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

Linux

Please can you unlock Linux, I can monitor the edit war. frummer 13:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not whether there would be someone to "monitor" it, but, but that there would be an edit war at all. I've unprotected it, but we'll see what happens. —Centrx→talk • 22:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Flagicons

Please stop your continued effort to rid Wikipedia of these icons. They are transcluded on thousands of pages (see here), and neither policy nor guideline supports your actions. If you wish to start a policy discussion, please do so in the appropriate place rather than on each individual article. Continuing to remove these because of your personal preference is just not appropriate and is against the community aspect of Wikipedia. You have accused me of wikistalking for searching out where you have deemed consensus in this subject, but I am still unable to find it. If/when you begin this discussion, I'll gladly join in. AuburnPilot^talk 01:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Manual of Style, as well as the majority of articles in which editors have decided against flagicons. This is not personal preference. You have had the opportunity to explain why these icons are appropriate, but you have not explained it. —Centrx→talk • 01:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On the two pages you provided above, there is absolutely Zero mention of flagicons. I did find a link to what can barely be called a discussion here. 5 editors, included yourself, made a a few posts on the subject but the discussion didn't go anywhere. In a section a few paragraphs up, there's a little more discussion. Many users there seem to agree to their use in certain situations, while others believe it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Very few if any of the editors who took part in the discussion believed they should be removed entirely. So, I'm still unable to find the consensus to remove them. I believe flagicons should be included as they are now, because they allow for quick recognition of countries, they are visually appealing on often text only templates, provide a link to the country's flag (obviously), and are no more redundant that any of the other info. From another standpoint, there are many flags I didn't know until I began seeing them as flagicons here on Wikipedia. These provide an additional association between the country and its flag. If you don't wish to start the policy discussion, point me in the right direction. Without clear guidelines, this debate is not likely to go away. AuburnPilot^talk 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography discussion appears to have reached a consensus, and you would also be hard pressed to find featured articles that use these flags, whereas there are dozens on biographies, television programs, etc. that all have infoboxes with locations in them, but no flag icons. Wikipedia:Images is about the use of images; they are not navigational tools and the use of these flags does not conform to that page. Wikipedia:Manual of Style talks about images and its subguidelines talk about appropriate linking.

Regarding reasons to have them:

• When used in situations where the names of the country are already present, they are redundant. I don't know what you mean by "they are not more redundant than any of the other redundant info". Infoboxes are specifically an overview of vital information and summarize information that may be found pages deep in the article. There are other problems with infoboxes, but they do not except with these flags have any redundant information in them, and for these navigation templates this is even more true.
• The country's flag is totally irrelevant to the "War on Terrorism", or to a biography on a person that had nothing to do with government, or hated the flag, or (and this happens frequently because of zealously adding flags unnecessarily) the flag did not even exist when they were alive.
• The template or infobox as a whole becomes visually unappealing and unbalanced, because only the locations end up with images. This is an encyclopedia, not a picture book.
• Adding interesting but irrelevant images by which you notice a new flag that you did not know before is not the purpose of these templates. All manner of interesting but irrelevant information and images could be added to articles. Template:War on Terrorism is a navigation template; it is for efficiently helping the reader find related articles (and the countries as whole entries are problematic anyway, the Norman conquest is irrelevant to the War on Terrorism but you will find out about by clicking "England"). For the same reason, an article on Oxygen does not suddenly chime in and say "Did you know Oxygen is the name of a music festival in Ireland?"; this is not Pop-up Video. You can see a similar issue on Wikipedia:Vandalism, where people wanted to add an image at odds with the purpose of the page, [1]. —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding debate, debates go away by people discussing reasons and being convinced by those reasons, not by appealing to the authority of a guideline though this use of flag icons is at odds with guidelines on images and standard practice with regard to images, navigation, templates, and infoboxes. The people who read that WikiProject Biography discussion are fairly convinced, and that includes all the people who read it and, agreeing with it, did not add further comments. All the many articles that have infoboxes with locations but no flags, specifically all the featured articles I could find, are evidence of people convinced. —Centrx→talk • 02:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Halellujah! Can we get rid of WP:FLAGCRUFT now? I'm off to add my voice to the WikiProject Biography debate if it is not too late. Carcharoth 02:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In case it is not clear, I am against using flag icons, and I thought that there had been some long debate at WP:BIO comprehensively rejecting flag icons, but I've just discovered it is that old debate. There have been longer debates elsewhere which were not so clear-cut. I would favour trying to open up a large, centralised debate on this (and maybe on infoboxes as well), and really trying to stop this slow slide into flag icon and infobox hell. How would I start such a debate? Carcharoth 02:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The locations that would make the most sense are Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (or somewhere therein). You could also create a new Wikipedia page proposal or put it under WP:FLAGCRUFT, but properly I think flag icons and similar issues are style issues that belong under the Manual of Style. Post notice of it on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and/or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), and possibly Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board (which goes under Wikipedia:Community portal). —Centrx→talk • 03:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, congratulations. You've convinced me. In the future, may I suggest you explain things like this when making such an action rather than adding the edit summary "See talk page" or making accusations of wikistalking? Especially if the talk page is simply you asking why they are appropriate? You more than explained your reasoning above and I am more than convinced by it. I think a lot of this could have been avoided had such a statement been made on Template talk:War on Terrorism. Incidentally, the discussion about removing the image on WP:Vandalism is actually pretty interesting; thanks for the link. Happy editing! AuburnPilot^talk 03:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And on that same note, I have reverted my last revert. AuburnPilot^talk 03:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem before was the only reason stated there about why the flags should be included was because "the other ones have it", and the natural response to that is that the other navigation templates should not have it, and then no one else gave any other reason why they should be in the template. The simple "cluttered" and "redundant" from the old discussion are, without any offsetting reasons, reason enough not to have them. —Centrx→talk • 03:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC

