User talk:Centrx/Archive12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Why did you remove the {{pp-semi-protected}} template? It's there to let people know that the page is protected, by showing the little padlock in the upper-right corner. —Vanderdeckenξφ 17:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The page shows as being protected if anyone tries to edit it. Otherwise, there is no reason for anyone to be specially notified that it is protected, and if anyone wishes to find out they can click 'edit'. —Centrxtalk • 22:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

message notifier

You want to know what I think would be nifty. If someone made a program that let you know if you have new messages (while your web browser is closed). I don't know where to send the idea, so can you put that idea some where where someone can create it? Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 22:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure. There is a Wikipedia Toolbar for Firefox it could be added to. That wouldn't be a separate program for all off-line use, but it would work well enough while browsing on other webpages. —Centrxtalk • 23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)



1) The text of the article was copied directly from the school's website.

2) The article contained no published third-party sources. It was not in a neutral point of view. It was not an encyclopedia article.

Centrxtalk • 23:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, had to zap it again - the page was deleted for privacy concerns - David Gerard 20:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(and sorry if that sounds cryptic, please trust me) - David Gerard 20:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. —Centrxtalk • 21:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


Wouldn't of tried that at listing a catagory thanks.--Kkrouni 23:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Move protection

Hi. When you do one of your little "trying unprotection" things and remove all protection from popular articles, can you please make sure that when the protection is restored, the move-protection level is set back to how it previously was? Adolf Hitler was messed up for a few moments today because of a page-move vandal, and it was several minutes of database timeout errors before things were back together. The article had been move-protected most of its life until you unprotected it; the admin who restored the protection forgot to put full move-protection back. There is absolutely no reason to leave such an article vulnerable to this. Glancing around I find United States. This has also been move-protected for most of its life until you removed all protection last month. You restored the protection for that yourself but again failed to restore the move-protection. Going back a bit I find you've been doing a similar thing for quite some time – for example in 2006 you unprotected Wikipedia, then found yourself restoring protection again just 14 hours later – but once again missing the move protection. A little more care would be appreciated. Thanks – Gurch 02:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. —Centrxtalk • 13:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your help in reverting my talk page and other articles from that IP user. --Mikecraig 04:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. —Centrxtalk • 14:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

RFC question

Hello, I have a question regarding RFC procedure, I hope you are the right person to ask: A few weeks ago, I listed an RFC for the article X Japan, which by now has rendered some outside input and while a few of the issues that have been brought up apparently remain controversial, there seems to be clarity on others. Naturally, I'd like to modify the article accordingly, though this may prove problematic, given that while the other editor involved in the dispute preceding the RFC (who also happens to be an admin) has in no way taken part in the RFC proceedings, though still regularly reverts changes to the article, i.e. the removal of semi-protection by another administrator.

In short: I'd like to apply the results of the RFC to the article without risking an edit war. I'd be grateful for any word of advise. - Cyrus XIII 13:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Cyrus XIII. Watchlisted page. —Centrxtalk • 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I have since modified the article to reflect the points that the editor who provided a third opinion and the people who replied to the RFC for the most part agreed to (reunion speculation/typeset of lead guitarist's stage name), along with several really minor (and hopefully uncontroversial) changes (flagicon template, list formatting and the likes). I hope these changes are reasonably covered by talk page consensus and guidelines and will be treated as such. - Cyrus XIII 16:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

program problem?

I have recently thought of something that could lock up the servers. What would happen if I put {{User talk:Centrx}} on this page? Feel free to mention that to the developers. If you don't know what I mean, let me know. Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Moved" the question to Midom (talk contribs) Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 21:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Ever since I signed on here, I have repeatedly asked for help because, although I am well-educated, I just don't understand the ins and outs of the rules and regulations. I have tried to cooperate, following whatever instructions that I am given but I still keep getting stuff wrong.

My issue is very, very involved because it spans almost a year of attempts to comply. In the interest of not embarrassing myself by looking stupid (when I have really tried to do the right thing), is there any way that I can contact you personally with my prepared but super-long list of problems, questions, misunderstandings, miscommunications, and all around just being lost here? Maybe I am out of my element, although I have made my living writing since for 4 decades. I thought that my experience and information in my chosen field would be of some value here. I am a music business consultant and entertainment marketing specialist for hip-hop artists - (even at my advanced age). I know that whenever I am researching a subject for either myself or a client, your site is the first place that I go and it is the one that I recommend for anyone needed information.

Sir, if after reviewing my issues and problems privately, you find that they and your answers would be of some use to others, then I will be glad to make my concerns public here. But, right now, I have been edited, deleted, zepped, Maced, pipe bombed, etc. so much that I am just confused and I feel like the world's biggest dummy, (while I have seen other articles on this same subject with the same infractions that I get hit for). All of this, in spite of asking for help on anything that I didn't understand before I attempted being a part of this community, starting last year. I have never meant to disrespect this site or skirt around your policies. It just takes so much to find out the answer to anything and then it is written in a manner that is hard to understand. Years of writing, college, law school, traveling the world, being successfully employed as an executive, songwriter, production assistant, designer, volunteer consumer protection activist for the elderly and disabled, among other things did not prepare me for the intricacies of Wikipedia.

