User talk:Centrx

This is a Wikipedia user talk page, not an encyclopedic article. Click here to leave me a message If you leave me a message, I will generally reply here unless you ask otherwise. If I leave you a message, please reply there unless it was not recent. Please sign your messages with ~~~~.

Archives

2004 – May 2006	Jun–Jul 2006	Aug 2006	Sep 2006
Oct 2006	Nov 2006	Dec 2006	Jan 2007
Feb 2007	Mar 2007	Apr 2007	May 2007
Jun–Dec 2007	2008

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit War and 3 RR violation on Ayn Rand page

Hi Centrx,

An edit war has broken out at the Ayn Rand article. It was frozen by an admin Dec. 31st to stop an edit war. The minute it was unfrozen a group of editors began making changes without seeking any consensus. A request for comment was followed to establish a consensus that these few editors needed to obtain consensus before making changes on such a contentious article. The RfC was to request that page go back to the state it was in when frozen and to start from there with all edits being discussed. Following the RfC the article was reverted and the edit war broke out.

User:TallNapoleon has reverted a great many times, here are the last three reversions of the same edit:

Revert #3 at 19:57, 11 January 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&curid=339&diff=263511266&oldid=263510266

Revert #2 at 19:40, 11 January 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&diff=prev&oldid=263508481

Revert #1 at 18:30, 11 January 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&diff=prev&oldid=263495961

It would be good for TallNapoleon to have a few days to cool off. One of the parties has filed for Mediation, and that is a good thing. I'm hoping that you can act to calm things down and set things straight until the process of mediation can take place.

I would like to have the article put back to the state it was in on December 31st, when it was frozen, and to begin with an understanding that consensus is required before editing on this article.

Thanks for any help you can supply, --Steve (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try to keep an eye on it. At the moment, it looks stable and is substantially the same as the version protected on December 31. —Centrx→talk • 06:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Angie Debo

Greetings. Back in 2006 you deleted an article on the historian Angie Debo, as a violation of WP:copyvio. Here's a link to the log page.[1] I wasn't involved with Wikipedia at that time, but it's my impression that the offending article was essentially a cut-and-paste copy of the Oklahoma State University website's biography about her. I've been working on a more extensive and better-referenced page about Ms. Debo, and I'm now one or two more editing passes away from being worn out by the effort, and ready to post it to the mainspace. So I wanted to let you know. If you're interested, the draft is currently at User:Arxiloxos/Angie Debo (draft). I am still relatively new to Wikipedia, so please let me know if there's anything else I ought to do before posting, as a matter of procedure, custom, or courtesy. Thanks--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, you are free to post a new non-infringing article. —Centrx→talk • 22:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops

Re this edit: sorry about that! Must have been editing in a hurry; thanks for catching that. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Obama's Presidential oath transcript

You should discuss major edits, such as removing the transcript of Obama's swearing in, on the article's Discussion page before making them. Please respond to this message on the article's Discussion page: "Oath of Office of the President of the United States" under "Transcript of Obama's Oath". Thanks!210.196.89.206 (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits do not require discussion beforehand, and this is not a major edit in the context of that article. The transcript was added without prior discussion, so too can it be removed without prior discussion. —Centrx→talk • 05:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Totally-disputed-section

Template:Totally-disputed-section has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Rogerb67 (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA Wave Ruler

You deleted this page back in 2006. Would you please restore it as it is needed as a disambiguation page. Two ships have carried the name RFA Wave Ruler. When you restore the article, please change the {{disambig}} to {{shipindex}}. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Joko Beck

Can you give your opinion on the semi-protection of the above article, do you think it can be safely lowered yet? –xeno (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for bringing this page to my attention. —Centrx→talk • 01:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

no problem. i'll watchlist it just in case. cheers, –xeno (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Can we give Loser a try too? It'll probably need to go back up, but it's the only lingering WP:INDEFSEMI from 2006. –xeno (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 06:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne Boylan

The information you removed from Jeanne Boylan was well-sourced, isn't your removal a POV edit? Note: I have no connection with the article or the person. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The facts to which this section could be reduced, are apparently well-sourced, but the article itself characterizes the subject in a specific light that is not substantiated by the sources, and were written by an evidently involved and motivated person [2]. It is possible that these facts neutrally described belong in a comprehensive article on this person, but presently this section, the bulk of the article, is designed to string a series of specific facts, for one specific purpose: to establish an original conclusion to defame a living person. —Centrx→talk • 04:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think the removal should have been discussed on the Talk page, but I don't have a strong concern. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Undelete Integrated Conflict management System(s)?

A colleague of mine says she long ago posted an article on ICMS (integrated conflict management systems).... I do not know why it was deleted, but this is a good topic right now because there has been a lot of research and interesting debates that could be summarized. Could that article be found and might I be permitted to work on it to see if it can be rescusitated properly? It relates to half a dozen other article on WP.

