Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:16, 12 September 2006

Archives

Cleaning the WP:CP archive

Greetings. You and I have both been active recently in fighting the backlog at WP:CP. Currently, the only ones left undone are ones that I commented on. I don't think it would be proper for me to deal with these, as it might smack of bias, so. . . could you finish these last ones? If so, we could finally remove the {{adminbacklog}} tag! All the best, – Quadell 15:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. As I was working on the archive, I removed the entry for Suicide in the Trenches, reasoning that it was created before 1923, and was public domain in the U.S. regardless of British laws. I have seen this decision made many times before, and didn't think it noteworthy. However, a user strongly disapproved of my action (see User:Quadell#I said I wouldn't argue this but . . .), arguing that I should have discussed it first, or that I should have come to a different conclusion. I'd like to make sure I'm doing the right thing when I work on WP:CP. Could you tell me if you think I was correct or not? – Quadell 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Complex

I thought instead of reverting this page it would be best to open up a dialogue. The page at the moment is complicated because it is to long and when I went to it I was looking for complex numbers and the mass of text meant I took a while to find it. The inclusion of

a + ib, where a and b are real numbers and i is the imaginary number.

Seems wholly unnecessary, if the reader requires more description they will go to the relevant page. If you think that more information is needed about terms that do not have there own page then add it but I ask that a compromise is reached on the description about well know pages with their own page. Rex the first 21:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

Hi Centrx, it looks to me like some of the articles you are unprotecting, you are actually protecting. Double check to be sure, looks like 4 of them to me. Regards, DVD+ R/W 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks this way because I am keeping the move protection, so the text still states "Centrx protected..." rather than "unprotected", but I am deactivating the Edit protection. —Centrx→talk • 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just making sure. Sorry to bother, DVD+ R/W 02:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Check this out. It lasted 15 minutes! Tyrenius 02:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears unprotecting the article is ultimately doomed to failure. I request it be reprotected immediately. E. Sn0 =31337= 05:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it was vandalized once 4 hours ago. —Centrx→talk • 06:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know. George W. Bush

It's been less than an hour since you removed the protection, allowing anonymous users and new accounts to edit the George W. Bush article and it has already been vandalized twice by a new user who wouldnt have been able to edit the article had the protection been there. AuburnPilot 02:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is actually rather low. I thought it would be much higher considering the history of vandalism on the page. It is about the same or less than many other, lower profile pages and was reverted quickly. —Centrx→talk • 02:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I hope my comment didnt seem blunt. I actually am in favor of it being completely unprotected permanently. Of course thats only after Misplaced Pages requires that all users register before editing articles, so I guess I really want the whole encyclopedia semiprotected. Oh well. Thanks. AuburnPilot 02:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

re:Who are you?

yes, I have previously edited under a different account. I just didn't want the old name anymore, so I'm starting over. And no, I'm not under a indefblock from my old account, so I'm not block evading with this account. :) — The Future 12:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

linkspam

By all means, remove that stuff. (I realized I made another mistake by carrying over the category tag, which put the draft version in the category. It's commented out now.)

Keep up the good work! A.J.A. 16:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Word/Void copyvio deletion

Centrx, I was hoping you could help my figure out why you deleted the articles "Running with the Demon", "A Knight of the Word", and "Angel Fire East", citing copyvio. There were plot summaries there that I don't think violated copyright - they certainly weren't detailed enough to be "abridgements" per the policy. Thanks for your help. Sraan 02:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Depending on which, they were copied from the website http://www.terrybrooks.net or descriptions from http://www.amazon.com, etc. that were from the inside or back covers of the books. —Centrx→talk • 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. After a litte investigation, I found that you reprimanded another user for posting copied material. I had written my own, original plot summaries on those sites that must have gotten deleted with the infringing material. I will put them back up, but if there is any problem with them, please let me know. Thanks again and keep up the good work. Sraan 03:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am looking through them to restore the ones by you that were deleted erroneously. —Centrx→talk • 03:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the inconvenience. —Centrx→talk • 03:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Have a good week. Sraan 03:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sage Koochee deletion/protection

This page was probably deleted/protected because of frequent edits. First version ran into copyright problems (an article which I own the rights to was used, but it also appears on my site so Wiki kicked it off). A completely new article was written for Wiki and with some copy/formatting changes it may have earned frequent edit status. Still new to Wiki, sorry, but I think it can easily go back up. Please either reinstate it or let me know what else I can do to have it included in the resource. Best Regards, Koocheedog 07:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Koocheedog

— → Thank you for bringing it back. I realize it still needs work, I will upgrade the style and cited sources asap. Best regards, Koocheedog 07:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Kathy Kelly