Pilot (House)

I've added replies to your objections to Pilot (House) becoming an FA at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pilot (House). I hope you can give your support for the article or list any other objections I can take care of. The Filmaker 03:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Portal

Hello. Can you please explain why you made those changes on Template:Portal unilaterally? The link font is nearly unreadable in its current form. --- RockMFR 03:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now changed it back to 85%. Does that correct the problem? —Centrx→talk • 06:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, much better. --- RockMFR 17:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ozomatli.jpg

Yes, understood, and thanks for the quick reply. The issue is that the artist's management had already given me a "No Rights Reserved" e-mail with regards to the article (including the image.) I had resent a specific request for specifically the image -- asking them to reply with either a No Rights Reserved or release under CC. The link to the image will now show them an edit page rather than the image under review. Is there anything that I can do to bring back this image? thanks, guyzero | talk 08:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI article as proxy for Juan Cole

Hi, I think we need some admin intervention on the MEMRI article. At the moment a mediation on the Juan Cole page is stalled and it looks like MEMRI has become the place to continue a proxy war regarding using Cole's blog as a source. It has descended quickly into personal attacks and edit warring (not quite crossing 3RR I think but certainly heading that way) and disruptive editing. I think we need some order to be established, and some experienced outside views regarding WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. I've also posted this on the incidents noticeboard but as you are familiar with the situation, you may be more helpful in helping us sort it out.

I'd also like to point out that I have referred your instructions re the V&C page at the mediation. I point this out for full disclosure, so in case you feel I've misunderstood you or the situation, you can clarify your position. <<-armon->> 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling page

hey how come you delted and protected the ohio valley wrestling roster huhh? if deep south wrestling has the roster article how come OVW doesn't!

The Deep South Wrestling should probably be deleted also. Wikipedia articles need reliable, published, third-party sources. —Centrx→talk • 22:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Old comments

Thanks for the lecture. I was trying to be light-hearted (look at some of my other comments on that page- all light-hearted). I'll update my comments, so as not to put anyone else in a bad mood. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 22:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Franzacurta

Why did you remove {{helpme}} tag, when that user obviously still has a problem ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no question asked under it and it looked like the problem above had been dealt with, but apparently not. —Centrx→talk • 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I was run out of ideas :-( I thought you were able to solve it. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, I could delete the image and he could upload one in its place, but he should have no problem uploading a replacement image anyway, without deleting. —Centrx→talk • 23:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought so, but he claims there is a mismatch with filename already exists. Very odd. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking possible on Falun Gong ?

The editing activity seems to have died down a bit, including on other Falun Gong-related pages. Any possibility of (temporarily) lifting the sysop ban on the Falun Gong entry? Thanks. Jsw663 08:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Centrx, just wondering why you never reply to my questions / posts about this entry? We've tried mediation many times but it has failed - blocking the page indefinitely cannot help discussion either. How about semi-protecting it instead? Jsw663 08:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to figure out what to do about these entries. It does look like the recent-most edit tried to whitewash some things, but why does locking the page not help discussion? —Centrx→talk • 10:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Centrx, serious discussion about the FG page content is going again. It has been over half a month since the lockdown by now. It seems as if both sides have agreed to stop the unhelpful edit warring that took place before. I suggest a temporary reversion to the relatively more neutral Fire Star's version made at 23.23 Dec 28 2006 which undoes both sides' horrendous POV and is more or less before the edit warring. Both sides have also agreed to take action (mediation cases) against those whose behavior continues to be disruptive. And finally, to answer your question about locking the page not helping discussion, it is because it has actually driven away some editors (curiously, from both sides!) as the pro-FG side relax, take a break and not discuss as their version is currently locked, and the anti-FG side desert the page as they know their discussion and points will be fruitless as whatever they propose will not be reflected on the main Wiki page. Last but not least, if Wiki were to stay encyclopedic, then the current Falun Gong version is very far from it, which is why I suggest a temporary reversion to the pre-edit war, relatively neutral version, or unlocking the sysop for a few days to see how things go, so that both sides will come back to the negotiating table. Please respond to this, thanks! Jsw663 13:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Chung Ling High School

Hi Centrx,

It is to my utter dismay to find that the article was unilaterally deleted without going through Articles for Deletion nor Proposed Deletions. I'm not sure which version of the article you viewed that made you decide to delete it, but the last time that I checked, it was informative and encyclopedic enough to have stayed on Wikipedia for well over a year. So, I kindly request that the article be reinstated, and placed in either those two options. Thanks and regards, Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 15:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I too wish to comment on the deletion of this page. As the edits may show, I am one of the major contributors to that page, and I find it seemingly unjust to delete it without a vote. Stkhoo 16:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, AfD is not a vote; it is a discussion to determine whether an article warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia. For most articles, this is based on whether there are a multitude of non-trivial reliable independent sources about the subject. This article has none whatsoever. Many articles of this kind have existed on Wikipedia, but they are eventually and invariably deleted. Wikipedia articles must have reliable published sources unaffiliated with the subject that cover the subject non-trivially, such as books, magazines, and academic journals. I would be happy to undelete the article so you can add these sources, but without them the article does not warrant being included. —Centrx→talk • 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 09:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

something I made up?