I respectfully ask that you contact me at so that we can discuss this further and that I may avail myself of your expertise and knowledge of this forum.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Bad Lady 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope that I did the signature right. To make my point, I didn't understand "Please sign your message with Bad Lady 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)", which seems, on its face that we are supposed to just put those "squiggly things" (which took me a minute to find on my keyboard since I can't remember ever using that symbol, in 40 years of typing! It needs to be clarified a little for users like me who need "WIKIPEDIA FOR DUMMIES".

Regarding your edits to WP:CN

I have reverted the removal of discussion. Please see the thread on WT:CN regarding this issue. Thanks, Navou 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


Barnstar of Reversion2.png The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Special:Contibutions/Centrx says it all. Thank you! Zucchini MarieComplain here Please sign! 02:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Categorization

This is probably a bad idea because it will not receive much traffic. Namely, people respond to RfCs in related subject areas after posting their own RfCs, and people watchlist RfCs in subject areas they are interested. This is much less likely to happen if RfCs are divided by function rather than subject area. For example, people who have more insight into issues about Kurdistan and who care enough to comment would be the people interested in politics and history. Also, such a specific page will likely have fewer RfCs in general, so fewer people coming to the page. —Centrxtalk • 16:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue was placed on "History and geography" RfC before and not a single soul bothered to comment on it. I was recommended to create that new process on IRC. There is no RFC process to discuss categories at this point hence why I started that specific thing.
For the past several months I have been trying to gather community attention on this problem while making an effort to not escalate the matter myself. No one seems to want to even comment on the issue. People I asked for assistance said they wouldn't touch this controversial issue with a 10 foot pole.
This shouldn't be an article dispute since it involves a lot of articles. It should be treated differently IMHO. I would welcome any suggestion though.
-- Cat chi? 17:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Dissent is all well and good, but if you can detail your problems with the changes at the talk page, it would be very helpful - this really isn't as new as you're making it out to be, it's the result of months of back and forth. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In the process of doing so. —Centrxtalk • 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of wikiformat

I was wondering, by any chance did you mean to place "Excess long comment to prevent listing on Special:Shortpages............................................................" Out of wikiformat? Just wondering...--Kkrouni 21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean on my user page, this is just so it is easy to copy and paste it elsewhere. I tend to use my user page as a utility box... —Centrxtalk • 23:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Why is... Real96 12:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. —Centrxtalk • 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs

I update it every other Saturday. Check back sometime on May 19. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 20:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. —Centrxtalk • 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike Bocking

HI:-- 22:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We've noticed that a page on Mike Bocking, a local politician, was recently removed.

Can you tell us who did this and why?

Phil Melnychuk Reporter Maple Ridge News

I deleted this article. The article appeared to have been created as an attack page and was created with negative and controversial statements without reference to reliable published sources. See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, especially this section of that page, as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is without prejudice against the possibility of creating a neutral, well-sourced article. —Centrxtalk • 22:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Centrx. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Mslogohistorical.png) was found at the following location: User talk:Centrx/Archive3. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


I just wanted to ask how to become an admin. I'm sorry if if I bothered you because I only random selected an admin from the list.

See Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Do note that only experienced users are made administrators. You should get involved with Wikipedia by improving articles, not out of some wish to be an administrator. —Centrxtalk • 03:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Baghdad City Hall & Hisham N. Ashkouri

I've noted that the Baghdad City Hall entry has been pulled completely, citing advertisement. I think this is in error - it is a built structure that has been around for 30+ years, and still in use - unless there were recently some radical changes on the page, I feel it should be restored.

This page, and several pages connected to it, have been deleted under the premise of a conflict of interest. Though the subject (Hisham Ashkouri) was aware of the article and checked it frequently for factual accuracy and up-to-date information, he was aware of the overarching mission of Wikipedia and its rules regarding self-promotion, and never submitted edits himself (with the sole exception of a recent, blatant vandalism). The projects linked to are valid work, significant enough for their own citations. This material should be restored.

The architectural firm, its marketing agency, or anyone affiliated with them, are not allowed to create articles on their own projects. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. —Centrxtalk • 14:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

North Leamington School

Any special reason for keep deleting the North Leamington School article as not being noteworthy whilst leaving all of the other schools referred to on the Leamington Spa page?

Most of the other articles do not appear to have been written like advertising or to have been the constant target of potentially libellous vandalism. I have now deleted two others which were, one of which was already deleted after a prior deletion discussion. Also, ultimately all of these articles do need published third-party sources. —Centrxtalk • 00:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

waz up

Hi, I'm wondering how to be able for people to leave messages at anyones page, and how to do it with my own.

Alex Kane

What was your resaon for deleting this article? Prolific musician associated with several signed bands. Deserved an AFD contest at least, I think.

superbfc [ talk | cont ]22:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alex Kane. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
superbfc [ talk | cont ]23:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The article had almost no content, and was also a completely unsourced biography of a living person, and had remained so for 6 months. It has been restored now and if a legitimate article can be made from published third-party sources you are free to do so. —Centrxtalk • 00:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Bob Nardelli Delete Controversy

I was reading the commentary about this from January. I realize it's already settled but I want to get your response to something for my personal education. Isn't it possible the guy who recreated the article did not realize it was deleted for that copyright reasons. After all... when you delete an article... there is no audit trail for non admins to see why it was deleted... and somebody with less wikipedia experience might just scratch their head and think it was deleted by mistake. My point is, it could've been a good faith error.--Dr who1975 15:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is possible. Though, when you go to a page with no article, the message does say that the article may have been deleted and links to the deletion log, and this person did restore it from the Google cache, which is a cache of the old page, rather than unknowingly creating a brand-new article. My message to him was too severe though. —Centrxtalk • 16:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Dear Centrx,

I have noticed that you have systematically removed {{sp}} transclusions. Moreover, an edit summary was provided for each one that shows your disdain for this template. These edit summaries are borderline vitriolic. Why are you so angry?