Please respond on my private talk page if that is possible (I am still learning how to work on wikipedia, so please forgive me if I mis-step?) Rainsound (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected user talk pages

I see you objected to a change to the protection policy back in November. You may be interested in contributing to a discussion regarding this at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages: should policy require an unprotected subpage?. –xeno (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Centrx were you able to find the old deleted article see # 65? Rainsound (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Centrx... Rainsound (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ed (text editor)

Your modification, with note 'ed "is the" standard text editor? unlikely', is not a matter of opinion, it's a quote from the original ed man page.

You thinking that the claim is "unlikely" is original research at best, and is contradicted by the famous citation in any case.

The article appears to be faulty in not giving a reference to the original ed man page (at first glance, I see only a link to the GNU ed man page), but trust me, millions of people have seen the original, and the quote is quite famous (famous enough to be the basis for the humor page of the same name ["standard editor"] that *is* linked in the article).

I'll add a link to the original ed man page at some point. Dougmerritt (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied at Ed (text editor). —Centrx→talk • 07:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Logged policy violation for MOS:DAB links-confuse-readers

For the MOS:DAB guideline, I have reviewed your objections from 3 years ago & agree with your viewpoints (see: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)/Archive_28#One link per entry?). Now, it's been 5 years, but we have new policy WP:Consensus, so I have issued a declaration on the talk-page that claiming a reader's "small mind" would be confused (by 2 wikilinks on a line) is an insult to the readership, and leaving that text in the MOS:DAB guideline will violate WP:Consensus, since I strongly oppose the wording and there is no current consensus. At least, people will no longer simply laugh at Wikipedia and conclude that all Wikipedia editors think that readers are stupidly confused. You do not need to join the discussion; this is just a note that the problem has been formally logged. -User_talk:Wikid77, 12:51, 16 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.214.44.50 (talk)

NY towns

[3] Let's leave the names in for now, please. They are so few (thankfully so far) that they are notable enough for a one-off mention, if the California counties are. rootology (C)(T) 16:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:2009 H1N1 flu outbreak. —Centrx→talk • 17:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine flue totals in NY

wasn't the total infected with the swine flu 75 in NY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.30.161 (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

All sources yesterday reported 75. New York Daily News reports today 150, though I am increasingly skeptical of that article. I will try to find more information. —Centrx→talk • 18:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 H1N1 flu outbreak

Stop deleting cited information at the article! Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Green Squares (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I do not know what you are referring to. If as your edit summary implies you are referring to New York flu count totals, I do not believe I have deleted any such information. If you are referring to some other cited information, in general I refer you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: That some statement can be cited somewhere, does not mean the statement belongs in an encyclopedia.
• The template you used here, {{test3}} is for warning against deliberate vandalism, not for threatening good-faith contributors because you disagree with them. See Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. —Centrx→talk • 01:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to the "Countries affected" you recently re-added, this change was already explained and discussed on the talk page, at [4]. If you repeatedly re-add this information without discussion--and you have done so without any explanation at all in your edit summaries--you are the one acting inappropriately and in violation of Wikipedia policy, in a way that frequently results in blocks. For more information, see Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Talk page, Wikipedia:Edit war, and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. —Centrx→talk • 01:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Good call on the "Pandemic concern" edits [5] and [6]. For the record, the human-to-human one was not an intentional "original construction", just my failure to distinguish between influenza virus transmission and flu transmission. As for the second, there should probably be a paragraph on containment in a different section. --Zigger «º» 06:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

H151 & Dr. Wilson

Ping. You want to attack his source for the good bits for our purposes? I just posted more on that section. rootology (C)(T) 01:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get to this. It's tough enough just to do the rest of the logistics of the articles and keep nonsense out. —Centrx→talk • 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum

Hi, I just dropped by this article to Stub-sort it and was surprised that such a well known phrase only had this minimal stub. Looking at its history, I see you've in effect split most of its content off into Proof by contradiction and put the rest on the talk page. As you're obviously familiar with the topic, could you please move that material back into the article so that we don't end up with useful content removed from the encyclopedia? I'd have a go myself, but am not familiar enough with the subtleties of what is, and isn't, reductio ad absurdum. Thanks. PamD (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

These two articles are supposed to be on two separate topics, one the mathematical proof and one the general form of argument, though "proof by contradiction" has been rarely called "reductio ad absurdum". I will work on reductio ad absurdum more, though I was wary because the existing content copied to the talk page is speculation near original research, and unsourced. —Centrx→talk • 20:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a spiel at http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reductio.htm which might be useful, and the Oxford English Dictionary has:

2. reductio ad absurdum: reduction to the absurd (see REDUCTION 9b). Also with superl. reductio ad absurdissimum (the most absurd, the greatest absurdity).

