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

The signature issue

Could we discuss this and perhaps come up with a compromise? -- Cat ^chi? 12:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Like what? —Centrx→talk • 16:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was proposed something like User:White Cat/ (formerly Cool Cat) redirect by User:David Levy. I like that suggestion for two reasons. #1 it satisfies the valid concerns of people such as yourself. A definite "Cool Cat" link is left behind. #2 it satisfies my desire to "empty" 'Cool Cat' userspace.

Should a bot with a bot flag make the modifications marked as a minor edit it wouldn't even trigger "You have a new message" or show up on watchlists (unless user wants to explicitly review bot edits).

-- Cat ^chi? 19:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The concern is that there is no reason someone should not be allowed to create a redirect from your old user page to your new user page, regardless of whether top-facing talk page revisions have a link to it. I think you should be perfectly free on your new user page to say nothing whatsoever about your old user name; the issue is the other direction. If you are suggesting that a bot go through every use of your signature to change it to point to "User:White Cat/ (formerly Cool Cat)", that does not address the fact that the contents of archives should never be altered except under very special circumstances that are beyond an ordinary username change, aside from the logistical fact that every username change could be accompanied by thousands of bot edits. —Centrx→talk • 21:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You may want to respond to the two posts I made earlier: [1]

I am quite confused in what you're seeking. Should the redirect stay if I get my current userpage deleted? I can get my userpage deleted if it is put as a precondition to get the redirect deleted.

Although it is sane and logical, I do not believe there is any policy/consensus to back up your "archives should never be altered except under very special circumstances that are beyond an ordinary username change" logic. Archives would have been full protected if that was the case.

-- Cat ^chi? 22:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been proposed several times to fully protect archives. The reason it is not done is because 1) it would be a large burden that is generally not necessary because few people try to change the contents of archives and even common vandalism in archives is almost non-existent; and 2) there are legitimate edits to be made to the page, even outside of removing real names or potentially libellous statements, such as archiving additional sections, re-factoring, or changing headers, that would be impeded by protecting the page and likewise create additional burden if there were a scheme to have administrators protect and unprotect these pages. —Centrx→talk • 22:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, now you are changing your sig to use a different subpage in your userspace when you have not even changed your username? Where does it end? —Centrx→talk • 22:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wally the Green Monster

Hey, I'm not sure why you keep deleting the Wally the Green Monster edits. Susan Widak is the orginal creator of Wally and holds copyrights form the mid-1990's. Her hats, t-shirts, biibs, cups, pants, etc. were all sold at in around fenway park for roughly 5 years. I'm gonna actually scan some of her designs for your overview. I'm not sure who you are, but don't you think it's slightly out of line to erase all of this factual information that's being posted???

First, your addition needs to be verifiable in published third-party sources, like books and magazines, references to which should be included in your edit. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information. Second, your addition needs to be written in a neutral point of view. The beginning of the paragraph is fine in this respect, but everything after "Although Susan humbly refuses to claim credit..." is written as though it were an addressed letter from you personally to the world. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for more information. —Centrx→talk • 16:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me?

I would like you to take a look at this article to check if it meets the requirements for notability. I have included a lot of published references. Please let me know the minimum that I need to do to make this a real Wikipedia article.

Wisepiglet 00:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you should rebuild from scratch. First, Digg, a wiki, Lou Dobbs, and some of the advocacy sites are not reliable sources. Use Google Books and Google Scholar. Also, keep in mind the possibility that an encyclopedic article cannot be created on the subject. The political references exist, but that does not mean that something more than a rough dictionary definition can be reliably created on it. Also, write in a neutral point of view and, especially for some of these sources, grant the possibility that some of these international trade agreements are nothing more substantial than trade agreements between sovereign nations, and that some collaboration between nations is not necessarily a prelude to a forfeiture of independence. Superficially at least, some of these agreements and proposals are exactly what one might expect to happen even if there existed nothing resembling any North American Union. —Centrx→talk • 21:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sig revert

Is there any good reason why you are reverting me here and here -- Cat ^chi? 03:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not edit archives. —Centrx→talk • 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't prohibited behaviour. Find a new hobby, stop stalking me. -- Cat ^chi? 04:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it so impossible that I have a page you edited in my watchlist? Is there any place where you have actually explained why any these changes are warranted, or why you have some special privilege to alter archives where others do not? —Centrx→talk • 04:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be so dense. I mistyped my signature and corrected the error. Archives are editable. Have YOU actually explained why archives are not full protected since you claim they are not to be edited. No one but you seems to care. I wonder why you care so much about it. -- Cat ^chi? 04:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did explain above why archives are not fully protected. And yes, others do often revert edits to archives, as recently as a few days ago with your edits. —Centrx→talk • 04:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can understand archives. Is there any reason why are you reverting the sig fix here aside from an attempt to irritate me? -- Cat ^chi? 04:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Old comments that are on an ordinary talk page belong as unchanging as the comments on pages labelled "Archive". We should not, for example, go back and change old comments from a month ago; ideally we should not change comments from even an hour ago, but depending on the likelihood of someone having already read it and the substantiality of the change, we might alter the text rather than appending a remark, an action more viable if the comment was made only a minute ago. In many cases, the only reason that an old comment on an ordinary talk page is not instead on a labelled Archive is that no one has yet bothered to archive it yet. Labelled Archives are essentially back-extensions of ordinary talk pages that are made only so that old comments may be deleted from a talk page in order to lessen loading time and improve navigability and clarity, while retaining a searchable page of old discussions and other advantages. Otherwise, simply having a permanent link to an old revision of the talk page would be quite sufficient, and provide no opportunity at all for editing archives. In this particular case, it is only a matter of chance that I have not yet archived the past month's discussion. —Centrx→talk • 04:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words you are going to go great extends to reinterpret policy and guidelines just to prevent me from updating my sigs. Spelling corrections make a greater difference the actual difference in readable text is null. -- Cat ^chi? 04:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not re-interpreted anything, and the only great extent to which I have gone is to write a thoroughly explanatory message to someone who appears to take every opportunity to insinuate malicious intent. —Centrx→talk • 05:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please simplify your sentence -- Cat ^chi? 13:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Centrix, please stop being exactly as wrong as Cat is. There is absolutely no good reason to revert signature edits, even though I agree with you changing sigs with a bot is a bad thing. Reverting edits puts even *more* strain on the servers, and for what? To annoy Cat? To feel good yourself? Nothing that has any use for wikipedia in any case. ValHallASW 14:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits to archives are reverted. The reason for not editing signatures is not because of server strain. There is nothing wrong with good edits that might negligibly strain the servers, and the edits remain wrong even if the strain on the servers were absolutely zero. —Centrx→talk • 22:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hard drives

they are using the old prefixes in the same fashion they used prior to the existence of the new prefixes, specifically with the purpose of misleading customers

Do you really personally believe that they have been using these prefixes specifically to mislead customers? — Omegatron 16:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What other reason do you think there is? Even if there were some other historical reason, their marketers would, if there were not, change to system that report larger sizes. They used these prefixes prior to the existence of the new IEC prefixes, when every use of prefixes with -byte outside of network cards was in the binary sense. They advertise decimal sizes when the hard drives themselves are in binary and the uses to which they are put are in binary. They did not use binary when the IEC prefixes did not exist, and they do not use binary when the IEC prefixes do exist. They did not in valiant defense of SI prefixes use the "correct" SI prefixes before, and they do not now with the opportunity of IEC prefixes use the binary system that directly corresponds with the make and use of the drives. They choose to sell eggs by the gram rather than by the count of them, despite the fact that the eggs naturally come as discrete units and that they are used by counting them out rather than trying to weigh them, because it markets a larger, more impressive number, and the customer is wiser with poultry than with computers. —Centrx→talk • 17:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I just don't see any evidence for deliberate misinformation. I've spent hours reading through old documents and haven't found any evidence of hard drives ever being abbreviated using binary units. The closest I've seen to this is early drum storage devices that contained a binary multiple amount of words, like drum memories that hold 2048 words, but no one was abbreviating units at that time; they were just writing out "2048" in their documents. Decimal prefixes were in use by the engineers who designed this stuff long before the devices were even invented, as John Reed pointed out in his email to me. I find it hard to believe that their continuing use of these units can be attributed to malice.

You claim that every use of -byte prefixes outside of network cards was in the binary sense, but this isn't supported either. These abbreviations have always been ambiguous. The earliest uses of "K" that I can find were actually decimal. Here's a document from 1961, for instance, that uses "K" to refer to 1000 characters of drum storage. Some early memories actually held decimal amounts, like "10,000 words", so why would they use the binary convention? Remember that early computers actually came in both binary and decimal versions, meant to replace mechanical adding machines. The documents about the IBM 7090 core memory[2] actually use both "65K" and "32K" in the same sentence, truncating "65,536" and "32,768". If they followed the binary convention, it would be "32K" and "64K". If they followed the decimal convention, it would be "33K" and "65K". The simplest explanation is just that nobody cared; everyone knew what they were talking about at the time. But I haven't seen any evidence for even a de facto standard at any point in time, for either convention. Common usage is simply a hodge-podge of several different conventions.