Several users liked the idea, so why do you think that your opinion is binding?

« D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 May 18 21:18 (UTC)

Here are some problems with the template:
  • It clutters the edit window and impedes editing. Someone unfamiliar with editing should not be left scratching their head when they see lots of unfamiliar formatting; this is a problem even with infoboxes, etc. but those at least have some important benefits. This is a barrier to entry for editing Wikipedia. Also, even someone who understands and has no difficulty with the template is going to feel compelled to use it, and should it be used? Should there in every single article on all of Wikipedia be a template every six words? Either this template belongs everywhere, which it emphatically does not, or it belongs perhaps in specific well-defined circumstances, which are...?
  • The template is often used in situations that are not appropriate. For example, on metre, the template was used in the very beginning definition of the article without accounting for it. Someone who had U.S. preferences set would see "The meter or meter is...", but those are the very same things. That's a natural consequence of using automation to implement this template, which would be the only effective way to implement it, and there are situations like that everywhere throughout all articles. A similar problem entails that less information is present in an article, such as if the first sentence or any text anywhere only included one spelling, when both spellings are in fact commonly used. This also happened here.
  • Disambiguation pages: Disambiguation pages link to the title of the article, not dynamically generated possible titles.
  • The template was often used in completely inaccurate areas. For Yoghurt, for example, there is nothing particularly British about "Yoghurt". Both "yoghurt" and "yoghurt" are perfectly acceptable and common spellings in all English dialects. The same is true for a variety of words like "travelled" vs. "traveled" or "modelled" vs. "modeled". There is nothing "U.S." about "modeled" yet there in the template it is listed as "US" and the perfectly normal "modelled" is then not listed for U.S. readers. This is a situation where it is not only completely unnecessary and wasteful to use the template, but where it can in fact be outright misleading.
No vitriol intended. —Centrxtalk • 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
My responses:
  • I completely understand that it adds some clutter to the edit box; I saw it when I used Yoghurt and Metre as test cases. I would like to say, though, that the reason why I originally created the template was because I find it extremely distracting to see weird grammar and spelling. Usually when I stumble across such things, I pause for a moment to think about the context and such pauses make me forget what I have read! It is frustrating and I am sure that others feel the same way. In a sense, it is like a barrier to actually reading the articles—occasional visitors to Wikipedia pages see these things and some probably feel like I do. Some decide to correct the "obvious" misspelling, which, although well-intentioned, inflame the whole debate about proper spelling among all who have the page on their watchlist. Also, there is a large amount of vandalism motivated by "weird" spelling (one anonymous user blanked Colour with something like "IT'S COLOR", for example). It is hoped that the purpose of the template would be obvious to an anonymous editor seeing the edit screen and that they would avoid changing it.
  • I did not put "The meter or meter is...", or, at least I think. I believe that I wrote "The '''{{sp|metre|US=meter}}''' is ...", which solves the redundancy problem, unlike what is currently used (Yoghurt or yogurt, or less commonly yoghourt or yogourt ...). That is surely misleading to casual Wikipedia users.
  • In wiki links, the first part is the canonical page title. The second part, which is separated from the first by a pipe character (`|`), is where all of the visual changes can be made, including spelling localizations.
  • I did some informal research before changing the Yoghurt article. Namely, I went to a few supermarkets (in the US), to find several different yogurt manufacturs. All use "yogurt" as the spelling.
    As for "modelled" vs. "modeled", it is somehow agreed upon that the correct spelling in the US is "modeled"., which usually goes by American English spelling, exemplifies this when one queries "modelled" ([1]).
On a side note, would you mind trying to move these comments that you cross-posted to the template's talk page into the debate "table" which appears just above?
« D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 May 20 02:24 (UTC)
  • It does not add merely some clutter. It adds a huge amount of clutter if it is used in this way. This was rejected for dating styles, which could have been done in the same way with a template.
  • "The or meter..." is what was in metre. If you do it the other way, you have a situation where the alternative perfectly acceptable spelling is not listed. That hides information from the reader; it is misleading if someone thinks that "metre" or "meter" is an incorrect spelling simply because a hidden variable in their preferences decided it was.
  • In disambiguation pages, the title of the page is used; see WP:MOSDAB. Disambiguation pages distinguish between and link to articles, which have certain titles, whereas articles specify and link to topics which may be called by various names.
  • "Yogurt" is the overwhelmingly common spelling in commercial use today in the United States, but there are perfectly normal uses in the literature of both nations that use each spelling, and that is not to mention the numerous other spellings used for yogurt—supermarkets and businesses thrive on uniformity—and both the OED and Webster's list both spellings and make no distinction between them as "American" or "British" spellings. Similarly, "modelled" is a common and perfectly legitimate spelling in the U.S. Also, is not a reliable source as a dictionary; use Webster's or the OED.
In general, think of the enormity of what you are proposing and why for dates it was rejected in favor of a technical solution; and whether there is in fact a non-trivial benefit without significant problems. —Centrxtalk • 03:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What "dating styles" are you referring to? I am unfamiliar.
  • On Metre and many other pages there is usually a section on spelling, where such information regarding alternative spelling can be placed. Why confuse the reader in the introduction? Besides, shouldn't information about words be better placed in Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia?
  • As far as WP:MOSDAB, surely this is an exception. I don't think that a mere spelling change can be classified as piped linking. The article title is referred to in full.
  • I originally changed "modelled" to use {{sp}} because it looked funny to me; I don't recall seeing this spelling. Perhaps you have some counterexamples?
  • What is your evidence for asserting that is unreliable? The entry for "modelled", for example, was based upon the Random House Unabridged Dictionary entry.
The "enormity" of this proposal does not distress me at all because I realize that I can't change every page on Wikipedia. However, if I see a place where I can use it, I might as well add it as part of regular editing tasks. This doesn't seem so bad. It adds so much clarity and readability.
« D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 May 20 14:32 (UTC)
  • Dates like May 20, 2007 are linked so that a date is shown according to the readers' date preferences, if set. See WP:MOSDATE#Dates containing a month and a day. Using a template for this was rejected as hugely excessive and problematic, just as it is for these spellings, and this linking scheme would not work for words in general.
  • Many articles do not have name sections, and they do not warrant name sections as this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Unless there is some substantial information about etymology and history, a name section would not be appropriate. Having "metre or meter" does not confuse people, but leaving one out does remove valid information from its appropriate place in the article.
  • It's not a significant use of piped linking, but anyway still pointless.
  • Some from Google Books: The Dictionary of Art By Jane Turner (1996), American Anthropologist By The American Anthropological Association (1962), Software Process Improvement: Concepts and Practices By Eugene G. McGuire (1999), The Nag Hammadi Library in English By James MacConkey Robinson (1996). It's also in Moby-Dick and several uses in Harper's Weekly.
  • I have a lot of experience with dictionaries. Random House is a popularized dictionary inferior to Webster's and the OED. It's not necessarily bad, but if there is a conflict between them—and here both Webster's and the OED agree—Webster's and the OED are much better. Regardless, says "especially British", and though that is presented in an ill-defined way, I don't dispute that "modelled" may be more common in Britain and "modeled" may be more common in America, but both have significant usage in both places, which is only going to increase because of communication.
  • Either this template should be used everywhere and in all relevant words, or it should not be; either others will use it everywhere or they will revert you everywhere, or more people will notice and bother to have the template deleted. I do not mean the enormity of your personal task in implementing it everywhere, I mean the enormity of simply having it everywhere. It is a huge cluttering of text editing and it is a huge proposal. If in fact it should be done, then the better way to do it would be to have a new markup that takes up far less space. —Centrxtalk • 16:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The difference between a date template and {{sp}} is that the first could be easily solved via the MediaWiki software. Here, unfortunately, spellings sometimes depend on context. For example, I have read that in one dialect of English, program might be spelled "programme" in the sense of an event and "program" in the sense of a computer program. This distinction requires a human eye.
  • I think that the difference between spellings belongs in Wiktionary.
  • Perhaps the spelling of modeled in the US is not completely consistent (although, searching for "modeled" vs. "modelled" on Google does show that the first is used much more frequently), what about color? I know that I haven't seen someone from the US write "colour".
  • "having it everywhere" is too general. On Metre, Yoghurt, Colour, etc., the template is used often. On most other pages, though, this template would be used seldom.
Regarding "new markup that takes up far less space", I was thinking that frequently localized words could have special subpages of {{sp}}. Something like {{sp/metre}} is fairly short.
« D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 May 20 18:03 (UTC)

