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

Saxo Bank

I noticed your comments on the FXCM wiki page, and I was wondering if you could also evaluate Saxo Bank It seems like they are basically two different companys in the same industry --DrewWiki 05:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Saxo Bank has the same problem with sources and unknown notability, though it is not written like an advertisement. —Centrx→talk • 05:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Panorama Tools

I have added some sources concerning the notability to Talk:Panorama_Tools#Notability. --Wuz 13:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I also try to add content (see talk page diff and article diff), but it is very annoying when John Spikowski always tries to start some fight. Sorry, I had to revert his new/old/new/old edit in his favourite External link section diff. Is there a chance that someone moderates his edits? I have no problem to contribute under the same conditions. --Einemnet 00:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the reason that all three of you seem to be interested only in this article? —Centrx→talk • 01:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at my contributions and you will see that I am also interested in other articles (also in the German Wikipedia) when there is enough time... Only someone disturbs constructive work all the time, and that leads to endless talks like this one. That particular person has a very long list of contributions, please have a look at that, too, and then compare the quality of the edits. And since this is definitely not the first time we try to explain this, please have a closer look at the RFI you recently deleted. It is all explained over and over. Another good read is that section on Wangi's talk page. Next question, please ;-) --Einemnet 02:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And while we are talking here John Spikowski claims some copyright problem he is not able to prove and deletes the link to panotools.org for the n-th time. Can someone please block him? He has a real world copyright problem on his site panotools.info, and that is the reason why the link to his domain is deleted from the Panotools article on Wikipedia. He doesn't know the difference between terms like trademark and copyright, copies content wherever he is not stopped and builds a Potemkin village to fake members of his non existent group. The whole panotools community left him but he is not able to accept that. --Einemnet 02:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please block Einemnet from editing here on the Wikipedia. His group took the PanoTools groups copyrighted resources to start their group. They violated the Yahoo Groups Terms of Service by using our groups member list and sent a false and deceptive e-mail to our members saying the group has moved. John Spikowski

Centrx, I won't revert his latest destructive edit. This already leads to another little edit fight and I don't want to end on the Lame edit wars page). May I just point you to Durova's final warning. It's not possible to insert all the information that Wuz and I parked on the talk page today into the article with those endless crap over the links. And no, that's no reason to delete the link to panotools.org since it's a valuable resource. John has no interest in creating a good article. --Einemnet 03:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The two authors posting here (Carl & Thomas) were part of a small group of PanoTools members that used our member list, use our group name and advertise they are the new PanoTools group. They have taken the PanoTools archives and wiki. Just look at the page hit counts between wiki versions and you will see that the PanoTools group is the caretaker of the original PanoTools wiki project. They left an establisted group to start another of their own free will. The were never ban or asked to leave.

I have tried to add content here but Thomas and Carl delete, revert or redirect all my contribution. (view history of the Panorama Tools page. John Spikowski

The content on the PanoTools site is property of the PanoTools group members. The NG group has taken these resources without permission.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Spikowski"

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Fresheneesz may be placed on probation if he continues to disrupt policy pages. Such action shall be by a successful motion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions_in_prior_cases by any member of the Arbitration Committee after complaints received from one or more users.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 03:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

All Saints Academy

hey, why was the All Saints page deleted from wikipedia? Me and a few other people from the school had spent a lot of time editing the page with newer information.

This article contains no reliable sources independent of the school. Wikipedia is not a directory of schools. —Centrx→talk • 22:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The 7th Portal

Why was the article for this topic deleted?!?!

If you are referring to Seven sorrows, it was deleted because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the articles of which must be verifiable in reliable published sources independent of the subject. —Centrx→talk • 22:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what the 'Seven Sorrows' you are speaking of, I am referring to the Stan Lee online comic called "The 7th Portal" -- as can be found here (not the article in question, but an archive of T7P webisodes): http://www.stanleereturns.org/7thportal.php -- which was linked to the Stan Lee article

Responded at Talk:The 7th Portal. —Centrx→talk • 00:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, still awaiting a response from you..?!

