Archives

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:Earle_Martin'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 Earle_Martin.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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