Today's featured articles archive

I noticed this edit, and I was wondering if you were aware of the other, similar edits, I had made to the WP:TFA archives? They are listed at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Tidying up archives from 2005 and the section below that. I initially started this when I was refreshing Wikipedia:Featured content (which reuses the old TFA subpages), and noticed that some images were red-links. I then went through the whole archives, removing red-links where no free replacement could be found, and replacing with free images where possible. Sometimes the free images in question were uploaded after the TFA subpage had originally been used on the Main Page (the archives go back to the start of 2004). The way are see it, there are two issues:

  • What to do when an image link turns red? Replace or remove. I argue for replace, based on the reuse of the pages and for the benefit of those browsing the archives. Remove leaves some of the entries without pics (if you want to know what the page looked like when on the main page, you can use the page history to link to that static version, or whip up a template to do that using an oldid parameter).
  • What to do when a free image later becomes available (as in the Ian Thorpe case)?

I won't be able to reply until Sunday, but maybe we can take this discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article? Carcharoth 08:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page revert

Centrx, you reverted a barnstar that another user had placed on my talk page. I am new to the award system, so I'm curious as to why that needed to be removed. Was the giver not authorized to do so? Thanks. --░░ⓏⓎⓉⓇⓄⓃ░░ ░░ 08:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This was a rollback of this now-banned user's edits. Anyone can give barnstar's, no one needs to be "authorized" to give a barnstar or other award; it is just a personal issue. If you know this person and want his barnstar, you are welcome to keep it or whatever. This was just a general rollback of the user's edits because in other places he was being disruptive; I did not specifically examine each edit to see whether it was somehow not problematic. —Centrxtalk • 17:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Super Inggo

Hello, I noticed that Super Inggo article has been deleted. can we request an article about it?