Do you know why the Kathy Kelly article was deleted? Kevin

Kathy Kelly was deleted because it is copied from http://vitw.org/archives/424, which infringes on the copyright of that website unless permission is given by that website to re-use that text under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), or it is released into the public domain. If such permission is given, either a note may be made on that website that the text is released under that license, or an e-mail or postal message may be send to the Wikimedia Foundation (permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org for e-mail) from an address associated with that website. Otherwise, that text may not be used on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to create a newly written article on this person, which does not infringe on a copyright, you may create it at Talk:Kathy Kelly/Temp and inform me when it is ready. I will then move it to the proper article space. —Centrx→talk • 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Template: Greeting Users

How does this template for greeting new users look (Click here to view it)? Thank you -ENIAC (Talk) (Current Projects) 15:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I made a few minor changes to it, as explained in the edit summary. I think it looks great. One minor thing that I think should be fixed is the formatting of the "Useful Links for New Wikipedians" heading, it looks a little detached. I don't have time to figure it out right now. Otherwise, it is great. —Centrx→talk • 15:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much! -ENIAC (Talk) (Current Projects) 15:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

MedportalSA

Thanks for shortening, that was indeed necessary!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for wrapping up the David Horowitz move. I thought it was a good idea, but I wasn't sure if I could've justified it with wiki-policy any stronger than with a weak support. Sam 03:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Unclosed Requested move of Red vs Blue

Hi Centrx,

I noticed that you cleared out the August 26 backlog for requested moves, but didn't close the discussion on Talk:Red vs Blue, which was one of the proposals listed as of that date. Can you take a look? Thanks. — TKD::Talk 04:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Because there are no pages blocking the move, it does not require an administrator. Because it is quite a hassle to make the move and deal with all the double-redirects, that is one reason why the "Recommend sticking with the status quo" idea is reasonable—it is after all only a minor formatting change. So, you are welcome to make the moves, it looks like you have the agreement of the interested users, with the only opposer saying "It doesn't seem to matter". If you think it needs the Official Administrator Seal of Requested Move Closure, I suppose that can be done, as the "Red vs. Blue" is the more typographically correct and seems to be more commonly used, but the move can be done by anyone. —Centrx→talk • 04:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is one page blocking the sequence: Red vs. Blue. — TKD::Talk 12:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 14:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! — TKD::Talk 04:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about inappropriate policy discussion

I honestly thought that the issue was more than one person sharing an account with administrator privileges -- thus it was a policy issue -- but obviously I was wrong in thinking such marathon editing is impossible for a single individual. The conversation did go off track though and it was right to delete it. --Ben Houston 06:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Just keep in mind Assume good faith, that long-standing users and administrator's are generally trusted for good reason and violations of that trust would not go unnoticed for long regardless. —Centrx→talk • 06:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please protect Smadar Lavie

Please re-protect Smadar Lavie. The value is prone for attacks, libel,defamation, etc. Danny, a Florida Wiki editor, has put a lock on it. Given the many instances of vandalism the value suffered, a permanent lock would be better than living it unprotected. C.B. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.226.40 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles are not permanently protected. That is against the nature of how Misplaced Pages articles are written. Libelous edits will be removed, and editors who make them will not be allowed to edit the article. —Centrx→talk • 23:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't noticed your response and re-posted my request. I fear your assertion re the value of "Lavie" doesn't stand the test of the reality of the value's history. the Value has gone through copious libelous and defamatory versions from April 2006 on. They ought to be removed from the history pages of the value and of the discussion, and as of today Misplaced Pages has not done so. C.B. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.226.40 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion and protected pages

Hi Brookie here - thanks for the note; has the system altered what it does recently - as I haven't (consciously) been doing this any different way than I have for ages - I normally normally add {{deleted}} and then protect afterwards and then list it - so I'm not sure what has been happening to throw things out of sync - I'll watch it carefully in future! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! 07:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a few you had used {{protectedpage}}, which isn't the right template for several reasons. —Centrx→talk • 07:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting Falun Gong Pages

Hi I just notice that you have unprotected these two falun gong pages and . Please note that there has not been any discussion between the two sides who reverted each other; unprotecting the page right now would only allow them to start their edit war again. --Kent8888 19:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection is only a temporary measure. If edit warring begins again you may request the page to be protected at WP:RFPP and offending editors may be blocked from editing. —Centrx→talk • 19:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Tech

Moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy) (3rd nomination). —Centrx→talk • 21:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM

