Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:25, 23 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 revisions 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)

Thank you. And. Thank you. :) Yeah I feel the same way, Centrx. He just won't stop. He pretty much defines "troll". --Woohookitty 04:18, 14 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)

Thank you. Sorry about the copyright thing. - Zone46 22:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Karmafist

Hello friend. I saw youe 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)

(lol, i hope he was joking. Actually I hope you're both joking. Fresheneesz 03:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

your revert at WP:NNOT

You reverted my use of a nutshell template. What gives? If you're going to revert peoples work, either MESSAGE THEM, or explain it on the talk page. Unexplained revertions like that border on vandalism. Fresheneesz 03:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That was an error. Sorry. —Centrx→talk • 03:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

English cricket

Thanks for pointing that out. I will put them on watch. You wouldn't have a list of cricket pages that are unwatched, by any chance? Regards. --BlackJack | 05:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Effectively, no; I would have to pick them out manually. —Centrx→talk • 05:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: MediaWiki capitalization

I just got really tired of looking at the (Talk | block | Block log | Logs) in someone's contributions and changed those to match. And after that I made them uniform in the watchlists/histories by changing contribs. I'm not going to edit war about it, or even start a large-scale discussion since it's pretty much a non-issue either way. Thanks for your concern though. - Bobet 07:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ya ya

I wonder if you might unblock Ya ya. While bringing arbitration against a raft of users is disruptive, it's common courtesy to inform them of such on their talk pages. As it stands, he didn't finish those notifications before you blocked him. Mackensen (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

His arbitration case was previously removed by Sam Korn for not providing any evidence, and the majority of the users he "filed" the case against have no idea have no relation to the dispute he alleges or, in some cases, even any idea what he is talking about. It is a barratrous case levied broadly against a host of users, and it would be disruptive for those who actually think it legitimate. This is the same user as User:Freestylefrappe, by the way, there is a history associated with it. This isn't just a newbie making a frivolous complaint. —Centrx→talk • 19:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL! See my comment (subheader "My talk") below for confirmation of that. I wasn't even "filed", and he/she still notified me :D. --Crimsone 19:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for reverting the comment on my talk. Apart from being in entirely the wrong place, I'm all "mediated out" after my recent work, let alone taking on an arbitration case I'm not involved with and know next to nothing about! lol. I think I'll pass on that one and continue on taking a break from mediation for a little while lol. Seriously, Thanks. :) --Crimsone 19:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I give up

I have given up. Here's the ISV's base. Dr. Kaori Takeshima

• I'll assume you clicked it already, so allow me and my fellow ISV members to laugh at your face! Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't say something that heinous, but for you, I'll make an exception. Dr. Kaori Takeshima

Actually, I don't use Flash. —Centrx→talk • 19:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

{{chemistry}}

Hi Centrx, you have been editing the {{chemistry}} template over the last couple of dates, and I'm not convinced you have improved it. Would you care to elucidate what you are doing? Preferably on the template's talkpage, viz. the talk page of the chemistry wikiproject? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

The purpose is to make it smaller because it is used as one of numerous headers on many already-crowded talk pages; of course there are many possible wordings that could still accomplish this. The most recent edit was purely technical formatting and had no effect on the appearance or substance of the template. —Centrx→talk • 19:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at an NA-classified pages (e.g. wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, and see how bad the layout now is. If I look at the last version before you started editing (bigger pic, narrow pic, etc), I just see a better layout. If you merely would like a less wordy template, then please revert to the version of a couple of days ago, and just delete a few words. I'll gladly do it for you if it might be to difficult or so? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

It looks perfectly fine to me, except for one word trailing onto the third line alone, which can be easily solved. What exactly looks bad? The reason for shortening is not just the wording; shortening the wording does nothing if the structure around it takes up the space no matter what is inside. —Centrx→talk • 22:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it some change I made after ? You seemed to think it was fine then. —Centrx→talk • 22:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I tried to pin-point the exact change, but found that one of my own edits wasn't useful either. Bottomline remains that he picture just isn't a good one on such a small scale (not your fault). I have done some minor tweaking in the same line of smaller/narrower too. It isn't a major issue anymore. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC).

Your warning to User:201.43.19.123

Your warning on User talk:201.43.19.123 seems a bit overkill. Not sure it deserves a level 4. The users's other edit seems reasonable, as was the one since. And Mariah Carey is a bitch, so it's not really vandalism ... more POV ... :-) Though I certainly applaud you anti-vandalism efforts! Nfitz 04:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. —Centrx→talk • 04:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

your online

Would you mind looking at Talk:Cynthia McKinney? I have made a user very mad. There is acctually an extensive edit war going over that article over an extremely small detail (as they always are) and the other user feels that I have insulted him. I can't see how I have, but that definately isn't a good sign. Musaabdulrashid 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:VINE

