption. What I did was to challenge two revisionist edits on the Stalin page-with a summary provided-in responding to what I believed to be a form of political vandalism. The other editor in question has a record of this, notably on the Hungarian Rising of 1956 page. If you read the Stalin talk page you will see that I have taken considerable pains to clarify certain issues. I never do anything without due care and thought. It shocks me, therefore, to have been treated in what I consider to be a shabby and deeply unfair manner. If you have any problems in future could you please approach me first before 'dropping the elephant'; or does 'assume good faith' not apply to ordinary editors? Anyway, I hope to take this whole issue to a higher level of review, if I manage to cut my way through the bureaucratic tangle. White Guard 23:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Simply, do not revert at all. If there is a dispute, discuss it on the talk page. You should never be doing a complete revert more than once, and only then if it is a new, previously undiscussed change, and the revert should be with a full edit summary that would reasonably convince the other user that his edit was incorrect. Except in such special case, do not make any reverts in a content dispute. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by reverting. You must convince other editors. —Centrx→talk • 23:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing requested page move

Thanks for doing this move so quickly. —dto (talkcontribs) 04:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted categories

So there's already a bot doing that? Okay, that's good. I just requested one here. >Radiant< 09:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Responded at Wikipedia:Bot requests, [23]. —Centrx→talk • 00:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA/Cynical

Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

10th Row Films

Why did you delete the 10th Row Films article? The article had already been scrutinized and passed as valid. How can it be restored? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tinman8443 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The article was deleted because there was no evidence of the notability of the subject, there were no independent sources, and the page was otherwise not in the form of an encyclopedia article. I find no prior scrutiny or discussion of the article that would "pass it as valid". —Centrx→talk • 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A humble request for your opinion

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors) archives?

Can you explain why you changed the way these were archived? Thanks, AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me be more specific: In aiming for about 30K, I was trying to follow the recommendations on WP:ARCHIVE and WP:SIZE. I didn't, and still don't find anything about 100K in either one of them, while they do mention that 32K, while no longer mandated, is still a stylistic guideline. Is there something written somewhere that I missed? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Larger archives are more easily searchable and are fewer in number. The 32K size limit is for older browsers that truncate or otherwise have problems with editing large forms. This is not a problem with archives because an archive is rarely, if ever, edited, and not by people using Netscape Navigator 4.0. WP:ARCHIVE and WP:SIZE refer to talk pages and articles. —Centrx→talk • 20:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

William F. Baker

Hello, I see you deleted the William F. Baker article after it had been proded. [24] I created the article and had I see the prod tag I would have contested the deletion. Can you possibly undelete it and put it up for afd to get consensus on notability? Thank you.--Jersey Devil 23:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Please add more information about this person and some more external sources. The Forbes link is already broken; are we going to be able to find any information about this person in 5 years without scouring through newspaper archives? —Centrx→talk • 23:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with vandalism

Hello Centrx: Maybe you remember the vandalism Tom Chaplin's article talk page suffered last month and you helped out to block it. Now the talk page for the band, on Talk:Keane has been vandalised twice by The Mekon, adding a series of offensive drawing to Tom Chaplin here [25]. I reverted the edits since they were a direct offense to a person but I forgot to log in, I wasn't using a sockpuppet as he thinks. He accused me of vandalism for reverting his vandalism [26] I don't know what's better to do in this case, to block the user or protect the page. I'd go for the user since he has been blocked for vandalism twice I think. The talk page had been very active in September so I don't suggest to block it. But, please help me to stop this people to offend the person. Is not the first time, you know and I'm fed up with--Fluence 23:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's not call it vandalism but, certainly is offensive. I don't know is there's a Wikipedia guideline or something to avoid this because they, famous or not, are people who may visit the Wikipedia someday and find it as a bad site for reliable information if that false and offensive information is kept--Fluence 00:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Unified warnings templates

Hi -- I noticed you've combined the "test" series of templates with ParserFunctions. Just FYI, there's been some discussion (in favor of this) at WT:UTM#-n.2C_Again; there's also a link there to a userspace page of mine where I've implemented ParserFunctions for most of the applicable warnings on WP:UTM. Just wanted to let you know about that in case you're interested in doing any more work of this type. Thanks! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this at all, since far as I know, parser functions still leave an ugly mess of unparsed code each time they're substed. Was there any consensus for these mergers? Femto 12:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Using the templates definitely is in contradiction with the current WP:SUBST guidelines. Femto 12:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