Not so fast cowboy. Try a google book search for the phrase; a cursory examination shows its use back to 1816. England does have a King once in a while. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean; I thought you meant "At His Majesty's Pleasure" was never used. Nevermind! -- Kendrick7^talk 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD that might need closing

Matthew Palmer has been nominated in error. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 07:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 07:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Palace Square

Why did you remove this talk page? Errabee 13:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Its only edits were by a banned user. While sometimes banned users can make reasonable contributions, they are prohibited from editing and it is not feasible to sort through every contribution to determine whether it is valid or whether it is a hoax, etc. I have added back the WikiProject tags. —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. Errabee 23:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Advanced Placement Gaming League

Just wondering why you deleted the protected page I placed there? Naturally, the nonsense article was created again shortly afterwards. --Stormie 22:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected-deleted pages are deleted after a time because they show up in the main namespace as articles, under Special:Random, as top results in Web searches, etc. and are also a maintenance hassle (e.g. they fill up User:Zorglbot/Shortpages). The vast majority are not re-created again. —Centrx→talk • 22:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Portmanteau, again

I have received opposition here within hours of the first time I removed the use of "portmanteau" from a page (which previously followed almost the exact same wording as the "mutated cludge" example you posted on my talk page). Any idea what I can say or how I can word it better to avoid this type of thing? This is exactly why I have the pet peeve: I was criticized for removing a "useful" link to portmanteau by removing the word completely! Somehow, I made the paragraph less useful by making it simpler. Is there some Portmanteau cult I don't know about, going around enforcing advertisement of this bloated and overcomplicated word? -- Renesis (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, it's very odd that there are so many uses—all with links—of this word on Wikipedia, when even the actual article Portmanteau is more of a bloated dictionary definition and should probably be merged into Blend (linguistics). An edit summary of "Wording" is probably not very convincing. In certain cases, the usage is not even the correct meaning of the word portmanteau, and that should be emphasized; blend is the more appropriate linguistic term and is at least understandable to readers, though combination is more natural English. Another thing to mention is that dictionary words are not linked in articles and that words are linked in the context of the subject, directing the person to WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSLINKS. Articles should adhere to these guidelines. Then, of course, hopefully the person should realize that if the article had the word without a link, few readers would know what the hell it means. —Centrx→talk • 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Arguing this point is difficult because I think the reasons not to use it should be straightforward, but the point about WP:CONTEXT/dictionary links is a good one. Just curious: what is the correct way to use "blend" in a sentence? Can it directly replace "combination" or does that cause it to lose its specific meaning as a linguistic term? -- Renesis (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for the purposes of a combination of words it appears it is the same as a blend. Portmanteau, properly, has a more particular meaning, which is why the article has that nonsense about being a "folk word"; yeah, a folk word probably made up on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 01:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

POTD

Thanks to your ignorance and laziness, another picture of a mangled penis was on the Main page. Now, thousands of readers, including hopefully your own children, have seen this image, and we will be dealing with dozens of angry e-mails on m:OTRS. This is basic stuff. Get it right. —Centrx→talk • 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't know what the point of the changes to the Picture of the day are, or why the picture of the day should be any different than all of the other templates on the Main page—it looks like it just splits up things that will always be together for no reason—but it does quadruple the work necessary for protecting the Main page POTD and the chance that incidents like this will continue to happen. I hope you will assiduously protect these pages before they are on the Main page. —Centrx→talk • 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down a little, and remain civil. I commented on the issue at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. I didn't realise it would be such an immediate issue. It doesn't, however, quadruple the work required. All that needs to be done is one copy of the template be made for the main page. Seeing as POTD required 4 copies of the template before, this seems like considerably less work to me. ed g2s • talk 01:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the old main page used only one template. —Centrx→talk • 01:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

...which need to be created manually. The four versions of the POTD template contained duplicated content but all had to be created manually. I am setting up a protected version which will need to be manually updated using a subst (there's no other way), but this system will still be much more efficient than the last. Please try not to bite at users acting in good faith. ed g2s • talk 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Where were the three other templates used? —Centrx→talk • 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User pages etc. ed g2s • talk 01:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you unprotect these templates!? You can see all the templates that are transcluded on the main page, and their protection status, by clicking on edit on the Main page and scrolling to the bottom. —Centrx→talk • 01:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

They aren't, that's just a caching mistake. ed g2s • talk 01:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please undelete Tale Ognenovski

I am copyright owner and author (creator) of web site http://www.taleognenovski.com.mk/index.html Tale Ognenovski is my father. So please undelete previous content of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tale_Ognenovski Best regards, Stevan Ognenovski E-mail: steveogn@yahoo.com E-mail: steveogn@mt.net.mk Tel. +38923061461~ Brusnik 06:00,6 January 2007 (UTC)--Brusnik 06:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The text dump is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. —Centrx→talk • 09:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing

Why did you remove semi-protection from Rafida??? Every time that's done, another round of vandalism starts up which is rather annoying and tiresome to deal with. I really, really don't see what so wrong with just leaving the article indefinitely semi-protected... AnonMoos 11:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. Articles should remain open for editing unless absolutely necessary. This is a single incident after two weeks. I have blocked the IP he used as it was an open proxy. —Centrx→talk • 11:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you also going to deal with the four accounts that have been stalking me by following me around and reverting my edits, due to the vandals's feelings of pique and spite about Rafida? Nobody has reported doing anything about this on the last 25 minutes at WP:AIV. AnonMoos 11:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you report this at WP:RFCU so that the IP(s) of the person can be determined and blocked. If the person was using only that now-blocked IP, then they will not be able to continue editing with it regardless of whether they have accounts. —Centrx→talk • 11:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This has all been gone over before -- there's no way of blocking all the IP's he might come from without blocking everybody in Bahrain. The answer is semi-protection, and since he's been sporadically garbling this article ever since Feb. 2006, it's doubtful that he's going away anytime soon. It seems to me that the duration of semi-protection should be calibrated to the probable risk of vandalism to a particular page, not an overstandardized one-size-fits-all policy. I bet that the George W. Bush article doesn't have semi-protection removed from it every eight days, but for some reason the Rafida article is less favored. But thanks for creating the conditions within which vandalism could occur, and then refusing to clean up the resulting somewhat predictable mess (of course, since my report has remained on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for over 45 minutes without any action on it being reported, it seems that no one else wants to take responsibility either). AnonMoos 12:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The George W. Bush article has more vandalism in one day when unprotected than the Rafida article has had in ten months. Two instances of vandalism after two weeks is not a major, and the circumstances that allow vandalism are in the nature of Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 12:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your actions created problems, and neither you (or anybody else at this point, it seems) is willing to take action to deal with the problems. Thanks for nothing. AnonMoos 12:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Advising

Ooppsss I've deleted the text here becuase I accidentaly caught a message button on Wikipedia Vandalproof which did not apply to you, utmost apologies... Tellyaddict^Talk 20:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page box for NOR

Hi there! Given your participation at Template talk:Talkheader, I wanted to get your opinion on something. I've been working on a draft for a proposed template in a similar vein. If you have a minute, could you head on over to User:DragonHawk/Temp1 and let me know what you think? You can comment on the talk page there. Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

WelcomeBotResearch

If you are interested in the research you can ask me in the right place, not in explaining your reverts, you can also log into the client to catch up on some very interesting stats. My mention of more details in the welcome template is unlikly to "scare" people off, and generate interest in WP:ADOPT and WikiProjects. So, plz can you ask your questions in the right place if you serious about "scaring" off the 4% of the new users who are welcomed with any sort of welcome template! frummer 09:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The place to discuss changes to the template is the template talk page. I asked there three days ago and received no response. I see no data or explanation why this would entail that the introduction to the welcome message be expanded. It has hitherto housed purely the most functional necessities common to all. If anything redundant to the lower links should be added, the first to add would be Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial; and Wikipedia:Five pillars are important as well. I also question whether the Adopt-a-user program has the capacity to deal with an influx of hundreds of new users. {{helpme}} serves a similar purpose well, and is much more scalable. It would not do to have new users follow the instructions in the Welcome template only to discover that no one is able to adopt them. It might also be good to move the WikiProject link and Adopt-a-user to the "Getting started" section of the links. —Centrx→talk • 11:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Stusutcliffe

Any chance you'd care to comment on or reply to this user's current unblock request? It seems to be related to your block on 75.3.0.0/20. Not sure if there's any other collateral damage (assuming that is in fact what this is, of course). If the disruption hasn't been too persistent, would you consider switching to AO? Luna Santin 11:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is related to the person who has been spamming the village pumps with conspiracy nonsense. I have changed the block to anon. only. —Centrx→talk • 11:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a hunch, but didn't want to assume. ;) Thanks for the time. Luna Santin 12:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

perth college, scotland deletion

Hi

You recently deleted an article on perth college, scotland (which I submitted), for a copyright violation with www.perth.ac.uk.

I am responsible for the web site too so although I originally submitted the Wikipedia article without any permission statement, what wording should I use at the end of the perth college, scotland article to confirm it's OK?

Yours

Jim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sclaff18 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

You may put a notice on the website that the text is licensed for publication under the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use, alter, and re-distribute the text. Regardless, the text is not appropriate for Wikipedia and would need to be entirely re-written, so license permission would not be sufficient. Wikipedia articles must be in a neutral point of view and must be verifiable in reliable sources independent of the subject. —Centrx→talk • 15:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for helping me! Sue H. Ping 17:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:GrubbyPhil requesting unblock

Would you mind taking a look at GrubbyPhil (talk · contribs)'s request for unblock? It certainly seems like his behavior is a bit wierd for a newly registered user, and not really appropriate, but he seems somewhat confused, in a vaguely geninue fashion, about why he was blocked. Thanks, -- Natalya 21:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He's the same person. Compare [2] to Colonel Scott deletion log, a hoax created by User:CanadianTyro ([3]), and his concern with [4], an attack page created by and solely edited by ColScott and his sockpuppets (with the exception of WP:BLP-related libel-clearing edits). —Centrx→talk • 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha, that makes it very clear. Thanks for taking the time to explain it; having dealt with ColScott, that's good to know. -- Natalya 23:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Smark (professional wrestling)

