User talk:Centrx/Archive11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

My bad on the edit summary (It obviously wasn't vandalism, I was spacing when I typed the summary) but I feel the article's lead should be the one everyone agreed on and put together. It's much better and matches the actual lead on the article. --Alabamaboy 01:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Leads on the main page are usually changed from the leads that are found on the article, because the article has more space to cover it, whereas "Anglo-Belgian origin" is simply strange to put on the Main Page. This is a more drastic change to the description, but it is the description accepted by Raul. The description you have put up there contains a lot of narrative that doesn't fit with the Main page, even aside from the fact that the other lead was more appropriate for a humorous yet true featured article. —Centrx→talk • 01:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this isn't the lead accepted by Raul. That's why I reverted to the original lead. Still, none of this is worth edit warring over so I'm dropping out of this. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You can see clearly in the edit history that he edited the TFA page after the lead was changed. I don't mean the lead he approved in the featured article, but the lead he accepted in the TFA. —Centrx→talk • 01:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I notice a bunch of other admins are also jumping into this issue. Hope it doesn't turn into something which makes the list of lamest edit wars ever. --Alabamaboy 01:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You deleted my April Fool's gag, dewd. I assume that's because it was anonymous (you said "Not here to build an encyclopedia"). Is it okay if I do it as someone who is here to build an encyclopedia and just having an April Fool's gag? — Randall Bart 03:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The problems with this were:

• JavaScript can be used as a virus, thus messing up a person's computer or spying on him. Don't do anything involving JavaScript.
• Spamming unrelated talk pages.

—Centrx→talk • 03:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so important that only new items go there? And are you also going to say that they must go in the order they are in the queue, so it would not even be possible to find humorous new items? —Centrx→talk • 03:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Because that's what DYK is for: to showcase new articles. —METS501 (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about someone holding back articles and then posting them right before April 1, just to satisfy this unnecessary rule? —Centrx→talk • 03:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If that's what they need to do, then that's what they need to do. I personally would support a DYK independent of when articles were submitted, so it's really interesting, but that is not the consensus as of now. —METS501 (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That just exposes that applying the rule in this special case makes no sense. At least one of these articles was specifically written for April Fools Day. —Centrx→talk • 03:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Then let it be posted on a link from the person's userpage or blog or something. Not on our main page.

Because that's what DYK is for: to showcase new articles. —METS501 (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No they could very well have just held on to the article and not posted it until 5 days ago. The only difference would be that the article was not on Wikipedia for the last 2 months. The rule in this case would be meaningless.

Why? —Centrx→talk • 03:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do we want to showcase new articles? It's an incentive to create new articles: they might be on the main page. It's also to offer opportunities to improve them further and to draw attention to them. See Wikipedia:Did you know#The DYK Rules. —METS501 (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read the rules. Using these pages for one day would have no effect on the incentive for creating new articles, and for one article it would be rather a disincentive. The rules also state that the article should be at least 1,500 characters and preferably longer. If it were simply to draw attention to articles that needed improvement, that rule would not be there. —Centrx→talk • 04:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

So I didn't goof terribly by adding a mass of invalid articles to the template? I'm still in that healthy paranoia phase whenever I go near the main page with my admin tools. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a good idea to have those DYKs. They have their everyday rules that I don't think are really important if there any special circumstances, but even strictly under those rules it was pretty solid. —Centrx→talk • 04:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't claim to have been following all the preparations for April Fools' Day (I'm so busy offline at the moment that I thought it was still March!), but in fact what I saw was that a whole series of admins seemed to have basically approved the template. Maybe I misinterpreted what they were saying, but it does seem as though someone's jumped into things midstream. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as the guy who was up at midnight UTC (actually 1am BST), I saw the featured article and featured pic go live, and the 'on this day' stuff was there as planned. The 'in the news' stuff was always going to probably just end up as serious news - there was never really any justification to keep serious news off the front page (it's kind of like disinformation - "This is all a joke right? No, hang on, there is stuff about the Iranian cisis over there. That's real. Hmm. What going on???" April Fool!). But I saw that the DYK stuff hadn't been updated, which was why I dropped off this note to catch someone's attention. BigHaz, you were quite right to update. The revert war is just the sort of thing that happens when communications break down around here. Both sides could have communicated more, but that is always the case in a revert war. Hope that clears things up a bit. Carcharoth 09:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If I had seen all the plans, the only thing different would have been me going against them prior to April 1; I still would have removed them. Sorry to tell you. —METS501 (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? —Centrx→talk • 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Last night I was working on an article for Sandii and the Sunsetz off the "requested for more than two years" page. I saved a version in work to create the page and it was almost instantly deleted. Can I get this info back to continue working? I've contacted the guy who deleted it, but he only requested a link to the non-existent article and I have no further response from him this morning. I checked Google cache, but it was deleted too fast to register. It's too messy to restore and leave up for me to find, so if work on this article is going to continue, I'll need to have it posted to my user page or sent by email. Thank you for your help.