Given that every other time it has been created it was a copyright infringement or advertisement, and had no published third-party sources besides, you should probably wait a while and anyway create a draft article first. —Centrxtalk • 17:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate main pages

Wouldn't it be better to put all these duplicate main pages in Wikipedia-space or somewhere? As it stands, these are in article space; they come up in random article, etc. —Centrxtalk • 06:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Main Page/Archive 99#Cascading protection backup subpages.
Given the effects that these pages would have if the actual main page were to be deleted, I believe that these are the best possible locations. For the reasons mentioned in that discussion, however, I oppose their existence and believe that they should be eliminated.
The random article issue is quite minor; at any given time, there's a far greater likelihood of someone landing at a far worse page. —David Levy 14:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
How about the Help namespace or some other namespace that does not have subpages enabled? —Centrxtalk • 17:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The main namespace is the only one in which the pages are white. —David Levy 17:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Why is that and why as a general matter do we not change the other namespaces to white? It would make the sitenotice look better at least. —Centrxtalk • 17:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
By default, all pages are white. Via this discussion, it was decided to change the color in non-main namespaces (thereby drawing a visual distinction between articles and meta-content). This was accomplished by editing MediaWiki:Monobook.css. —David Levy 17:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

John Michael Botean

Out of the 7 sources cited on the talk page, 5 are from 3rd parties. I've no idea why you put the primary sources tag down, you commented on the talk page so you must have seen them. If you think they'd fit better as links in the article, have at them.

As for the question you added to the discussion, the previous version of the page was stomped for what I considered inappropriate reasons. The stomper outright refused to follow stated policy and decided to invent his own version. The full discussion is scattered around the AFD discussion and several personal talk pages. If you really want to go into the details of that sad event, feel free but I wouldn't bother. TMLutas 14:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You should add these to the actual article, but it does not look like these are published third-party sources. —Centrxtalk • 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

About my user talk page

I don't think anyone vandalized it, so why did you erase a bunch of stuff? SBKT 17:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This was a rollback of the edits of a banned user who was disruptive in other places. You can put it back if you want. —Centrxtalk • 17:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Now I know, that's all I need to know. Still, it hurts to have a barnstar go disappear because, I know it's sort of selfish but I really wanted one so I was being good(though it's hard to find things to improve)! Well, you surely know better, so I'll leave it as is.SBKT 15:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


Bungay High School: Why did you delete this page? TKFMPardus 20:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This article contained no published third-party sources and there is no evidence it warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia. Beyond that, it was the repeated host of libellous statements. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Libel. —Centrxtalk • 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

About my user talk page: you completely deleted the page - how is this described as rollback of edits of a vandal? TKFMPardus 19:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your user talk page was never deleted. —Centrxtalk • 20:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, i am referring to the bungay high school page you deleted.TKFMPardus 18:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about Talk:Bungay High School, it was deleted because there was no real content on it, and it was speediable under criteria G8. EVula // talk // // 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The answer for Bungay High School is above. —Centrxtalk • 18:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Spoiler template

My apologies. I wasn't trying to revert your changes, I was trying to restore the previously look of the template (which actually ended up needing a CSS fix). The bold doesn't really need to extend that far and the "and/" should be removed as well (in my opinion). There were complaints about changes and I was focused on ensuring that the CSS classes were correct rather than focusing on the more minor details. I'll fix it right now. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


[2] the PopUp script broke on me there, FF froze on me and I left the computer. I was meaning to revert the version that later Ibagli reverted. I also did not intend for it to go back that far. Thanks Again. Brian | (Talk) 06:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

re semi-protect?

Hey can you re semi-protect cricket again, it just seems like a vandal magnet for some reason.--THUGCHILDz 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

At the moment it looks to me like it has a relatively low amount of vandalism. I am watching though so if it picks up I will protect it again, and I will make sure no information is lost or bad edits slip through. —Centrxtalk • 01:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.--THUGCHILDz 01:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reverts of binary prefixes

You reverted binary prefixes with absolutely no reason. The "debate" is still going on and the current wording of WP:MOSNUM (even if it hasn't been discussed) states that this kind of changes must stop. You are violating WP:POINT, again. Sarenne 09:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No Sarenne you are wrong because WP:MOSNUM says these changes are allowed. What isn't allowed are the changes being made by the "anonymous" user with their anonymous proxies. Fnagaton 14:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
My reverts are of rampant edit-warring open proxies. If someone were rampantly edit warring with open proxies to change usage in the other direction, I would block those IP addresses and revert them as well. —Centrxtalk • 17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to add, a sockpuppet complaint has been initiated in regards to these proxies:Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Sarenne. Sarenne had the warning placed on his talk page and blanked it, then moved it to a non-linked sub page to bury the warnings (including his 3RR warning). --Marty Goldberg 17:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Atari ST Editing Lift