Response was already given, see link above. —Centrx→talk • 22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Afd

Please see this talk page, I've made a suggestion about the template which is worth considering. --SunStar Net 01:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Responded there. —Centrx→talk • 06:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Special Request

Hi, since you're awake, and aware of the background, would it be possible to Sprotect User talk:Scherf ? The IP's are starting to turn up...Doc Tropics 06:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: It's not actually bad, yet...I'm just anticipating a flood : ) Doc Tropics 06:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I am familiar with this...? —Centrx→talk • 06:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course you're not; I'm losing my mind and my vision at the same time. I was somehow convinced that you placed the tag at the top of Scher's talkpage. I have no idea why...I'm really losing it. Please disregard, I promise I'll get some therapy, or at least some sleep. Doc Tropics 07:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello- Your Revision Was Appreciated.... Mine Was Blocked!

Recently Gwernol removed my addition of a non DMOZ listing, and ignored my request that DMOZ not be the only listing reference as it has been a CLOSED directory for years riddled with problems or self interested editors.(Wikipedia article).

When Gwernol (admin) complained about an alternate refernce which unlike DMOZ had articles, and was NOT advertising site, I corrected the link and discussed it... Updating it to the exact article which was a longer URL. Within mili-seconds I was "Blocked" and Gwernol assumed the worst, and used his advantage as a speed admin to block my correction, frustrating my good efforts... to fix the problem.

It was very upsetting and the site is Wikipedia, not GwernolPedia.. he had an ethical obligation to read the changes and notes.. before showing his swiftness at Wiki!

Please review my last change and the link and determin if it was appropriate for Gwernol to not have checked!

Thanks..

Link to history with Gwernol and my corrections

[[1]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.83.180.170 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Removing.

Hello! Please don't take offense in my saying but, why did you remove my "deception"? I don't mind that it's gone but only if there is some kind of rule saying I shouldn't have it. I'm sorry for the inconvenience and misunderstanding. Cheers! (Could you respond on my talk page, please? Thanks!) —¡Randfan! 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just think you should reply to his/her quary since the rules say that you shouldn't edit smeone's user page unless if you have their consent. 76.188.7.83 22:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I know the rules quite well, and that does not apply in this case. —Centrx→talk • 22:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I for one would like to know the reasoning behind the removal as well. -- AuburnPilot^talk 22:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of user pages is to facilitate contributions to the encyclopedia. They are not for juvenile practical jokes. —Centrx→talk • 22:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is John Zachman protected?

I understand that the material was deleted because of copyright violation, but wouldn't it have been simpler, and kinder, to have simply replaced the article with a few words and a pointer to the copied URL, plus references to his book, the Zachman framework, etc. I believe John has quite enough stature in his chosen area of the IT business to be "notable", and this way colleagues and admirers will be free to add material if they wish. Jpaulm 19:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• The copyvio had been repeatedly re-created over several months.
• The text was an unorganized dump. It was not even clear what the person did, let alone if he was notable.

—Centrx→talk • 20:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Centrx, I didn't see your response although I am watching this page... I think he is notable, and the Zachman framework for application architecture is spreading worldwide. Google gives 140,000 hits (including Wikipedia itself)! What if I took a stab at doing an article and attached it to your User_talk for you to look at...? Just curious. Jpaulm 18:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page. Keep in mind that notability on Wikipedia does not simply mean a lot of Google hits; a topic must be supported by multiple reliable published sources that are independent of the subject and cover the subject non-trivially. See Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll get started on it in the next day or so. Jpaulm 19:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Me again. Could you take a look at John Zachman and see if it is closer to what you want. Thanks. Jpaulm 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that looks nice. —Centrx→talk • 04:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your help! Jpaulm 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Riveros11 and the BKWSU

Hi Centrx,

you were used by a contributor Riveros11 engaged in a content dispute on the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University page to block me via a sockpuppet address using bogus IPvandal notices so that he representing the organization and its interests can dominate the page. You locked the page [2] and removed the evidence [3] I presented to you.

• I put in a request to have the page unlocked, I would like you to do so. The difference of opinion is not vandalism.

Thank you. 195.82.106.244 22:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You do not appear to be blocked. The page is protected against edits by new and unregistered users. —Centrx→talk • 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There was never the IP problems you locked it for.