Was this edit a joke? —Nate Scheffey 23:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You just redirected WP:VINE to WP:VIE, it's polar opposite. I've reverted it, since I believe it to be an absurd decision. Precisely what purpose did you intend to fulfil by those actions? If WP:VINE is to be cast aside, then the proper courses of action would be to just leave it as an essay, Template:rejected it, or maybe run it through MfD. Not redirect it to its inverse. --tjstrf 23:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The purpose is to redirect to the accurate description of Misplaced Pages practice. Having a title does not mean that that what's under the title is obligated to make an argument for the title, and it would be perfectly appropriate, for example, to redirect Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is a dictionary to Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. If someone were to write an essay at Misplaced Pages:Vanity on how it is perfectly acceptable on Misplaced Pages to write an article yourself, you being the random schoolchild or businessman, it would still warrant being moved or removed elsewhere while having Misplaced Pages:Vanity be a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Vanity guidelines. Misplaced Pages:Voting is not evil is, based on the page history and the talk page, clearly one user's personal essay recently created; in comparison no one ever links to it, and there is every reason to have the page at that title redirect to the much more widely referenced page. —Centrx→talk • 23:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Then MfD it, slap rejected on it, make a notice saying it's been superceded by WP:VIE, rewrite it to be about specific situations in which Voting is not evil, or some combination of the above. A Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is a dictionary would be easily dealt with in any of those ways without requiring we create a useless and counter-intuitive redirect. --tjstrf 00:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A move would be more appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 00:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tj's argument seems stronger than yours. All of his suggestions would be more appropriate. —Nate Scheffey 00:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fascinating. Thankfully, my talk page is not a vote. —Centrx→talk • 00:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. :) --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully, it is for discussing your actions, specifically this one which I Oppose. —Nate Scheffey 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. After all, it's the arguments that count. --tjstrf 00:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally ridiiculous redirection here of WP:VINE. Please follow tjstrf's advice. (→Netscott) 06:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaori Takeshima / Sakura Avalon redux

With regards to this:

When unblocking SA, I did consider the possibility we're dealing with another Sunholm-type sockmaster. However, since nothing as conclusive as a CheckUser result or the presence of identical edit patterns was available at the time, there wasn't enough evidence to link him to BB. I was waiting for more evidence justifying a block, and there came to be. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked through his contributions when I blocked him. He made a big deal of talking about being a former vandal, made several references to Bobby Boulders and "ISV" in addition to talking about a host of users he suddenly happened to meet who later turn out to be related sockpuppets. There was absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he was a sockpuppet of a banned user. Allowing someone who previously vandalized to make productive contributions is fine, but this user was making no encyclopedia contributions. —Centrx→talk • 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ros Power

Hi!

A little while back you were kind enough to assist me with homophobic vandalism by After what must have been a week's vacation, she is now back and up to her old tricks. (She is editing just using her IP at the moment) This time it's messing up the Civil partnerships article for the n-th time - see also the Discussion page, particularly the 'Couples' subsection. Admins, Mediators and many editors have pointed out the error of her edits and the appallingly dictatorial manner in which she acts, and yet it goes on.

I would welcome any advice on how to protect what seems to be a well-researched article from this woman's intrusive, inaccurate edits and her beligerant attitude.

Regards, Tod

Trance or Daze? 08:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have semi-protected this article to ensure that the edits are clear with that account. —Centrx→talk • 15:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OutlookSoft Deletion

Hi can you tell me why the page on OutlookSoft was deleted and protected (by you according to the deletion log)? Was there any inappropriate content? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.3.8.114 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The text of this page was copied from another website, which is not permitted without explicit permission from the copyright holder permitting the re-use of the text under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). This must be verified by having the copyright holder do one of the following:

• Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at Talk:ServersCheck where we can find that note; or
• Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL.

The text also must be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Misplaced Pages article layout. For more information, see Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. —Centrx→talk • 15:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

ServersCheck removal

Why the hell did you remove it???

What is the reason behind it? It is an excellent product, that company was big in the news in May for their lawsuit against Google. They have 1.3 m pages about them in Google

Sounds really unfounded by me. One administrator has amended the text a friend of mine initially wrote (we are both 2 guys in fond of this FREE product) and you delete it.

Isn't that abuse of power.

Needless to see that is not even politically correct to remove a page without informing the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.132.131.250 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I did inform the author. I also explained that it must be written in the form and tone of an encyclopedia article, not an advertisement, and that it must not infringe on the copyright of that website. —Centrx→talk • 15:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You did not -> I do not even get a message nor my friend. Copyright violation of text? Show what words were copied. Although there was explicit permission to use the pictures (they wrote a letter to Misplaced Pages authorizing it). So just because of the tone of voice??? I hope you are kidding because the fact that not everyone speaks so well english as you do (excuse my french) is a reason for that. Articles like following are better written?? Intellipool Network Monitor

Permanently blocking the article doesn't give anyone a change of altering it. I am disgusted by your abuse of admin rights. This is not what wikipedia was intended for.

Courtesey is the basis of everything. Abuse of power is the end of everything. Golfieke 17:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Log in to the account you used to recently post it, or go the talk page of that account. The message is there. If a letter has been sent, then the page can be re-created when the permission is received by the Wikimedia Foundation. The problem with the writing was not that it was written poorly, but that it is not written like an encyclopedia article. —Centrx→talk • 15:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Stick to the facts: 1/ Removal one -> copyright violation (text version with visuals) 2/ Removal two -> copyright violation and tone of voice (text only version with no visuals)

   * 15:13, 14 September 2006 Centrx (Talk | contribs) deleted "ServersCheck" (Re-created copyvio/advert)
   * 04:07, 14 September 2006 Centrx (Talk | contribs) deleted "ServersCheck" (copyvio http://www.serverscheck.us/network-monitoring-tool.asp)

By the way if above is what you call communicating then well done. You are not consistent in what you are saying and until now you have not been able to prove that content was copied. I and Kurt did write our own text. Show me what text was copied! I verified word by word and none (=0) has been taken from the so called reference url. That page didn't even handle about sensors like in our article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.132.131.250 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Golfieke 17:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an argument about this. Substantial portions of the text was copied—which is not allowed, and the remainder was mirrored after that website. See User talk:Golfieke if the copyright holder has given permission. Stop making ridiculous accusations. I've given you all the information you need. Bye. —Centrx→talk • 16:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the mistake in thinking that you did not send a message. I found it in my new messages. It was probably a caching issue. I was wrong. So no problem admitting I was.