Hard drive manufacturers use the units that they've always used, and memory manufacturers use the units that they've always used. No one cared or even noticed the discrepancy until recently. — Omegatron 18:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course people noticed and cared, at least for the past 20 years. And why do they not now use binary units? —Centrx→talk • 20:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would they? — Omegatron 03:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's quite obvious to anyone familiar with computers who checks the size or who formats a drive. Even naive customers notice when they think they have 1 GB of space left because of the discrepancy. You can see several websites that mention it via [3] and personally I know it was a well-known phenomenon ten years ago among technical people. —Centrx→talk • 04:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

On the value of edits

Centrx, I was urged to come here by someone, to hopefully help you and [Cool, Cool_, White]Cat work a little something out here regarding his sig edits. Doing a little reading, I wish to make the following points here for you to read and consider. The fact that he is changing these links means he honestly cares way too much about keeping things neat and orderly. The fact that you go back and revert these shows you wither have gotten too caught up in process and need to breathe for a minute, or he has gotten on your nerves to the point that you just want to smack him down at any opportunity. The purpose of not changing archives is so that the nature of the comments and readability of the conversation do not get changed after the fact. Changing the link in a sig that otherwise appears when rendered substantially the same does not interfere with any of this, and as such violates the letter, not the spirit, of the rule. He's wasting his time editing pages back there, but so are you reverting it. Articles are thattaway, many need fixing and editing. Both of you should go focus your energy there. Because, really, who cares about this? Just something for you to think on, and hopefully I didn't come across as a dick. -M^ask? 21:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to delete categories

Hi, there. I saw that you deleted "Category:Porn stars of Egyptian Origin", which is good, and so I was wondering if you would do the same for "Category:Porn stars of Indian Origin" and "Category:Porn stars of Persian Origin". Basically everything under "Category:Porn stars by ethnicity" is problematic. I created that category because I was annoyed at people categorizing certain people as "Spanish" on the basis of their heritage, when they were in fact British or Australian or what have you. I am quite annoyed at these ethnic categories in general and I would very much like to see them go! Please advise. Thanks! Joie de Vivre 05:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Either start removing the articles from them, as they are already sparsely populated, or nominate them for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. —Centrx→talk • 05:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan (lolicon)

These images are on Commons. Centrx look at them - they place a Wikipedia symbol of a minor in an overtly sexual context. In my opinion they are disruptive. WP:IAR applies if nothing else to avoiding the damage these images could do to the foundation's reputation. Lets apply a bit of common sense and stop these images appearing in Wikipedia. We should not be helping to promote this kind of agenda. WjBscribe 02:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If they are truly so blatantly damaging to the Foundation's reputation and promote an unacceptable agenda, then have them deleted. Where have they been used for vandalism? —Centrx→talk • 02:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Abdulsalami Abubakar

Centrx, next time you delete an article on an important subject which definitely deserves an encyclopedia entry, would you please be so kind as to either replace it with a stub or leave a note on the wikiproject's page? (WikiProject Nigeria, in this case.) Us Nigeria editors don't exactly spend our time checking that articles on military rulers haven't disappeared overnight. Thanks, Picaroon (Talk) 02:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: OTRS

Zscout370 asked me to use the exact edit summary you saw. My experience with people asking about the edits has been that they don't recognize the initials OTRS. You're the first one who does. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to recognize it, it just stands out as all caps with a long cryptic-looking number after it. —Centrx→talk • 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. I appreciate the advice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Three Point Plan

Hello Centrx,

I think I know where you're going now: you really really don't like the Three Points, and you want to jettison all traces of it from the current text, which you ... ???

- Only mildly dislike? Are indifferent to? See promise in? Really like? Not sure.

If we do that, no relation between the old and new versions would be left and it would be better to restart without the Three Points, which you want to ... ???

- Revert to? Return to its old name? Both? Burn with fire? Not sure.

Am I close? My head hurts.

Cheers, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The essay you wrote looks fine, except for those first two points in the second section. Insofar as they derive from the other version, they are incorrect. Insofar as they say "understand what rules others are citing" and "give reasoning for not following their cited rules", they mean "listen to others" and "give reasons for your actions", which in the way it is written is misleading. It again puts emphasis on rules rather than discussion and reasons, which is the opposite of IAR, and is merely not so absurd as the previous text because of circumlocution. —Centrx→talk • 19:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Your essay is not a re-write, barely even in spirit, it is an entirely new essay which there was no reason to create on top of the previous page. Half the solution is to disconnect your essay from the other essay, in the same manner as if a new article had been accidentally written and editted over an old. —Centrx→talk • 19:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. 3-point plan jettisoned. Perhaps you could help fill in the blanks? I really do wish for this to be, um, much more reality-based than the usual essay. On the one hand, not treating the preception/really of admin/editor divide is maybe not so responsible, on the other hand, I don't recall having an admin break rules in a way I didn't like, I've only seen other people complain, so I'm likely to talk out of my posterior, which isn't so responsible either. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 02:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

essay not categorizing

can you tell me why my essay on "I-don't-know-where-to-put-it disorder" is not categorizing? Yes, it is currently short, but I'm sure that it will get bigger (with the help of others). Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 22:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The template was set to only categorize if the page was in Wikipedia-space rather than user-space. It looks like this was done in error, so I changed the template to categorize in any namespace. It should work now. —Centrx→talk • 22:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

link to Wikipedia:Be Afraid

Just for the record, do you think that link should be included on its alleged merits (I'd be groping around the dark here as I don't see any, but perhaps symmetry, humour, or policy insight?), or did you just think it wasn't quite uncivil enough to be removed on those grounds alone? (FYI, it's gotten less civil since.) Alai 00:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be relevant and both are humor pages anyway. —Centrx→talk • 00:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidently I neglected to "ask otherwise" on reply location, but you seemed to hit the brief window I'd notice a followup, despite that. I'd personally have said that "follow" was a "humour page", which makes a point about "IAR"; whereas "Afraid" is a compendium of miscellaneous complaints (by a user that seems to throw a fit any time anyone questions anything he does). But relevant how? Alai 00:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, when I linked it, it had none of the FAR stuff and was less hostile. It was mostly just a parody of all the scare clauses in WP:BOLD. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 02:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules is all about being bold and not consulting a committee before acting. —Centrx→talk • 04:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your always properly motivated reverts/removals.User:Salaskan/afewlinks Thank you for tirelessly thinking up good arguments instead of blatantly reverting and/or starting edit wars, like some people tend to do. SalaSkan 19:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A query...

Hi Centrx - User:White Cat's asked me to step into the ongoing fuss about him changing his sig in archives. To be honest, I don't see why there's any problem with it: he's far from the only user to change his sig file in archives - I've done so myself, back when I had a small image as part of my sig which I later removed. Other users have also changed their old sigs to newer ones in archives, especially in those cases where a user has changed username (User:BD2412 comes to mind as one such case). The two GFDL-relevant features of the archives are unchanged: the message text itself isn't being changed, and the attribution is still to the user who made the comments, even if with a different user name. I'm not saying that what you're doing is wrong - you may well have perfectly legit reasons. I just wonder why there a difference in White Cat's case - is it because the sigs are being created from a user page subpage, or is there something else I'm missing? Grutness...wha? 01:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Other users should not be changing signatures either, unless perchance to conceal personal information or for some other special situation; and the issue is the alteration of archives, not the GFDL. —Centrx→talk • 02:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't other users be altering their signatures? It makes no change to the substance of the archives to do so. There is nothing at Help:Archiving a talk page that suggests that archives cannot be edited further. In fact, one section of that page explicitly points out that, once archived, editing may be done - "For instance, headers can be renamed to be more helpful, unsigned comments can be noted, irrelevant comments can be moved to a more appropriate place, chit chat can be removed, etc.". At another point on the same page, it mentions that refactoring means that "Archives cannot be easily repartitioned and recombined as with the subpage method. If you later wished to divide up the archives in a different way, you would need to paste all past archives to the talk page, save, and then rearchive (note that when this is done, the revision history becomes muddied)." These comments would not be necessary if no editing was ever intended of archives. I understand how editing of comments and attributions could cause problems relating to tracking the history of a discussion, but simply changing the form of a signature (while ensuring that it still points to the same person who made the comment) cannot possibly cause any problems in that way. Unless there is something which causes problems with the license, I don't see how changing the style of an individual's signature in an archive is going to cause any concerns whatsoever. Grutness...wha? 07:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

None of these alters the existing contents of the archives. Headers are not part of the contents, unsigned comments add to and are always done by a third-party, moving comments preserves them, chit chat should never have been in the archive in the first place; there are specific good reasons for doing them and they do not mislead anyone. If someone were to move comments and give as their reason merely "I want to" with no other justification, that would not be acceptable; and none of these actions involves changing existing text. —Centrx→talk • 04:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But changing the style or pointing of a person's signature doesn't alter the contents of the archive any more than any of the activities shown, and far less than removing chit-chat or moving comments from one place to another. The comments are left exactly as before, and the signature still points to the writer of the comments. Signatures are no more or less part of the contents of an archive than headers are - the only difference is that signatures are designed to show who wrote the comments. Changing a signature to more accurately or easily indicate authorship is identical to adding a note to an unsigned signature noting authorship - in fact, in cases where a previous user page has been deleted it gives a link where no active link would otherwise be present. There are, in your words, specific good reasons for doing this. They are not done to mislead anyone, and they have far more justification that simply "I want to" (a justification which no-one here seems to have used). Grutness...wha? 05:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing chit-chat deletes sections that have no business there, by section. Moving sections does not alter the text of the comments. Headers were never in the talk page in the first place, they are added after the fact while making the archive. In any event, these sorts of changes are in order to make it a more efficient archive. Changing a signature re-attributes the author of the comment misleadingly, and the previous user page needs to redirect to the new username. Do you propose to change the sentences in other user's comments when they refer to "Cool Cat", a user who, if you were to alter signatures, would falsely appear to have never participated in the discussion? —Centrx→talk • 05:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing cxhit-chat still alters the content of the discussion. Though it may not seem relevant directly to a discussion, it may - and often does - bear upon it tangentially. Adding headers to a talk page that were not previously there can also change the perception of a discussion, as it implies that the header was placed there by the first commenter and therefore bears the same slant on a particular discussion that that first commenter would have - in effect, it puts worsds in that editor's mouth that were not there. Changing a signature to point from one user to the same user does not re-attribute anything in any way. Previous user pages do not always redirect to new user pages, nor should thhey in some cases. In White Cat's case, The user:Cool Cat page is a protected deleted page. Pointing to that page is far more misleading than repointing to User:White Cat would be. And no, I do not propose changing any comments - it should be clear from the context that the user to whom they are replying in those comments now has a different user name, due to the changes signature. Grutness...wha? 06:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Chit-chat refers to text totally unrelated to the discussion, usually left by random anonymous passers-by; e.g. [4]. A header is Template:Talkarchive; you are reaching for straws if you think any reasonable person will interpret that as a comment by the first commenter. Here is an example of how changing the signature alters the discussion: In a comment below, you read "In reference to what Joe said above", yet you scroll up in the archive to find what Joe said and find that there is no Joe whatsoever on the page, rendering the archive useless where it was not before. —Centrx→talk • 17:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A header is far more normally interpeted as meaning something like "===Header=== - and is usually interpreted as being part of the first commenter's message. If you think it's clutching at straws to think any reasonable person would interpret Template:Talkarchive as being a comment by the first commenter, it is not nearly so much a grasp as thinking that an editor would interpret "a header" as meinging a specific archiving template. In the case of White Cat's change of signature, BTW, he signs his name simply as "Cat", so anyone seeing "Cool Cat" referenced would have no doubt as to which other commenter is bing referred to. It seems, however, that we must agree to disagree. When we started this discussion, I wasn't sure whether you had any valid points to make which would explain your reasoning, hence my original comments. As the conversation has continued, however, it has become all too readily apparent that those reasons you have are clearly not valid ones. You are quite happy to allow changes to things which may change the implied message of an archive, but unwilling to allow things which do nothing other than make it easier to attribute a specific comment. It all seems backward to me, but I seem to be unable to convince you of why this is a poor idea, as well as being an arbitrary one not supported by Wikipedia's own instructions on how to archive. There seems little point in continuing to try. Grutness...wha? 10:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was an article on my work deleted?