04:22, 1 April 2007 Centrx (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sandii & the Sunsetz" (Answered question on user's talk page) 03:49, 1 April 2007 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sandii & the Sunsetz" (A7) 03:49, 1 April 2007 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) restored "Sandii & the Sunsetz" (1 revisions restored) 03:49, 1 April 2007 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sandii & the Sunsetz" (A&) Pkeets 18:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the text was copied directly from those other websites; I can't legally restore it. The websites listed were: [1], [2], [3], [4]. —Centrx→talk • 18:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That was the source material I was working from. You'll notice the page was deleted immediately after creation. I am aware that it was improper for the page to exist in that condition and if N had waited 10 more seconds, I would have finished an edit that removed the copyrighted material. Can you send the info by email so I can continue working on it or not? This is a volunteer task, and I have no real interest in Sandii and the Sunsetz. If you can't resolve this fairly promptly, I'll find something else to do with my time. Pkeets 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Pkeets. —Centrx→talk • 19:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Pkeets 19:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure of your tagging of List of cellists— how exactly are we supposed to go about citing sources for this list? --CA387 05:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:List of cellists. —Centrx→talk • 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am so sorry I am not really that familiar with the rules of wikipedia. But not eveything that I contributed were copied from an article, there are portions which I myself contributed in my own words. Kindly bring back thearticles that I contributed and I promise you thatin time, I will be able to rephrase the articles so as not to commit copyright infringement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyupayb (talk • contribs) 07:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

There is no allowable way to restore copied articles. If you could be more specific as to what parts of which articles were original writings, I could copy those to your userspace. —Centrx→talk • 14:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this page? This functionality is not enabled on the English Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 15:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it enabled? It works for me: set your language preferences in your settings to Spanish, and you'll see the message at MediaWiki:Protect-text/es when you go to protect a page. —METS501 (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but what's the point of it? Admins on the English Wikipedia all speak English. —Centrx→talk • 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but, for example, if I went to the Spanish Wikipedia, I would have my interface and all the messages in English, because that's the language I'm more comfortable with. —METS501 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your change with WP:BRD in mind, I don't know if you saw the discussion on WT:RFCN. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you were going with WP:BRD, stick with the old system until it has been discussed a little more than 24 hours. —Centrx→talk • 21:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comments at WT:RFCN would certainly be welcome - the need for a new format has been under discussion for a while. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Where? —Centrx→talk • 21:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The talk page isn't that long, you should be able to see it the other discussions. I'm not going to argue with you about the instruction changes and the deletion of the archive & template links, etc. from the project page - I really should leave that to the admins who made the changes. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read the talk page. There are no other discussions prior to April 3. —Centrx→talk • 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, decisions on Wikipedia are made according to reasons regarding what is appropriate for the encyclopedia. If you know good reason why some change should be implemented, then it is helpful to explain those reasons. If you do not know good reason why a change should be implemented, then you should not make edits to implement what is, for all you know, a very wrong decision. Also, this is not about some admins making some binding decision. This change, if good, could be implemented by anyone. If bad, then it should be explained to those who are in favor of that decision why it is wrong for what reason, and if you were to investigate the matter you would find that there are multiple admins who oppose the change. —Centrx→talk • 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the informative lecture but it wasn't me who conceived or implemented the change. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "implement" is not the right word. You pursued this implementation, keeping it in action by your own edit. —Centrx→talk • 02:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with your recent edit, if that was what you expected. What I did not like in the previous version was the text "consider prior bla... before even considering" (the double use of "consider"). So the current text is fine with me. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. —Centrx→talk • 02:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As you are apparently using (or interested in) this template, you might want to take a look at Template:Oldafdmulti, an alternative I developed that is fully compatible with Template:Oldafdfull. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a new user here and I think this might be how one might bring it to your attention... The user is Blond dee. By the look of their first edit, I think they come from my school. Give them a warm welcome like you did with me please ;) Sir Intellegent 23:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance on Wikipedia talk:Notability. I guess in most questionable cases common sense reversions would occur as you mentioned. I s'pose I was feeling a tad irked about 'non-discussion' again, hence the topic post. See ya round wikiland.--Keefer4 | Talk 03:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to point you to the new version of {{uw-copyright}}, (you can see the output with a parameter on the talk page). Tell me what you think! -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Centrx, I havent spoke to you since about October, hope you are doing OK! I thought that user (Crazyman or something like that!) would get the point that it was suitable for a block if he continued, another sysop blocked user who I warned for no copyright tagged images about 7 times, and multiple one from Orphan Bot. Apolgies if you believe I did wrong, happy editing! Tellyaddict 10:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Tellyaddict. —Centrx→talk • 14:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have unexpectedly been affected by your actions with regards to this. When do I get to anonymously edit again? --AdamM 23:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

These blocks expire in one week. Hopefully the ISP will do something about it before then. —Centrx→talk • 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear 'Centrix' why has my IP been blocked - I am the only one on it and have only corrected 2 grammatical errors in the last week. Before this I was blocked for a week for updating a link?!?!?! Please explain specifically what I, or 'this IP' have done to warrant blocking. What qualifies users to block other users anyway? Thankyou