See continued talk in abovelinked discussion. Femto 12:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the article Tiger

Can something be done? BJK has continued to edit and vandalise the article with his unsubstantiated claims. I have had it with his nonsense, and I'm pretty sure others are tired aswell. We just finished discussing issues while the page was fully protected and as soon as it goes unprotected, he decides it is okay to rehash old debates and continue damaging the article. For example, he is insisting that Tigers range from 200-485 lbs, which is ridiculous considering that tigers are by far the largest cat species on earth, capable of weighing up to and beyond 800lbs. Lions range up to 500 lbs and they are smaller. His edits are not referenced because he will never be able to find a single reference stating tigers range up to 485 lbs. All scientific sources give tigers a range of up to at LEAST 650 lbs, most will say 700 lbs and other even 800lbs. Can something be done about BJK1903, please? He is destroying the article. I urge you to do something, or at least, inform someone who will.User:Thegoodson

Can't you compromise on the wording (average versus max) and range? —Centrx→talk • 06:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Goodson your report isn't correct. If I had limited tiger size to 485lbs you would be correct. I gave the range up to 700lbs, saying on average 395-485lbs, which is correct. I’m not vandalizing the page. I guess the reason why everybody (at least me) withdrew their complaints is because you aren’t negotiable, not because the page was protected. In fact a lot of explanation has been done throughout protection. No explanation or source was enough for you because you have created a model tiger in your head. Unfortunately we have to convince someone like you to correct the facts on the page. You don’t read other posts and play with words and reply users with off topic messages. You have done this in the past and will continue to. I hadn’t given you in, hoping that you would agree on at least the sources given from scientific websites. I was hoping for a change but now you report me for nothing. I think it’s time. I’m very very annoyed of your destructive nature. Stop vandalizing the page. BJK1903 13:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, compromising is not an option in this case. There is absolutely no reason to suggest tigers on average weigh up to 485 lbs. Here are the scientifically sourced weights and figures that were presented by user 24.195.5.193:

Bengal Tiger (Nepal) average 235 kg (517 lb), range 200-261 kg (440-575 lb) ( A technique for capturing and immobilizing tigers. Smith, JLD Journal of Wildlife Management Vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 255-259. 1983)

Bengal Tiger (south India) average 223 kg (490 lb), range 209-240 kg This is from 2 sources: 1. K. Ullas Karanth, :PhD thesis, 2. K. Ullas Karanth, "A view from the Machan".

Bengal tiger (south India) average 216 kg (476 lb). R. Meinertzhagen, Some weights and measures of large mammals, :Journal of Zoology, 1938.

No hunting records were used for the above, they are all in journals in the field of wildlife biology from the few :people who have ACTUALLY WEIGHED wild tigers. The largest tiger subspecies (the Amur) is not represented here, but :everyone knows they are larger than Bengal tigers.

It's clear they are larger than 485 lbs on average. I am not going to stand aside and let anyone destroy the article, it's just not going to happen. TheGoodSon 19:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does he think they are smaller? —Centrx→talk • 01:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does he think they are smaller? Hmmm...I am at a loss of words. I don't know. Does he just hate the fact that tigers prey on crocodiles quite regularily? Does he just not like tigers? Oh, wait, I know! Because someone put rough estimated weights of all tiger subspecies and then took them, added them and divided and voila, they came up with the ridiculous average. That is what they did on the tiger discussion page to determine "average" weights. That is so scientific, don't you agree, Centrx? Do you see what I have to deal with here? Why should weights be based on some childish mathematics by BJK (and his crew) and not on scientifically sourced figures? This is why I am not going to compromise. I am not going to compromise the credibility of this article no matter what. I am going to fight for this article, Centrx. TheGoodSon 1:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy violation?

I would like to ask you why you saw it fit to delete the The Lighthorsemen movie article. I strongly disagree with your comments on this article as I created it and wrote alot of it from my original material. Instead of just deleting it. (which is frowned apon by wikipedia) you should of contacted me or anyother editers that would of liked to improve on it. The article had alot of potential. In future please consider talking it though with others before pressing the button. Thanks Culverin? ^Talk 12:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you look at this?