Why did you delete the article on my work from Wikipedia? I have worked in the arts and as a professional composer for over 35 years. My work has been performed widely world-wide. I have been composer-in-residence at Tanglewood Music festival, Joe Papp's Public Theater/New York Shakespeare Festival, The NationalTheater Manheim, The Donaueschingen Festival and many many more. I have created over 9 full length operas and 6 symphony to great acclaim. I believe I have earned the right to be included in wikipedia, why don;t you?

Carson Kievman, Ph.D. carson@sobemusic.org

http://carsonkievman.com http://sobemusic.org

You are not allowed to write an article about yourself. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. —Centrx→talk • 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is the AfD for that article? --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 11:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles that are advertisements and/or copyright infringements do not have AfDs. —Centrx→talk • 20:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I obviously can't see what the article looked like before you deleted it to judge for myself. Was it truly a self-serving advertisement with no chance for being polished into an actual article? --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 04:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It was entirely copied from the subject's website. If it was not a copyright infringingement, then the article was created by the subject himself and then for the entire two-year existence of the article no substantive edits were made by anyone else. There were no sources and nothing beyond the subject's personal biography, and if anyone wants to create a legitimate article where for the past two years they did not, they can obtain all the information from the original autobiography. —Centrx→talk • 17:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The past comes back to haunt us.

Remember this? [5]. The other party in the initial incident, Vesther, is back under the name Mark Kim. The only difference? Well a year ago Vesther wrote much more cleanly and coherently as you can see here [6]. I noticed some uncivil behaviour here, and reminded him about npa, which I guess was entirely unacceptable. He's not allowed to be warned or some such thing. However, whats different is the writing style. He seems to have abandoned that much cleaner writing for something a bit more familiar. Not long, but in a style that reminds me of someone else near and dear to us...either way he's expressed to me multiple times that he's not interested in caring about the policies here, and is willing to blank warnings and go right on attacking and threatening users.--Crossmr 01:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Open proxies/Tor

Can you please make sure to hardblock Open proxies and Tor nodes from now on? I've come across several IPs you softblocked as open proxies in May which have been used for abuse by accounts. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 22:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this was carelessness on my part. —Centrx→talk • 00:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Amity

The Amity High School page should not have been deleted. There was no unture information on that page, and it's useful that there at least be some page there for that school.

Wikipedia articles must be substantiated by independent published sources, especially when they pertain to living persons. —Centrx→talk • 04:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

County Road 702 (Palm Beach County, Florida)

Was a speedy really necessary? Non-notability and being unsourced is not part of the speedy criteria. An AFD would've been better in terms of handling this. (→zelzany - uses a new sig) 12:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of County Road 702 (Palm Beach County, Florida). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (→zelzany - uses a new sig) 16:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to restore it for you if there is any reason to believe an encyclopedia article can be created out of it. —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

you don't own the article, Wikimedia Foundation does. if the ruling party on the deletion review overturns it it will be restored. please voice your opinion on the deletion review. Master son 22:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood how Wikipedia works. The Wikimedia Foundation does not own the articles and it is not relevant whether they do. The "ruling party" is not an agent of the Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikipedia is not strait-jacketed by procedural deletion review rules. We are here to build an encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 22:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet WMF has entrusted the users with the content. and we are building an encyclopedia. and last time I checked - there are procedures for deleting an article, which according to that review you may have violated. • master_son^{Talk - Edits} 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, you're really close to violating the fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Deletion review is a consensus-based discussion. (→zelzany - uses a new sig) 23:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:Dragonball Z

Sorry. I mistook this for December 2002 and thought it had to be deleted so a history merge could take place with Dragon Ball Z. Here is when Dragon Ball Z was created. Lord Sesshomaru

Okay. So all is well then now with the redirect? —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. All is well on that case. I have recently noticed that Buu was created before the current Majin Buu article was made. A history merger should take place there now, I think — a redirect can only have its history merged with what it redirects to if the latter came afterwards. Wait, did I say that right? Lord Sesshomaru

I have merged the article page histories. I did not merge the talk page histories because they overlap. —Centrx→talk • 06:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you know of more when I see them. I have a question: does Wikipedia ever plan to have only established users edit the English Wikipedia? I'm seeing less and less useful ip users contribute wealthily and more blocks seem to go out to ips rather than established users. How can I get something set on this? Or... any ideas? Lord Sesshomaru

There are not currently any plans to do that. Also, many IP edits are productive; the places where most IP edits are not productive are very popular articles that get a lot of random vandalism, often from school-children on Christopher Columbus or somesuch topic being taught in school. Those articles are increasingly semi-protected semi-permanently, so that is the effective solution for those articles. Also, 1) because anyone can register, restricting IP edits is not going to prevent someone intent on vandalism; 2) most of the established users became established users because they had the opportunity to edit without registering. —Centrx→talk • 17:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I find simply that more ips disrupt the Wikipedia rather than help — it is essentially harder to report an abusive ip user who's ISP changes alot; therefore, making it rather difficult to report them than a established user who account does not change a lot. Reason why I brought this up was recently I read about anonymous editing here and I completely agree with that one statement: "Many have suggested requiring users to register before editing articles". I feel like starting a new discussion on this, but where could I do such a thing? Lord Sesshomaru

Wikipedia:Village pump. —Centrx→talk • 00:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Which section? Lord Sesshomaru

Policy or proposals. I would put it policy because it is a perennial proposal. See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Prohibit anonymous users from editing. —Centrx→talk • 06:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to go, when I return I shall post this discussion on the policy section. I would greatly appreciate your help there though. Lord Sesshomaru

I began it — you're welcome for comment there. Lord Sesshomaru

Colonial America

Hi, I noticed that you semi-protected this article in October to deal with IP vandalism, and that it's still protected. I figured that it was just forgotten about, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Thanks! --Confiteordeo 16:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I have now unprotected it. Some popular articles are near-permanent heavy targets of random vandalism, so it may have to be re-protected. —Centrx→talk • 16:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Archive box

Hey there. You encouraged me to "keep fiddling" with the code at Template:Archive box and here's what I came up with. Please drop me a note occasionally, as to what you think of it and whether it is ready for a template page of its own. —AldeBaer 17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had that "clicking twice to open" issue for quite a while. You see, I have really no idea about programming languages, not even basic knowledge about CSS/JS, everything I do know I learned only since you told me to try around with the archive box code. I still have no real idea how mixed classes work though...

I understand there are preset styles defined in the wikimedia common.css, but I'm having a hard time isolating them so I can include the code to override all aspects I want changed.

Please take a look at my my sandbox, I have thrown together a version of the archive box using class"navbox collapsible" instead of the div=navframe element. It seems to work (and it only requires one click to open). The problem is the text align in the title and the height of the title bar (it appears to have some padding that I can't eliminate).

Re the standard transclusion: Did you try it with a talk page where all archive pages are regularly numbered /Archive 1, /Archive 2, etc? What does it or doesn't it do? —AldeBaer 02:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I don't know how tech-savvy or interested in this you are. If you think I'd better ask someone else just tell me so, I don't want to bother you with anything. —AldeBaer 03:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed those two problems. I am not sure what you are referring to about the transclusion with numbering. I am pretty tech savvy and I am happy to help. By the way, programming is useful and can result in a sense of marvellous creation such as with building a cabinet or your own house, so I highly recommend you join the fun. —Centrx→talk • 03:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. On the template talk page you said that my second example wasn't working. That was the example in which I included the code (what I referred to as "standard transclusions"):

{{#if:{{{auto|}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{auto}}}|long|{{Archive list long}}|<div style="text-align: center">{{archive list}}</div>}}{{#if:{{{1|}}}|<br/>}}}}{{{1|}}}

which is supposed to produce automatic links, if I understand it correctly.