I am blocked, and it was designed to block me out, because I choose not to have a user name. If I take one now I am going to be accused of sockpuppetry by this guy that used his IP address instead of his user name to list the bogus complaint. 195.82.106.244 12:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit War at User:Certified.Gangsta

He's removing your warnings and reinstating the deceptive banner. |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 23:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. —Centrx→talk • 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mind explaining your page move on wigger? How is your 1 second block on me justified?--Certified.Gangsta 00:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The 1 second block is so that you cannot remove the administrative warning. --tjstrf talk 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not move the page; I redirected it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The 1 second block is explained in the block summary, and is to record the warning that you removed from your talk page, to ensure that this sort of behavior does not slip by unresolved. —Centrx→talk • 00:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see you in any position to block me since we're in a content dispute. The page history is itself an archive. Also note that, your edits on "Chinese" have been reverted by another admin. You are also wrong since wigger is not necessarily an ethnic slur so your page move seems more or less personal opinion. people who are unaffected by hip hop culture fail to understand the meaning of the term. Wigger is not derogatory. It can be a compliment. Some rappers are self-proclaimed wiggers. Merging this article to a List of ethnic slur is very offensive to the people who use the term in good faith and distort a lot info. for people who are really wanting to know the meaning of the term. It needs to be cleanup not merge.----Certified.Gangsta 00:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that a content dispute does not begin by you accusing the other party of vandalism and threatening to have them banned, I have little interest in the minutiae you are arguing. Chronic revert warring is not allowed. Accusing established editors of vandalism and threating to have them banned is not allowed. Whatever the term "wigger" means, you can add that to Wiktionary. —Centrx→talk • 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, I'm very concerned at your one-second block of Certified.Gangsta. Removal of warnings is discouraged, but not forbidden, and the block seems an inappropriate form of intimidation, regardless of your intentions. As I said here, people have the right not to have their block logs tainted for trivial reasons. In that section of the Noticeboard, there was no support for the idea of giving one-second blocks. The argument is sometimes made that warnings need to be left in place in order to save time for RC patrollers who might want to know if a vandal has been warned before reporting him at WP:AIV, but in the case of a logged-on user who isn't a vandal, there's no urgency. It's not as if he's adding the word "poop" to four articles every minute and you need to see all the previous warnings before blocking him. If you warned him for something, and he removed your message, you could simply keep an eye on him. There's absolutely no need to force him to keep displayed on his talk page something that he doesn't want. And the bad feeling that might potentially arise from the practice of admins giving one-second blocks in order to enforce something that isn't even policy by far outweighs any possible benefits. Please, please don't do that again. By the way, I know nothing of his history. Your accusation that he spends a lot of time revert warring and making false accusations of vandalism may well be accurate, in which case I wouldn't oppose a proper block for disruption, provided that warning was given. But a one-second block for removing warnings, for someone who must already have been annoyed at others descending on his talk page, could never, in my opinion, be justified. AnnH ♫ 19:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The 1 second block was not some punishment for removing warnings. It is to record the situation, whereas otherwise the next time he revert wars, removes other users comments from article talk pages, or accuses established editors of vandalism and threatens to block them, some other admin is just going to give him another warning, etc. He does not have the privilege, by removing warnings and apparently ignoring them, of creating a time-consuming obligation on my part to monitor his contributions endlessly, nor to require that I look through all his contributions to determine whether he has been entirely disruptive rather than there being some benefit to having him around, and some hope of remediation; or to determine exactly how many warnings he has gotten previously or their validity; or to determine whether he is actually a sockpuppet of banned User:Cute 1 4 u. He has the opportunity to amend this behavior, but that does not equate to a misleading clean slate when he has been given that opportunity several times before. —Centrx→talk • 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason i posted on your talkpage was not accusing you of vandalism, I said you redirected it out of process. There is a major difference.--Certified.Gangsta 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Votes

Most were left bare intentionally. At most, I can share privately by email - if you care - but I submit you're a grown wo/man and can figure it out. I'll be happy to share if you direct specific questions. - crz crztalk 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Miami Coral Park High School

Not that I disagree with you deleting the article, it really was possibly the worst one out there, but the article was part of an entire group of articles about every public high school in the Miami Area, and now it's missing, so I'm just here to say that I may go ahead and rewrite that page (not restore it, but rewrite it anew) that way it's the not the only school missing from the list, so if you see it pop up again with me as author, then don't redelete it, unless you have any objections, then feel free to voice them! Thanks. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering it is just going to sit there for another year gaining dust, and it is going to be a maintenance hassle due to all the vandalism, I doubt that's a good use of your time, or a good use of time for anyone trying to correct errors later. It makes more sense to get rid of the template that makes it falsely appear like there is some important gap in coverage. —Centrx→talk • 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to merge all the verifiable information into one, good article on the Miami-Dade public school system rather than have several articles with no reliable sources. —Centrx→talk • 02:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, but I don't have time to delete and merge these articles like I did a million years ago when i wrote them. Really, only articles that have wikipedian alumni tend to be any good, like Miami Springs High School, which I went to, and Michael Krop High, which User:AAAAA attended; those probably can stay, but all the others are kind of crappy. Let's just keep Coral Park out of the loop, then, until some alumni decides to fix it up. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 22:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