To avoid further escalation (and since we are stupid authors with no power), I called ServersCheck and explained the situation. They were charmed by my efforts in trying to fix it. I told them that we need a quicker permission. As a result they have given permission for the text although not copied on following url: http://www.serverscheck.com/network-monitoring-tool.asp

Me making accusations? You are telling me that it was copied but you have not showed me what to date. It is easy to say it was copied. I have both text in front me (ours and the one from the website). Not even one line was copied. Prove me wrong and I will admit I was wrong. If I believe that I have a valid point, shouldn't I defend it?

Giving all the information I need? So you decide what information I need. Would I be posting this if I hadn't have enough information? I asked for what piece was copied as you state. You don't deem that information needed? User:Golfieke

Please calm down, and please sign your comments! It would be abuse of power for an admin to provide information which was removed for copyright violation. If that is the reason it was taken down, Centrx cannot simply show it to you or it is still a copyvio. Whether you agree or not with his assessment of the material, Misplaced Pages:Deletion review is that-a-way. BigNate37_(T) 16:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

None of the text was copied although claimed by Centrex! I ask to show me what (offline or not - I don't care). I admitted my mistake regarding the message left and I apologized. Don't tell me to calm down. 2 different reasons have been given for the same text and I have to think that's normal? The GDFL notice on the reference url has been added and still the article is offline. I ask for explanations and I get none. Is it so abnormal? Golfieke 17:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand if you're still looking for explanations, but the article isn't offline...the page was restored an hour ago.--Onorem 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Onorem, thanks for pointing this out. At last someone understands that I am looking for explanations. Wished Centrex told it instead of you. It seems that you have a lot of experience regarding Misplaced Pages. Could you help it write more like (or point me to what exactly is meant with it - examples?): "form and tone of an encyclopedia article". I would be grateful. Golfieke 17:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a highlighting of what is copied verbatim, . The remainder is paraphrasing of glowing advertising from the the ServersCheck website. —Centrx→talk • 17:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Centrex, can you verify if the modified text is applicable? If have done an effort following your tone of voice (thanks for the example). Are the tags for the images OK? Golfieke 18:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tks for your kind msg

I was heartened by your message on the admin noticeboard. I will be offline for 24 hours or more in a short while. Perhaps someone will guide Yy-bo to enlightenment. All I see if a furious volume of activity to try to create as many articles as possible with no concept of notability. I am assuming good faith over this, but it does become increasingly hard to do so Fiddle Faddle 21:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for the revert.

Minor Edits

Right oh - thanks for the heads up - I'll try and be more careful in future. Dave 22:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

John Hewitt

Thanks for that. I know the procedure now, so I'll be more careful next time! Stu 08:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Kathy Kelly

The article was not copied from this site http://vitw.org/archives/424, however, that was the primary space I retreived information, if I am understanding you correctly. This site is not only no longer maintained, but I'm sure if we asked Kathy Kelly she would have no problem granting Misplaced Pages rights to her story, or what do you think? Kevin 10:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of it was copied, verbatim, from that page. Unfortunately, we cannot assume that she or the organization would grant permission to copy the text. Explicit permission must be granted by the copyright holder under the GFDL. —Centrx→talk • 15:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ros Power

Hi!

Thank you for protecting the Civil partnerships article. You'll possibly also have noticed that the mediator has finally given the view of the Medcab on the Discussion page. Sadly, this seems to mean nothing to Ros Power who has, once again, reverted to the version that she, and she alone, views as acceptable. The word 'consensus' doesn't seem to be in her dictionary!

I have fought against this woman's blatant homophobia on WP, but in the end life becomes just too short. I am therefore not going to revert to the version that a) is factually correct, b) was agreed by the mediator, c) agreed by Medcab as it will only be twisted in short order by Ros Power.

I do ask, however, if it is within your power to prevent Ros from editing the page further. She is damaging the hard work and research of many editors and it is a shame to see this troll (which she most certainly is) ruining an otherwise informative and well-written article. She is now inventing definitions to suit back her entirely ludicrous claims. The woman is shameless!

Her 'contributions' all over WP are nearly always rv'd by editors, and it is sad that one woman is allowed to cause so many good editors so much hassle. Alas, I am just too tired of this sort of thing to contribute further to WP: it allows trolls endless scope for their amusement while failing to protect the vast majority of contributors' good works.

Kind regards Chris 83.217.190.69 12:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

and she just over-rode your rv. I told you, the woman is shamelessly arrogant. Apparently she has 'problems', but that really is no excuse. Anyhow, the dogs want Walking...83.217.190.69 16:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

historical

Moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Nomination cabal/Potential nominee list. —Centrx→talk • 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Ohio State University People

Why was the Ohio State alumni page deleted? It did not differ in content or purpose from any other listing of university alumni.--Sam Harmon 01:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

They should all be deleted, but this one is a maintenance hassle due to edit wars. But I have restored it for you. —Centrx→talk • 01:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As to the general need for these lists, I don't know. You bring up a good point. I do, however, believe that Ohio State's shouldn't be the only one deleted at this time due to a serial vandal that is intent on removing certain verified content via rotating isp's. Again, thanks for your prompt response to my concerns. Cheers.--Sam Harmon 02:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

IP edits on Grapefruit seed extract

Please check the grapefruit seed extract article. It seems someone added a wrong template to the article. You have put a block for me for so-called POV pushing. The template states their is a dispute to the article. A dispute over the heading scientific information has been resolved now. It is no longer a dispute. I am not disputing anything. Also, I think established users should be able to continue to add info. Their was a serious dispute before but the copyrighted infringement info is only in the history section now. Also, I would like to know when I can start again to add more info to this article. I enjoy having fun writing info on articles about quackery and propaganda. If you check other articles in the quackery catagory you will see in the history 63 range users which is me. Also, what is POV pushing? Also, if you do not want me to edit other articles now which I can do let me know here in your user talk to honor your policies. Let me know ewhen I can get the green light to start again. I will check back here for your update to my questions.