Could you look at this edit by User P.K.? Thanks, --Thebee 20:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the history of it all, but external links should generally be minimized. —Centrx→talk • 01:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Swiftfox edit war - 3RR

Both of us have engaged in an edit war. I believe Kilz has broken the 3RR - his first edit was reverting, followed by 3RR. Now that you have blocked the article, 1. is it redundant to report his violation? 2. Content dispute - what will happen in 24hrs - he is in violation of these guidelines Talk:Swiftfox#Summary of problem and has made personal attacks on me and the Swiftfox author. The 3rd party sided with me, and you can see Kilz's history that he is a single issue editor, so he'll be back. What's the next step? Thanks Widefox 00:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of you were edit warring, so I would block both of you. Edit warring is not going to implement a certain revision. Also, don't file frivolous requests for administrative attention like Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kilz. —Centrx→talk • 01:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

He will get bored or a compromise will be reached eventually, or if he is a continued problem he will be banned. Not many are going to want to read through again your whole discussion though, so you should summarize what the issue is. If he is being uncivil, etc. diffs would be helpful. —Centrx→talk • 01:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks that you added that second comment! The summary is Talk:Swiftfox#Summary of problem (1/4 page). I shall do a 2 liner. Thanks for tip - longterm. Widefox 01:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

how long is the article locked for? The version number needs updating - Swiftfox 2.0 is out (25 Oct), and the 4 notability refs need working in. cheers Widefox 01:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

Explain why you screened me

Hello, I would like a legitimate explanation to why you blocked me for updating Brendan Shanahan's stats. You blocked me under the charge of vandalism where all I've ever done there is updated Shanahan's statistics at the conclusion of every New York Rangers game. I don't think that's vandalism now do you? My sources are accurate as I get Shanahan's updated stats off the HockeyDB and/or I add goals, assists, points and penalty in minutes to his tally. I was hoping to start adding in more Shanahan stats such as his plus/minus, shots on goal and more indepth things like that and move on to do similar things with other NHL players.

I do want a response to why you blocked my IP address incase there is more to why I was blocked.

What IP? It may not be you that was blocked, but someone else using the same IP. —Centrx→talk • 05:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Jewish

"divisive userbox"

What, that bad? "This user is Jewish" is divisive? Was this pursuant to a TfD consensus or was this of your own free will? Thx. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In saying "I am a Jew" it is dividing users up by religion or ethnic background, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Looking at the history of identical and functionally identical templates, it was replaced by {{User:UBX/Judaism}}. Template:User UBM UBX to might be a satisfactory substitute you could use, though these users who profess themselves to be Jewish could perhaps not be especially "interested" in it. —Centrx→talk • 18:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh... Not interested in it, just trying to understand whether there was consensus. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

CfD closure

Please see my comment at CfD, and a discussion at its talk page. - jc37 20:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Banned user evading block, rather static"

Why did you send me this message?--EdwardoehtwJohns (C&T) 21:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblock of User:64.12.116.197 notification

I unblocked 64.12.116.197 because it appears that it is a dynamic AOL IP and long blocks of dynamic IPs are discouraged. The unblock request was made on AIV. BrokenSegue 21:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Old "Salting" Notices

Hi,

I see you've been deleting old protected/deleted notices lately, which is good housekeeping I guess. I just wondered if you have any statistics or, more likely, anecdotal evidence about how often these require repeated "salting." I ask because two cases have popped up at DRV today; but, out of the hundreds you're probably cleaning, that's just a drop in the bucket, I guess. Just curious. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a solid minority of articles that have been illegitimately re-created and have been re-salted. They are generally vanity things like website forums and people, like Myg0t, or neologisms and junk like Sprankton. General classes of things that are more likely to warrant legitimate re-creation are notable people who happen to have the same name as the deleted person, and crystal-ball games and movies which, time having passed, now have less speculation and more reliable sources. Other than that, turning salted pages into somewhat appropriate redirects is most common. You can look at the blue links among the now-red links in this old revision of the list for pages that were kept or re-created (whether re-salted or legitimate articles or redirects) in some fashion. —Centrx→talk • 21:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

I though telling me that I fail to use my brain was really pretty rude, and beneath your usual conversational level. I hope that here is the right place to let you know that. -Splash - tk 00:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I said no such thing. Only, it is simple to figure that, approximately, 299 = 240 + 24 + 24 or that 2 fortnights is 1 month; there is no reason why anyone should not use such block lengths if he so desires. —Centrx→talk • 01:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that was what Ryulong said, not what you said. The last bit is more discussable at least; that's why I asked on AN about it. -Splash - tk 07:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