For future consideration, about merging in general: if the articles are combined, all the people who would otherwise be only maintaining the individual articles, by themselves, would have their efforts consolidated on one, far superior article. Also, consider that even articles with alumni will eventually degrade, because the alumni will leave Wikipedia, whereas because the school system in total is much more notable, that is much less likely to happen. —Centrx→talk • 22:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course... I'll see what i can do to get together with the Miami alumni and create what you're talking about, but later when i got vacation time. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 16:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

* poke *

--Cat out 11:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sakura Avalon

Would you be willing to give her a try? She looks regretful about her past actions and her involvement with Bobby Boulders [4] and is contributing well to the Star Wars Fanon Wikia, so i thought she could also redeem herself here. — Canderous Ordo 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

He said that before. He is also perfectly capable of quietly creating an account and not being disruptive. —Centrx→talk • 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

One-second block

Hi, Centrx. I don't know if you've noticed that your one-second block of Certified Gangsta (about which I share Ann's opinion) is being discussed here on ANI. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Numbers in Text

I see I'm not the only one who hates seeing numbers in text (although I resisted the temptation when making my change to WP:ITN). -- tariqabjotu 23:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Manual of Style has good guidance on this matter, that any number that can be written out as two words or less may be written as words, because the guideline is supposed to be somewhat a description of common practice. I think it should be changed to a more firm recommendation, because it is the more professional practice of encyclopedias, books, or any work that does not have space restrictions, and it is partly only common practice because it is easier to type, just as using "--" instead of "—" is easier to type and commonly used, despite the em-dash looking better and being more professional. —Centrx→talk • 23:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Katherine Gerdes Deletion

I am new to Wikipedia, and such. The first article I created was about Katherine Gerdes, my favorite contestant on Project Runway Season 3. I then noticed that Bradley Baumkirchner's page has been deleted also. I looked at Keep/Delete discussion page and found more numerous keeps than Deletes. And I also felt that there were better reasons for the Keeps. One said on Katherine's Keep/Delete Discussion that being on tv doesn't make you interesting. I disagree with that statement, she was not only on the reality competition, but she is also an active designer. In my honest opinion, I feel that there is no reason for the article to be deleted. The main use of Wikipedia is to find more information on things and people you find interesting. I myself find Katherine Gerdes, and many of the other people whose articles were deleted interesting, and there is no reason for it to be deleted.

Tinkleheimer 02:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is that the information in the article must be verifiable in reliable published sources independent of the person and the show's producer. These topics may warrant merging with the main article on Project Runway, in proportion to their part within the show. See also Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and information in an encyclopedia must be authoritative and without the doubt that arises when the source of information has a vested interest in the presentation of the information, does not have a fact-checking or editorial review process, etc. —Centrx→talk • 02:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

Thank you for your revert on my talk page. :) I owe you one... NCurse _work 14:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

University Hill Elementary School

I have listed University Hill Elementary School at deletion review. It survived an AfD in September. One of the issues was notability. While my opinion at the AfD was delete, given that the notability issue was canvassed I don't think a speedy A7 is appropriate. Agent 86 23:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Scott Keith

Why did you tag Scott Keith for deletion? There already was a vote on this where the result was a unanimous vote fro KEEP. The man has 4 published books to his credit, and is frequently referred to in other publications/columns. What exactly do you consider a "reliable third-party source"? That term is entirely subjective, and can vary enormously as to one's own personal feelings/criteria. That tag should NEVER have been placed on that article! Unless you have a personal vindictive reason to do so.... 6 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.158.128.106 (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC). If he is frequently referred to in other publications, please add these references to the article. —Centrx→talk • 08:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm, publications by their very nature are copyrighted. Anyone uploading magazine articles to websites without the express written permission of the publisher etc can be taken to court. Why not head over to the nearest newsgaent and see for yourself? I am anot going to risk legal action by uploading copyrighted material just to satisfy your petty vindictive mind. 6 December 3006

You don't need to upload them, you cite them. —Centrx→talk • 08:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Multiple category showup