While the user had been banned, he's back with more anonymous IP's today. --Marty Goldberg 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you *please* put the editing ban back? This is rediculous. --Marty Goldberg 17:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the editing ban is not an effective solution in general. It would work for this article, and if you are trying to do some editing on this article I will semi-protect it, but otherwise he is using these proxies on all sorts of computer-related articles, so the most effective solution is to ban the proxies as semi-protecting every computer-related article is not a viable option. —Centrxtalk • 17:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, as long as you (the admin) keeps blocking and doing that, its great. I already got a friendly warning from another admin not to engage past the 3RR even if its a proxy. --Marty Goldberg 17:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


thanks for the help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domo origato4 (talkcontribs)

Blocks of Users/IPs

Hello, when blocking users please add {{test5}} or another similar template onto their user talk page so they know they've been blocked. I noticed on many of your blocks of accounts IP's you do not do this. Thank you! — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 17:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

These are all a banned user who is rampantly using open proxies. He knows the IPs are going to be blocked, and he is not using them in the same fashion as some innocent person. —Centrxtalk • 17:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Flag on racing articles

I have reverted your removal of an American flag from a NASCAR driver's infobox. Please note that the flag was added to comply with infoboxes with other sister infoboxes such as Formula One. NASCAR drivers frequently compete in other international series such as the 24 Hours of Daytona. Royalbroil 19:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The location is already named there, so there is no need for a flag. The flag impairs navigation as clicking on it leads to an unrelated image description page rather than an article, and it unbalances the infobox, making the person's birthplace appear more important than all the other information about him. The flags on Formula One for example, are used where there is no location named; they are used in place of a named location, rather than in addition to. —Centrxtalk • 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

template, CSS and kB/KB

I wonder if you could give me a pointer on the proper way to proceed: I have made a suggesstion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Template with CSS proposition in order to attempt to resolve the dispute regard IEC notations, yet this proposition, to be fully effective would require some addition to the standard CSS stylesheet. That kind of thing is more a technical issue than a stylistic issue and I'm not sure where to present it to reach the appropriate audience. - Shmget 07:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Common.css, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). —Centrxtalk • 15:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


First my comment: wow you are really fast worker. Two, can I to make my own specialpage for my userpage? Spasibo (thank you). --(You rang?) 02:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure what you are asking? It looks like you have already created a user page with some things on it? You can create a subpage in your userspace if that is what you are asking... —Centrxtalk • 02:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, English is not good for me, you speak Russian? You know like Special:Recentchanges, I wanna create one those kinds of special pages. Is that gooder? --(You rang?) 02:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not speak Russian. There is no way to create Special pages; they are special because they are built into the software. However, depending on what you wanted to do with the special page, you may be able to accomplish the same purpose by some other means. For example, if you want to see all the recent changes for articles related to geometry, you can view that by going to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Geometry. Also, what you want might be accomplished by your watchlist, see Help:Watchlist. So, if you have a specific purpose in mind, I may be able to help with that. —Centrxtalk • 02:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Does help much! Spasibo! --(You rang?) 02:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Northwood School, Durban, South Africa

Centrx Please explain to us why you deleted this page? There were no copyright violations at all. You deleted the page too hastily. The only text quoted was the first paragraph. This, too, had no copyright violation as that paragraph had no Copyright. Please explain, and try to reverse . Thank You Bongani Nhlomani

Copyright exists automatically for any work. There does not need to be a copyright notice on the other page for the text to be copyrighted. Fully half the page was copied, and was copied from the start, so there were no non-infringing versions to revert to. Also, if you are considering writing a new article, it needs to be based on published third-party sources, not the school's prospectus. Even if the copyright holder were to license the text appropriately, it would still not be suitable for an encyclopedia article. —Centrxtalk • 15:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Anonymous" editor

An "anonymous" editor is back again at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and making changes similar to that made by Sarenne before. I've reverted and the IP hopping has started... I therefore have reason to believe it is Sarenne evading his block and using an anonymous proxy again. Fnagaton 16:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Why are you reverting the bot? -- Cat chi? 19:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you using an unauthorised bot? -- Cat chi? 19:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The changes this bot made are inappropriate. For that reason also, the request for bot approval was denied. You should not be changing your signatures on old discussions—among other things it is misleading to do so—and you should not be editing the contents of archives to do so. I am not running any bot. —Centrxtalk • 19:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
But they have been made. What is done is done. There's no need to waste more time reverting them, please stop. --ST47Talk 19:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The change is still not appropriate, and takes context out of previous discussions. It is not a waste of time to fix errors introduced into talk pages and their archives. —Centrxtalk • 19:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I am allowed to edit my old signatures, I am just not allowed to do so using a bot. -- Cat chi? 19:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You are not allowed to change the contents of archives any more than anyone else, and you are not allowed to mix up old talk discussions. Merely, you are especially not allowed to do such thing using a bot. If you were allowed to do it in general, I see no reason why you should not be allowed to do it with a bot, but you are not "allowed" either way. —Centrxtalk • 19:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, You Owe Me A New Keyboard!

Dang! I was drinking tea when [3] appeared on my watchlist.

--Kim Bruning 21:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Hehehehehee!

The Barnstar EATEN BY A BEAR for that brilliant edit! nadav (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So tempted...