Thanks, 63 range user.

The Grapefruit seed extract is semi-protected, so established users can edit it; the wrong template was placed by another user. Before adding controversial text to an article, you must discuss the matter on the Talk page. However, since you repeatedly deleted or otherwise confused the comments of others from the Talk page in addition to posting your opinion, the Talk page is now protected also; just add your comments in a new section at the bottom of the page, don't mess around with other things. Please peruse Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, and Misplaced Pages:Original research before considering how to proceed. We are creating an encyclopedia; not a soapbox. You are free to edit any article as long as your edits conform to these policies. I also recommend you create an account. —Centrx→talk • 02:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Centrx,

I did not vandalize the GSE article in any way shape or form. Your new template falsy is accusing me of vandalism. The talk page is NOT the article. You are punishing me for a separate issue. The talk page is not the article itself. I have written some more info for a new heading entitled Precautions and side effects. I would like to add the new heading and one or two more sentences for that brand new heading I am working on right now. I will be adding a brand new heading to the GSE article in the future. Please let me know when I can add the new heading and sentecnes to go along with the new heading. I will be expanding the GSE artcle when I am allowed to. Also in the talk page of the article I wrote "GSE is quackery" along with paragraphs underneath that heading. I think the info I added to the talk page was wrong and I want to erase my rantings that are STILL some left behind on the talk page at the bottom area. Please erase the info I wrote about GSE is quackery. Also, I am allowed to erase my own comments in the talk page? I have changed my mind. I want to erase all my comments in the talk page. I should stick to the researched facts and not let the talk page turn into a my space type area. Also, I wrote about 50% of the GSE article. I shaped the stub into a well written article. That has to count for something. I will check back here later. Thanks again.

This is a generic template. It explains to random readers generally why this template was semi-protected and does not refer to you. I am not punishing you. I recommend you create an account to edit the article with a single username. —Centrx→talk • 03:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Question A Am I allowed to ERASE the info I put in the talk page? Please erase the remaining info under the heading GSE is quackery. There are two paragraphs remaining. The first chance I get I want to erase that. It does not belong there or anywhere. Question B Why is the GSE article protected? There is no vandalism. There is no longer a dispute over the headings. Please explain why is the article protected? Also, when will I be allowed to add more info to the article, just give me 5 minutes tops. I could add the info and then you can go back to protecting it again for as long as you like!

A: In general, no; text you submit is released under the GFDL and you have no right to have it removed. In this particular case, it is acceptable to remove and I have done so.

B: This article has been subject to revert warring instigated by an anonymous IP. You are welcome to propose changes on the talk page or create an account and not edit war. —Centrx→talk • 03:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, A)I just checked the talk page. Thank you for erasing the nonsense about quackery. If possible can you erase the history about the quackery comments because someone could revert that nonsense back. B) This article has been subject to a very minor dispute over the headings. There was never an edit war. The contents is the same. There was a minor dispute over the headings. I am the one who added the headings in the first place. I added 3 headings. Then someone else ersed all 3 headings. This is just minor changes. All the words and senteces remained the same. Protecting an article over a heading is over protection. I want to add another heading entitled Precautions and side effects for a new beginning for a brand new paragraph. Aslo, let me know when you will unprotect the article so I can finsih what I started.

Articles are protected regardless of the contents of the reverts. Just don't revert. If you are initiating a change, discuss it if there is objection to it. —Centrx→talk • 04:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, No one else discussed the changes before they made any changes with they're reverting. I was reverted. They did not explain to me why they reverted me with regard to the headlines. Other users who reverted me are free to edit the article but not me. Other user kept on reverting me. They started it. Not me. And that is the facts. I wrote about 50% of the article. Other users kept on reverting playing around with the headings. Please get your facts straight. They did not contribute anything to the article at all. They reverted me. I did not start anything about the reverts. It is important for you to get your facts straight. You should not isolate me about the problem with the reverts. The proof is the history. Some else ersed all the headings. Then I put back the headings. Trying to organize the headings should be applauded NOT punished.

Just create an account and follow policy on article content. Edit warring is inexcusable regardless; the users who reverted you have no especial interest in this article, they were reverting what they considered suspicious IP edits, and do so on a regular basis in many articles. This is not a punishment and there are several ways you can edit the article successfully in line with Wikipdia policies. —Centrx→talk • 04:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you do not know my IP 6342 has been banned from creating a new account somehow. I am unable to create an account. An administrator right now is tracking my every move. I know I am being watched by other administrators right now other than you. Other people were playing around with the headings and I am the one who is being punished for organizing the headings. I am the one who wrote all the headings in the first place. Having 3 headings or no headings is NOT suspicous IP edits. I did not know the intro was not suppose to have a heading. They users who reverted me did not fully explain why the they reverted me.

It is more likely that the number of account creations allowed from this IP range for today has been exhausted. The IP you are currently using is not specifically blocked from creating accounts. —Centrx→talk • 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the talk page is seems to be unprotected. How about you protect the talk page and just unprotect the article for 5 minutes. Well anyways, when will the article be unprotected. Just give me 5 minutes! I beleive I am being punished for organizing the headings. Other people reverted me but they are allowed to edit. If you look at the history section, I organized the entire article and made considerable contributions all in GOOD FAITH. I did a lot of reserach to double check my facts and I want to finish what I started.