One only requires a functioning brain, not a mechanical device, to make this calculation. —Centrx→talk • 07:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Field hockey, Football, and Basketball at the Summer Olympics

The issue on those pages is that I want to make a minor formatting change (remove the "width=100%" specification, which forces the tables to full page width, which renders terribly on widescreen displays) and User:Aleenf1 stubbornly reverts the change without any other explanation than it is the "common" format. My version renders well on both 4:3 and 16:10 aspect ratio displays. I cannot understand why an obvious improvement is being rejected without cause. If you can help, that would be greatly appreciated! Andrwsc 18:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If the Wikiproject is inactive, then a resolution should be found and applied (or, in the case of no action, not) to all the related articles. I think the issue may be that he is using a different browser or font so it doesn't look fine on what may be a commonly used system, and vice-versa. —Centrx→talk • 18:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at what ATren and Fresheneez did to the PRT Article

Fresheneez and ATren bullied me and other people who tried to bring some reality to the personal rapid transit article[27]

The Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even have an article on PRT because PRT only exists in the minds of PRT fans like Fresheneez and ATren.[28]

Now, the head for bogus PRT-promoting "Advanced Transit Assoc." is editing the PRT article.

PRT is an election issue in Minnesota[[29]] You' find that ATren has edited both the PRT article and the Michele Bachmann article.

Please do something to stop them.... thanksAvidor 18:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Church of reality

Hi. I'm curious why you deleted Talk:Church of reality. This page had been protected to prevent a repeat of the massive vandalism which it has experienced in the past. In fact, it only took one day for somebody to come along and re-create it. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In this particular case, I thought it should remain protected and did not delete it. See Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages for general information about the deletion of these pages. —Centrx→talk • 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? The log says, 23:16, 23 September 2006 Centrx (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Talk:Church of reality" (content was: '{{deletedtalkpage}}') -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it seems I deleted the talk page. Moreso than pages in the main namespace, it is not a problem to have junk on the talk page of an unused article, and the talk pages are where someone would request unprotection. —Centrx→talk • 21:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I protected it again. My experience is that anything related to this topic will quickly turn into a complete flame-fest in short order. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly fine. This was done in the process of unprotecting hundreds of deleted pages. A few end up getting re-created illegitimately and obviously warrant re-protection. —Centrx→talk • 22:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we need two different templates. A "protected against recreation until the dust settles", and "protected against recreation forever"? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The subtleties of vandalism

To me Radiant's actions seemed to be a clear cut case of vandalism. Based on yours and others' objections, I've thoroughly re-read WP:VANDAL and yes, there is a conflict there - on one hand talk page vandalism is clearly defined, on the other hand the editor's intent seems to be fundamental to the definition of vandalism. So I've reconsidered and struck my assertions that the acts were vandalistic.

However, I still consider Radiant's actions to be highly uncivil, and therefore I've reclassified them as breaches of civility. I'm very curious to know what the Arb Com has to say about all of this, because regardless of semantics (vandalism, incivility, or whatever), it seems that Radiant's actions were inappropriate and only served to escalate the conflict. ATren 03:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Western University

Centrx, you've expressed an interest in this article before -- can you take a look at Talk:Pacific Western University#This article is stuck as a stub -- I need your help and leave a note as to whether you think the proposed draft is acceptable as a replacement for the existing stub?

Thanks,

--A. B. 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Kazzer

Please restore the Kazzer page.

Although a 1-hit wonder, the artist had significant success in Canada. While the article may be of little importance to users in other countries, the article met Wikipedia requirements for pages on artists.

A deletion discussion (in April 2006, not October 2006) indicated 6 votes to keep the page and yet the page was deleted in October without further discussion (that I can locate). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Codus (talk • contribs) 21:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to improve the article, I will restore it. It was tagged as requiring cleanup since August 2005 and had no independent reliable sources, so it was apparently not notable enough that anyone wanted to make a proper article on the subject or provide independent reliable sources for over a year. —Centrx→talk • 21:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Unit edits

would you mind just explaining what was going on there (I refer to your removal of ["Counter Vandalism Unit needs some accountability"])? Yes the comment wasn't exactly pleasantly phrased, but why delete it outright rather than reply? Just seems a little strange to me, but I am new --User24 21:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This was trolling by a banned user. It was not a good-faith attempt at improving Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

not sure how to respond to that. Doesn't seem to explain anything.