If there was ever a time that I was tempted to actively wheel-war... [4] ;) EVula // talk // // 22:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Gah, the temptation is too great! I'm weak... EVula // talk // // 22:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Suspect Sarenne is back

I suspect Sarenne is back and here Fnagaton 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you're on it. I won't bother to list all the other IPs unless you find it helpful? ;) Fnagaton 17:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Only if you see it on some hitherto unattacked page that I am not watching. —Centrxtalk • 17:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
OK Boss :) Fnagaton 17:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:Infobox Book

Please discuss changes in the template's talk page. Another user has started a topic for Your edit Template_talk:Infobox_Book#Release date fields - please add Your arguments there. Thanks, feydey 00:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Please stop flooding RC. -- Cat chi? 00:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see these edits on Recent changes. —Centrxtalk • 00:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Recent changes goes so fast anyway there is no way to flood it. Presumably, it is flooding your watchlist if you watchlisted all these pages. —Centrxtalk • 00:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to revert WOPR's edit myself as well as per discussion on my talk page. However, I would respectfully ask you not to revert these and let a flagged bot handle it later on. There is no reason to rush this. When you revert them it does flood the RC feed. This was among the complaint when I was running my bot at a rate of 4 edits per minute (you are editing faster that the bot). -- Cat chi? 18:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
In short spurts, but anyway fine. The only problem is the longer the wait the more of the edits are occluded by new edits and so cannot be rolled back, though presumably a bot could use Undo efficiently. —Centrxtalk • 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Undoing it back is possible with a bot. I'll personally clean up the "mess" I created. That aside, would you mind me correcting my sig here? (User:White_Cat/sig -> User:White_Cat/07 (Special:Whatlinkshere/User:White_Cat/sig)). -- Cat chi? 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This would be done with a single edit. -- Cat chi? 21:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If you mean you want to change links in your signature from old discussions, no. —Centrxtalk • 22:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


The diffs you provided on my talk page appear to be the same. I'm assuming the diff you're referring to is this. In any case, I understand the previous reasoning for doing so, and I have no removed it from Ipbreason-dropdown. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Kim Bauer

I've restored the (long) history on this page and reverted -- this seems like too significant a page (major character on major TV show) to just delete outright. If part of it is a copyvio, why not just delete the copyvio section? NawlinWiki 04:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost the entire articles is copied. Regardless, the revisions that contain the copyvio have to be deleted. Typically, this is every revision subsequent to the addition of the copyvio, as non-trivial revisions made by other people need also to be preserved in the page history or deleted. Otherwise, the Wikimedia Foundation is still serving the copied text to anyone who requests it, and the copyright holder could request at any time for the derivatives of the copyrighted text to be deleted, thus destroying anyone's work that would have been saved had the article been deleted appropriately. In this case, it is possible that something from early 2006 may not be infringing, though it is difficult to check and time-consumingly requires winnowing down a hundred revisions. Also, you should absolutely never restore a copyvio in this manner without understanding the situation or even restoring the {{copyvio}} template. For one thing, copyvio's are sometimes deleted directly at the request of an angry copyright holder upon legal complaint who, after being told that it had been deleted, would suddenly find that it had been re-posted. That is not the case here. —Centrxtalk • 04:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is the revision that added this copyvio, so this is the revision prior to it. Everything after that is forfeit. I had put the {{copyvio}} tag on the article, but the only person around to try to salvage the page flippantly reverted it. —Centrxtalk • 05:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat

Hehe, I'm not sure how you could think that edit was pointless. If it was, I probably wouldn't have made it, would I? We don't revert closed *fD's. We do, however, have some sort of admin accountability and review system set up at WP:DRV for these sorts of situations, however. I suggest you utilise this venue if you have an issue with the original closure gaillimhConas tá tú? 05:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So no reason at all, just process for process sake? —Centrxtalk • 05:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Not quite, mate. I simply think we should extend basic levels of respect to our colleagues and not revert *fD decisions. I am not a process wonk by any means; quite the opposite actually gaillimhConas tá tú? 05:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Template:Infobox Book

you asked on the link...

Regarding [5], what exactly is wrong with this change? —Centrxtalk • 00:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • 1) Lack of prior discussion! 2) Unnecessary change for a trivial word choice, albeit one of equivalent terms. 3) The 'Ored' output was fine, though some may have been confused by it based on the comments. 4) But changing the default display for all pages without discussion was probably the bad thing.

    I put up a compromise suggestion so you can have your druthers, and others can have things sans change on the talk. Be well! // FrankB 05:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
1) Changes do not necessarily require prior discussion. 2) The terms are not equivalent; especially for books, published is much more appropriate. 4) It was a very minor change. —Centrxtalk • 05:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


An editor has asked for a deletion review of WP:Administration_Abuse. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Iamunknown 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC) (DRV wasn't started by me; it was malformed so I am completing it.)


Please stop reverting. -- Cat chi? 21:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? —Centrxtalk • 04:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Window manager

"A window manager is not the same thing as a windowing system. A window manager is used /on top of/ a windowing system.)"

It's most certainly NOT the X window manager. X is ONE window manager in particular. It's imprecise but much closer to a windowing system than to X. That's the same as having the "Operating System" page redirect to "Windows". It makes absolutely no sense.