Create an account. —Centrx→talk • 05:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving Misplaced Pages:Current surveys

The place wasn't for problems with users, it was for things like Misplaced Pages:See alsos, which I have tried and can't get many people to help out on. Anomo 03:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC is not only for users. It is for articles, policy, and style issues as well and is widely used for these purposes. Check it out, you will actually get more responses at RfC. —Centrx→talk • 03:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment has lots of linkings to Misplaced Pages:Current surveys and those all need to be cleaned up if you want to finish merging and then the listed stuff in the current surveys need to be moved somewhere so they're not lost and forgotten. Anomo 06:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. The older ones are cleared out frequently otherwise. —Centrx→talk • 06:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pointing WP:VINE to WP:VIE

Why did you do that? (→Netscott) 06:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please respond here. (→Netscott) 06:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Did he do it again, or is this the same incident as #WP:VINE above? --tjstrf 06:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

He is referring to the original instance. —Centrx→talk • 06:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good, I hoped as much. Well, could you please not mess with the shortcuts, or the essay in general? You do have other better options you could pursue if you really dislike it that much and think it's detrimental to Misplaced Pages. --tjstrf 07:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I redirected Misplaced Pages:Voting is not evil to Misplaced Pages:Voting is evil because Misplaced Pages:Voting is not evil was an obscure personal essay that had garnered only objections and no support. It may have warranted moving to userspace. I then bypassed the WP:VINE redirect. —Centrx→talk • 06:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Kindly follow tjstrf's previous advice regarding Misplaced Pages:Voting is not evil and refrain from edits that essentially amount to sabotage of it. Thanks. (→Netscott) 06:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yr user page

Just thought you would want to know that Firefox does not render your user page correcly, but IE does.

In Firefox the bulleted text at the head overwrites the TOC box. Fiddle Faddle 10:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Uneven issuance of blocks

I noticed that some editors participating in the highly disputable articles of Kosovo, were blocked from your side, but you left out some other important actors, who also violated 3RR rule and what not. In the past day there was an attack again on the Kosovo article by editors: palmucha, Evv, ChrisO and Nikola Smolenski Two editors there have violated the 3RR. However, only Palmucha has been banned (together with Vezaso). This is clearly an aneven approach. Both Evv and ChrisO should be banned, together with Nikola Smolenski. I would encourage you to reconsider your actions, and not instead take sides when banning editors from such disputable articles. Regards, ilir_pz 10:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This block was issued in consultation with Arbitration Committee members. Palmucha initiated a large-scale change that deleted large amounts of text and was clearly tended toward a particular viewpoint, and edit warred about; it was a sockpuppet of Vezaso that was clearly created with the intention of circumventing the ArbCom injunction. ChrisO and Nikola Smolenski were merely reverting those changes, which had the net effect of preserving the previous version of the article; Nikola Smolenski also is not currently a party to the case so the injunction does not apply, though that may change. Evv's change is a relatively minor one that is sourced, and one that would be reasonable for any encyclopedist disinterested in the matter to make. He has not edit warred to enforce its implementation; he is not attempting to circumvent the ArbCom ruling. It is not a disruptive edit, and the injunction does not forbid all edits whatsoever, though if the articles become a problem it may be changed to do so. —Centrx→talk • 15:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Jessica Lunsford article

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Jessica_Lunsford

I would suggesat you actually read the arbitratioon before you get so gung ho on an article, admin privelges are exactly that. I really resent you calling me a suspect ip. I call you a suspect admin.

65.184.18.231 10:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to admin warning

Two of Timrents Afd nominations have been reported via c&p, the language usage being fallacious. I reply to the warning, the Yy-bo account is not used to create new articles, otherwise it is inactive as well. I am not policing the contribution history of any user, this being bad pratice. Unless the usage of strong language gives a reason to do so. If my new account id gets harrassed again, there are further avenues of relief, like request for comment. If i am further connected to bad pratice, like harrassing him, i must seek a comment, or a seperate comment for each irregularity. There is no rational reason to remove the admin warning from the talk page. User:Yy-bo 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence that he is harassing you. He sees articles that he doesn't think belong in the encyclopedia as independent articles, and nominates them for AfD. These are not frivolous nominations and other editors agree with him about their deletion at AfD. Just read up on some of these policies, consider integrating your writings into existing articles related to them rather than creating new ones. —Centrx→talk • 15:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i believe he is not doing it on purpose. However, i believe nominations can, and must be spelled more sufficient. I do not want to envolve in anything except to create articles, to do constructive edits. I will read the policies again. User:YBO 16:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User YBO (IP)

I would like to formally inform you of the following:

• 1. A request for advocacy/assitance has been filed, as narrow on topic as possible. This request is not involving the block, not involving my language skills. The request is only about Afd spellings (1), (2) by a specific user.
• 2. As explained on the talk page of user YBO, User_talk:YBO, i prefer to use the same account (YBO) for any new article creation.
  • 2.1 If possible, i would like to get Akidd_dublin, Yy-bo contribution merged into YBO. If it is not possible, can it be made possible.
• 3. Apart from the advocacy case on Afd spellings (1), (2) (see case if appreciate, just filed right now), there are no further plans to investigate any other disharmony regards a specific user, which is not need to be named here.
• 3.1 The reasons for the new user names are: the new (better) ID itself, and to show user ... a complete disinterest to engage any further.
• 4. As it is visible from the history of YBO, Yy-bo, Akidd_dublin, i have also created tiny articles on my own. They are completely independent from a previous edit history. There are no, or very little, meaningful, sourceable language fallacies, on the usage of english language.
• 5. I will explore the community, to figure out if an unreasoned investigation of contribution history, by a specific user, is neccessarily good/recommended practice, based on the discovered action performed on the articles (i.e. not any expansion/improvement itself)
• 6. Any follow up is to be addressed to the talk of user YBO, User_talk:YBO. The other accounts are not used for new discussion topics. There is no action on purpose behaving like a sockpuppet. The indefinite block is inappreciate. If a merge is possible, then this information becomes substanceless. User:YBO 16:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Your template changes

Removing templates is hardly appropriate here. If you feel the template is improper—and I assume you must, as the featured/unfeatured status of the article can hardly be the crucial difference here—please list it on TFD. The consensus of its previous nomination was that its presence does not violate WP:OWN.