• How do you know it was a banned user?
• It was on a talk page, and not even a talk page of an actual article, so the 'improving wikipedia' line seems a little strange.
• It may have been trolling, but it takes two to tango; why didn't you just respond politely and then delete it later if (s)he caries on trolling.

I really am asking out of curiosity, not trying to suggest you were wrong in your actions, just want to understand what your reasoning was. I get the feeling there's some larger story between you an someone else that maybe is none of my business, but perhaps is relevant here. Feel free to tell me to keep my nose out of other people's business (though I would think wikipedia is everyone's business) --User24 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just read the message. —Centrx→talk • 22:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I must have completely mis-read it the first time. must be tired. sorry to have wasted your time. --User24 22:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Phi Sigma Sigma

I noticed that you removed the triva section under the page Phi Sigma Sigma and included a clean up tag. Quite honestly I'm a little lost as to why you included the clean up tag and am curious as to what you think needs to be cleaned up so I can see about fixing it. As for the trivia section I'm also curious as to why you removed it. Quite frankly it doesn't matter to me but several other sorority pages have trivia sections so I was curious. Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 22:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles and Wikipedia:Trivia. They are popular in these sorts of articles, including musicians, television shows, etc. but they are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. For general cleanup issues, follow the example you can find in many other articles. (Such as through Wikipedia:Good articles and Wikipedia:Featured articles. See also Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.) Also, please add independent reliable sources on this organization. —Centrx→talk • 22:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually if that is the case I think it would have been, while not according to policy necessary, nice put a clean up tag and a request that the trivia section be integrated into the article instead of just deleting it all together without discussing/requesting why it was removed. (Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles#Guidance). The addition of a {{unref}} tag wouldn't have been remiss either. Even being on wiki for a year I hadn't heard of the avoid trivia sections. Anyway thanks for the clarification. --ImmortalGoddezz 22:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Front matter

Re [30]: See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_69#Down_with_editcountitis.21. That is not agreement. I also looked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Front matter where there is no discussion about this point. There was never any consensus on making this change. If you can cite something that indicates there was consensus then by all means do so and I'll gladly step aside on this point. But, I haven't found it. Without, the addition is controversial and suffers all sorts of problems. --Durin 23:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is not conclusive, but there is mostly agreement for the change, and there have been no problems or opposition to it since it was introduced a month ago. Are you suggesting that it would not be unusual for users with less than 2 months experience and 1500 edits to pass? —Centrx→talk • 04:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely, and I posted statistics to that point. That's not the only problem with that standard. In fact, far from it. Would you agree that if there has been no change in the rates of under qualified candidates applying since the implementation of this standard on September 18th that applying this standard is not helping? --Durin 11:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi, do you think the vandalism at Armenian Genocide is enough to semi-protect it? (I'm asking you because I noticed you were online) Thanks! —Khoikhoi 23:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the protection history, IP nonsense there is a long-term problem and it will probably end up semi-protected for a long time anyway, but at the moment it looks like there aren't any edits. —Centrx→talk • 04:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I guess I'll protect if the vandalism starts to increase, but I agree—there isn't really that much right now. Khoikhoi 04:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

Why this reversion? It seems to me that the writer is making a reasonable point, which he has compounded by a strange (and very possibly rude and/or wrong) ad hominem comment/argument. I don't think the second part, however regrettable, is grounds to delete the whole thing. Such deletion of terse comments does indeed look rather like censorship. -- Hoary 06:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This was a rollback of this person's edits. See some of his other comments; this is a user banned for trolling and other disruption. —Centrx→talk • 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My IP address has been blocked from editing.

Apparently, I was blocked by Centrx for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

"This IP has been temporarily blocked from editing because of attempted disruption from a user on this network. We apologize for the inconvenience. Your IP address is 68.8.79.40."

As far as I know, this IP address is only used by me, and the wife and kids. Do you think you could be a bit more specific about the "attempted disruption"?