I am curious how this rangeblock which has the potential to block over 65,000 possible editors for a week long seems appropriate? Has there been some serious serious abuse from this large an IP range that warranted an week block? In my humble and personal opinion a week long range block of that size is pretty severe, with the possiblity of alot of collateral damage. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also wondering about these 15 week long rangeblocks with the potential to block over 650,000 possible editors. Is there an abuse report or an ani thread I can read to research this a little more? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That is one ISP, the dynamic IPs of which are mostly unused, and less so on Wikipedia. These are not 650,000 people who even use the Internet, let alone read or edit Wikipedia without accounts. The abuse from these ranges has been going on for a month. —Centrx→talk • 14:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure there are not 650,000 blocked regular editors now. And, I have no doubt that there is abuse coming from this IP. I not going to fight this (I.E., I am going to drop it after this). For the record though, I think that large of a rangeblock to get a few abusive editors is a bit extreme. You could probably block 0.0.0.0/0 (not sure if it would work and dont wanna try it) to block all anons from editing. I understand the range blocks are smaller than that but a bit extreme in my opinion. Thanks for the prompt reply however. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The MediaWiki software doesn't allow blocks below /16. In this case the range blocks are for a relatively short time and hopefully the ISP will deal with the person sooner (or re-configure their horrible system...). —Centrx→talk • 14:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not allow below 16? smart, i was going to try it on a personal wiki i use for expirements. Ok, thanks for the explanation. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two unblock requests for you. You may want to knock it off or at least {{anonblock}}. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 17:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how blocking 216.231.14.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for six months without warning or block notice falls under WP:OFFICE, WP:OTRS or WP:BLP? ~ trialsanderrors 06:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with that block is that the length is not appropriate for what looks like a dynamic IP address. It was, however, someone promoting their company by adding links to it, which is strictly forbidden and which needs no warning for that to be the case. A block notice is unnecessary and a waste of time for IP addresses. In any case, my comment on the RfA does not mean that every single oppose voter displays a startling lack of understanding, only that many do and that the remainder are still unconvincing. —Centrx→talk • 14:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk about this at Template talk:Infobox School#Country?. Jordan Brown 20:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. Are my edit summaries not sufficient? And the protection of the poll pages was done to prevent the mayhem that ensued several times before, and has now been changed to a limited duration by another admin. Crum375 02:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the protection, we had serious confusion and disruption on the poll page during its beginning phases, and it seemed prudent to preclude that from happening at the final phase, especially as voters could be still coming, unsure of the exact status. By now the protection has been endorsed, with a limited duration, by another admin. As far as the watchlist message, I have added a Talk page comment to supplement my edit summary. Crum375 02:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the poll closing, we decided that given the heated spirits that seemed to prevail, any change from the announced poll duration could be viewed by some side as an attempt to skew the results. Therefore it seemed prudent to stick to the announced timetable exactly, to minimize such complaints. Clearly there is a long road ahead, but at least the poll received a significant participation, lots of useful comments, and was done reasonably smoothly, under the circumstances. Future discussion can always take place on Talk pages. Crum375 02:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Previously you have deleted an identical template, under CSD T1, can you please follow the same reasoning for this one. --Kuban Cossack 14:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The userbox has been moved to my userspace, making this a non-issue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Centrx,

I confirm that I am the IRC user "Snowolf" and that I'm asking you if you can kindly add to this page "# {{user11|Makalp}}" and "# {{user11|Mhking}}" (respecting the alphabetical order already present) on my behalf (I'm a NPW moderator but not an admin).

Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 18:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 18:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I didn't poke through enough pages to make it to the talk page for the template to see that. Any idea where I should ask something like that instead, then? Because even if I did mess up how to ask, I'd still like to know the answer... -Bbik 06:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The lake forest college page was said to be in copyvio and all the content was removed. why was none of it placed on the discussion page so as to provide contributers with a basis from which to work? Additionally, it has been some time since i looked at it, but was ALL the info really in copyvio? i find that unlikely. Mwhope 09:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The revisions that did not contain copied text were kept. The revisions that did contain copied text have to be deleted, and indeed it does look like those entire revisions were of copied text. Posting the text to the discussion page would itself be a copyright infringement. All of the text is available on the Lake Forest College website--where it was copied from. —Centrx→talk • 15:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Why have you blocked an entire range of Ips? (Including mine). I know this isn't a real problem as I have this account, What's been going on? Retiono Virginian 20:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• A specific person has been using this ISP to engage in widespread vandalism. This is exacerbated by the fact that, because of the unfortunate way that the ISP is configured, the range block cannot be localized to only a small number of customers of the ISP in a specific region. —Centrx→talk • 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed you. Please have a look. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is kept strictly separate from the backend Wikipedia policy, administration, maintenance, etc. pages. Depending on what you are seeking to write, Wikipedia:Administrators or Wikipedia are the proper places. —Centrx→talk • 22:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the Wikipedia:Administrators is not an article, but an information page about the Wiki admins; it doesn't require sources or anything of the kind. It is an info page, much like the Wikipedia:Featured articles. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to write an article, see Wikipedia:Notability, especially Wikipedia:Notability#Merging. Most or all sources that include information about Wikipedia administrators are about Wikipedia in general and discuss Wikipedia administrators only in that context. As such, information about Wikipedia administrators belongs under the auspices of the article about Wikipedia, the details of which are split out due to space and organizational constraints (see Wikipedia:Summary style). I could unprotect the page, but without several reliable sources about Wikipedia administrators specifically, it is just going to end up deleted again. The best avenue to take is to add information to the article Wikipedia and its detailed sub-articles, and discuss the matter on Talk:Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 22:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. I know I can find reliable sources -- especially after that Jay...something controversary, but the question remains if it will fall under notability. I think that with some hard work, it would, but then it would probably be merged with other articles. Well, I guess I'll have to look into the Wiki article. Thanks... --Thus Spake Anittas 23:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's in the Essjay controversy article, falling under the context of that specific incident. —Centrx→talk • 23:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I know about the article. I think everyone has read it by now. Maybe in the future, the Wiki Admins will have their own specific article, but now is not the time for it. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you but I am guessing you might be able to advise me. A copyvio tag was recently placed in the Queen's University article within the History section. It is clear from the edit history that the entire section was inserted in one edit (diff [5]). This text matches exactly the text on this page [6].I sent a message to the editor who made the edit [7] and asked if any clarification could be made about the copyright status of the text (for example, is this editor the original author of the text? Or, since this is a publicly funded university, is the text in the public domain?). Is there anything else that I can/should do? If it were anything other than an educational institution, I would think that the text should be deleted immediately because it seems to me to be so clearly a web site copy and paste edit... Any advice would be greatly appreciated. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 01:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even if it is from an educational institution or almost any government, it is still under copyright with a license too restrictive for Wikipedia. However, the university or someone affiliated with it may have put the text on Wikipedia on purpose, or it may otherwise not be difficult to obtain permission to relicense the text. (Do beware of promotional, biased language though.) In that case, the copyright holder would need to send confirmation to the Wikimedia Foundation (if by e-mail, to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org) or post a notice on the webpage. Unfortunately again, they may not wish to do that once they know the licensing terms necessary for using the text on Wikipedia. The text should be removed immediately though, unless and until permission is confirmed. While the copyright regime of the world today, and in a case like this specifically, is downright morally wrong, the copyright holder can legally compel the deletion of all revisions that contain this text, i.e. all the revisions from the time it was added to the time it was removed, so copyright infringements on Wikipedia threaten the destruction of all contributions made to the article after the infringement was added. —Centrx→talk • 02:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I read with horror the words, "copyright infringements on Wikipedia threaten the destruction of all contributions made to the article after the infringement was added." In any event, I will restore the text (in the History section) present just before the edit in question was made. Hopefully, the editor who inserted the text was the author... seems a waste... Thanks again for your advice. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 02:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, it only threatens the destruction of contributions made between the time it was added to the time it was reverted. It doesn't indelibly corrupt the article in perpetuity. Also, my words might seem more melodramatic than what I mean. —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood. By horror, I should also clarify that my mind sort of filled up quickly with the probable vastness of copyvio problems, known and unknown, on Wikipedia, and the destructive implications of those problems. Just a rather unpleasant flash of huge waste. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 02:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not even just on Wikipedia. Copyright terms are now effectively indefinite. All the beautiful and clear expressions of ideas, all the forms of culture and knowledge created in the last 85 years, are locked to us or go to the highest bidder. —Centrx→talk • 03:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear 'Centrix' why has my IP been blocked?Lughlamhfhada 08:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Without knowing what your IP address is, I can have no idea. —Centrx→talk • 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I still need to find a few more sources for the material I added, so that I can remove the sourcing tag from the "History" section. But it's coming along nicely. Venicemenace 14:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[8] [9] [10] and [11]. Enjoy. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 01:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha :D you learn something new every day. Moral of the story: I shouldn't correct people unless I'm 100% sure I'm right and they're wrong. ;) Thanks for letting me know. - Mark 03:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, when you have vandals that generate massive amount of sockpuppets via similar names, shouldn't that be a cause of concern (even if they made no edits)? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reports of that nature would not be borderline cases and belong at WP:AIV. —Centrx→talk • 14:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There's discussion over on the OTRS e-mail list to the effect that the review section is a bad idea. FCYTravis 04:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. In re this revert, I believe it is User:Thebainer's point that there was actually no discussion about whether or not we were going to do this. Jkelly 04:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Would you mind removing LUElinks from the protected titles list so it can be made into a redirect to GameFAQs#Spinoff websites? Thanks in advance. --- RockMFR 05:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we call out this user as a ban, instead of a block. He went blanked two user pages? WikipediaFan98 10:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Someone mentioned you (and that I should not deal with you) on my talk page when they invited me to drop dead. I thought you'd be interested in knowing. As far as I can recall, I haven't dealt with you, although your name is familiar, so perhaps I have. Cheers. IronDuke 13:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just someone mad that I blocked them for massive trolling and vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 14:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Any idea why they chose to honor me with a visit? IronDuke 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No idea. I know he was vandalism user talk pages one by one (apparently) at random. —Centrx→talk • 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