The title was the other problem which I couldn't fix. It's offset to the left for some reason. Would you mind taking yet another look, see if you can do the magic with that as well? —AldeBaer 04:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem might be that the #if etc. part is designed to be used in a template; I don't know. Also, I think the bad centering is fine and we should leave it as is to give a distinctive look to the box. Good night. —Centrx→talk • 04:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks once more. I'm going to stay up and maybe create the template for others to use. —AldeBaer 06:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Archive box collapsible}}. —AldeBaer 07:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

State Flags

I've noticed that you've been deleting state flags from numerous articles regarding American politician. I'm just wondering what your reason for this is. Tey seem ok to me. --Cjs56 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

These were all added en masse by one user. The flag does not add any information, the name of the state is already included and that name is usually much better recognized by a reader than a flag; flags are appropriate in situations where there is not enough space to display the country name or where it used as a sort of abbreviation in listings, so that the full name is not listed each time, such as in sports tables. The flag unbalances the infobox, shouting to the reader that the state in which the person happened to be born is somehow more important than every other element in the infobox . If we were to follow the same principle by which the state flag is added, why not add the logo of each political party? and the logo of the religion, and the flags of the states of primary residence of each of politician's antecedents and successors? This quickly becomes ridiculous (see, e.g. [7]). In addition, the flag is not appropriate for navigation. The convention with images like this on the Web in general is that clicking on the image will bring the reader to the linked article, i.e. the article about country, but instead they are sent to the image page. This is because images are not navigational tools. Wikipedia:Images, WP:MOS#Images, and Wikipedia:Image use policy has some relevant mentions about the use of images. —Centrx→talk • 01:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Giuliani

I'm not sure what happened in the transfer to different articles, but the Mayoralty article as it currently stands does not include quite a bit of information which was written into that section over the last few weeks. Please revert and do the split again. As an example, I had expanded the Yasser Arafat section into a few paragraphs and now it appears as only the few sentences it was before my work of a week ago. I don't want to have to manually go through and reinsert my changes and I shouldn't have to, because I already had to do that once when the article was split off. I had also spent considerable time working on the references in that section and I see that the references are back to the uncorrected way now. Did you simply resurrect the Mayoralty article as it was split off a few weeks ago? If that's the case, there was much more information added to the article since then, the change needs to be reverted and the section split off in its current format (or, the format of a day ago when the article still reflected recent changes and contributions).--Gloriamarie 01:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not the one who split it off originally. I have now re-merged the changes that were made since Tvoz's revert (in this diff) with the exception of the 'Not having read the 9/11 Commission report' section, which is unduly long, disproportionate to the importance of the "controversy", and some minor changes at the bottom that seem to just be reshuffling of categories. If there were changes before that, you can simply copy and paste the versions from the main article as of yesterday to the sub-articles pages, but reverting back to a 150KB article and simply leaving the sub-articles as there were, left to rot, is not a solution. —Centrx→talk • 02:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:German Christmas traditions

Why was Talk:German Christmas traditions deleted. I want to add the WikiProject Germany template. Is there any problem with this? Kingjeff 17:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It was deleted just because the main page was deleted. —Centrx→talk • 18:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Copyright

Hi. Concerning the copyright in general and Heinrich Knirr in particular, I was led by a limited knowledge of policies and guidelines some time ago, so it isn't an actual issue anymore. Thanks though. Brand спойт 20:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just letting you know. —Centrx→talk • 20:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox at Dante Gabriel Rossetti

You removed the infobox at Dante Gabriel Rossetti citing it as "recently added unnecessary pseudo-scholarship." Although it was added by an anon IP recently, I highly disagree with it being pseudo-scholarship, or scholarship, period. Unless you disagree with anything that is said in the infobox (which would be odd, since all of it has already been stated in the article), then I do not see a reason for it being removed aside from personal preference, please correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps you should take your argument to the talk page before removal. Take care, María (críticame) 14:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is already stated in the article, what is the point of the infobox? And where does it say even on the WikiProject that infoboxes are required on biographies? Where is the discussion on the talk page prior to the infobox being added? The infobox is a new change, so the status quo remains until there is consensus for the change. —Centrx→talk • 21:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not required, you're correct, but they are highly encouraged. Take a look at FA articles in basically every subject; if an infobox if available, it's present on the article. They are intended to provide standardized information for related topics (biographies, films, novels, organizations, etc) as well as summaries of the subject matter's important points; for biographies that means dates, occupations, major works, and others. Perhaps you should bring your qualms with infoboxes to WP:INFO or a related talk page. Unless you have issues with the content pertaining to Rossetti, I see no reason for us to debate this issue since infoboxes are basically standard. María (críticame) 12:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What says that they are "highly encouraged"? Why is their presence in articles not simply due to a handful of people zealously adding them to articles in a semi-automated fashion, and then others then falsely thinking they are "standard" and "highly encouraged"? —Centrx→talk • 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like you to please stop removing infoboxes on other articles like you did at Alan Rouse, Eric Shipton, and Frank Smythe. You have been reverted several times by various other users. There is no need to be disruptive on articles. Again, if you do not agree with the usage of infoboxes, please bring your concerns somewhere. By repeatedly calling the infobox "misleading" is untrue. María (críticame) 12:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Stop"? I haven't done anything in a day, and everything I did do I did once. This was in cleaning up after a user who was adding false and misleading information in infoboxes. Standardization, especially when it is done by people who are not familiar with the subject of the article but instead in a semi-automated fashion just for the purpose of being "standard", leads to false and misleading information being included in articles. This happened several times with this user. —Centrx→talk • 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Primarysources

Hello, hope all is well with you. An issue on which you and I strongly disagreed has once again been brought up at Template talk:Primarysources#Strike Usually?, that is, whether that template should imply if articles can ever be written using only primary sources. As you know, I feel the wording of the template should be sensitive to the apparent contradictions... er, deep and subtle nuances of the language of WP:NOR. I think you felt it should be written more explicitly so as to be more effective.

Anyway, since we discussed it at length previously I just thought you should be aware the issue has come up again and I have chimed in. Have a good one, Satori Son 14:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Melissa_Scott_(televangelist) deletion

Could I ask why in your opinion this person is not notable? She is a televison performer and appears in other wikki articles.

The information from her web site is simple biographical info - 2 or 3 sentences. jmcw 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Melissa_Scott_(televangelist). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. jmcw 09:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I previously typed a response to this, but I guess it was not submitted properly. The answer is: If this person is notable then there will be no difficulty in finding multiple published third-party sources about the person on which to base an encyclopedia article. As it stands, the article was copied directly from another website; aside from being a potential copyright infringement, if the information for the article comes directly from the subject's website it is not sufficient to be verifiable and neutral. —Centrx→talk • 18:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Have a nice day! #29 ^(talk) 07:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Do you think you could please stop this? --Tony Sidaway 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean stop reverting edits to archives in general or just those by Cool Cat? And is Cool Cat going to stop editing archives? I wouldn't have even noticed Cool Cat editing archives if he hadn't edited User talk:Centrx/Archive12, after he specifically asked if he could and was told no. I am eventually going to get around to reverting all of his massive unapproved bot edits, but other than that I would never notice his edits if he weren't specifically editing archives that are quite obviously on my watchlist. —Centrx→talk • 23:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've chatted with White Cat and he's shown me the bot approval page. There seem to have been two problems there: he did far more edits than he should have in test mode, and in the end the approval was refused on grounds of the redirect policy.

Other people have suggested that his desire to change his signature is supported by the a form of words in the username policy under "Changing your username", to wit: "If you feel strongly about your name no longer being on visible pages on the site, you can edit these pages to remove your signature." I think that seems reasonable.

I recognise your strong feelings about this, but I'm not sure why. Do you feel that the integrity of the archives are at issue? I seem to recall you saying at one point that if everybody wanted to do what White Cat wants to do it would mean a lot of edits. Well yes, but it's a wiki and the edits in question would not change the content significantly, whilst at the same time enhancing White Cat's accountability for his past edits.

At the same time I'm a bit flummoxed about why White Cat wants to perform these edits at all. But he does, and I don't understand why you have such a determination "to get around to reverting all of his massive unapproved bot edits". I've asked him to stop for now until we can resolve this. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

One example of how these edits can change the meaning of discussions in archives, or can make them confusing, is where discussants refer to other discussants by their nickname. If someone reading an archive finds "I agree with Finagler" and then sees that there is no one with a nickname resembling "Finagler" in the discussion, that defeats the purpose of the archive. The reader then goes away not understanding the discussion because something is missing, or they are wise enough to look in the page history, which makes the archive pointless. This is just an example of a practical effect, but in general changing signatures is not sound policy. Removing personal information or libel is a special exception (and depending on the situation is best accompanied by an explicit mention that text removed by OTRS etc.); Cool Cat's explanation thus far really does end at "I want to". —Centrx→talk • 01:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat name changes

He's doing it with page moves, now. Could you see about fixing this? -- Ned Scott 01:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Ignore all rules

I reverted your deletion of points from this policy page. A long period of discussion and consensus-building preceded the new version of the policy which is the current page. The current version is the result of many editors discussing the policy over a long period of time. Since this is a policy page, please propose changes and hear opinions before simply instating them. Thanks! : ) - Chardish 02:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yours is the new change, then. The old version stands until there is consensus for the new version. —Centrx→talk • 03:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, rather than reverting on a point of procedure, you should actually justify what you think is correct about these lines. They are not correct. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and consensus is in reference to that. Your version elevates consensus to some superior all-dominating force. Its introduction replaces the previous simplicity with irrelevant complexity. It requires encyclopedia editors to become familiar with "the rules", despite their possible irrelevance to the work at hand, and despite their being completely unnecessary for an intelligent purpose who seeks to build an encyclopedia. With these changes you added that I removed, the "Ignore all rules" policy actually elevates rules and elevates the Wikipedia:Consensus page above the superior and much more well-worked pages of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are some of the ones actually relevant to the phrase "improving and maintaining Wikipedia". Don't add rules to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. —Centrx→talk • 04:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Myself and a number of other editors spent about a week on the talk page discussing these changes, weeding out possibilities we didn't think would work, etc., but there was a clear supermajority opinion that the single-sentence wording of IAR was not enough. I would have imagined that any editor interested in the content of IAR has the page on his or her watchlist, which means that he or she also had the opportunity to participate in this discussion. After a revised edition which all editors agreed was acceptable, and a brief waiting period, I posted the rules in their current version. You raise a number of good points, but when dealing with policy, changes to the policy should always be discussed on the talk page before implementation. I welcome you to participate in this process. Thank you! : ) - Chardish 04:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Myself and hundreds of other editors have agreed on the previous version for more than 5 years. So your week and a handful of editors does not supersede the previous long-standing consensus version of the page. Decisions on Wikipedia are not made by "supermajority", a statement which appears to reflect the misunderstanding of consensus you have added to the page. Similarly with consensus, most editors with pages on their watchlist do not follow every discussion on every talk page, and generally notice changes only when they are added to the main page. Also, did you post such a major change to policy to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia:Requests for comment? If a change to a policy or article is proposed, the long-standing consensus version stays until the problems with the new version are resolved. —Centrx→talk • 04:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So if editors decide the policy needs changing, and they draft a new version that all find acceptable, how long are they expected to wait? Contrary to what you state, the previous version was highly contested, see the "straw poll" on the talk page and see that nearly half of Wikipedia editors don't agree with the page's previous wording. No matter what your opinion about what constitutes consensus, I think you'll agree that when nearly half of all people object to a policy, that policy does not enjoy consensus. Furthermore, just because I use the word "supermajority" does not mean that I do not understand how consensus operates. - Chardish 11:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: The "disputed" tag, rather than revert wars, is a good choice until we have this sorted out. - Chardish 11:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Portmanteau