What was the issue with the article? I had it readded to my namespace and added sources and the like. It was in the process of being merged with the Smart article and unlike that article it has actual sources. Curious the rationale as to the deletion. NegroSuave 17:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources only corroborate that some people use the word and it has a dictionary meaning. They do not substantiate anything else of the article, or anything more than a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even highly reliable dictionary definitions such as from the OED and Webster would not be sufficient for an encyclopedia article. —Centrx→talk • 18:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the sources I quoted were more in the line of use in context in articles that did go into detail the smark culture. If you could userify it once more I can clarify the sources and what I was going for... I am really not the best writer I know but I believe that it is an important term in the wrestling venacular that has been covered in various publications... though these are a bit few and far between. Anyhow if you could userify it I will clarify it as best I can. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NegroSuave (talk • contribs) 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Okay. —Centrx→talk • 16:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please lend input on Pete K edit warring PLANS article

Pete K has shown little effort to edit that article responsibly. Just a day or so ago, he received a temporary ban for edit warring in this article, and he continues to aggressively revert and reject the article without justification. The talk pages are filled with excuses that are just nutty conspiracy-theory ad hominem attacks rather than constructive efforts over substantive issues. The article was part of a recent arbitration about several Waldorf related articles, and all editors were told they must remove statements that are supported by Waldorf publishers (arbitrators decided this was a self-publish issue). An edit war resulted when Pete K refused to allow me to edit out the one statement I wrote in the involved articles which had a Waldorf publisher. He has lately tried to pull some kind of fakery by substituting that Waldorf published source with a link to a Waldorf publishing house catalog with another Waldorf published book sold on it. In the last day, he concocted this crazy theory it's part of a "hate campaign" that the names of officers in PLANS are given in the article. The names have been there for months, put there by his close ally DianaW, but maybe he thought the goofy "conspiracy" objection would stick regardless. He has removed the names (not significant anyway), but is pulling a kind of Catch-22 to remove a statement about its initial recruitments. It's been there months also. He fact tagged it a day or so ago, so I diligently listed enough sources to verify all of it, and doing so required the use of the individual's names for the verification. Complaining this is part of some kind of "organized effort" to identify them, he removed most of the verification, leaving one reference only. (These people aren't a secret, they're high profile names including James Randi or Eugenie Scott who are very public people who have lent their name and the cache that goes with it to the organization). I have no idea why he left the other one because the individual's name was there, but I thought it should be removed because it by itself didn't verify the entire statement, only part of it. I didn't think the reference should mislead in that respect. Now there is a new edit war to remove the statement completely, he won't allow the reference but he won't accept the statement without it. (The statement isn't even controversial or under any real dispute. In this situation it doesn't even need the footnote.) Pete K continues to edit war, refuses to behave civilly, and tries to own the article. He has failed to abide by the arbitration decision there, and I don't know what else it will take. It is essentially impossible not to edit war with him, he will revert at whim, with any crazy excuse that comes to his head. I'd appreciate any suggestion you might have. Professor marginalia 03:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone involved should stop editing Waldorf-related articles for a long time. See [5]. This may be difficult for some single-issue editors, but editors who are so single-mindedly focused on issue are typically not conducive to writing a neutral encyclopedia article. —Centrx→talk • 12:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Centrx. I looked at the other articles involved, and the PLANS article looks almost like a peace rally in comparison to wars raging in those. You're right, and any efforts to be constructive there are just a waste of time in that kind of atmosphere. Professor marginalia 21:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, it's really amazing to read your interpretation of what happened. I think Centrx has a very good suggestion here. Why not back away and allow some neutral editors (no sense in pretending you are neutral) edit the article and bring it up to a NPOV. Your zeal in making PLANS out to be evil shows through all your edits. Step back, take a deep breath and let others repair the damage. BTW, it takes two to edit war - and you just happened to get a seat when the music stopped. It could have just as easily been you with the 3RR. Have a nice day! Pete K 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• The talk pages are filled with excuses that are just nutty conspiracy-theory ad hominem attacks rather than constructive efforts over substantive issues. No, you are indeed one of five members of AWE - an anti-PLANS group. On your website, you have made claims that PLANS is a "hate group". It's only "nutty" that you believe you can make such a claim and get away with it. That you are here, despite this polarized view, editing the PLANS article is beyond belief.

• An edit war resulted when Pete K refused to allow me to edit out the one statement I wrote in the involved articles which had a Waldorf publisher. One of the criteria is that the statement must be controversial. Since you put it in yourself, you are having trouble supporting the "controversial" part.

• In the last day, he concocted this crazy theory it's part of a "hate campaign" that the names of officers in PLANS are given in the article. The names have been there for months, put there by his close ally DianaW, but maybe he thought the goofy "conspiracy" objection would stick regardless. He has removed the names (not significant anyway), but is pulling a kind of Catch-22 to remove a statement about its initial recruitments. It's been there months also. He fact tagged it a day or so ago, so I diligently listed enough sources to verify all of it, and doing so required the use of the individual's names for the verification. Complaining this is part of some kind of "organized effort" to identify them, he removed most of the verification, leaving one reference only. (These people aren't a secret, they're high profile names including James Randi or Eugenie Scott who are very public people who have lent their name and the cache that goes with it to the organization). If you want to list the names publicly, then stop calling PLANS a "hate group" on your own web pages (while you edit here anonymously). You cannot support the "hate group" claim - and that you are connecting people by name to this type of accusation is dispicable.