All right. Well, best of luck, let me know if you ever need any help on this. IronDuke 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I revised an article for Lafayette High School (Wildwood) in accordance with Eureka High School's (Eureka) model but it was deleted. A similar article was created for Marquette High School (Chesterfield) under the same template and it is being considered for speedy deletion. I'm not asking for Lafayette or Marquette's articles to stay or be reinstated, but I do want to know why the Eureka article is not up for deletion. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stlsportsfan2316 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

The Eureka article isn't up for deletion because no one noticed it when it was created or because someone thought it was more promising (e.g. because of the Washington Post article being a prospective source, and its Time and Newsweek listings). In general, Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable in several published third-party sources. If such sources are not explicitly cited in the article, they may still be out there to be found, if the topic is promising. Those are some possibilities. —Centrx→talk • 01:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm trying to sort out editing policies on the model, by upgrading those defined on meta:Foundation issues (since they have priority on all wiki projects). Is there a problem? Michelet-Me laisser un message 02:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this template is not a supreme catalogue of what is and is not policy or what is and is not superior and inferior policy. It is a navigational template used for reference. As such, linking to "Freely reusable content" is meaningless, and separating out Verifiability and Neutral point of view from "article standards" is simply confusing. (Note: Verifiability is not a foundation issue.) —Centrx→talk • 03:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel it more like a root catalogue (leaving out side aspects) of policies that contributors should obviously know (leaving out the role of the fondation, for instance, but including the GFDL option). For reference and navigation indeed. As to verifiability, I was half minded to lower it into "article standards" - but this may be a mistake, because it is a very important policy and should be emphasised. Maybe by putting it on the first line, then? Michelet-Me laisser un message 03:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought: have a look at the navigational template I made for fr:Chant grégorien, where each blue line is a chapter heading: would that kind of multi-level template be usefull here? Michelet-Me laisser un message 03:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No one needs to look at Wikipedia:Consensus or Wikipedia:Freely reusable content on a regular basis or refer users to them beyond the other ones listed there. Everything else listed is in almost constant use. Also, Wikipedia:Consensus is not a foundation issue, "wiki process" is, which refers also to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages, and (much of) Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Wikipedia:Five pillars is more relevant here, but that is not and should not necessarily be listed in the template. —Centrx→talk • 17:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, a while ago the article Gone With The Blastwave was up for afd ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gone_with_the_Blastwave ). Though the article was deleted, it seemed to be consensus that it would not be salted, and the closing admin also did not feel as though salting was necessary. I just wanted to know why you chose to salt it. Perhaps you weren't aware of the debate that had already occured about it's salting? I'm just concerned because the webcomic is becoming more and more notable, and soon someone will probably try to create another article on it but find they can't due to the salting. Thanks.Darkcraft 11:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The page was re-created, this time as a copyvio. A discussion about salting in an AfD is only relevant to whether there was thought to be a likelihood of it being re-created; here it was in fact re-created, and badly. —Centrx→talk • 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I left another note for you at Vicipaedia about the etymology of idea, which is pretty cool. Cheers! --Ioshus^(talk) 16:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You unprotected Fall Out Boy and it stayed without vandalism for about 14hrs until I removed the protect tag. Was I not supposed to do this and what should be done? GDonato (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No removing the tag is fine. There is a bot that goes around and does it for unprotected pages. That the vandalism started up is probably merely a coincidence; such as that more people read Wikipedia later in the U.S. day. —Centrx→talk • 17:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking semi-protection really wasn't a bad idea GDonato (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't really using the computer during the time it was running. I just came to check and see if everything was running OK and I got a whole bunch of messages, and they kept coming 5 minutes after I stopped it (probably due to people discovering the mistake later on). Sorry about that. --eskimospy^(talk) 18:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing the folly of your unprotection. :) --Golbez 03:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping that wikipedia may be able to make a section for Holocaust & Genocide as either a project or portal. I thought that it might be part of the Military project of the History section. Looking for assistance with this. Thanks. I would appreciate comments & assistance to be left on my talk page [[12]]. I hope to hear from you soon. Eric Rodrigues.