Cheers.

burgess@byronik.com

Sorry for the confusion. The block is on a range of IPs that have the same ISP in the same geographical region, in order to prevent the person from circumventing it by disconnecting and reconnecting his modem to get a new address. It is unrelated to your specific household. The block is only for a couple of days and anyone who has previously registered an account can still use it. —Centrx→talk • 18:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning Templates

Hey, I noticed that you recently modified our test warning templates. Nice job.

I'm not quite sure where the standard location to discuss is to discuss test template changes, so I figured I'd ask you. What would you think of changing {{test4}} to: User:Alphachimp/Sandbox? Thanks, Alphachimp 16:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace and perhaps Wikipedia talk:Vandalism. Regarding the template, the stop sign should either be entirely within the colored notice box, or be symmetric on top of it. Also, it may be best to keep the old hand symbol, which is understandable by non-English speakers or illiterate children. —Centrx→talk • 18:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

special:chemicalsources

Hi! I just decided to spam some people directly, who I know are very active on chemicals. There is now a wiki running on http://chemistry.poolspares.com (a site created by Nickj from the wikimedia IRC channel, the site will be taken offline again in a couple of weeks), where I have now hosted a small wikipedia. It runs two extensions I have written to the wikipedia software, a special page (for chemical sources, see also wikipedia:chemical sources and a chemform tag (for easy input of chemical formulae). Could you have a look, and comment on it (if useful I would like to try to let Tim or Brion enable it on wikipedia, though I feel some resistance there). Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

people vs persons

Where's this consensus that you're referring to for renaming Category:Living people? AP Style Guide prefers people over persons, which generally comes off sounding awkwardly formal. Persons is generally limited to cases of specific numbers, as far as I can tell, and in many of our usages it's such an indefinite quantity that people seems fine. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Persons is the correct word when dealing with multiple independent individuals. People is for collective or indefinite uses; though it is used as a mere multiple of the word person, persons is clearer and better suited. Persons is used for certain kinds of specific numbers, as in "There were 12 persons at the party", but if you were to say "The 12 people at the party were rowdy" that is an indefinite usage despite having a specific number (the rowdiness is a collective property, and perhaps some of the 12 were not even rowdy). On Wikipedia, the articles are distinct and about persons who may have lived hundreds of years apart and have no relation whatsoever. There is nothing collective or indefinite (definite is not the same as having a fixed number); it is not about the people of a country or the people that is a group of friends. —Centrx→talk • 18:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Swiftfox lock

Please can you unlock the article? The version number needs updating - Swiftfox 2.0 is out (25 Oct), and the 4 notability refs need working in. cheers Widefox 21:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 01:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

I'd love to see your rationale at the talk page for this page protection, [31] particularly since it reflects the change to the long-standing version supported by a group of admins. Such an action certainly does not promote even the appearance of impartiality. Rfrisbie^talk 00:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The rationale is given in the protection summary. I have no prior knowledge of this dispute. —Centrx→talk • 01:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess it's just a coincidence you protected it almost immediately after another admin changed the established version. Rfrisbie^talk 01:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I protected it after it showed up at the top of my watchlist, so there is a causal relationship as a result of it being edited, but not as a result of who edited it. —Centrx→talk • 01:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your position, but it doesn't track very well, considering how many times the history indicates it would have shown up at the top of your watch list. I don't expect to find satisfaction here. I'm just blowing off steam at what looks like a stacked-deck process in favor of admins. You just happened to tip the scale. Rfrisbie^talk 02:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It showed up one other time, but at that earlier time I did not think the edit warring would continue. —Centrx→talk • 02:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, close enough. It appears my last resort is to invoke the Wrong Version Clause. ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 02:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

RfA front matter

I did leave a note on talk! Sorry for the non-descriptive edit summary. I think Durin's comments most fully explain the problems with picking numbers. Marskell 10:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

bots or other aids to find copyvios?