• I have no idea why he left the other one because the individual's name was there, but I thought it should be removed because it by itself didn't verify the entire statement, only part of it. Dan Dugan is well known as the primary public voice of PLANS. It made no sense to remove his name.

• I didn't think the reference should mislead in that respect. Now there is a new edit war to remove the statement completely, he won't allow the reference but he won't accept the statement without it. (The statement isn't even controversial or under any real dispute. In this situation it doesn't even need the footnote.) That's why I removed it. It's a nothing statement that is not supportable. Thanks for the opportunity to clear this up. It would have been better to do this on the talk page of the article, however, as I'm certain the ArbCom is keeping an eye on those discussions. Pete K 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Dutch Mason article history

Hi I've been following the Dutch Mason article and 'watch' pointed out your change today. When I went to do a compare, all the history is gone. Is that history somewhere? Sorry if the answer is in some FAQ .. I couldn't find anything. thanks Pbythesea 03:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The text of this article was directly copied from the Canadian Encyclopedia of Music, so it had to be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 12:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize where the original content came from. The content I added though wasn't copied from the any source. For instance:

• I found the Gov Canada announcement for Order of Canada which included Dutch Mason's name and added a link to it
• added a link to a biography
• added Dutchie's 60th birthday CD (my source was the copy I have on the shelf)

If you compare Google's cached copy of the Canadian Encyclopedia (I found it using: canadianencyclopedia dutch mason) and its current .. it looks like their recent expansion came from copying Wiki :-)

Couple questions:

• google's cache'd copy is before my last set of changes, is there a way that you can give me access to copy before your deletion or .. do I have to remember them :-)
• so I don't unknowningly violate standards, was there any issue with the type of addition I did make

Pbythesea 04:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• On May 2, 1998 CBC Radio-Canada recorded live a tribute CD, Dutchie's 60th Birthday (Tidemark 02 50795), by various artists including Bucky Adams, Nova Scotia Mass Choir, Doris Mason, Sam Moon, Frank MacKay and Dutchie
• Later in life, he suffered from diabetes and severe arthritis which prevented him from playing guitar and limited his public appearances
• In 2005 On the Road With Dutch Mason by Harvey Sawler was published (Nimbus Publishing ISBN 978-1551095103)([6]).

—Centrx→talk • 04:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The only recommendation is you should cite reliable sources when you add information to an article, such as the CBC Radio-Canada. We could assume that you saw the recording or have it on disc, but it would be better to have that explicitly and to have a reference in a book or a website. —Centrx→talk • 04:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:207.88.52.2

I've fielded an inquiry regarding your unblock denial. As I am not familiar with TCPIP, could you please take a look into this? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

talkheader

Hi Centrx. I noticed your recent edits to {{talkheader}}. Would you please join the discussion in progress at Template talk:Talkheader#Click here? I'd also like ask that you read and consider Template:Talkheader#Before editing this template before taking unilateral action in the future. Thanks. —DragonHawk (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I already did and I was involved in that discussion. Until we can come up with something better, the colors and the buttons are just too gaudy. —Centrx→talk • 13:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I rather suspect you've got a point there, but my point here is that making lots of changes to this template is harmful to the Wikipedia servers (which seem to be choking right now, so this is not an idle concern). If you disagree with something, don't just start making changes; comment on talk first. If concensus is that, for example, there are too many colors, then I'll be the first to remove them. I just don't want an edit storm around this template. • You've also done more than just change colors; I've commented on that, and request your thoughts. Thanks. —DragonHawk (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If performance is a problem–though, see WP:PERF and see the job queue at Special:Statistics which is not uncommonly high; and I think having a relatively uniform user interface is more of a problem—then the template should be reverted back to what it was before the revamp. That would be the appropriate thing to do if changes like this are a problem. However, I think that the new version minus some of the contested changes is a fine immediate improvement that has more agreement, such that reverting to the older version would not be necessary. —Centrx→talk • 13:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to WP:PERF. • Ultimately, my goal with all this "Discuss first" preaching is to avoid WP:FULL/WP:HRT on {{talkheader}}. My apologizes if I was/am overzealous. • I've replied to your remarks WRT policy. I do think I understand your points, but I'd like to include something as a signpost for newbies. Thinking back to my times as a newbie in various communities, one of my biggest complaints has always been that I didn't know the rules. • Thanks for all your efforts, with this template and elsewhere. —DragonHawk (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I exist

Please undo this deletion: I do exist. Thank you! US$20 14:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 14:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Centrex,

   Many thanks for helping with my WIKI-fication on Bruce Cole's post.

Your expertise is deeply appreciated.