I see that you have protected the deletion of Vaikunta Ekadasi. Can you please undo the same so that i can add contents for Vaikunta Ekadasi. I observed that you deleted as it violated the copyrights from blogs and i will avoid "copy-paste" or copyrights violations

Vaikunata Ekadasi is an important day in hindu calendar and i wish to ensure a wiki page for the same. Request your assistance Kalyan 06:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Have at it. —Centrx→talk • 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please review the Vaikunta Ekadasi article and let me know if it is ok Kalyan 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you make an edit removing the list of athletic coaches from the Spain Park High School article? Your edit summary said "Removing list of names of living persons." Why did you find that necessary? Can you cite a Wikipedia policy which supports this? I don't know of anything that prohibits lists of names of living persons. Realkyhick 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory of school staff. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This article was also previously the subject of complaints from this school, and needs published third party sources (see also Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability). —Centrx→talk • 22:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If the article were only a directory of school staff, I would see your point. But I hardly see how anything from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons would apply, since these are hardly biographies. If your complaint is that there is no source cited, I will grant you that; I wish SPHS would put a directory of personnel on the web, like many other Birmingham-area schools. I know that some of these people have had their names published in local newspapers, because I put them there (I work for The Birmingham News), so I could cite sources from [al.com], I suppose, though there may be a sort of problem with original research. :-) I'm curious, though, about Spain Park's complaint to the Foundation. That seems to be rather odd; indeed, it may be newsworthy (hey, I've got a story here!). Feel free to contact me by e-mail if you prefer. Realkyhick 04:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all information about living persons, not only to biographical articles, or articles as a whole.

This is not especially noteworthy; maybe a half-dozen schools contact Wikimedia per week for various reasons, usually either because of problems with crap being added to the school's article or because of vandalism coming from their IPs; and hundreds of people contact Wikimedia per week about libel, copyright, etc. and more simple courtesy issues. —Centrx→talk • 04:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are not alone, as the same was just done to the Bispham High School Arts College page, citing them as non-notable even though one person named has a wikipedia page, and is therefore notable enough for wikipedia.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Put that person back if you want, though it might itself warrant removal from the person's main article as listing the schools that children go to can be a serious problem. —Centrx→talk • 22:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are a number of other articles that have similar people named and the schools they attend. And it would hardly be a serious problem mentioning it on wikipedia when the person is named in newspapers, online, as attending the school. In addition, I did a quick check, searching the words school + head teacher, and there are a lot of school pages listing current head teachers which you have also removed. In fact there are numerous who have whole lists of current staff, some with huge lists of staff. Picking these two schools seems random and arbritary. If you are going to remove the name of staff at one shcool then you should be doing the same on every single shcool page on wikipedia.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

They should be removed from every single school page on Wikipedia, but things on Wikipedia do not happen suddenly and at once altogether. In these two cases the text was removed after a representative of each of the schools contacted the Wikimedia Foundation about problems associated with these articles. —Centrx→talk • 22:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am in contact with the school and in discussion with them about that article, and will be at a meeting at the school this week, where the topic of wikipedia and that specific article is on the agenda.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, the Headteacher of Bispham High School has today confirmed by email that no-one from the school has contacted the Wikimedia Foundation recently. They did so in March, when what is now a redirect page - Bispham High School (the article is now at Bispham High School Arts College) was repeatedly vandalised by (they think) a pupil at the school. However, that was dealt with at the time and a block placed (at the time) on the IP address for the school. Since that date there has been no vandalism, and they are working to identify the culprit. The page is on my Watchlist, the school are fully aware of the current content, and it is to be discussed at a meeting at the school tomorrow.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 14:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the e-mail is from March 13. In many cases, there is a long delay in dealing with e-mails to the Wikimedia Foundation and in this case while I do not doubt it was dealt with to whatever extent before, it was left in the queue to be followed up on, and upon observing that the article was in the form of a directory entry with a listing of non-notable living persons irrelevant to a proper encyclopedia article, and furthermore noting that obscenities about the headmaster or others at the school are less likely if the headmaster is not listed at all, I removed the listing of persons.