1741 I. WATTS Improvement of Mind I. xiii. 181 The Respondent may be attack'd either upon a Point of his own Concession, which is call'd Argumentum ex concessis, or by reducing him to an Absurdity, which is call'd Reductio ad absurdum. 1824 J. S. MILL in Westm. Rev. II. 34 This we admit: and we regard it as a decisive reductio ad absurdum of his own argument. 1865 {emem} Exam. Hamilton's Philos. iv. 44 Hegel..has fairly earned the honour..of having logically extinguished transcendental metaphysics by a series of reductiones ad absurdissimum. 1896 G. B. SHAW Our Theatres in Nineties (1932) II. 170 Madame Sarah Grand's position is a reductio ad absurdum of our whole moral system. 1931 Times Educ. Suppl. 10 Jan. 9/4 A reductio ad absurdissimum is seen in the fact that an aspirant for employment in a business house, who has actually qualified for exemption from matriculation by virtue of the subjects endorsed on his school certificate, is not infrequently informed that his application cannot be entertained unless he produces the actual matriculation certificate. 1939 Canadian Forum July 126/2 It..may prove to be no more than the reductio ad absurdum of his own introspectiveness. 1955 Times 23 June 11/3 When the House of Commons regards even nationalized boards as little more than civil servants, and piles a committee on top of their committee we approach the reductio ad absurdum. 1963 [see Christocentricity s.v. CHRISTO-]. 1969 L. RUBY Art of Making Sense (rev. ed.) viii. 84 Here is a more complex sample of the reductio ad absurdum. 1976 Times Lit. Suppl. 3 Dec. 1522/4 Whether the result represents anything more than a reductio ad absurdum of the traditional musicological pastime of theme-spotting. 1977 Time 7 Feb. 51/1 Reductio is always ad absurdum.

... in case any of that is any use? (I suppose this is copyvio of OED, but I don't think it matters much on a talk page) PamD (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

IEP very useful thanks. OED less useful because it doesn't support much beyond a dictdef. —Centrx→talk • 21:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for editors to stop being so stupid

I have nominated Wikipedia:Requests for editors to stop being so stupid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- IRP ☎ 03:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

T:ITN

[7] – Isn't "fatality" more formal? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Medical researchers in recent times often use this word, but it an obfuscation and is not the historical meaning of the word. The word may be useful as medical jargon to clarify individual instances of fatalities as opposed to sometimes general or figurative use of the word "death", or for distancing in animal or human subjects the existential reality of death, or it may not. Wikipedia is not the place for obfuscation or unnecessarily invented jargon; "159 deaths" or "one death" is clear. You may note that the CDC and the WHO in all their public notices and news briefings use the word "death" not "fatality", so even if someone disagrees with the previous analysis, the word used by medical authorities is clear. —Centrx→talk • 19:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection of African American

You semi-protected African American nearly two years ago. I suggest you consider unprotecting it on a trial basis. Dfeuer (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread regarding the article Notability and its repeated deletion/undeletion

I have opened up an ANI thread regarding this issue, which you were involved in. Find a link here. Oren0 (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability is up at RfD, now; since you have an opinion, here, I thought you might like to know. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

B64 Unblocked

Hi,

Thanks for unblocking me. It seems to me unethical to have the page edited back to it's pervouis state when I was trying to reorganize Swanson it to two pages since they aren't part of the same company. I didn't mean a personal attack to s/he, I was trying to show that in the prevouis listing it said that the artical should be cleaned up and I was trying to do that. Thanks again B64 (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

United States Courts of Appeals

The capitalization of this article (and also United States district court has been discussed in the past. I originally was in favor of capitalization, but I was convinced by the arguments of others that although an individual court is the "United States Court of Appeals for the Nth Circuit", the generic name of the courts is the "United States courts of appeals." Among other things, note that this is how the term is written in the United States Code. I do think you should have reviewed the discussion on the Talk page before moving, and I would encourage you to revert the move and re-open the discussion if you still think a move is appropriate. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The motivation for my move was the plural, so you can revert the capitalization if that is correct. However, it would seem that the previous discussion may have been defective if they got the plural wrong. —Centrx→talk • 16:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the U.S. Code seems to uniformly use "United States Courts of Appeals", but "courts of appeals" without United States. —Centrx→talk • 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:United States Courts of Appeals.

District of Columbia v. Heller

I am proposing to partially undo your edit on this article.

You have reinserted comments from lower court judges under the heading "Scholarly Commentary".

Law professors are scholars, lower court judges are not, by definition.

Lower court judges are bound by the decision, there is no higher court than the Supreme Court, so their comments fall under the category of "sour grapes".