  Pete Daly
  NEH staffer

William Lyon Mackenzie Collegiate Institute

Hello, I understand that you have made edits to this page before because it wasn't up to Wikipedia standards (ie. the lack of sources). But recently I did add sources that were not from the school its self. I understand that not all of the information should be kept (although it is all true), but still some of the article should be left (ie the Mackenzie athletics information which does have reliable sources straight from the TDSB). I ask that you reinstate the page with at least the some of reliable information. Joesixpac 23:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability and consider whether this topic comes close to these standards. An encyclopedia cannot consist purely of sports statistics, and the only reliable information in that article was that the school exists and that there was a certain number of wins and losses for a couple of those sports within half a season. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability. —Centrx→talk • 23:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

On the Recent Changes page, why are there positive and negative numbers beside each edit? Diez2 23:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

These numbers represent the number of bytes added to or subtracted from the page in that edit. This can be useful for guaging how significant an edit is, or whether the edit blanked significant amounts of text, for example. —Centrx→talk • 23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

isothetic

Yes and no. PlanetMath is wrong (not to say the article is unreferenced :-) and hence cannot be a reliable source for us). I am aware of some slippery slopes here, I started the article but I don't have time to find good refs; I even forgot that I didn't write it and probbaly brainlessly hit the "save" button creating a weird page. I turned it into a redirect for now. `'mikka 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Redirect Delete template

Would it be possible to put the "speedy" template on the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page's infobox. Either under the "speedy" category, or under the "Redirect" category? The other article speedies are listed, but this one isn't. There isn't an easy way to find the {{db-r1}} template! SkierRMH 01:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's {{db-redirnone}}. —Centrx→talk • 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Alienus

i noted this [7]. What is the evidence that Alienus is using sockpuppets? On my talk page, please Geo. 06:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you request Checkuser? They could possibly identify a main IP. Geo. 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser gives the IP(s) that have used a username recently. Since he was mostly making IP edits, using proxies of some sort, rather than user accounts, this would not identify a "main" IP. The IPs are already revealed and we could check ourselves if necessary, but an old hacked machine on Road Runner is indistinguishable from a Alienus' home computer. A checkuser could have been run to identify if any additional user accounts other than those already known had used those IPs, that is sockpuppet accounts, but it probably would have been denied as not being necessary. Checkuser requests for obvious sockpuppets are typically denied because there is no need for them, as obvious sockpuppets can be blocked without a checkuser request. I think this would be especially true if one were to ask to check 15 IP addresses. Anyway, the checkuser data for that time period has expired so there is nothing we can do about it now. For the same reason, a checkuser on the User:Alienus account would not have yielded any results because that account had no edits for months. —Centrx→talk • 16:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Did the Arbcom case include a stipulation allowing indef block? thanks for your time. Geo. 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom always and only bans for one year, though the ban resets anytime a person evades the ban, which means that anyone who does not abide by it has an effectively indefinite ban. Users who continue or escalate their disruption are indefinitely banned by others, but Arbcom does not deal with egregious cases with obvious repercussions and the maximum penalty of Arbcom is one year. If, however, an indefinitely banned user were to come back after a year and be civil and considerate, no one would notice or care. —Centrx→talk • 12:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking?

Thanks for the visit to Teaneck, New Jersey and thanks for cleaning up a few individuals of questionable notability. Is this an example of Wikistalking, or just a part of your general effort to clean up quality articles? Alansohn 08:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections do not belong in encyclopedia articles. See also Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Since you replaced this section a week ago, I thought it best at least in the meantime to remove the most egregious problems with that section. —Centrx→talk • 15:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I had re-read WP:TRIVIA and WP:AVTRIVIA, when you had taken it upon yourself to butcher the Teaneck, New Jersey article, removing the entire list of notable residents. I don't know what it is you're reading (or smoking) that I'm not, but there's absolutely nothing in either one of these guidelines that would justify complete removal of the entire section, nor anything that would require trimming down the section. There's just nothing relevant in either article that would justify your actions. Wikipedia has enough rules, regulations and guidelines without engendering the need to make any more up. Alansohn 04:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you see anyway to integrate this list into the article, please do so, but it is simply a list of happenstance. Some of them are simply that the person was born there and moved after three years so they have no memory or care for the place whatsoever, some of them are simply the houses of their families which they visit only on weekends. This is completely irrevelant to the town and mixes people who may have actually been involved in the history of the town or involved in its business, churches, or town government, with people who really have no relation to it. The list is also rife with articles that don't even mention the town; in other words, it is not that important even to an article devoted the person himself, let alone an article about a whole town. —Centrx→talk • 12:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess there was the possibility that I had missed something, but I will take your response and the lack of any reference to either WP:TRIVIA or WP:AVTRIVIA as confirmation that neither of these policies are relevant in this case. The overwhelming majority of individuals listed have a well-defined connection to the community with a source provided. While I recognize that there is some limited pruning that could be done, it is clear that the removal of the entire section in question was unjustified. Alansohn 16:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AVTRIVIA states that trivia sections should be merged directly into the body of the article, and that trivia sections are holding areas for information to eventually be merged. I do not see how any of them could be merged into a body of text about the town of Teaneck. I do not see any that have any relevance to an article on the town beyond "This person was born there", if that; many of the articles do not mention the town at all. For an example of a town where notable natives can be merged into the body of the text, see Concord, Massachusetts. Unless something can be said in the article like "whose novel Little Women (1868) was based in part on her experiences as a child in Concord" and "who lived in a small cabin on nearby Walden Pond, where he wrote Walden (1854)." can be added to the article, this section has no business in an encyclopedia article about the town. Please do something about this; I cannot see how it can be done nor do I see any sources or any other evidence that the persons are especially relevant to the history of the town. —Centrx→talk • 16:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. So you've decided that certain information included as a standard in thousands of articles for communities and schools is "trivia", so that now you can apply a set of guidelines that in fact has no relevance. Again, you have demonstrated that there might be an issue -- even under your arbitrary criteria -- with some portions of the section in question. You have offered no explanation for your removing the entire list of notable residents, which would seem to me to be a violation of WP:Vandalism. Can you please show me any portion of either WP:TRIVIA or WP:AVTRIVIA that would define this information as "trivia". Alansohn 17:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you actually think this is vandalism after you re-read the first sentence of Wikipedia:Vandalism, I see no further reason to continue conversing with you. Your other statements are also incorrect. —Centrx→talk • 01:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You're malicious removal of sourced material is far closer to vandalism than your admittedly inaccurate claim that WP:TRIVIA or WP:AVTRIVIA were being violated at the article in question. I have no objection to your "not conversing" anymore, as long as you leave properly sourced material in articles alone. Please find some of the hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles without any sources, where your claims might have a bit more relevance and leave other articles alone. Alansohn 04:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to Lose (Heroes) on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nothing to Lose (Heroes). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you were watching that one pretty closely. —Centrx→talk • 13:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So called Copied articles