Also, if you are maintaining this article, you should add sufficient published third party sources so that a proper encyclopedia article can be created, as there are currently no reliable sources out of which an encyclopedia article can be created. If there are no such sources about the topic, then the article should be deleted, which would solve problems with people adding junk to the article and eliminate the need for people to have school meetings about it. —Centrx→talk • 20:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I can understand your concerns about the deletion of the Head teachers name, simply removing a list of names would not in itself solve the problem of vandalism. What has stopped it since then has been the schools IP address being blocked. In addition prior to that, the schools page was not maintained, at least not on a regular basis. Which is now happening. Plus as I said above, it is on my Watch list.

As for your comment about adding sufficent third party sources. Patience. I have only been working on maintaining the page for the past few weeks whilst still myself continuing to learn how wikipedia works. I have been working on finding sources. However, I do find your comments thus,

"there are currently no reliable sources" and "If there are no such sources about the topic, then the article should be deleted" totally inappropriate. Firstly, I utterly refute your assertion that there are currently no reliable sources. There are links to newspaper articles about the school and in addition there is also a link to a BBC News page about an OFSTED report on Secondary Schools. They are reliable sources. You cannot get a more reliable source than details of an OFSTED report on a school. As for "if there are no such sources..., then the article should be deleted". Again, as I said above, I have been working on this article for a short space of time. I have been given some sources to add from OFSTED, from other BBC articles, from the Guardian newspaper, from the Local Education Authority and from the Good Schools Guide. I am working on getting these added.

As for this comment, "then the article should be deleted, which would solve problems with people adding junk to the article and eliminate the need for people to have school meetings about it", please re-read what I said which was, "it is to be discussed at a meeting at the school tomorrow". I did not say, "there is a meeting to discuss this at the school tomorrow." For your clarification, there is a regular school meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, at which one topic which will be discussed is the school article on wikipedia. And as I have said, since the school IP address has been blocked there has been no, as you put it, "junk" added to the page.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

THe image I was using is from the media wiki---> the news section of wikipedia. --EricSRodrigues154 23:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Centrx, you changed this to this, with the comment "These spanids are pointless and obfuscating", which is puzzling because (1) they're invisible on the formatted screen (so they can't "obfuscate" anything for readers, and editors using edit mode should know what spanids are), and (2) they're not "pointless" but anchor links for references as in WP:BANNED#Instantnood (the word "banned" links to the relevant section, or did before you deleted the anchors).

You've also changed the formatting of the whole section from one in which the indents and date formats were consistent (and the dates wikified) for ease of reading, to one in which the date formats vary wildly and the indents are all over the place, making it harder to read. What on earth was the advantage of this change, compared to its disadvantages? Even if you happen to dislike spanids and don't care whether you kill citation links, what was the point of jumbling the formats like that? Please explain. In the meantime, I'm reverting to the more legible version that lets the reference links work. Thanks. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

They obfuscate the edit screen and they are completely unnecessary. You can link to the section on bans by linking to the section. You are wasting your time. —Centrx→talk • 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

i trying to do state put where i got it from but how can i if u delete it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Downtowndontay (talk • contribs) 03:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

You can work on this article in a draft page under your username, like at a page named User:Downtowndontay/Dunnellon. However, please keep in mind that Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable in published third-party sources, like books and magazines, and should be written with neutral language. There have been problems in the past with this article especially. —Centrx→talk • 03:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Centrx, many thanks for creating my en:account :-). I hope, I sometimes can help in minerals here, too. It's my main field of activity is the german Wikipedia (apart from my activities as sysop). greetings -- Ra'ike talk de-user 19:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (and sorry, if my english isn't the best. It's en-1)

You seem to be a little late with your response on my talk page. I have an Empire to rebuild at the moment so do not expect to see me around here anytime soon. So I reccomend that you back off and we can both go about our buisness. Big Boss 0 19:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Kay. --User:Atomic Religione

I was using this page as a reference. The page has since been deleted.

For reference purposes, I would like to have the source code of the page before it was deleted.

I would like you to respond on my user talk page.

Wisepiglet 23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Responded there. —Centrx→talk • 00:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on your recent comments about IAR, I would appreciate it if you could look over WP:PNSD. There are a few editors who believe it is improper to discourage polling, and wish to adjust or deprecate this guideline accordingly. >Radiant< 10:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm attempting to create a stub and got an admin to lift the protection from the page, but it seems the title is also protected, as per here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Jeffree_Star I've found independent magazine articles that do establish notability: [13] [14] as well as appearances on a national concert tour.[15] Please remove the title protection for this page or let me know if I need to start a Deletion review to get this ban lifted. Dissolve 15:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This has already been proposed numerous times and rejected each time. The only new source you have is a blog, which is not sufficient to make an article on. —Centrx→talk • 16:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll check in a couple months to see if any new sources have shown up and start a review if they have. Dissolve 18:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you tell me how one checks to see if a given user is actually a sock-puppet for someone else? The user in question is FreddyTris. Thanks, Steve 23:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The rather definitive way is to file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, which can show if two users are editing from the same IP or ISP. Also note that if someone is blatantly acting in the very same way on the very same articles, they can be blocked without checking the IP (and people can get around IP checks by various means anyway). Also, if someone is simply being disruptive or acting in a way that would be blockable by itself, there's no need to check. —Centrx→talk • 00:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My web browser didn't sign me in automatically so I edited my user page and the edits turned to to be from the IP address of 71.213.79.114. That is the IP address that I am using. So I was wondering if you could go into my user page history and change the edit so it isn't labeled by 71.213.79.114, But by my user name so people won't get suspicious. Please? Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 00:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to change the attribution of the edits from the IP to your username, sorry. I could delete the edits if you are concerned about your privacy. —Centrx→talk • 00:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You can delete them. They are "minor" (even though they aren't marked as such) edits anyway and can be easily redone by me. I'm just worried that someone will come along and look at it and report fraud (or somthing) since (theoretically) only the user can edit their user page (other than the adoption tag thing). And the text (to tell other users that those edits were mine) on the top of the page is kinda distracting, don't you think? Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 13:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No problems would arise from this. This is not any sort of fraud. Since you have edited the page after the IP, it is evident that you do not have a problem with the changes. IPs editing user pages are often vandalism that are then reverted, but that's a different issue. Also, there is no rule that requires only the user to edit his user page. —Centrx→talk • 13:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't get this. Clarify please. User:Bushcarrot/Userboxes/Centrx vs Sakura Avalon. Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 22:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Sakura Avalon was some disruptive user who I blocked. It's made to look like some other template with Jimmy Wales battling Chuck Norris or something. I've now deleted it. —Centrx→talk • 23:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Also note that this template discourages the creation of legitimate articles at titles that happen to also be dictionary words. "