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modchip&action=history. Rrrrrg. -- Renesis (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving old African news

What is the plan for removing old news items from Portal:Current events/Africa? I ask because I attempted to do just that and it seems to have been quashed in the past. I am not entirely clear about the debate and what is expected. That page is getting rather long with dead news, certainly not current events.--Natsubee 13:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, and I am not much involved with portals, but it seems to me that old news should either be deleted outright, or copied to an archive subpage. Check what other, perhaps more active, portals do. —Centrx→talk • 15:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Tied to the 90's

A one-word question: why?--Fluence 03:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This article had, and continues to have, no content. It was a duplicate of the article on the album. Also, see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 17:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

Thanks for the reply Centrx, I did change the Nortel Certifications page, and just used the facts removing all vendor view point. How did I do. I got one feedback but I don't know who that person was just an IP address. Any more feedback? Thanks PassportDude 01:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, but I think the question is more: Can an encyclopedic article that is verifiable in published third-party sources be made on this topic? See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Notability for some context. —Centrx→talk • 01:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected your userpage from mass vandalism; they had some sleeper accounts. Check the history. --Golbez 12:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki break

I'm going to be going on a vacation from (Mountain time, sorry need to pack, not enough time to convert time) 7/12/2007 to 7/22/2007. Seeing how you are an administrator, can you put an enforced wikibreak thing in my monobook.ccs or .js (wherever it goes). I will use my alternate accounts on my vacation. Cheers! Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 17:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the enforced wikibreak mechanism, but it is usually just for cases where you want to enforce your own break because you may be tempted to come back and edit. There is no need to use it, though you might add a note to your user page that you are on break. Have a good vacation! —Centrx→talk • 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting articles

Hi there, I noticed you deleted biological parent last year. In the case of deletion, if a redirect would work, feel free to use that instead. Richard001 05:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Duke (short)

The page The Duke (short) originally had a copyvio. The editor deleted that and replaced it with his own wording. I just want to have an admin check it out now in case the copyvio in the History needs to be removed and if the rest of the article checks out. -WarthogDemon 01:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 01:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Space after "c." (for circa)

A discussion was going on about this on the talk page for WP:DATE. I don't think it was your place to make a pronouncement (without explanation — it is apparently just your personal taste) and then slam the guideline around. Please join the discussion, or allow the other editors a chance to achieve consensus. Chris the speller 04:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Slam the guideline around"? What are you talking about? —Centrx→talk • 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:White Cat signature changes

Hi. User:White Cat (formerly Cool Cat) has contacted me regarding your reversion of his changing his signature on various pages to correspond to his new username. So that I can advise him, could you let me know what is your view as to where, if anywhere, it is appropriate for him to follow up on his username change by updating his signature, and how strongly you feel about the matter? Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad 16:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The contents of archives ought not be changed. The alteration of archives defeats the purpose of archives; one practical example of problems with signature changes is if someone refers to the user's name in conversation, which then disappears if the username is changed thus altering the meaning of the discussion or rendering it unintelligible. Eliding personal information or potentially libellous statements is an appropriate exception, but making changes for no other reason than "I want to" is not. —Centrx→talk • 17:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Archive box collapsible

Hey Centrx. I could use a little css syntax help, again. The template is gaining popularity, and I noticed it is being used on several article talk pages. That gave me the idea to put an ifeq parameter (I called it "large=yes") into the template code, that when used makes the archive box appear center-aligned at 80% width, to fit in with the other talk page templates.

I managed to fetch the necessary code and everything seems to work, except for the center-alignment. I'd be greatful if you could take a glance at my sandbox whenever you can find the time. —AldeBaer (c) 15:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Y —AldeBaer (c) 16:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

NRHP article titles

I responded to your message on User talk:NrhpBot. pw 13:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Brandy Talore

In March 2007, you deleted this article and protected it from recreation. Brandy talore has since been started in its place. I was about to tag it for speedy deletion, when I noticed that the model does seem to be quite notable. She has won a FAME award and therefore passes WP:PORNBIO. This wasn't part of the WP:PORNBIO criteria when the article was deleted. It would be good if her article could have the correct capitalisation in its heading, and so would it be possible to unprotect the Brandy Talore page, after a deletion discussion if neccesary? Epbr123 18:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia articles need reliable published sources. This article does not have any.

2. Articles that have been previously deleted should not simply be re-created at an alternate location. —Centrx→talk • 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Brandy Talore. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Epbr123 07:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 31#Brandy Talore. Epbr123 07:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• The article is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandy Talore if you would like to give your opinion. Epbr123 00:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rule 34. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mrjeff 18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Brandy talore

When I last saw the article, it mentioned her FAME Award, which makes the article pass WP:PORNBIO's notability guideline. There is also a DRV in progress at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_31#Brandy_Talore Corpx 07:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Movepage-moved

Hey, I saw this edit of yours. Well, I went to visit the page and check the history after I noticed that fixing double redirects wasn't as easy as before. Previously, you just had to click the link, CTRL+F the word "redirect" and fix those. Now, that doesn't work anymore, because you also find non-double redirects. Could you perhaps explain your motivation for this? Why does it "make them much more noticeable"? Thanks in advance. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 21:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The page always linked to the moved-to target until a month ago. The behavior was changed without notice or explanation. Linking to the moved-to target makes the redirects much more noticeable because all of the double redirects are found indented; they are also plainly double redirects, whereas none of the pages linking to the the moved-from page are clearly double redirects, which is what a person would expect who either read the message displayed or expected the long-standing behavior. Also, it does have the advantage of actually catching all double redirects for the moved-to target, rather than only the ones that pass through the page that happened to be moved. —Centrx→talk • 17:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Kankakee High School

Greetings.

Stumbling through Wikipedia, I noticed that the page for Kankakee High School was deleted back in February. I was wondering if there was still an archive somewhere of what was originally posted there, as I might be able to provide sources for it.

Thanks in advance! SamiiTiger 06:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The page has essentially no useful content. "Kankakee High School is a public high school in Kankakee, Illinois. The school has been known as "Kankakee High School", "Kankakee Senior High School", and, now, again, as "Kankakee High School". It was for a time replaced two Kankakee High Schools, "Eastridge High School" and "Westview High School"; but the two were combined in the building of the former "Westview High School" to restore a "Kankakee High School"." Please note that reliable sources must be published sources independent of the school or its administration. See also Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 17:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh... The article would most certainly have been lacking, for certain. Hrm. I'm curious, though. My mother attended one of the precursors of the current Kankakee High School, Eastridge High School. If someone was to interview her and others that know about the history of the school and publish it, would it then be considered a "reliable source" since it came from first-hand accounts? SamiiTiger 06:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research. Information on Wikipedia has to come from sources that have been published elsewhere first; and interviews, especially informal personal interviews not by an historian or at least a journalist, are not especially reliable. Personal memory is faulty, and many people are not strictly honest; the historian or the journalist includes an interview as part of a broader investigation with corroborating information, and then publishes the total result of their investigations as a secondary source. —Centrx→talk • 23:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

XTube

Hi there. I noticed that you protected XTube from re-creation. The discussion in which it was decided to delete this article took place over a year ago and the primary concerns for deletion are either no longer substantiated or I feel are rather weak, especially since similar articles exist, such as PornoTube. A few secondary sources I have found:

• XTube sags under weight of own success
• XTube : Amateur content and money
• xTube Porn 2.0

I'd appreciate it if you weighed the matter again. Samuel Grant 05:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete the article or originally protect it. I have now unprotected it but you will need to find better sources or someone may be deleted again. See also Wikipedia:Deletion review if necessary. —Centrx→talk • 23:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Would you please enlighten me as to why you think I am a sockpuppet. James Luftan ^contribs 18:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The account's almost exclusive purpose has been to add votes to AfDs. —Centrx→talk • 23:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I enjoy voting, it doesn't make me a sock. Besides I have plenty of other edits aswell, but AfDs are the most interesting to me. Just because an account is only interested in a few areas doesn't make it a sockpuppet. Now if I only had 2 edits, both pertaining to the same AfD, then it would be possible. I am an established user, with a ton of edits for being 2 1/2 weeks old; my type (besides admins) is the last type that would be called this. Thanks, James Luftan ^contribs 00:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, AfD is not a vote, and adding me-too votes is not constructive and a waste of your time. If you don't have anything to add to a discussion, don't post to it. Your behavior is indistinguishable from and as productive as a sockpuppet, even if you claim not to be one. —Centrx→talk • 17:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Dittos certainly count, and I only use them sparingly; your argument doesn't make sense, but, whatever you say... James Luftan ^contribs 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The reasons justifying a comment, with reference to the principles and policies of Wikipedia, are what counts. Repeating what has already been said is a waste of your time and a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. AfD outcomes are not properly the consequence of a numerical majority. —Centrx→talk • 01:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Like it or not, numbers do count for something, even if they don't count for everything. Still, the opinion of an editor with only 2.5 weeks of edits, especially if this is noted by another user on an AfD, is likely to carry much less weight than a more established editor. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 02:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, although I am relatively new, (2.5 weeks, as you said) I have over 350 edits which I think constitutes as a lot for someone this new. James Luftan ^contribs 03:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You have less than 50 edits to the actual encyclopedia, all of which are minor, which is quite alright but does not mean that you understand how Wikipedia works or what constitutes a Wikipedia article. —Centrx→talk • 03:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I was told that project pages count more than actual article pages (towards adminship), but I assure you that I will get more mainspace edits, as it may take me awhile to get into the habit of interests again (I used to be an actual contributor here before going on a wikibreak, and then creating this new account.) By the way, I contribute mostlly to AfDs, and the AN, simply because it is pretty damn interesting. James Luftan ^contribs 03:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, like AfD, adminship is not about numbers. A user with 30,000 semi-automated or vapid edits will not be made an admin, but a user with 1,000 generally productive, substantive edits can be. If your goal in editing is just to be an admin, you are in the wrong place. —Centrx→talk • 03:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not, but I would like to be one. James Luftan ^contribs 03:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Zorglbot/Shortpages on the tool server

I thought you might be interested by the fact that a version of the shortpages bot now runs on the toolserver; the main advantage is that it is run every 15 minutes on a live database; in the future, I should be able to improve the page a bit more, for example by making it interactive so that people can decide to display only some categories of pages. Of course, it depends on good replication of the main database with the toolserver; this has been a problem in the past but seems to be working ok at the moment.