Please check me again TWiStErRob 22:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hey Centrx, could you please try to provide descriptive edit summaries along with the edits you make, especially when editing in the MediaWiki namespace? It would be highly appreciated :D. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is a minor edit with no summary it is invariably a minor change in wording or grammatical change. —Centrx→talk • 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but from a purely selfish standpoint it's less work (total) for you to leave a summary of grammar, or speling, or tyop, then for the next few dozen people to see an un-summarized edit and want to review it in case it represents a major change, made by someone who forgot to untick the 'minor edit' box. Much obliged, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Death Valley Driver Video Review

Just thought I'd let you know that the link to this page's AFD links to the first AFD for it, not a new one.BooyakaDell 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking the 166.102.136.58 IP. If you respond please do so here. WikiMan53 T/C 19:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

166.102.136.58

I sent an email to the school district about the block. Perhaps they can prevent further vandalism internally. ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment roster

Do you know how increasingly redundant it would be to give an external link citation to this list. It's very obvious by already reading the external links given at the bottom of the article and other links that the people listed are working in WWE. Why bother linking a external link hundreds of times? I don't think we need other sources other than WWE unless it's something that needs to be proven. Most of the roster (I would say 90%) is already common knowledge since the people are on television shows and don't need verifibilty to know that they are contracted to WWE. The other 10% can be gathered by WWE sources alone anyways because the other 10% are corporate owners, so corporate.wwe.com meets WP:V and WP:RS. semper fi — Moe 04:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I added other external links at the bottom of the article despite this. semper fi — Moe 05:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not about citing each individual entry, it's about having, in general, reliable third-party sources. —Centrx→talk • 08:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Aust school

How do you get the optional image to work? The image doesn't seem to be appearing when you edit in the way you used to be able, so could you show me how it's done. - King Ivan 06:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

After trying again, I still couldn't do it, so I reverted to an earlier version of the template. King Ivan 06:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dually licensing my logo proposal

Done!

Cheers, --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

One-second blocks yet again

Hi, Centrx. I've edited the thread on one-second blocks on WP:AN, and also edited the blocking policy to reflect what seems to me to be the consensus on AN. I know you've already made your opinion clear, but in view of my bold policy edit, I would really appreciate it if you would respond--just briefly, if you prefer--to what I say on AN. Bishonen | talk 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

This looks like instruction creep. The paragraph is longer than the much more important points about blocking users with whom the admin is in a content dispute, the link to RfC, and about blocking users who may be acting in good faith. —Centrx→talk • 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be shortened. But I meant I would appreciate it if you'd respond on AN. Bishonen | talk 04:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

My first and otherwise only interaction with this user was [5], and as far as I can tell the note in the block log is accurate. You are free to note that there is no consensus for making notes with which the user disagrees in the log, but other than that what would be an appropriate note to make? —Centrx→talk • 04:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No consensus for making such notes? Come on, the point is that there's consensus for not making them. That's why I thought it especially valuable to get your input on AN about how you intend to act in the future. But I'm not going to nag you any more about responding there, I'm as tired of saying it as you must be of hearing it. Bishonen | talk 05:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Stubs

How long does it usualy take for someone to notice a stub and start working on it? I just created this article and no on else has started to work on it. Sir Intellegent 19:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends entirely on whether someone is interested in working on it. There are thousands upon thousands of stubs, and thousands of other articles that need some sort of assistance, and whether someone works on any one of them depends on whether the editor is interested in the subject or considers it essential to a complete encyclopedia. So, given the subject matter here, it is quite possible that no one will work on this stub for years, or ever. Keep in mind also that Wikipedia articles must be verifiable in reliable published sources independent of the subject. In addition to this being necessary to write an accurate encyclopedia article, it is also necessary for others to find information on the subject. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability for further information. —Centrx→talk • 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dread Central

Hi, What did you delete Dread Central from wikipedia while other similar sites such as RottenTomatoes remain? Both Dread Central and RottenTomatoes make available reviews for movies and video entertainment in the External Links sections.

Dread Central is an actual highly traficked website that is NOT non-notable, even as defined by Wikipedia.

Why did you accuse me of an "advertising spree" when other LESS notable links are added. Rottentomatoes has just as many links to its wikipedia page as Dread Central did. Other links such as Metacritic & WashingtonPost link to the offsite article without any reference to the Wikipedia posting at all.