Wimania (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Posner is a law professor. Writings outside court opinions are not bound by precedent. There is no definition of scholar that prohibits lower court judges. There is no reason to categorically deny Richard Posner, a professor, prodigious author on intricate subjects, and an eminent intellect, as a scholar. There is no evidence that their writings are motivated by animosity. Even if we supposed that their writings were not scholarly, the main purpose of the heading "Scholarly Commentary" is to avoid the "Commentary" of random pundits and blowhards; it could be changed to "Legal Commentary". The reasons given for excluding these people, both of whom are authors and professors past and present, are utterly without merit. —Centrx→talk • 15:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Posner is *judge* for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He is a *lecturer*, not a *law professor*, at University of Chicago Law School. He is a classical Second Amendment liberal who supported the collectivist view of the Second Amendment along with such luminaries as Alan Dershowitz. He lost.

He was sufficiently incensed at losing that he wrote what amounts to an opinion piece in the "New Republic", hardly a scholarly journal:

http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=d2f38db8-3c8a-477e-bd0a-5bd56de0e7c0

complaining about it. His personal opinion is interesting but it's not a scholarly opinion. The definition of "scholarly" in the OED precludes it. There are no scholarly citations, no references, no cites to prior law.

Yes, he has an opinion. If and when he become a Supreme Court Justice and the majority of that Court agrees with it, it will be worth reading.

"Evidence of animosity" is not required to preclude lower court judges' various personal opinions if the section is "Scholarly Opinion". However, his article cited above *is* evidence of animosity.

The various pre-decision positions are well laid out. The phrase "utterly without merit" simply indicates your personal bias. When you can construct a connectitude of facts strung together by some logical structure supporting a conclusion, it will become an argument.

Yes, many people were disturbed by the decision. No, that doesn't make it "Scholarly Commentary". The various attempts to reargue a moot case indicate some lack of understanding of the authority of the decision.

Posner's unhappiness over being overruled should be removed.

Wimania (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The OED definition of "learned" and "erudite" fit well with Posner generally. You seem to have no idea of my opinion on the underlying subject, and I do not know what Posner's opinion on the subject is. I have not read the article he wrote and I do not know why you think it is a problem. Simply, the purpose of the section is clear and Posner's status as a scholarly intellectual is clear. You need to explain what conflict there is between the section's purpose and the commentary deleted. Posner disagreeing with the court decision is no reason to exclude the commentary. —Centrx→talk • 05:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:District of Columbia v. Heller.

Cross-namespace redirects

As someone who was actually involved in the editing of the essay being bandied about, perhaps you'd like to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 14#WP:ISOL. I'd ask Rossami and Zoz as well, but they appear to be inactive. Uncle G (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:OP

Greetings, I'm just trying to get a current feel for who is still active in the project and if anybody would object to cleaning out inactive users of the verified user list. Thank you for your time. Q ^{T C} 03:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not currently active on the project. Note: I recently acted upon a message sent from someone requesting unblock, probably found through that list. It may be best to delete only those users that are inactive on Wikipedia generally. —Centrx→talk • 04:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

RV

Before reverting all, are they really broken? -- User:Docu

Inspection reveals two major classes of page where this Check was automatically implemented: a) disambiguation pages, where a lesser section header was specifically intended; b) blatantly non-wikified pages, that need far more help than tweaking section headers.

Also, without exception, the bot did not even implement the Check correctly. It does not normalize section headers, it simply chops off one =. For example, ==== is reduced to === even if it is supposed to be == at the top level.

This analysis does not even enter the situation of general bugginess, as evidenced by the fact that it eliminated correct sub-sections in [8]; and other problems and objections on User talk:PigFlu Oink. —Centrx→talk • 19:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bell polynomials is clearly wrong as I had to do it manually myself. It would be interesting to know what caused it. a) isn't incorrect as MoS does warrant level "==" headers. I don't see a problem with b) as such articles never get fixed in one step. "====" to "===" happens with AWB too. -- User:Docu

Looks like it chopped off a level from the first level "===" and below headers it found. Not good. -- User:Docu

• General MoS does not apply to special cases in special pages. Even if the disambiguation page headers are incorrect, the proper correction is to change them to mere Bolded title as used in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), not to change them to grand section headers.
• Depending on the page, tweaking a broken page either means 1) actual errors are obscured by making the page look superficially correct, but still be wrong header-wise (e.g. [9]); or 2) little is lost by incidentally reverting a page that needs to be majorly fixed by the first editor to come along anyway.
• Unless someone will manually inspect 15000+ edits to save a handful of sound corrections, reverting all is the only way to correct the mistakes caused by an unauthorized, blatantly buggy bot. —Centrx→talk • 19:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Relativistic_wave_equations" didn't really get worse, even if your edit did bring it to the way it should be. If we can identify other cases like "Bell_polynomials" we could reverse or ask Oink to fix these. Let's see what Jarry thinks. Apparently he solve it. -- User:Docu

That particular page got worse in the sense that it was made to falsely appear in better shape than it was. Then, future editors would rather pass over it as being in good shape, rather than correcting it; or they would think that the author knew better what he was doing, thus deferring to his expert opinion. I am looking for a better example of how this kind of change may cause actual, non-formatting errors in an article. - Centrx→talk • 20:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that my expertise is merely in making a working, above board, version of Oink's script. That is, one which does not mangle headers, instead preserving the ToC.