I'm not convinced of that, but well why not, give me some examples please? Tell me which pages I shouldn't created using this template, it will give you more chance to persuade me :) 16@r 14:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Tacky, Pretension, and However all have incoming links referring to proper names. —Centrx→talk • 14:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You periodically reduce the Wayne Crookes article to a stub, and have recently protected it. Would you care to inform those discussing the matter on its talk page as to your reasons? 130.208.247.2 15:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, is it an office action or not, and if not, why isn't any of the sourced content being left in? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is in response to an OTRS complaint. It was not done under WP:OFFICE, though I gather that if it were unprotected it would become under WP:OFFICE and the only difference would be that at some point in the meantime someone may post potentially libellous statements to the page. If there is some reason to unprotect it, now is not the right time anyway. In general, there are not reliable sources sufficient to support the claims being made. Examine closely the sources:

• "Elections BC and Elections Canada publish donation and loan disclosures": This is someone going to the raw data and making some implications about it. This is original research. As it stands, the current stub is all the can be said based on this source.
• "Canada: The blossoming of the Green party": This is a newspaper article copied to another website. It is the only legitimate source—if we can trust that it is copied correctly—however, it is only a trivial mention in this single source.
• "We are all journalists now": This is an opinion column, and it does not even mention the subject of the article.
• "Openpolitics.ca": This is not a reliable source at all. This is a wiki that anyone can register for

—Centrx→talk • 03:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to your revert, please review the history. I did that after a conversation with Anthere and she has endorsed it. Cbrown1023 talk 23:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The revision she made is different from what you did. Also, why couldn't she just make the edit in the first place, or at least add an explanation on the talk page or, better yet, you could have had the very conversation you had with her on the talk page. —Centrx→talk • 23:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't yelling at you for what you did, just giving you an update. I'm glad that you reverted a change by a user to "official policy" when you were in doubt about its accuracy, I applaud you on that. I was just giving you the rest of the story and inviting you to see what else has changed. Cbrown1023 talk 23:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to protect Objectivism (Ayn Rand), while you are at it. Thank you. FraisierB 02:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why'd you remove the infobox from this page? BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edit of an IP that has been adding unsourced & false junk, at least in some places. If you add back the infobox, I recommend you check the info. —Centrx→talk • 22:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Centrx, hi. I think the user who was editing WP:IAR has gone away, and it's probably safe to lift protection there. I'd do it myself, but I want to check with you, the protecting admin, first. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

and also a block. First, is this message/warning appropriate? User_talk:24.44.99.211. Second, can you block the IP from "account creation" for ... a while? Third, another admin suggested I help out at WP:SSP, so I might just do that, so we must see more of each other. :) Otheus 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit on the Mat_Devine article regarding 'years active'. Kill Hannah's first release was in 1996, thusly the founding member of the band has been active for 11 years. Note sure why you deleted that, but the band's first release in 1996 is accurate data. Thanks, 23:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But he would still be active, thus you have a worthless dated statement that requires updating every year that is anyway not appropriate for an encyclopedia. In addition, how do you know he was not "active" before that? This is a completely original number that you are applying to the notion of "activity". —Centrx→talk • 00:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The Musical_artist_infobox template guidelines state "Period in years during which the act was or has been active" and the example far below that shows "1990 - Present". Seems slightly ambiguous, but I re-edited the article to follow the example, instead of deleting it.