Hi. Both of the times that you have moved the intro material from WP:RM into a separate header page, you deleted the {{adminbacklog}} template. Was this intentional? Please do not remove this template while there is a backlog.--Srleffler 23:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This was not intentional. Also, the previous time I was not the one who erroneously deleted it. —Centrx→talk • 23:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, and I knew that but forgot. It just didn't get restored when your changes were reverted. I notice you moved the backlog notice to a less prominent position in the page. I'm not sure that's a good idea. It seems more effective at the top, where it is easily seen by administrators visiting the page for other reasons.--Srleffler 00:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's possible. I moved it because the page is used far more by non-admins, and the notice is useless to them. Mostly, admins get to this page through Category:Administrative backlog, and there are a handful of admins who work on these Requested moves. Admins are much less likely to visit this page normally, because most of the moves on this page are simply where the move is blocked, which being uncontroversial can just be deleted without fuss by an admin. —Centrx→talk • 00:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-admins who come there are looking for administrative assistance. It is useful for a non-admin who is requesting a move to know that there is a backlog, and that the move may take longer than expected.--Srleffler 00:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

metre

I've reverted you last edit on this, can you please discuss on the talk page. Especially had you have some references for use of the "Meter" spelling in other countries. - SimonLyall 00:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Metre, . —Centrx→talk • 00:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What you just said

..."if that's your objection it is probably best to clean out the guidelines category of things"... I wholeheartedly agree, and have been attempting to do just that. Your help would be appreciated to clear out the wrongly categorized pages. >Radiant< 19:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverse PA

yes the piercings are similer, but they are really very different none the less, i am trying to help reduce confusuion and meybe give people a place were they can elaborate on the subject further, isn't that the whole reson for this site. maybe instead of deleting info on the page all together maybe we can come up an agreement. have you seen the bmezine page Randywilliams1975 00:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Randywilliams1975, . —Centrx→talk • 05:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Your mass reverts of my edits

Hi, What gives? You reverted the placement of the Template:policylist on (i'm assuming) all the policy pages that I edited. I find your reverts unfounded, and you really should have written me a message when you started doing that - so that both of us wasted less of our time. Please give me an explanation. Fresheneesz 00:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This template does not belong on all those pages. It may not belong on any of them at all, but the ArbCom-related pages are especially incorrect examples. The problem with initiating mass changes is making a mass error. It is unfortunate when it is. It would have been better to try the change on 5 pages or so and see what the response was. Copyright problems and image fair use have nothing to do with the policies in that template, and there is no need in general to have it on any of them. Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment are, however. Editors going through the dispute resolution progress are dealing with issues most related to the foundational and courtesy policies and are the editors who are least likely to know about them, whereas it makes no sense at all for someone looking at the bots policy or the sockpuppetry policy, where they are totally irrelevant and most any user looking at those pages already knows about those policies anyway. There is no need to navigate people away to something totally different from what they are looking for. —Centrx→talk • 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. May I suggest that we (or I) create a separate template for each of the categories in the list of policies, and add the appropriate template to each page in the category?

Also, I don't understand why you reverted my edit of the main template. I simply added a link back to the rest of policy, and to the founding five pillars. I don't understand why you would have a problem with that. Fresheneesz 01:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (Ad astra)

Just a quick "Thank you" for taking care of the move over at Ad astra, et. al. --DragonHawk 02:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Linux and Linus Torvalds

You state here in your edit summary that the template does not work in this case. I agree, however, is it actually inaccurate to have the founder listed as the sole "developer". Is this discussion more appropriate at the template or at the articles talk page? If so, please feel free to move it. Cheers, Ansell 02:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to change it to "Linus Torvalds, leading various individuals both paid and unpaid" because it is all individuals, some of the ones paid do it on their off-time too, it is not whole companies that are developing the software, etc. but then I realized that it isn't even just Linus: The subject of this article can very well be something where it is being totally revised and maintained by someone else; though it would still have the history of it, it would be like changing the template on DOS to say that whatever that QDOS company that created it was one of the main developers. The problem is with a lot of templates. Linux is a good example because the template is clearly designed for proprietary software created by companies, or software created by one individual, or a few individuals organized cleanly, not "several people who don't really know each other but collaborate on this sourceforge site". I don't know what to do about it, so I just try to tweak things on the articles I am watching. —Centrx→talk • 02:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What attributes would have to be in a Collaborative software project description? I would think that in collaborative cases there would be a small set of original developers which could be legitimately put in a list on the template in place of a single company or full-time developer(s). It seems okay to me to have that list in the developer field still. BTW, I do not know either... :) which is why I am trying to get down to it here. Ansell 02:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The only reason it works otherwise is a company is this fictitious person, with several developers and even several groups contributing (Internet Explorer group plus the Windows group plus the old DOS group plus the Xenix group, it's not even clear there), whereas in free software the fictitious person is stripped away and we are left with a bunch of people who doing different things for different reasons in different capacities at different times. In an extreme example, we might have an original creator who 'invented' the software, but then now he doesn't work on it at all or maybe he works on it in only a minor capacity where before he was the only and major contributor, and maybe none of the code he wrote is even in the software any more, and it has been forked by two groups that both claim to be, and are, fairly legitimate branches of the software, each of which has several persons working in different capacities both paid by companies and independently, and also much of the code comes from some other software project.