That being said, my opinions are thus: a) disambiguation pages, where a lesser section header was specifically intended; - er, in other words, an automated fix would make the article appear worse but from an accesibility point of view. Hmm. b) blatantly non-wikified pages, that need far more help than tweaking section headers. - Now here, I disagree. Every little does help on a wiki, in my opinion. I mean, what are we covering up that people can't see for themselves?

Unfortunately though, the bottom line is that I can't fix Oink's edits now they're done - only recreate them, better, if you wanted to revert all. (With whatever logic was decided upon, naturally.) Sorry. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In general, whether a page is well-formatted, wikified, has citations, even if the formatting is wrong, the links are irrelevant, and the citations are to bogus sources; has a significant effect on: a) the credibility readers assign to the page, b) whether editors think it needs cleanup or rewrite.

For a strong example, copyright violations are blatantly obvious when it is just copy-pasted text (which, incidentally, will often have wrongly formatted headers). Yet, when a naive do-gooder or a series of automated scripts or bots "cleans up" the page, without evaluating its content, the copyright violation suddenly becomes much less recognizable. Lesser examples abound, from schoolchildren adding misspelled articles to a new user creating his first page.

Section heading and other automated fixes, are suitable for medium- to high-quality articles. When considering whether to revert mass edits mainly to low-quality articles, the value of automated fixes on those low-quality articles is not better than neutral, especially when many such articles will be deleted or entirely re-written. —Centrx→talk • 20:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to identify the pages with more than 4 headers? It could limit considerably the number of pages to check. -- User Docu

This would probably require a script that reads every page. —Centrx→talk • 20:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

For a strong example, copyright violations are blatantly obvious when it is just copy-pasted text (which, incidentally, will often have wrongly formatted headers). I am yet to see a great number of copyvios which have any wikiformatted headers at all. They tend to be text-only or html headers, which would of course be avoided. Lesser examples abound, from schoolchildren adding misspelled articles to a new user creating his first page. Huh? Why's it not an improvement to fix the header system, if they've already have a go at it themselves? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations is a general example of the associated problems. An automated script of another type will probably be invented to fix ALL-BOLD headers similar to the current one. I am not sure what you mean in the second part:

• A school-band or in-joke article is plainly wrong for Wikipedia, and is obvious when it has misspellings or poor formatting. When converted to the Wikipedia format, editors may easily pass it by and it appears to readers like a legitimate article.
• When a new user creates his problematic first article, many fixes other than section headers are necessary including helping the new user who is otherwise just going to continue creating poor articles. It is almost zero-cost for the editor already fixing the article to tweak the section headers as he goes. There is no appreciable loss to reverting the bot's section header fixes, amongst the many other things not fixed, when the alternative cost is leaving thousands of other broken pages or spending dozens of man-hours inspecting every one. —Centrx→talk • 20:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try to sort it out by tomorrow. -- User:Docu

Well, if you revert them anyways, there isn't really a point -- User:Docu

I'll stop. I didn't think you meant to fix the existing ones.

One problem, of course, is that subsequent edits whether they be vandalism or the best of revisions, will occlude the revert.

I'm not sure how the existing edits can be fixed in detail. Let me know what happens. —Centrx→talk • 21:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

#Result. Let's see what he says. -- User:Docu

My bot's just been approved for a trial, automatically correcting headline hierarchies, and I wanted to just let you know what the process was, for the record. The bot will correct, and only correct, instances where people have tried to use wiki-headlines, but have not used them correctly. At all times will the bot preserve the ToC. For now I will also write in an exception for disambiguation pages, and the template-with-a-section header mentions above. Would these allay your concerns? I really haven't seen many schoolboy jokes that use section headers and where changing the levels of those headings makes it any harder for the newpage-patroller to hit their CSD button. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Railway stations in Bolivia, etc.

Please see Talk:Railway stations in Congo‎.