The page is located at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~schutz/output/shortpages.html; I have tested it in the past few days, and it seems to work (at least it gave me plenty of work to do — tagging of articles for SD, fixing stuff and listing some articles for deletion), so I'd like to ask two or three users of the current page (plus the readers of their talk page, of course :-) to try it and act as beta testers... if everything goes well, I'll advertise it more widely and, maybe later, will stop the bot altogether. If you are interested and try it, comments are welcome on my talk page. Thanks, Schutz 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! —Centrx→talk • 23:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Indorsement

Hi. I created this again, as a redirect to Blank endorsement, a newly created article, which was requested for a long time at WP:AR1. If I have done this in error, please inform me and delete it again. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Bearian 23:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

MoS:DP and one blue link per entry

I restored the earlier version of the paragraph, pending discussion and consensus. I oppose encouraging multiple links, unless we can spell out the circumstances that might require them. Chris the speller 04:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I explicitly added the circumstances in the edit. The current recommendation is simply wrong, and there is no reason the MOS has to be so stringent as to recommend one link in cases where one link specifically does not help the reader "find the information they want quickly and easily". It is a contradiction, and if you want to spell out every specific contingency, try it out, but I don't see the necessity; the MOS is not a statute. —Centrx→talk • 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought perhaps you were using the techniques of WP:BRD, but you departed and tried Bold-Revert-Revert instead, even after the courtesy I showed by notifying you here, and in spite of the broad consensus that supports one blue link. I think I showed good faith; you might want to try some of that, preferably after reading and understanding WP:BRD. Chris the speller 15:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I know about that page quite well. I also know that you reverting with no rationale is not productive, and is no more effective a revert in the context of that page than is an accident or a confusion. The justification for the change I made was included in the change and in the edit summary, and without you giving some response either in your edit summary or on the talk page, there is no "discussion" I can do except to repeat exactly the rationale I included in the edit and the edit summary, which would be pointlessly redundant. —Centrx→talk • 17:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BRD is quite clear that you should have not reverted my reversion. On my edit summary, and on your talk page, I invited discussion. Calling the guideline "simply wrong" is not discussion. Perhaps an example of an entry that you feel needs two blue links would provide a starting point, but I have yet to see such an example. It is probably not constructive for us to argue this here, as the whole discussion should be on the talk page for the MoS; the only reason we are here is that I showed a little courtesy to you. I will consider this a learning experience about when to extend courtesy. No need to reply here, as I do not watch your talk page. Chris the speller 17:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a change with the rationale included in the change and the edit summary, then you reverted on a point of procedure without explanation of the actual rationale for the revert. There is nothing wrong with making changes to guidelines on Wikipedia. The only reason we are here is because you initiated this conversation on my talk page. You were free to initiate it on the guideline's talk page. —Centrx→talk • 00:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Yehuda Band

As part of an examination of OTRS performance, I reviewed this Yeduda Band and its associated OTRS ticket. As you are on OTRS, I don't need to discuss it here, but in my opinion it satisfies sourcing and copyright concerns (that you raised in your deletion summary). Given that I suggest you review the deletion, and if you believe he meets WP:PROF send it to AFD/DRV...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has zero third-party sources. The only source is his home page at the university, which was probably written by himself, and does not actually corroborate most of the information in the article. The article was written by someone associated with the subject. The only people who have ever non-trivially edited the article over the course of sixteen months are the subject himself or people associated with him. The parts that appear to be possible copyright problems are, if not copyright problems, written by the person himself or a friend and read like they were. —Centrx→talk • 00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, forgot about WP:OR ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

IP editor requesting username

Ironically enough, shortly after this exchange, my ISP started randomly changing the IP address they assign me after a period of relative stability. As a result, I've decided that having an account isn't such a bad idea. Unfortunately, the username I would like, User:Paradox has already been assigned. Fortunately, it has no edits.[8] Is there any way I can usurp this account, even though I'm not an "established editor"? Any assistance would be appreciated. (I'll watch this page for a reply.)24.6.209.4 16:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The way to do it is to create an account with some other name; use that account for a while, and then eventually request to usurp the username you want. You could mention that you formerly used User:24.6.65.83, but that still may not be established enough and would run into the problem of authentication that is one of the reasons for creating an account. —Centrx→talk • 22:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

About the image

I merely cropped borders off an image already uploaded to Wikipedia, licensing info was there, etc. Now I am unable to upload the edited image without giving it an all new GNU. This doesn't seem right, as I didn't create the image, just took off some unnecessary borders. What should I have done?Headzred 18:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Headzred. —Centrx→talk • 21:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I appreciate the quick and clear response.Headzred 12:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Buffett

I reverted your change to Warren Buffett - his $100k salary is reasonably notable [9] for someone managing a fund the size of Berkshire Hathaway - MrArt 12:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Then mention it in the article in the proper context. Putting it blandly in an infobox is misleading. It is notable not because it is important, but because it is used as a soft human-interest element in magazine articles. —Centrx→talk • 15:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jobstreet

Hi,

I am the Content Manager for JobStreet.com.

Earlier this year, I had noticed that there was an item on Jobstreet on Wikipedia but today, when I tried to find the entry again, I could no longer see it. Instead I see that it has been deleted because its contents were deemed as "advertisement". May I know more about this decision, because I do not agree with it. To me, our entry constituted a fair description of what Jobstreet is all about. I'm sure there are other items in Wikipedia that contain more advertisement material than ours.

I'm requesting a review and a reinstatement of our entry as soon as possible.

Regards SS Quah Content Manager JobStreet.com

Ssquah 08:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC) ssquah

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. As someone affiliated with the subject of the article, you should not be writing an article on the subject. Also, as a general matter, Wikipedia articles must be written in a neutral point of view and must be verifiable in published third-party sources. —Centrx→talk • 18:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

CG tools

Hi,

Last year, you deleted CG tools as "unencyclopaedic", or something like that ... I recreated as a REDIRECT to Conceptual graph, since there are web pages out there that (still) link to this deleted page. I'm interested in getting at the original deleted content, and it is my understanding that admins can view such stuff. I was wondering if you could grab a copy and post it on my talk page. I'm contemplating merging it into Conceptual graph, which at the moment seems to be woefully slim for something as big as this. linas 02:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try to digest, review, merge or delete as appropriate. May take a while. linas 01:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Revert

I wasn't reverting for a revert's sake or for any another nonsense policy objection. Frankly, I couldn't care less about what message is displayed at MediaWiki:Sharedupload. However, a user did raise an objection on the talk page to that particular change, which was made without consensus or discussion. It only seemed fair to allow a mere mortal to have a say in the system message, or at least have a discussion and reach an agreement before implementing a change. And my edit summary when I made the change made that clear as it ended in "per request". Please don't snap; it's not nice. --MZMcBride 18:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The objection on the talk page is about an unrelated edit made by someone else. —Centrx→talk • 01:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

re:Changing archives

See Wikipedia:Username policy#Changing your username. I am allowed to change my signature if I feel strongly about it. I was harrassed under this username and no longer want to be associated with it, and reverting me is borderline harrassment trying to keep associating me with the name. I've had multiple accounts changed and talk pages deleted to protect me. Whether or not it's "not personally identifiable" is unimportant, if someone was able to contact me in real life when I was using that name, even if was vaguely off from trying to locate me, it's personal enough for me to change and to remove. Take this conversation elsewhere if you think my signature being associated with me is incorrect. — Moe ε 03:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, it hasn't been noisey, and has gone fine in terms of changing it. There's no way to stop the person who knows from knowing it now, starting over has no benefit, I don't even know this person edits Wikipedia or not (although more than likely they have at one point). All I know is they connected a personal identifying e-mail account of mine which contained a last name, which I had to put on a public profile for my old username, which I intended to bring down a long time ago, but until recently have dicovered that I did not. Since then, my username changed to Moe Epsilon here, but my old username attached with the real identity was still intact elsewhere. The way I see it, no one can associate me with my real name except the one who already knows it, but keeping my old username visible in archives still attached to Moe Epsilon, still gives people that chance. There's no way I'm starting over, not unless I was outed on the Internet, and my information was public, it's not. But since the public profile was removed a while ago now, the chances of it being outed are slim since, hopefully only, one individual knows to post that here. I'm still not taking the chance of that idiot posting my real life identity to my old username. I have no problem with it being in histories for now, as it's not a major concern. My major concern are things like archives that contain the old name that link to my current account. History diffs on Wikipedia don't pull up results on Google unless you search for them, so the changes specifically, won't be so obvious to someone who doesn't know how to work Wikipedia (that's based on the assumption this person doesn't know how to edit Wikipedia like we do). If this person does know how to edit Wikipedia, then I might as well be gone, because I won't stay here if it happened, but I'm not assuming this person is going to out the information, just assuming he has the knowledge to out this information, and if this is one way to obscure that fact, then I'm taking it. — Moe ε 04:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Indian Valley HIgh School