There is no such thing as the "X window manager". The X Window System is the graphics subsystem on which X window managers, of which there exist many, run. The X Window System is not a window manager. The X Window System is the interface between the hardware and the software in the graphical environment. It does not manage the displayed windows of applications, and the X Window System can be run without a window manager at all. A window manager is software that manages windows; it is the software that puts the border around the window with the buttons that can close it, minimize it, etc. and often have other programs associated with them. Compare the list of examples in X window manager with the list in Windowing system; all the applications listed in X window manager run only within the X Window System, all the systems listed in Windowing system are replacements for the X Window System. The "Desktop Window Manager" is unfortunately named; it is not a window manager, it is a windowing system, or it may include both the windowing system and the window manager, or it may not be similar at all. This may be the source of your confusion.
A more accurate analogy of "Window manager" redirecting to "X window manager" would be to have "Operating system" redirect to "Computer operating system", if that were how the articles were situated, whereas you redirecting "Window manager" to "Windowing system" would be like having "Operating system" redirect to "Personal computer".
Prior to this poorly named "Desktop Window Manager" there was nothing else ever called a "window manager" except X window managers, and given the fact that it does not appear that anyone refers to the "Desktop Window Manager" as "the window manager", but as "DWM", and that it is a hidden subsystem that will be re-written and re-named in the next version of Windows, which does not have 20 years of history and which is not exposed and well-known to its users who have the ever-present option of referring to it and exchanging it for another, it does not make sense to replace "Window manager" with "Desktop Window Manager". —Centrxtalk • 05:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Valid points. However, the existence of a window manager is not conditioned to the X window manager, and therefore the analogy "Operating system->Computer Operating System" is not valid. Just because a detachable window manager wasn't created with particularly the same features of X, it doesn't mean that it cannot. Therefore, any redirecting of the article is unacceptable.

Nothing else except X window managers are called "window managers". —Centrxtalk • 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Until someone decides to do something similar on top of another windowing system. 'X' is akin to a "brand"(I use the quotation marks because open source software would hardly have a "brand", but I hope you'll understand what I mean). Therefore, the redirecting is incorrect - even more so due to the open source nature of the software.

No, this is the purpose of redirects. If there is no other appropriate article to link to, then the redirect goes to the article that the user is most likely to be searching for. Even if there did exist some other windowing system with window managers, the redirect would still be a redirect unless an article were warranted about them. —Centrxtalk • 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. As a matter of fact, I stumbled across the article from a link to "window manager" that had absolutely nothing to do with unix. I would have rather been redirected to windowing system then(unfortunately I don't remember which article in particular it was, though). Now there's an article on window managers(a stub, granted) and I hope it clears out any further confusion.

Best regards.

Was it NeWS or Single document interface? I quickly looked through all the pages that link to window manager, and those were the only two that did not use "window manager" directly in the context of X, except for two others which were simply incorrect and which are now fixed. What other article could they possibly refer to instead? The problem with having window manager be something other than a redirect is that it is not an encyclopedia article, and it is not clear that an encyclopedia article could ever be created on the topic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Centrxtalk • 03:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't remember it at all. It had something to do with shading techniques, perhaps, but that's as far as my memory goes.

About keeping a redirect...perhaps a section in another article(in this case, I think that either windowing system or X window manager would do...or maybe even both). That way, no unnecessary entries and/or imprecision would be kept. What do you think?

Cool Cat MFD on DRV

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 30#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat -- Ned Scott 05:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Crookes Article

Can you please give a REAL, COMPLETE and BELIEVABLE explanation for your removals of all lawsuit references from the Wayne Crookes article and for using admin powers to protect your own edits (and for claiming, there are no credible sources after having removed a credible source reference (see wayne crookes talk page for details on that)? Thanks! 07:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I too would like to know why. When an article is protected like this, isn't there supposed to be a reason posted on the talk page? I'm sure the Wikipedia community would agree that transparency here is important, especially given the media coverage on this matter. Xamian 11:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think that explanation is necessary. You may get even more requests for this as of today, as Crookes was featured on Slashdot again. [6] NickGorton 14:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I explained the issue before. Wikipedia articles must be verifiable in multiple published third-party sources, and this is especially important for biographies of living persons. —Centrxtalk • 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Crookes Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wayne Crookes. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rjm656s 17:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello, may I ask why you deleted Nathan Smith Davis and Eileen Donoghue? If you look at the Talk pages, you will see that I posted instructions for confirming the permission the authors claimed, and gave them seven days according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins. It has not been seven days, and now my instructions are gone. --Spike Wilbury 20:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll restore the instructions on the talk page. Anyway, it has been 15 days since {{copyvio}} was added to the page, which has the instructions, and it's only a few hours anyway until it will be 7 days since you gave them a specific message, and the text can be restored anyway if the permission is received. Also, the Eileen Donoghue is not an appropriate article because of a conflict of interest. —Centrxtalk • 20:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Questionable behavior at Manual of Style (binary prefix)

User:Omegatron has removed the disputedtag from Binary Prefixes and reverted the contents back to his own liking.

(Binary prefixes - This is not actually disputed in any meaningful way. That some misunderstand the guideline does not make it invalid. Returning to wording similar to 2005 consensus.)

Is this acceptable behavior? -- SWTPC6800 02:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't start to edit war over it, it is not unacceptable. Though, the edit summary would seem to wilfully misunderstand the situation. —Centrxtalk • 03:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


I have reduced the flags but those that do fit well i have left!

A gummy bear for you...

Instead of a barnstar...

Thanks, centrx, for your help on my very first English article and, perhaps even more, for supporting my claim. That's one gummy bear for you! Read more about what getting a gummy bear means --Gnom2 20:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)