Tabletop (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Railway stations in Congo. —Centrx→talk • 05:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I am curious why you used rollback on this edit? To me, it doesn't appear "blatantly unproductive" as the editor was making sure the article was following the Manual of Style.--Rockfang (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This was one in a general reversion of mass bot edits that were partly erroneous. Please correct the section headers as you see fit. —Centrx→talk • 18:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

PMI

Hi, I have commented on your respons. I like to clear this situation, and I would value your comment. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your staight forward comments. I would be nice if we could come up with a none commercial intro, and I am ready to put more effort in it. I guess I do needs some guidence here, and I am happy with all comments you can give me. I have made some further suggestions. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I made some more minor changes to the articles, and added some more command on the talkpage. I have already removed the primary source tag and would like to remove the adverttag also. I have proposed this on the talk page. I would appreciate if you will take other look and give your opinion. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Theodore Kaczynski

Centrx,

You were involved in editing Theodore Kaczynski before it was fully protected. Your thoughts and comments would be welcome on the talk page, as nothing much seems to be happening but the page is still locked. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

copyvio tagging of Cyrk (Art)

Hi,

While investigating a stale CorenSearchBot report in the context of WP:COPYCLEAN, I noticed that you placed the copyvio tag on the article, and thank you for that. Just three small detail points though:

• The copyvio tag blanks the article by default, you don't actually need to replace the entire article with it. In fact, it's easier for the investigators at WP:CP if the text is still there in the tagged version.
• Just adding the tag in itself doesn't do anything until someone else has a deeper look at it. In order to complete the nomination, you also need to list the page at WP:CP - The instructions on doing so are just below the tag's header, and are simply copy / pasting one line on the current day's page.
• Last but not least, the original author who asserted copyright ownership may not be aware that just saying so on the article's talk page is enough. It is good practice to notify him about the copyvio tag you placed, and to that effect, there's another preformatted line you can simply copy-paste onto his talk page right below the instructions about listing the article at WP:CP.

I know, it would be nice if wikipedia's software did all that automatically, but until then, a bit of additional efforts are required :) I took the liberty to already complete these three steps on your behalf for the above article, though, so no further hassles on Cyrk (Art) for you. Again, thanks for taking the time to tag the article in the first place, and happy editing / patrolling.

Cheers, --MLauba (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Standard practice has always been, and good legal judgement is, that the copyvio tag must replace the prior text. The template itself has said this for years, and enforces it with code. Identified copyright violations should never be left to show on the public page. Investigators need to use the page history anyway.

2. A bot used to list pages tagged with {{copyvio}} at WP:CP, and apparently still does. (DumbBOT)

3. The original author has only edited this one article, in which he is either interested or he is not. Furthermore, it is not clear that this page belongs on Wikipedia at all as written. Being copied from a gallery website, it is not written as an encyclopedia article, and may be biased. If the original author ever returns to Wikipedia, he will need to entirely re-write the page regardless of the copyright status.

—Centrx→talk • 00:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

1 The copyvio tag does blank the page no matter how. The template says it does. The instructions atWP:CP#Instructions specify again that the copyvio tag blanks the page. There is no mention anywhere that you should replace the content.

3 I don't think the amount of contributions made by a potentially infringing editor should have any bearing on whether he should be notified that there is a copyright issue with an article or not - on the contrary, a new editor might benefit from the additional warnings included in his talk page message. That the article itself may not pass the GNG after the copyvio is addressed is quite likely, but again, how is a new editor to know about that if nobody communicates with him?

Good day to you.

MLauba (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyrk (Art) redux

Complete comments at article's talk page but here's the short of it in case the talk page leaves under G8:

• Permission was given at [10] between the CSB report and Moonriddengirl's investigation following the listing at WP:CP.

• The GFDL lock-out date for content added after November 1st, 2008 will only be in force as per June 15th

• The article was still being edited as recently as today

• Considering we're talking about an art school spanning half a century and several different artists, I'm a bit skeptical that this would have been a clearcut G11 case.

I respectfully request that you reconsider and undelete, if only to give it the other 4 days during which the license appears legit. MLauba (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that http://contemporaryposters.com/story/story.php is the original or that the purported licensure is authorized. The copyvio tag was deleted without explanation, in the edit summary, the talk page, or WP:CP. Two weeks have passed since the tag was added. If the topic is important and the article is active, it is more important that the copyright infringement be eliminated quickly: unless the page is completely rewritten, their work will need to be deleted, whether on June 15, or upon a diligent investigation of the copyright status, or when the actual copyright holder contacts Wikipedia to have it deleted. —Centrx→talk • 01:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, would you agree to restore the article to my userspace, eg at User:MLauba/Cyrk so that I get the page history then immediately replace the content with the courtesy blanking tag? I believe the latest additions to be non-infringing and worth salvaging and would like the opportunity to do so. If you agree to this, do please also indicate what steps you would consider appropriate before the rewritten version goes back to article space (review by yourself, full DRV, etc...). Thanks. MLauba (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

could i get you opinion

Just wondering if I could get you opinion on something Talk:Manchester mayoral election, 2009 (New Hampshire) is where the discussion is. So there is an disagreement between me and another editor on what the page should be I believe it should be the one posted above and he thinks it should be Manchester, New Hampshire mayoral election, 2009 just wondering if you could contribute thanks Gang14 (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright & fair-use rationale of SVGified logo - new policy on SVGified images needed