How about instead of deleting this page, you could have made it so that only registeered users could edit. Jerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintjimmy777 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection of the WP:VAND page

WP:VAND should be semi-protected, as most vandalism is from IP users. If you can't, I understand. --TheWikiLoner 11:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it is semi-protected. It is fully protected for moves only. —Centrx→talk • 04:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A7 explanation

If you've followed Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion recently, you'll see why I don't think the statement about the list being exclusive is an empty one. Many people have disbelieved it. --Alvestrand 16:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It applies just as much to that criterion as to any other criterion. If someone deletes an article that does not strictly fall under that criterion, they do so under the same principle by which they might delete any article that does not strictly fall under any criteria for speedy deletion. —Centrx→talk • 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, reverting without explanation in the edit summary is counter-productive. The rollback tool, revert scripts, or a simple "rvv" summary is for vandalism and other special situations; otherwise the reason should be included in the page history. —Centrx→talk • 17:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

apologies for that - realized I'd hit the wrong button when I saw the log... --Alvestrand 04:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The 7th Portal

I've notice you've protected the page for The 7th Portal and was wondering if you could tell me why and, if possible, get it undeleted without having to take it to the Deletion Review

Is it because a good-sized article couldn't be created? If that's the case, I have all all the episodes --the ones that went on the web, not the ones that were shown on Fox-- saved on my computer via the shockmachine (which I recently was shocked to find I haven't uninstalled yet) and could write it. If its because it's not notable enough to merit its own article, this page could simply redirect to the Stan Lee Media article, which in turn could have a subtitle mentioning what the serie was basically about.

--Once in a Blue Moon 20:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In order to have a Wikipedia article on the subject, there need to be published third-party sources about it. You cannot simply make an article based on viewing the episodes. I will redirect the page to Stan Lee Media. Also, there were issues with the article linking to a website that illegally hosted copies of the episodes, so be careful of that. —Centrx→talk • 22:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Vprotected2

A template you created, Template:Vprotected2, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's just a redirect; why not keep it? —Centrx→talk • 22:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Shorewood High School?

I am an Alumni of Shorewood High School in WI and am very disappointed to see that you deleted its wikipedia page. It is a school with rich tradition in both academics and athletics. In 2006, SHS was ranked the 3rd best academic school in the state. It is also the 4 time defending champion in boys cross country. Its soccer program is also seen as a contender. Those are just few on the long list of accomplishments. I feel the wikipedia world needs to know about this great school. I am wondering why you deleted it?

A Concerned Wikipedian Skillvalued 05:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In order to be included on Wikipedia, an encyclopedia article must be substantiated by published third-party sources. Articles without such sources are eventually deleted. —Centrx→talk • 05:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the many other claims of notability, the school is the alma mater of such individuals as Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Congressman Les Aspin and, most importantly, brothers David Zucker and Jerry Zucker of Airplane! fame. Given the near-complete consensus on high school notability, it seems hard to understand why the article was handled as a speedy delete, and not through the AfD process. May I request that the article be userfied to my user pages, so that I can review the article and take the few minutes it will take to improve the existing content of the article to meet the consensus on such articles. Alansohn 03:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If these persons went to the school, that fact is, without reliable sources on the school, properly included in the articles on those persons. An encyclopedia article cannot be made when it is based entirely on brochure language from the school website. I have put the text at User:Alansohn/Shorewood High School. —Centrx→talk • 20:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the userfication. The article has been restructured with appropriate sources added and unsourced material removed. The updated article has been moved into mainspace under its original title of Shorewood High School. Alansohn 22:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

{{deletedpage}}

Centrx, given your thoughtful comment here, I thought it important to tell you that the template has been nominated for deletion.--Chaser - T 16:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

terrible

Could you explain to me WHY this redirect was removed please? I found it reasonable since suck is another term for something that's terrible. TheBlazikenMaster 11:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary (and even if it were, "terrible", an adjective, is not even of the same part of speech as "suck", a verb, and they are not closely similar words even in slang). —Centrx→talk • 15:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can go ahead and remove unfunny too then, as it has the same problem. (I mean action movies are unfunny that doesn't make them boring.) I apologize if the redirect was bullshit. I just thought it would make sense, but I now see it doesn't. TheBlazikenMaster 17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Does Gummy bears still need to be semi-protected?

It's been 9 months now, with no editor vandalism, so I imagine it's not too tempting a target (now). I see nothing about its protection on its talk page. --Tardis 21:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have unprotected it. Most of the vandalism before was probably from school-children, so it may start up again. —Centrx→talk • 01:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Suburban Noize Records

I was recently contacted by another user, who was trying to write an article about this record company. He was worried because the above page has been salted by another user — I'm not sure who, since there's no history on the salt page, and the entry is unsigned. However, I noticed that you were the deleting admin, so I wanted to contact you before I undelete it.

I say undelete it, because there doesn't appear to be any reason for its deletion; as far as I can tell, it was never run through the deletion process in any respect before on 9 January 2007 you deleted it with the comment No evidence of notability, no reliable sources. I'm not sure what's going on with it, or if there were external (perhaps WP:OTRS issues) but I though I'd drop you a line before taking action. --Haemo 00:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. —Centrx→talk • 16:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kevin Jonas. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Pokemon

Can you unprotect the page Pokemon? It;s been a while and the vandalism seems to have died down. I can also make some really good edits.~~~~. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.169.81 (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. —Centrx→talk • 01:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly

Do you want me to start reporting you for harrasment? I already told you that reverting the name is going to be treated like it and I won't tolerate it. I've already explained this to you once. — Moe ε 20:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Moe and Centrx, please keep your cool. This is not appropriate, and I would really expect better from both of you. Also, remember, discussion can never progress well when the initiator makes claims of harassment. —METS501 (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the initiator if this discussion was Centrx, and the only person who has a real problem with it has been Centrx. Centrx claimed I was altering archives inappropriatly since it didn't give out personally identifiable information. Rebuttle to that was the threat of outing me was possible if someone made a connection between my old username and an old public account, which would out me. I explained this fairly well in the above thread. Reverting it knowing that connecting me to the name could potentially cause me real life harm, is harrassment. — Moe ε 10:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing personally identifiable in that six-digit sequence of characters. Even if your initials are S.W.D. and your birthday is March 16, there are thousands, perhaps millions, of people with the same initials and birthday. Changing the signature on talk archives does not dissociate your old username from your new username. If someone knows the old username and wishes to find the new, he can discover it by the simplest of Google searches. If someone is looking at the old username, he will find the old simply by looking at the user contributions of the new. If the connection between your usernames puts you in danger of real-life harm, the intelligent thing to do would be to actually sever the connection. —Centrx→talk • 13:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(Also, if you alter old IP talk pages, it is much more helpful to Wikipedia in general—and incidentally, more effective for your obfuscation—to simply blank the page.) —Centrx→talk • 13:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, there is nothing personally identifying in the username itself and I didn't say there was, that's not the reason I removed it. For the most part, my old username was outed of it's privacy, but the name 'Moe Epsilon' hasn't been connected to the personal information that I removed, or it hasn't been established that this person knows. I don't care if editors on Wikipedia know thats my old username. I don't know if this person is an editor on Wikipedia, the only thing I know is my old e-mail address that contained my real name was attached to a old public profile under my old username, and I was contacted through it and that this person could potentially make the connection if they Google searched it or visited Wikipedia. Severing the connection has no benefit at this time, as the connection hasn't been made 100% yet, and I'm not about to throw away an established account with nearly 50,000 edits just because of this. Changing these archives has no effect on the message or who sent the message and I would appriciate it if you stayed the hell out of my business because your not involved in this and I'm not about to tolerate jerks from Wikipedia interfering in my real life. — Moe ε 14:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone who wishes to connect the usernames can do so regardless of whether you change these signatures. Someone who already has your personal information can contact you regardless of whether they know your new Wikipedia username, and will do so or not do so regardless of whether they know your new Wikipedia username. Only someone who does not know the personal information or your old username, but who does know your new Wikipedia username—such as a Wikipedia editor—would be prevented by dissociating your new username. If the connection to your new username is a danger to you, then only actually severing the connection between them will prevent that danger. If there is no such danger, then you are changing archives and becoming angry about it because you want to keep contribs under your belt, not because of danger. —Centrx→talk • 17:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I'm saying, right now, if someone wanted to connect the names, the could, and I'm in the process of fixing everything that I can fix; If that person released the information, yes, I would start over. Yes, the person who knows my information can contact me, but if that someone decided to out the information of my old username, and trace it back to me, then that is going to trigger a lot more contact than I want. As far as I know, it's one person now, and with as many internet trolls that I've dealt with and have a personal vendetta against, I don't want that to escalate in numbers. The only reason I'm "angry" about it is because you suggested that I start over, and by default, making it look like I just want to keep my contributions. Yes, I would like to keep my contributions, but I would like to keep them, but with a bit of reassurance that I won't be tormented in real life by a bunch of Wikipedia trolls, and you're not helping. — Moe ε 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I really think you're not getting anywhere by arguing. Not even considering the merits of Centrx's and Moe's arguments, I would have to say that since Moe has (or seems to have) a personal interest in editing these talk archives to hide his old username, and since Centrx does not have personal interest in stopping him (from what I can see) aside from possible ruining talk page discussion, I would like to propose that Centrx, you allow Moe to change over the signatures, but Moe, you should go and make sure that no one else referred to your edit by name in the same discussion, and if so, update that reference as well as your signature. —METS501 (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something here, I believe Mets501 has the right approach. Newyorkbrad 21:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any personal interest in doing anything on Wikipedia. The problem here is exactly that someone is choosing his personal interest of not getting a new account over the interest of Wikipedia. If the principle in any dispute is "The person who has a personal interest prevails", then we would not have an encyclopedia. The correct principle for resolving a dispute is rather the opposite. —Centrx→talk • 17:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying Wikipedia archives are more important than, potentially, my well being? If I think changing the signatures is a way to benefit me and Wikipedia by staying, I think it should be done. The attitude of trying to drive me away from Wikipedia isn't productive in any manner. — Moe ε 17:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If your well-being is at stake, actually create a new username and do not associate it with your old username. Wikipedia archives are more important than the privilege of having a large number of contribs attached to your username. —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If I have the oppritunity to protect my well being, what would be the benefit of disassociating it? If everyone restarted thier account because of a threat that might happen, nobody would have an account longer than a 1 year on Wikipedia. — Moe ε 16:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there are that many threats on Wikipedia, but the danger of this threat is supposed to be that someone knows personal information about you. Without personal information a threat is not really dangerous, and a person needs only create one account separate from any personal information. Anyway, many people have their real names with descriptive biographies on their user pages, without trouble. —Centrx→talk • 18:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The potential of this threat could be serious and I'm not going to assume anything less. I'm not exactly itching to be someone with a descriptive biography if I'm having problems now, and I'm not keen to start giving out information unless I have a damn good reason. — Moe ε 21:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