The same might be said for your removal of archive templates. They should be kept for the same reason that old AFD templates are kept: so that future editors know that additional discussion about the article exists.

Finally, your variety of "shortening" edits to WikiProject banners has, in many cases, changed the tone and the meaning of the text. The pretty trivial gains in visual space—and they are trivial, especially on long pages—do not justify taking drastic action; making significant changes to a WikiProject's banner without so much as a note to the project is quite impolite, at best. Kirill Lokshin 17:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at many pages and the changes clearly do free up a lot of space. For one individual template, they do not, but together, it sometimes means the difference between not having the TOC show up at all on the first screenful or having almost all of it show up on the first screenful. I am actually specifically looking at the headers of Talk pages that will soon be featured on the main page.

For archived peer reviews, some of them pertain to a truly old revision that has been totally rewritten, some of them only have a response from an automated script; they are not the same as AfDs, which can actually pertain to the subject of the article, not the content of a specific revision.

I don't understand what you mean by drastic action, some of the textual changes I am making to the template are purely grammatical, some of them change the meaning but are unrelated to shortening the template, such as changing templates that state that an article is somehow "part" of a WikiProject rather than being supported by it or within the scope of it. What are your specific objections? —Centrx→talk • 17:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Specific objections (not including incidental formatting faults your changes introduce, which you can't necessarily be expected to realize):

• Introducing the rather silly wording in which a WikiProject "collaborates"; WikiProjects are not really the same thing as collaborations, and shouldn't be presented in the same terms (at least not without discussing it with the project, anyways).
• Removing links from the text, apparently without seeing why they're there. The FAQ link you removed, for example, is very important; why did you feel the need to omit it?
• Generally imposing a brusque tone on the text (e.g. changes of the form "If you would like to participate, please visit the project page" → "To participate, visit the project page"), which, aside from provoking the usual complaints about the WP:OWN subtext to the banners, makes them less welcoming to newer users.
• Finally, if you are going to be making changes in meaning, at least have the courtesy of leaving a note with the project itself; many of these banners may be watched by a handful of editors (who are not necessarily active), and it's quite impolite towards the participants of the project if the message they thought they had placed suddenly changes meaning with no warning to them.

(You haven't really commented on your removal of {{maintained}}, incidentally; is saving space your only justification for taking it out? Your edit summary suggests otherwise.) Kirill Lokshin 18:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Collaborates is a normal English word that has the right meaning, and it is better than the convoluted mouthful "a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of military history" which is on many templates but ultimately means the same thing.
• The FAQ is already linked in "received a rating"; these templates don't need to repeatedly direct editors to every particular of a Wikiproject.
• I don't think the tone is brusque; it doesn't have a lot of fluffy repetitive niceties, but people reading it can see what is meant and I don't think they will get the impression that it is impolite. The ownership is a valid concern; on other templates it resolves this by saying something like "To participate, edit this article or visit the project page". but the WPMILHIST wording might be better.
• Anyone looking at a page with the template on it can see that it is has changed and do something about it; on several templates people have made modifications, etc. and on this one particularly you noticed it within a few minutes. It is not really effective to post a separate note for every one of the dozens of templates I have changed; some of them are rather inactive projects anyway, most of the people who do care have it on their watchlist and others don't notice any difference. I am bold, and anyone is free to revert and discuss.
• For {{maintained}}, space can sometimes be the reason I am compelled to bother doing anything about it, but the reason for removing it is the matter with WP:OWN on a highly public page. In other cases I don't see much harm in it; it could be helpful to get in touch with a "maintainer" who doesn't watch their watchlist closely, etc., but otherwise any queries regarding the article belong on the talk page there. The only reason I would dislike removing it is that it is a sort of recognition for an editor who spent time and effort on improving the article and maybe bringing it up to featured status, but on the Misplaced Pages showcase that is the Main page article, hints of ownership are bad. —Centrx→talk • 18:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• The (prominent) FAQ link was inserted specifically because of complaints about what the rating meant, and whether it was "official"; removing it was a thoroughly bad idea, in my opinion.
• I quite disagree with your stance on {{maintained}}. Either the template violates WP:OWN, in which case it should be removed everywhere; or it does not violate it, in which case removing it only on the "Misplaced Pages showcase" is quite silly, as there's nothing wrong with it. Indeed, having maintainers indicates is probably more important for more visible articles, as the template provides an extra assurance to visitors that someone is, indeed, keeping track of what happens to the article. Kirill Lokshin 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Pre-emptive protection

I am very aware of the controversy sorrounding pre-emptive semiprotection, and wouldn't have done it if I wasn't aware of how much the GNAA dislikes Rob Levin and Freenode. The protection wasn't intended to last very long anyways. I won't wheel war with you whatsoever, but I will still have my opinions. —this is messedrocker (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