You indicated that for a page with some content that is a copyright violation, "the page and its history are checked and parts preserved if appropriate." Are there any tools available to help perform an analysis of the text in a Wikipedia article? --JWSchmidt 04:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be difficult to have a recursive string comparison, but it's not necessary. I simply look at the article and the text at the given URL to compare it; it works well. If only minor parts of the article are copyright infringements, they can simply be removed. If there was a legitimate article before the copyrighted text was added, it can simply be reverted. —Centrx→talk • 05:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

You've got the OTRS thing, too? :P—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Controlled demolition...collapse of the World Trade Center

You kindly edited this to remove the werdnabot archival and compress the archives into one. The thing is, that talk page was hugely unwieldy, and automatic archival brought it under some form of control and was accepted nem con by the active pool of editors there. What does one use to archive an article talk page if not werdnabot? When I added it there did not appear to be any limitation on use of that bot. Fiddle Faddle 08:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it archives sections that are still open issues, which is why there was that note about redundantly cutting and pasting archived sections back if you wanted to open them again. I don't see how this is any easier than simply cutting and pasting an old swath of text to the archive in the first place (it would only need to have been done once or perhaps twice since the creation of the article). Also, rather than having a "What remains to be done?" mega-section, you may be interested in Template:To do. —Centrx→talk • 08:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah! To Do I like. Thanks Fiddle Faddle 18:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The block of Lamlenguyen

Lamlenguyen placed an {{unblock}} request on his talk page. Please respond there. Eli Falk 13:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Falungong mediation template

Very good. I've moved the template to the top of the article's talk page. Regards, --Fire Star 火星 15:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My Userbox?!

Why did you delete User:Cavenba/Userboxes/User_CPC? It was in my user section. Cavenba 04:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for political advertisement. —Centrx→talk • 06:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

*breaths deeply* Centrx, I hereby request that you undo your deletions of those userboxes. The criteria for divisive and infammatory templates ( T1) applies only to templatespace (unless that changed in the last few weeks and I missed it). Userspace is not covered by "T1". I do not know if you were around during the "Userbox Wars" in which userboxes were mass speedy deleted from templatespace citing T1, but let me assure you, these times were not happy ones. I do not want another Userbox war. I invite you to stop by at WP:UBM and look at and discuss the compromise we found to this issue. CharonX/talk 23:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

CSD G12 edit

Hi there. I was looking at the WP:CSD page, and I noticed you removed some wording with this edit. Specifically, the bit I don't understand is your removal of "The material on the other website was probably not copied from Wikipedia." (and your edit summary didn't seem to explain it either). This bullet point, which I added recently, was my attempt to ensure that people reading G12 understand that identical text on Wikipedia and another website does not automatically mean that Wikipedia has violated copyright, but that the question needs to be asked: "who copied who?" (or whom). This is covered in the non-criteria section of CSD as "'Copyright violations' whose sources copied Wikipedia: Our content is extensively used without credit, sometimes with modifications. With G12, you must be reasonably sure that the content belonged to the source site first.". I think this is a sufficiently important point to merit being spelled out in the actual entry for G12. For some reason, some people don't seem to stop and consider this first, and I'd be happier if this point was made clearer. Do you think you could restore/rewrite this point, or shall I do it? Carcharoth 14:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to describe how this is deteremined, as a way of checking ("was introduced by a single person...", etc.). This spells it out even further and still refers to mirrors. Otherwise, an unknowing person can easily look at it and say "it doesn't look like it was copied from Wikipedia, must not be", when there is this specific way to check. —Centrx→talk • 18:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. But I'm still concerned that this phrasing is the result of several logical steps that should be explicitly stated, rather than condensed into this sentence. The point that this process is meant to show 'who copied whom' is not made. I've asked at the CSD talk page to see if anyone else has problems understanding the point of that specific bullet point. Incidentially, isn't suggesting a specific way to check something what some people call instruction creep? :-) Carcharoth 21:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It specifically says "rather than...copied by another website". These aren't step-by-step instructions, and without something like this it will simply not be done much of the time, but it could possibly be shortened wisely. Note this was the original purpose of the now-deleted 48-hour requirement; the deletion criteria need tangible requirements for deletion. —Centrx→talk • 22:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Supercrossking's deletion of the Welcomespam template's text

FWIW, I think Supercrossking's deletion of this template was possibly accidental. He was probably just trying to delete the text from his talk page (not good, since it's a very mild warning, but certainly not as bad as blanking).

There's something odd about this template - go to User talk:Supercrossking and try to edit the "Welcome' section by clicking on the section edit link (not the edit link at the top of the page). You'll see it kicks you to an edit window for the template, not Supercrossking's talk page.

I've accidentally edited this template twice myself [32] [33], thinking I was editing the text on a user's talk page.