RfAr

I've taken the disagreement between Ned Scott and White Cat to requests for arbitration and you're named as a party due to your previous involvement with White Cat (the signature reversion is an issue, so I consider you partially involved). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OTRS question

Image:Harry-holtzman-with-piet-mondrian-holtzmans-studio-1940-41.jpg say "Ticket#: 2006041210000959" but it also says it is copyrighted. Can you check the permission and update the image page with what it says? Thanks, Calliopejen1 01:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, [10]. —Centrx→talk • 02:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Indian Valley High School

Now I'm a reasonable man. I'd like to negotiate about this issue. You stated that this page (Template:Indian Valley High School(Pennsylvania)) was a target for vandalism. I can't help that some people at my school are a**holes, but you didn't have to delete and lock the page. I believe that something can be worked out here. Many sites are vandalism hot spots but they aren't deleted, they're locked from I.P editing (George Bush, Stephen Colbert). Can we come up with some sort of agreement? 12.104.119.197 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous independent reliable sources regarding the topics of George Bush and Stephen Colbert, such that neutral, verifiable encyclopedia articles can be created about them, and have been. There were no independent sources whatsoever in the article on Indian Valley High School; there was no indication that such sources exist; and I could find none elsewhere. The essential reason for deletion is that there was no evidence of notability and there were no reliable sources; the fact that the page served as a graffiti board for attacking people is just more reason why a page on a topic about which there can likely never be a real encyclopedia article should not be left fallow. —Centrx→talk • 02:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, are there reliable sources for the nearby Lewistown Area High School? That page was vandalized just as much, besides, if what you said was true, there would be a lot more High School pages for you to delete. Have a ball. Saintjimmy777 18:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps you could start here [11] for sources. Hmm? Don't be afraid to look too hard. I believe that on the old IVHS page there was a link to this. Saintjimmy777 11:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Mifflin County School District website is directly affiliated with Indian Valley High School, so it is not an independent or third-party source. Other articles for which there exist no independent reliable sources will be eventually deleted as well. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory of high schools. —Centrx→talk • 21:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:White cat

Let's just let him change his sig to something less confusing. I'm proposing he just adds the word "White" in front of "Cat". Would that be OK? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

John S. McCain, Sr.

A few months ago, you deleted John S. McCain, Sr. for being a copyright violation. I came across the page today, noticed the deleted edits, and took a closer look. The source of this article was a public domain US government website (archive.org confirms this), so I restored the deleted revisions. It looks like the site arlingtoncemetery.net copied a version of the article dated sometime in 2006 or early 2007. The real shitty thing is that this website is linked on hundreds of articles, sometimes being used as a source. :( --- RockMFR 22:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Talk:Diane Huxley. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lucy-marie 15:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This page was deleted because the attached article was deleted. It can be restored without going to deletion review. —Centrx→talk • 03:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for verifying an open proxy

Hi, I found your username on this list, and I would like to ask you to verify if the IP address 138.25.2.22 is an open proxy. As far as I'm aware, this is the proxy used by computers on the University of Technology, Sydney network, and I strongly doubt that it is an open proxy. Furthermore, the campus doesn't have any public computer terminals, so if it in fact is not open, anyone editing from this address is affiliated with the university. Thank you in advance, it's getting quite annoying to do a secure login every time I want to correct a mistake or rvv.

I initially posted the message on Pathoschild's talk page, but he seems to be too busy to respond. After looking at the user contributions of the other users on the aforementioned list, it seems you were one of the only ones not on a wikibreak of some sort. --Aramգուտանգ 06:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this does not look like an open proxy. It is a University computer, it does not have any open-proxy or unusual externally accessible ports open, and it is not a tor node, though I am unable to access CompleteWhois at this time. It does not look like it is blocked though on the English Wikipedia? If there is a range block that includes that IP, I would need to know the range that is blocked as I cannot find it. If it is blocked on another wiki, I cannot unblock it; you would need to find an administrator on that wiki and point them to this comment, or find the open proxy project for that wiki. —Centrx→talk • 21:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So if the IP was blocked on another wiki, to find out which one it was blocked on, would I have to go through all the wikis checking the Special:Log for the IP, or is there a better way? I actually tried doing that on some of the more popular wikis, including commons, meta, ja, fr, de, zh, vi, ru, ko, es, it, and vo, and none of them have any entries in the log for User:138.25.2.22 (I tried both puting 138.25.2.22 in the IP field and, separately, User:138.25.2.22 in the Title field). And if it's a range block, is there anything I can do to find the range? Also, the block and contributions log on EN is itself kind of interesting. The IP was blocked on 11'NOV 2005 at 02:11 and again by another admin a minute after that, then unblocked at 11:11, yet the contributions show that no edit has been made from the IP since 02:11 11'NOV'2005. I have no idea what to make of that information though. Another piece of info that may be useful is that whenever I click on "edit" and am presented by the "Your IP address has been blocked because it is an open proxy" message, below, where it says "your block has been set to expire:", the current date and time (down to the minute) is given. I don't know if this is standard behaviour for indefinite blocks, so I thought I'd mention it in case it gives a clue as to why the IP is blocked. Please let me know what else I can do or what information I can try to find out to help in lifting this block. Thanks. --Aramգուտանգ 06:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected redirect

You have made a protected redirect of this article: [12] Thus the article has been effectively deleted without AfD discussion. Would it be possible to restore it, please? Obviously its topic is legitimate, just as Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. Thank you.Biophys 06:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The page was appropriately deleted a long time ago as per WP:BLP and it should not be restored. I'm just curious, Biophys, what brings you to this particular article at this particular time? There was a robust discussion about the article at the time it was deleted. POV forks are generally not permissable on Wikipedia. especially those whose sole purpose appears to be to circumvent BLP. csloat 07:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Any link to deletion discussion?Biophys 13:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC) I think reason is clear. I research your contributions in WP in connection with arbcom request. This article might be one of casualties.Biophys 13:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom is there to settle disputes, not to give you an excuse for more WP:STALK violations. I think you'll find the page was appropriately deleted due to WP:BLP concerns. I think you'll also find that I was not the one who deleted it, so if you're looking for an excuse to harass me further, you will need to look for another page. If you have some expertise on the matter please share it at Talk:Juan Cole. csloat 15:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

CSloat, since you did not provide the AfD link, I assume it does not exist. According to WP:STALK, wikistalking "does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason.". So, please stop your unsubstantiated claims at the talk page of another user. I only asked him (not you) a simple technical question, since it was him who made this protection.Biophys 16:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No AfD was necessary in this case, and the discussion was on WT:BLP, Talk: Juan Cole, and the talk page of the article you are bringing up here. As for stalking, you were specifically advised by an admin to stop following my edits around after I asked you to stop harassing me the first time. Looking at another editor's edit history is not always stalking, and there is a grey area, but if you are fishing for controversy by following someone's edits I think your behavior crosses the line. csloat 17:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So, there was no AfD discussion. Then, the article should be unprotected and either improved or go through the normal AfD process.Biophys 18:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect; see explanation above. Hope this helps. csloat 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Csloat, but I did not ask you.Biophys 22:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No need for apologies; I was just trying to be helpful. csloat 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The topic is legitimately included in the article Juan Cole. If there are problems with Criticism of Bill O'Reilly being a POV fork, then it could be best to merge salvageable material into the main article on the person. As it stands, Criticism of Bill O'Reilly does not appear to have serious problems, is well-sourced, and is in the form of an encyclopedia article, so while it might be optimal to merge it I do not intend to do anything about it presently. Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole was not well-sourced, was not in the form of an encyclopedia article and was the result of an angry dispute. Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole currently belong in Juan Cole. If that article overflows and participants at Juan Cole agree, then a subordinate article—a well-sourced, neutral, encyclopedia article—may be appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

RE Pointer machine: thanks for the kind words

Thanks for your comments. There is apparently very little written about this topic. I even e-mailed Gurevich at Microsoft asking if he knew of any texts, etc; he said, unfortunately no. (He's a nice guy, and I wrote him a year ago. Whether anything's changed re more information I dunno). I have exactly one good paper, Schonage's 1980. I had to cc it from a journal or something, and I thought I'd made a .pdf of it. If you would like a cc I could photo-cc it and pdf it and send it to you. (Unfortunately I scribbled on it, thinking I had a back-up pdf, but I think it is still legible). Bill Wvbailey 19:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. I will also etch it into stone and bury it in the mountains. —Centrx→talk • 22:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandwich Plate System - Deleted Page

Hi, I noticed you deleted the page Sandwhich Plate System about a year ago as a copyright violation.

I must state that I work for the company which produces this, so I need to be very careful about the neutral point of view.

However, I do honestly think that this is a notable technology, which is frequently referred to in the press, although this is mostly restricted to trade magazine articles.

What would you recomend as a way forward here? Does the fact that I work for the company automatically preclude me editing the page? If I were to write an article which maintained a neutral point of view and was verifiable, and put this up on the talk page for discussion, could this then be added to the main page?

JimmyDodger 16:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You are able to create an article, and you may very well be able to make a neutral article, but as an employee it may be best not to create it yourself. —Centrx→talk • 22:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)