In this particular case, the subject of the Linux article has made it even more complicated because the article is not talking about the kernel like it should be—there was an argument about this a couple years ago—and so now it talks about some vague nonexistent fake thing that includes distributions and GNU and the kernel. So, "Red Hat" and "Debian" could both fairly be called "Companies/Developers" of this Frankenstein, but Linus also is a creator, but the majority of the code apparently isn't written by him any more, and there are different release managers for stable branch and the unstable branch and if GNU is really so important Stallman and a dozen other people also are developers. I just think the infobox item doesn't work at all for cases like this. It's not one entity that is creating any of these things. If it were cleanly the Linux kernel it might have a "Founder" or "Original creator" or "Bully pulpit figure", but it's not even that. This is a problem with infoboxes, they are trying to cut down real information to a superficial level when this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and it doesn't work. —Centrx→talk • 05:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

A heads up

I just wanted to let you know that I have reverted your last edit to Talk:Blood of the Fold per my interpretation of wikipedia policy. I know this is rapidly becoming a pain in the ass but it is my conviction that this is the correct course of action and I apologise for any grief. NeoFreak 04:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NeoFreak was already warned for this action, in great detail. Feel free to block for 24 hours if he does it again. Kim Bruning 08:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What is it you purpose I be blocked for? "Disruption" of wikpedia? Last I checked a disagreement over policy does not constitute a bad faith disruption. NeoFreak 13:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

User:AOluwatoyin

Could I convince you to give him a block longer than 3 days? His last block was for a week (and he just got off of it). I think we should go beyond that for this offense...not a shorter block. --Woohookitty 08:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Unfortunately I think this is going to end in an indefinite block regardless. —Centrx→talk • 08:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say, you guys are good.... I wandered into that discussion about two weeks ago (to avoid my masters thesis), and pretty soon I realized I needed to wander my way on out. YOU ROCK! Zweifel 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yellow-dog contract

Damn, you beat me to that move; having reworked the text, I'd thought about moving the page but was a bit concerned about the several double redirects that would result (mainly in view of my laziness and intent always to avoid work), but I've fixed them now. Good on ya in any case... :) Joe 15:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I had thought about moving it in June when I rewrote part of. Oh, what a tortured history this article has had. —Centrx→talk • 20:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ramble On (a.k.a. Promise Ring Redux)

You recently deleted all of the That '70s Show episode articles I made from "that70scentral.com". I realize it was dumb of me to copy verbatim from the website (even though I credited the site). However, one article titled Ramble On (a.k.a. Promise Ring Redux) was not taken from the website, but completely created by me several weeks ago. I was wondering if there was any way you could un-delete the article. Thank you. - Zone46 19:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 20:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Karmafist

Hello friend. I saw your edit: Complained to the United Nations. Was it necessary? Now persons like you and me shall have to go there. Let usa keep our dirty linen hidden instead of bringing the same to the notice of the world! Do not you know that most of our administrators are better trained in all the arts and sciences of the world than most other human beings. We could have dealt the issue here instead of taking this to the international organization. Let us try to withdraw the complained from the United Nations. BTW, did you have the power of attorney to file the complaint? Cheers! --Bhadani 23:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Republitarian sockpuppetry

You have claimed, here, that the Republitarian account was used for sockpuppetry. Specifically you protected the talkpage on September 10, an interesting decision since I had not edited from that acount since August 31, claiming, "Sockpuppet of user with history of frivolous abuse of unblock and helpme." In order to help me from making such mistakes in the future, and partly just for kicks, please provide a diff in which this account was used a sockpuppet. Cheers, freestylefrappe 03:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You also protected and indefinitely blocked the Tchadienne account, with the edit summary, "Proven Sockpuppet Blocked" . I dont mean to pester you, but it would really make my day if you could provide an instance in which I used the Tchadienne account as a sockpuppet. It would really help me learn! Cheers, freestylefrappe 03:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I also just noticed on the KI account that a check user was performed showing that this was, yet again, one of my sockpuppets. Jeez... i've got sockpuppets up the wazoo! Could you direct me to the checkuser? THANKS! freestylefrappe 03:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)