Is there any reason to think that the remainder of the articles you created are not also copyright infringements? Or that, given your mendacity on Talk:Lahey Clinic Hospital, anyone should believe you when you say that they are not? —Centrx→talk • 14:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LymanSchool"

Mendacity? Who are you calling a liar? Who are you to claim that I have lied? User:LymanSchool contains a list of all articles that I created. Check them out if you care, but don't you ever call me a liar again in public. Let me make this perfectly clear. ---LymanSchool 16:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Flatbiller

Flatbillers do exist, and they are notable. Such as Brian Deegan, or Travis Barker, and the Kottonmouth Kings. Please bring the Flatbiller article back because it is not just regional. If you delete Flatbiller, then delete Guido and Goombah. Please consider this. (MXrider101 17:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

This article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bro (second nomination). It is possible that Guido and Goombah should also be deleted. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and Wikipedia articles must be verifiable in reliable sources. —Centrx→talk • 01:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection

You unprotected this article Agim Ceku. Protection is still needed. See yourself Thanks--Noah30 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it appears Angelina Jolie also needs to be protected again, too. I'm going to wait and see if further vandalism occurs within the next 24 hours. If it does recur, I'll reprotect the page. 23skidoo 21:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Salted Earth

I was wondering what harm it could be to allow an article to exist if a substantail number of people want it to. I am not saying that any articles I may be alluding to are notable, but has it not done more harm than good to delete it, even if simply because I've wasted a lot of time trying to save it? If there is any real reason, then that's fine, just wondering what it it. Schizel

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. So, articles must be verifiable in reliable sources. Having pages that are not verifiable encyclopedia articles and can never be made into verifiable encyclopedia degrades the quality of the encyclopedia. Even if you were to start off with an excellently written "accurate" article, if your source of information is the website itself or some random person pontificating or speculating, it is unlikely to be neutral and without published sources no will be able to verify it in a year. False information will be added to the article, it happens for every article, and people will otherwise mess up the article, but editors will not be able to check whether any sentence in the article is accurate or whether it is just a hoax. Will readers be mislead into thinking it is like the other articles on Wikipedia, rather than a mouthpiece for the website? Will someone use multiple IP open proxies to keep adding libellous statements about a person, that has to be removed or the article simply protected, or will it just go unnoticed by anyone and be "just as true" as the rest of the article? Every article does require some maintenance, and the articles without any reliable sources and without anyone interested in editing or maintaining would require work. Wikipedia is not a free web host, and it is not a directory of personal biographies, or companies, or websites. It states this when you create an article, that you should create "a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia" and then below in boldface it states "Wikipedia articles that do not cite reliable sources are likely to be deleted". It is mentioned in the introduction to editing, and it is essential to the meaning of the word "encyclopedia". See also Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. —Centrx→talk • 09:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In regards to a block

I noticed you blocked User:69.61.62.174 for 5 years, due to it being an open proxy. If that is the case, why isn't an indefinite block instituted? We are talking about Zombie Computer here! Arbiteroftruth 11:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP will eventually be re-assigned—it appears that it was created only a month ago—and 5 years is a conservative limit. Every IP block without an expiry limit will eventually cause collateral damage by blocking innocent users not using a proxy, and is another IP that someone will have to unblock. —Centrx→talk • 09:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Revision

Hello, I was wondering if you could look at the Earl Haig Secondary School article and edit or delete anything that you see fit.

Article possibly needs protection or semiprotection

I'll appreciate it if you take a look at the Druze article and see what's happening there. an anon editor made some edits sometime ago that we reverted (mostly unfounded claims and other deletions). However, he kept putting them back, and different editors kept reverting them. Now it seems he has saved his version of the article on his computer and he's simply pasting it back over and over again, resulting in the deletion of many valid edits that has been made in the meantime. he even blanked the page at some point.

I hope you take a look and see what you can do. and thanks in advance! Orionist 02:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Subsidairy Alliance at DRV

I have asked for a deletion review of Subsidairy Alliance. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this redirect, you may wish to participate in the deletion review. BigNate37_(T) 03:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)