You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#File:Man Utd FC .svg. Your comments & suggestions is very much appeciated Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:RMlink

Template:RMlink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jafeluv (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Chaoticum" Copyright Question

If I own the rights to something published online, as in it's all my information that I typed up, why would the wikipedia still cite Deletion of an article that has some of this same information? Or in other words, does my ownership mean nothing if it's in two different places? If it's a matter of proving that we are the owners of the information online how might we go about doing that to your satisfation? All such consideration aside I would like to add another article concerning the band "Chaoticum", but seem unable to. As I am new to the working of the wiki-pages any help in any of these areas would be most appreciated.

76.210.226.160 (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Redeyessoul (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

1. For instructions on establishing that the copyright holder releases the content under the appropriate licenses, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Copyright owners. (See also Wikipedia:Copyrights.)

2. Even if the content is released under the right license for Wikipedia, the topic or the text may not be usable on Wikipedia:

a) A description written by band members or for promotional purposes on MySpace may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. It may need to be re-written. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

b) Wikipedia articles need to be substantiated by reliable published third-party sources. There may not be enough reliable sources for an article on the band. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability.

—Centrx→talk • 21:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

2012 Election Need Your Feedback

I noticed you were a regular editor on the 2008 election page. Myself and other editors are odds on some edits we are trying to make to the page. Since you have already been involved in probably similar discussion, we would greatly appreciate hearing your feedback on the 2012 election discussion page under the Republicans and Ruled Out discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Republicans.3F

David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

section headers at Huckleberry (disambiguation)

I'm a bit puzzled by this edit. Is there any reason for an exception to the usual rule of two equals signs for a See also header? (Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and footers). Kingdon (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages do not use large section headers. They are either simply bolded or level 4 headers. —Centrx→talk • 17:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair

Over two years ago you put a semiprotection on this article, which you noted was the subject of external attempts to manipulate the content. You also referred to the arbitration case of 2005. As it's been a couple of years now I've made a note on the talk page asking for opinions as to the article's stability to see whether semiprotection is still needed. --TS 00:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Ullo again!

You are one of three admins who have put this article under semiprotection in 2006-7, and it's been under semiprotection ever since. To see if it's still thought necessary I've opened a discussion to review, on the talk page. --TS 03:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Participation in Wikipedia Research

Centrx,

Your Request for Adminship (RfA) process was reviewed and studied by our research team at Carnegie Mellon University early in our project to gain insights into the process. We reviewed what voters discussed about your case, and what qualifications you brought to the table as a candidate. In total 50 cases were personally read and reviewed, and we based our further research questions in part on your case.

In continuing our research, I would like to personally invite you to participate in a survey we are conducting to get perspective from people who have participate in the RfA process. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

This survey is part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.

CMUResearcher (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Dictators

You commented in the last Article for deletion discussion. This article is up for deletion again.

You are welcome to comment about the discussion for deletion. Ikip (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Tundish

Hi. While I feel that your edits to the tundish article are constructive, they appear to be dictionary definitions. As such, I proposed that they be moved to the Wiktionary. I would have just reverted the edit, but I see that you are an established user, so I don't want to start any hard feelings. If you feel that your definitions of a tundish are notable enough for an article, then they ought to be put into their own articles, as they have nothing to do with the metalworking topic. Let me know your thoughts. Wizard191 (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS subject requests deletion

Information that the subject requested deletion should not be made public, as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firdous Bamji. OTRS are private communications and such revelations can cause further trouble for the person. —Centrx→talk • 04:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of OTRS policy; please see message 3 in the ticket where the subject consented to this revelation. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the block of User:Swrocket may be somehow OTRS-related, but it's not clear at this point why the situation reached the point of an indefinite block without any prior discussion. You may want to clarify to the extent that it's appropriate. Dekimasuよ! 11:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please unprotect Multicol-break and Multicol-end templates

Hello. I'm trying to use the semi-protected template on one of my Lithuanian articles. In order to do so, I must create analogous template to the protected one. But I can't do that, because I can't see the template. Please unprotect it temporarily. Thank you. Shakurazz (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I realized that Template:Col works fine for me. But, anyway, thanks for answering :) Shakurazz (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

About my erroneous warning

Looked to me like User:74.104.96.51 was deleting every American flag he could find. Later I found him deleting every flag he could find. Why is it okay to remove the flags? As far as I can see in the mentioned document, it's okay to put the flag next to the name of the country. It is not inappropriate use. I agree it goes too far to call it vandalism. The most it might have been was a mis-edit. Sorry for that. Now about the reverts you did. Again, why should the flag not be there, next to the country name, inside the info box? I do find the reverts you did unnecessary. --MarioR 16:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tom Fulp