Dear Centrx, what makes you think that I am a vandal? Some good edits were reverted by you. If you have any complaints, please voice them on the talkpage. Please assume good faith.--Berig 07:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This was an error. It looks like one of your edits was cut off by this tool I am using, making it look like it was a blanking. Sorry. —Centrx→talk • 07:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Your error removed a lot of work. Please revert your reversion.--Berig 07:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.--Berig 07:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

james barnett

thanks!!Qrc2006 11:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

EFG

Thank you so much! EFG threatened to block me instead of giving any help. He also said to me that i was adding nonsense and that i should refrain from editing. Is EFG an admin?MOI 19:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help!! =DMOI 21:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

User:4.249.66.130

May I ask what this reversion is for? Is this in any way related to this strange reversion at Bilal Hussein? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing_community_impatience_ban_for_Freestylefrappe so I think I'm starting to understand what's going on. I think it would be better if you wrote an edit summary in (you have to admit, this is complicated) instead of simply using the rollback feature. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Though not all of his edits are disruptive, most of them usually are; I am not going to check each one of the dozens every time he returns with a sockpuppet or another IP. This is a normal response with regard to disruptive users. You are free to do what you wish with your user talk page, or to keep his edits in an article if you think it is appropriate for the encyclopedia, but keep in mind that they may not be reliable changes or references, though for this one edit they appear fine. —Centrx→talk • 05:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As one admin to another, I understand perfectly. Believe me; I've dealt with similar. He is violating an Arbcom ruling and your method is fine with me. I can figure out what's going on based on the block log; it's also a reminder for me to keep in the loop at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, but that place is a zoo for sure. =) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hiya! Thanks for your help with this guy. Valarauka 14:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I figured you'd find that again soon enough. Thanks again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

kk

Most of the information I got for the Kathy Kelly article I wrote was from the http://vitw.org/archives/424 site. However, I checked the What links here link (while I was writing the article) and found someone had already stated issues about the article even before it was written, I don't understand. Please tell me. Thank you. Kevin 07:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone else had previously copied the article from that same website and it was deleted. —Centrx→talk • 14:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Charlene Aspen

You seem to have speedy deleted this page under "A7", by which I assume you mean: "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." The article did assert notability, in terms of having made over 100 films, a number sufficient to meet WP:PORN BIO. You don't see someone like that every day.

Could you restore the article, please? If you believe the article to still be unnotable, you can certainly make the argument on another AFD, but the article does assert notability, and survived AFD once already (please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charlene Aspen), so should not be a speedy candidate. AnonEMouse 21:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 22:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! AnonEMouse 12:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked User:Dohertydot has returned

Hello, a user that you have blocked previously for astroturfing, Dohertydot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned (assuming it is the same person) as Urbanrevitalization (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I assume it is the same because all his edits advertise whoever the hell this Charles D'Aprix is. He also left a comment on User talk:Dohertydot in response to the article you deleted. Regards, Tuxide 00:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Found an IP address for you 208.59.120.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) that has also made such edits in the past, that scurvy scum. Yarrr, Tuxide 18:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. —Centrx→talk • 18:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And for cleaning up after it. —Centrx→talk • 18:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Margana

You've made a mistake in unblocking him/her - user is no better than DW or Lir - POV-pushing and frequent attempts at malicious compliance. PMA 09:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case then they will do it again and an indefinite block would be appropriate. Stringing along 1 month blocks doesn't make much sense though. —Centrx→talk • 14:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Moved to User talk:Duncharris () and copied to Template talk:Deletedpage (). —Centrx→talk • 17:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

18-to-24 Bracket

Centrx,

What is the rationale for deleting 18-to-24 Bracket? It is an established blog with a high volume of readership. It has been featured on MSNBC as a frequently referenced blog and is an important contribution to nonpartisan debate in an election year. My exposure to it is first-hand, I acknowledge, but the listing was hardly excessive and could not fairly be called an advertisement, violation, or anything else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArkAC01 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Notability (web), which generally explains what is necessary for a website to be sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article. Evidence supported by reliable sources is also necessary. —Centrx→talk • 22:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see my ponderance

Where I said, "I don't know what to do with this straw poll now." in Wikipedia_talk:See_alsos. You have been very helpful and so maybe you have an idea. Anomo 04:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Gps receiver

Hey, what's up with this? It's up at RfD and you deleted it without closing the RfD. Aside from that, consensus was not moving to delete anyways. What happened? BigNate37_(T) 17:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I have fixed it. —Centrx→talk • 20:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted pages

Hi there! Thanks for helping with clearing out the cat for prot/del pages. I'm afraid I had to redelete and relock National Emo Day because after you cleared it, somebody recreated. But in most cases the cleaning seems to work fine. >Radiant< 17:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary

Had to laugh at this one , though, of course, we're supposed to engage in safe practices these days. Fan-1967 23:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the unblock! Geriguiaguiatugo 00:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

(Un)protection of the Dog article

Dear Centrx.

Please.

Before unprotecting an article, please look at the Talk page. It may contain, as does the Talk:Dog page, a plea to leave it protected due to consistent and frequent vandalism. I will take this opportunity to restate the argument that while Wiki should indeed be open to everybody to edit, this does not extend to mindless vandalism.

I note that this page has been protected. I wonder why.

I will of course now go to the protection page and make yet another request for semi-protection. Perhaps you could reprotect the page yourself while I am there.

Gordon | Talk, 21 September 2006 @13:07 UTC

Your plea was at a section placed at the top of the talk page. Recent comments go at the bottom. My talk page was semi-protected because of a specific IP attacking it; it was protected for less than a week whereas the Dog article has been protected for three weeks. A snide attitude is not going to get you anywhere. —Centrx→talk • 14:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for re-protecting the Dog page.