--A. B. 18:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have protected it. The template needs to substituted. This particular user was a problem regardless. —Centrx→talk • 18:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I substituted the warning on his page. E. Sn0 =31337= 20:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

edit warring at rudolf steiner

hi, do you still feel strong about edit warring? then you might want to have a look.trueblood 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. —Centrx→talk • 22:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

i know. i just leave it for now. trueblood 22:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the message I put on his talk page. It is good advice for anyone, with a lesser level of severity. If someone is disruptive and making bogus edits, it is going to stop one way or another. In the mean time, it is not a big deal if the "bad" version remains on the page for a few days. —Centrx→talk • 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, since he continued he is blocked for a couple of days. —Centrx→talk • 22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

funny, there was all this edit warring about the article that i stayed relatively clear of. i thought my edit could be part of a compromise and i ran into somebody that had not really met before. anyway thanks for your time.trueblood 22:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment on RfAr

Thanks for asking for clarification, I mightn't have been clear. My point is that the desire to avoid disruption is the central plank in the argument that removing the poll was justified. Since it has ended up being disruptive, I don't see how this can be defended anymore. Surely it was a good reason at the time, but to continue to say it was less disruptive than the alternative just doesn't make sense anymore. It seems to me that a major obstacle to finding common ground is that no-one is willing to admit that it was, perhaps, not such a wise decision as it was thought at the time, judging by this outcome. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

New problem

Thank you for hearing me out. I do have a new concern about that article. I believe that editors Pete K and DianaW have some kind of relationship to PLANS, which is the subject of the article. Pete K claims to be in contact with one of its officers, and after promising to do so for some time, today brings to the article talk pages statements purportedly made by the PLANS officer. 1 2 3 4. Today DianaW (who admitted she is a former officer of PLANS) is obviously trying to intimidate me for contributing some of the 'oppositional' views of PLANS. When PeteK asked for fact checks, I provided some quotes from the source materials used in what I wrote for the article, and also found a verification of some statement he challenged which was contributed by another editor. DianaK has reacted as if the statements were attacks directly made by me instead of these different sources, and has come after me personally with teeth bared. It feels like this is more than just an instance of editor temper tantrums. Their connection to PLANS makes me concerned there's more to it. a b c d Professor marginalia 01:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've Got a Bit of a Bone Here..

You've gone and deleted User:Royalguard11/userboxes/NDP with the reason Divisive template. That sounds like T1. Unless you didn't notice, T1 is for template space. This userbox was located in my userspace, which is allowed to have POV and "I support this" type of things. Did the rules change all the sudden. I'm also going to cross-post this at WT:UBM, because this is important to them. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is used only as a template. Problems are often removed from user-space. Wikipedia is not a platform for political advertisement. —Centrx→talk • 04:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to delete every other political party userbox in userspace then? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not intend to. I was in the process of cleaning up after a sockpuppet/Myspace user. —Centrx→talk • 04:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So, can I have my page back then? It's not myspace or sockpuppet related. There are a great deal more political userboxes at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Political Parties. Why just select ones? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OBL worldwide perception article AFD

You might be interested in this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 07:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User: 144.139.225.99

Hello --

I noticed you reverted the changes made by Durova on the talk page for 144.139.225.99. So I'm wondering if this user really been blocked or not? He (or she) did in fact threaten me, as you can see by looking at his contributions [34]. Thanks -- hibou 18:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The person is banned, but specific IP addresses are not blocked indefinitely or for long periods of time because, with most ISPs, disconnecting and reconnecting gives a person a new IP address, and the old IP address is then used by an innocent person. If there is a recurrent, serious problem from a particular ISP, that ISP can be blocked for a few days and/or the abuse can be reported to the ISP to take action such as discontinuing the user's account. Also, pages, such as your user page, can be protected so that no IP an edit it ("semi-protected"). —Centrx→talk • 18:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. How would I go about getting my user page protected? And would it be possible to get Cave Clan protected in the same manner? I revert blanking on that page a couple times per week. Anonymous users, presumably Cave Clan members (well, that's what they've said on the talk page) blank out the Controversy section as well as anything else they don't like. I've seen little repetition of the same IP address but it seems to all be from the same ISP. Thanks for your help -- hibou 18:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have protected both. Note that articles (as opposed to user pages) are not protected for long periods of time. —Centrx→talk • 18:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In the future, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP. —Centrx→talk • 18:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks! hibou 18:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Userfied Userboxes on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of the deleted userfied userboxes. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)