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tom Fulp. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Fulp. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Average frustrated chump

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Average frustrated chump. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average frustrated chump (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

small question

Why flags cannot be used in infoboxes like Template:Infobox Legislature Historic? I see nothing wrong, since most flags (incl. Russian) are freely licensed. Seryo93 (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

At best, these flags are needless decoration. At worst, they misrepresent the topic, often by inflating the article with nationality or by using flags of the wrong time period or for nations not yet existing. Therefore, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) states that icons and flags specifically need an encyclopedic purpose not purely decorative, should not emphasize nationality without good reason, and especially warns against rewriting history. The primary appropriate purposes for flags are in tables for international sporting events and military conflicts. —Centrx→talk • 14:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces

I mentioned your name in a new discussion thread at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Conflict_regarding_non-breaking_spaces. You might want to weigh in with your opinion. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Beth "Beez" McKeever

I'm curious as to why the page for Beez was deleted from Wikipedia. Was she not prestigious enough to be in the encyclopedia or was there some sort of faulty content in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg2904 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Tu quoque cleanup

Hi Centrx, you placed a cleanup tag on this article 11 months ago (diff), after which there have been various changes. I've removed the tag but if you still think the article should be flagged this way please could you re-add the tag and summarize the outstanding issues on the talk page? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

New consensus for Good article template

Can you restore the Template:Good article which you deleted in 2006? A new consensus strongly supports its inclusion in good articles: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good articles#Should GA and A-class articles be recognisable through a symbol on the article page?. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No need for action: the task has been done. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Boston Gay Men's Chorus

Why was the Boston Gay Men's Chorus page deleted? I was about to create one, and it said to check with you first. Other Gay Men's Choruses have entries.

TheBilby (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC) TheBilby

The previous text of the article was a copyright violation. A new article may be appropriate for this topic, if there are sufficient reliable published sources on the topic. —Centrx→talk • 03:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help founder proposal

A request for comment has begun on the subject of Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help founder proposal.

This notification was sent to all users listed in the IRC channel as an operator or above, and group contacts.  Chzz  ►  01:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Darrin McGillis

Way back when we both created the Darrin McGillis page and now due to politics the page is on its way to being deleted. Why dont you chime in if you have a minute. Thanks--Dymo400 (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Beth "Beez" McKeever

Why did you delete the page for Beez Mckeever? She is also the star of an upcoming interactive movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg2904 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No article with these names found. —Centrx→talk • 03:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary on microsoft

Days ago, you meantioned "this is a featured article?" in your edit summary. I'm back from a 3-year wikibreak and have been working on restoring the and improving the article, and it's been up for peer review for a few days and would appreciate any comments you might have about the current version at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Microsoft/archive3. RN 08:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My remark may have been injudicious. Correct wording and succinct description are important. —Centrx→talk • 03:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

New YACHT_(Band) Page

Hello Centrx, just wanted to let you know that I re-created (and rewrote) the YACHT (Band) page as YACHT is now a group. I'm still cleaning up the page, but just wanted to let you know! Thanks, Kmikeym (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Very old block

A request for unblock has been made by an editor you blocked 4 years ago. The unblock request is at User talk:Jokersflame. Comment if you like: if you don't I shall assume you have no opinion, which after this much time will not surprise me. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Superfly and AC

On 7Nov2006, you deleted Superfly. I thought you might have an opinion about AC Entertainment as well, since they are co-producers of several projects. I left a comment on the talk page:

Commercial ad?

"I don't wish Mr. Capps any ill will, but, as much as I like to have ready info about festivals, this looks like self-promoting advertising. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia. What do others think?"

I noticed it's part of WP:Tennessee. Just doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me, but there seem to be more and more articles like this on WP. (I unlinked Superfly on two pages where it was a see link.) You're welcome to reply here or on my page. Thanks for all your hard work.

Ragityman (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/template listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/template. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/template redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Chemical substances

Category:Chemical substances, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

AOL rangeblocks

Per discussion at AN Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Very_old_rangeblocks some old range blocks are being reexamined. Since according to WP:AOL those ranges are no longer open proxy, I've unblocked them (check my logs; you were the one that blocked every range I unblocked, except CSCWEM one, but they haven't edited since 2008). If you find issue with these unblocks then you can reblock. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 15:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tom Fulp

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tom Fulp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There Once Was a Boy Named Boris

Mr. Centrx (CentrX?), I have linked to your user page in order to provide my minions with important information while my user page is under construction. I hope this is in accordance with your best wishes and interests. See: User:MisterRichValentine. MisterRichValentine (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)