My plea was placed at the top of the page specifically so that it could be seen by readers landing on the page -- I have no reason to believe that it would be more visible at the bottom, which would soon be the middle. Gordon | Talk, 22 September 2006 @10:40 UTC

These pages are regularly unprotected regardless of any message, and the history of vandalism is clear to an admin protecting or unprotecting it. The message isn't needed. —Centrx→talk • 14:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Policy RFC

Good point. It depends really on how people use RFC - do they use it as an announcement board and thus only read the newest issues, or as a canonical list of active policy discussions (like CAT:PRO is)? In my experience most policy RFCs that last longer than a month either have heated discussion and sufficient linkage from other places, or are things that the community rejects or doesn't care about that a single user insists on keeping in the "proposed" stage. But otoh I would have no objection to using a different cutoff point. I have in the past suggested to use a bot to remove all pages with no activity for e.g. the last two weeks, but it wasn't picked up by the bot coders. >Radiant< 16:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Page: Rhapsody

You cleaned up the page for Rhapsody, removing the line "Rhapsody, an integration engine used in the healthcare industry." Why was this deemed an advert for a company, while "Rhapsody, an online music service." remains? This was in now way meant as an advert, only to provide a link for users who know the name of the product to connect to the company who develops it. The exact same purpose as the Rhapsody online music service link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mleverne (talk • contribs) 19:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The article linked for the healthcare item is an advertisement. It will be deleted unless it is revised to be written like an encyclopedia article and to be certain that the company is sufficiently notable to warrant an encyclopedia article; see Misplaced Pages:Notability (companies and corporations). Beyond that, whereas the online music service is itself named Rhapsody and is the subject of numerous articles in periodicals and mentioned in numerous books, every single one of the products, organizations, etc. that share the very popular name of rhapsody does not necessarily warrant clogging a disambiguation page already rather full. —Centrx→talk • 20:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OutlookSoft deletion

I am an employee of OutlookSoft and posted the OutlookSoft page that was formerly at http://en.wikipedia.org/OutlookSoft

This was a legitimate posting. The violation referred to below is actually one of our partners who posted content about us on their web site.

What can I do to bring our OutlookSoft listing back? Please advise. Thank you.

23:25, 21 August 2006 Centrx (Talk | contribs) deleted "OutlookSoft" (content was: '{{copyvio | url=http://www.ebcuk.com/partners/outlooksoft.htm}}') —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marsface (talk • contribs) 23:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Marsface. —Centrx→talk • 00:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaitlyn Ashley deletion

May I ask why did you delete the article about Kaitlyn Ashley? If you take a look at the notability criteria found at WP:PORNBIO, you see that the first criteria is "Performer has won an award from Adult Video News". Well, Kaitlyn qualifies - she is a member of the AVN Hall of Fame. Tabercil 05:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Restored. —Centrx→talk • 05:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Tabercil 11:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:National squad

could you make player 16 onwards optional. I tried to do it, but it didn't work. --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 01:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. You were trying to change the usage documentation about the template, not the actual template itself. —Centrx→talk • 02:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked Elkyfilth

I think you jumped to conclusions considering the IP address Elky provided in his/her second unblock request belongs to The University of Queensland. Please keep an eye on their account in case it does turn out to be a vandal sockpuppet. Thanks --  Netsnipe  ►  06:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. —Centrx→talk • 06:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of Negimaki.com

The page was blanked by the owner of the website, which is basically why I didn't treat it as blatant vandalism and restore it myself in the first place. I haven't asked him but I assume he doesn't want an article for his website anymore (he created the article in the first place) possibly because his website is no longer public (there's a bit more of a story to that, but I'll leave it for now). I'd personally give it a nn vote if it were put up for AfD, what do you suggest we do with the article now?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I didn't see that it was blanked by the user who created it. I have deleted it as the author requests deletion and it most likely doesn't warrant an article anyway. —Centrx→talk • 07:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  15:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Trollstar.

PLS message me

Would like to talk to someone who knows about wikipedia and can tell me how to stop vandalism and stuff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brilliburger (talk • contribs) 16:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Collabulary

What's the purpose of {{deletedpage}} if the page's not protected? 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

None. I forgot to protect it. —Centrx→talk • 16:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Help

Thanks for the help offer but I've solved the problem - someone put 3 ]s at the last category instead of 2 --WikiSlasher 16:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Douglas McKay High School

Can you please restore the edit history to this article? I compared the deletion log to the Google cache and it appears that you accidentally deleted a good article which was temporarily vandalized. Thank you, Yamaguchi先生 17:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 17:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

regarding your block on 218.186.9.1

could you please kindly take a look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:218.186.9.1

I'm also wondering if you could tell me if there was a way of enlightening the other admins, as I've been seeing this block occur like everyday with a different admin.

(Liptonslug 18:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)).

Grand Belial's Key

Since when does a band article with a discography like this fill the A7 criterion for speedy deletion? If I remember correctly, the article had also been on Misplaced Pages for a long time and had many edits from active Wikipedians (?). Speedy deletion was probably used because the person requesting it was sure an Afd would fail. Note that the band is affiliated with nazi ideologies and is thus considered a controversial topic. Please consider undeleting it and nominating it for deletion. Prolog 21:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your comments before taking it to WP:AN/I or WP:DRV. Prolog 22:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reversion of Misplaced Pages:Notability

Please see . Would it help if I cited concrete AfD discussions during which the applicability of notability as a deletion criterion were called into question? arj 21:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No, usually those objections are as plain as "but it's only an essay! !" by a month-old user or the person who wrote the vanity article in the first place. What would help is putting new comments in sections at the bottom of the talk page. —Centrx→talk • 21:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

But you are welcome to find them. There really are 100 AfDs deleting a non-notable article and 1000 comments citing notability for every one comment that protests notability guidelines. —Centrx→talk • 21:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)