I don't believe the date of an artist's first public release (or live performance) can be be considered original research when establishing the first year active. For example, an artist could have been playing piano since he/she was 5, but they wouldn't be considered 'active' until they actually released material or performed in public. Since this particular artist's first verifiable release of material was in 1993, that was the date I used, which appears to be consistent with 'years active' listed for other musical acts. Patrick925 01:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's misleading, and it is a problem with many of the factoids put in infoboxes in general. The accurate, non-misleading information is evident in the article, without any danger of misleading. This is an encyclopedia, not trivial pursuit, and the encyclopedic purpose must always be favored over the aesthetic superficial purpose when there is any conflict in them. —Centrx→talk • 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I decided to restore this page because I don't really think blatant advertisement really applies here. I tend to reserve that for "buy our product, it'll help your sex life, do your dishes, and play with your kids!" types of pages, not for people. I think that the article should just be stubbed down and then rebuilt; there is some valuable information there. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This page was originated by and written entirely by the subject himself and possibly his associates at these Cyberathlete leagues. There is a similar problem on the associated articles. Autobiographies are not allowed on Wikipedia. Advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia. Articles about living persons without any reliable sources are not allowed on Wikipedia. If you think that the article should just be stubbed down and rebuilt, why have you not done that instead of simply restoring it, where it will be left for another year in its current state? See also OTRS 2007031510004664 for the background on this. —Centrx→talk • 22:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See Petronell Wyatt. The article was originally created by its subject, yet the current AfD has an overwhelming consensus to keep. Autobiographies aren't automatic deletions, they're just likely to be. And if you think that the article is blatant advertising, why don't you rewrite it so that it isn't, instead of deleting it? And I don't have OTRS access, so I can't see what you're talking about with that. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any obligation to re-write it, and it doesn't look like there is even enough reliable source material to write a legitimate encyclopedia article. You seem to think there is and have restored it on that basis, yet have done nothing to stub down the article and re-write it. You just restored it and left the advertising there. As for Petronella Wyatt, it is at least simply a stub with straight facts; even in its original form it was factual with a few rhetorical flourishes, without going into minutiae about how great the person is. —Centrx→talk • 01:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I formatted your comment [16]. Hope you don't mind. —AldeBaer 04:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. —Centrx→talk • 06:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As per this deletion would you mind reviewing other such lists created by same user? -- Cat ^chi? 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. I stopped because I thought it better to leave him a message about it, but then I forget about it and he never responded anyway. —Centrx→talk • 21:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks. Have you intentionally left List of Kurdish articles out? -- Cat ^chi? 21:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I know this is minor but how comes if the consensus to something is keep, it gets deleted? Simply south 16:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you referring to specifically? —Centrx→talk • 16:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The James somethingorother redirect. Simply south 18:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The keep arguments there are based on a misunderstanding of the MediaWiki software. If "James surowiecki" were actually different from "James Surowiecki", then it would be a "likely search term" or "a common misspelling" for which a redirect would be appropriate, but in fact there is no difference. The redirect is therefore wholly useless and only clutters search results. Any link to "James surowiecki" from another page, or a search for "James surowiecki", will direct you to the correct article without a redirect, which you can verify yourself. —Centrx→talk • 18:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

James surowiecki. James Surowiecki.

O:-)

--Kim Bruning 18:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC) though likely little harm done

That's a brand-new bug then. The solution is to fix it, not create a billion redirects. —Centrx→talk • 18:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In any event, there are no links to the page so it makes no different, and searching still works properly, which is the purpose of that sort of redirect. —Centrx→talk • 18:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a bug. That's how it has worked since 2001. The only difference in newer versions of mediawiki is that there is an additional setting to turn this irritating misfeature off (which is important on wiktionary, for instance).

I hope you're willing to be graceful? :-)

--Kim Bruning 18:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was thinking of the capitalization of the first letter making no difference. If by graceful you mean re-create the redirect, that's not necessary: The reason for having misspelled redirects is for search terms, not non-existent links to pages with no incoming links. My statement above would be equally dispositive if I had confined it only to search terms. —Centrx→talk • 18:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant to just explain to folks why you thought wrong and say sorry. Happens to everyone! :-) --Kim Bruning 19:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your change to Wikipedia:Redirect/DeletionReasons as it was not consistent with existing consensus. I have explained my rationale at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. I welcome your comments there. -- JLaTondre 23:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a get well card thing anywhere on Wikipedia? If so, I would like to pass one around for NDCompuGeek. Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 16:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Anyway, I would recommend that you leave a personal message rather than using some generic template. Also, see User:Tim Starling/Get Well Soon for example. —Centrx→talk • 17:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the South Colonie Central School District page? The page was always subjected to vandalism from disgruntled students, was this the reason why?

Jasebasketball 16:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Jasebaskteball

This article was devoid of published third-party sources and was simply a directory entry. It was not an encyclopedia article. Constant vandalism is a reason why its lack of value for the encyclopedia would be outweighed by the maintenance burden of repeatedly reverting vandalism, especially inflammatory vandalism or vandalism with libellous statements against living persons, would indicate it should be deleted, but in general it was simply not a legitimate encyclopedia article and there is no evidence a legitimate encyclopedia article could be created about the topic. —Centrx→talk • 21:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How is an article about a school district a directory entry not an encyclopedia article? There are a multitude of articles on public school districts, and even a list of school districts in New York. Two bordering school districts, North Colonie and Albany City School District have articles which were very simmilar to the South Colonie page. Shouldn't these be deleted then, too? Jasebasketball 15:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Jasebasketball

They eventually will be deleted if there are no published third-party sources on the topics. In this case, I noticed this article or it may have been brought to our attention by the school district or someone libelled on the page, but keeping the article around would have required me to sit monitoring the article, without any apparent encyclopedic value. —Centrx→talk • 15:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You protected Wayne Crookes on 3-19 citing BLP problems. Can it be unprotected now? CMummert · talk 18:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Because a) There have as of yet been no reliable published sources presented on the talk page that cover this person; and b) there is ongoing litigation against the Wikimedia Foundation because of problems stemming from this article, I recommend you contact the office, perhaps Bastique, if you are considering unprotecting this article. While the Wikimedia Foundation can claim itself a service provider under section 230 such that it is not liable for libellous statements posted on the site, that rather falls apart if it admits such statements on the person's article after being notified of them or after a legal suit pertaining to the article. —Centrx→talk • 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I asked because the protection summary just says "problems", so I couldn't tell whether protection is still warranted. I ran into the article while going through Category:Protected to choose more specific categories for the articles there. If the page is under office scrutiny, or protected because of an OTRS complaint, it would be nice for the protection summary to say as much. CMummert · talk 22:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You can take "WP:BLP problems" or "libel problems" to mean that, especially if it was protected by one of the usual admins. "OTRS" is often not used in the summary because doing so is basically a glowing sign to everyone that the subject contacted WMF, i.e. giving them more publicity when bogus publicity was the problem in the first place. —Centrx→talk • 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I learn something new every day. CMummert · talk 22:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)