User talk:Centrx/Archive2

Thanks

I just wanted to say thank you for your insightful contributions to the Linux discussion page. It is great to see an editor who argues rationally and presents clear citations to back up the arguments. Wikipedia needs more editors of your calibre. --Yamla 18:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Blade Runner lead

While the lead is indeed longer than standard, the article is also longer than standard. Appropriate length is detailed in WP:Lead, and I think our lead not only follows the guidelines (for the most part :"D); simply looking at the lead as something which is supposed to "It should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article"... I think the current lead accomplishes that. While tightening and optimization is always helpful to fight creep, there is not need for radical summarization in pursuit of some standard length... as none exists. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Will move and continue discussion on Talk:Blade Runner. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tense

Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Tense - Thanks for your reply, but another question added... -- SGBailey 09:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Clinton v. City of New York

I thought you should know that this Clinton v. NYC is likely our next Project Collaboration Article at the Supreme Court wikiproject. We haven't quite started working on it yet, but I thought it would be polite to message the primary editor, even if we're not supposed to own articles around here. I hope you'll join us in trying to improve it. You'd be a great resource.--Kchase02 T 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How are collaborations on this Project normally done? Will the site of discussion be Talk:Clinton v. City of New York? -- Centrx 01:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't know. I joined the project a few months ago and have been trying to revive it for the past two weeks. I'm going to post a msg to the article's talk in a few minutes, but I'd watch both pages, just in case. btw, the suggested article outline (like most parts of our project) isn't set in stone. If we do anything that bugs you, just leave a msg on the article's talk.--Kchase02 T 01:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I sense we may have stepped on your toes with our quick editing of an article that you wrote a lot of. Any comments? It might help us avoid doing so the next time.--Kchase02 T 01:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no problem, though for the record I wrote all of the article. One thing that could be better—and this is true of edits on any article—it is helpful when re-organizing the sections of a page to separate the re-sectioning from any textual edits, so that the textual Changes can be viewed separately in the history whereas otherwise the text is pushed down and the diff is mangled. I have not yet actually reviewed the new additions. —Centrx→talk 01:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the dirty work

I just caught on the Ebook had moved (slow I guess). Now we can really rename the category! The heck with 'Electronic' formality! Languages change and add new words always! Best regards // FrankB 16:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivial name

Hi Centrx, I saw your edit on chemical substance, I think the article is really improving lately. Thanks for your part in that. I hope you don't mind that I loosen some definitions a bit, though it is sometimes difficult to find the proper equilibrium between 'being correct' and 'beeing readable for the man in the street'. But I have a question, why have you removed the link to trivial name, I do think that that is the common way how chemists define a 'common name' for compounds (though I must confess, the Latin etymology of the word does suggest to me that the word 'trivial' in that term is not correct). And is there a way of solving that (otherwise I guess that many chemists reading the document will incorporate that link again)? Kind regards, Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

While I would have kept it on a specific article about systematic naming, this being a general, introductory article, I thought its inclusion was trivial (no pun intended) and not necessary. What is important is the concepts and the examples, not the poorly named, rather ancillary, term in this case. —Centrx→talk 23:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, makes perfect sense, thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for this edit. Silly of me not to have caught that the other day. Haven't been getting enough sleep lately. Anyway, as I said, thanks!

President Lethe 06:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Bae Yong Joon

I guess you need me. Indeed, the page is edited by an NPOV user Fabshelly, and twice she has removed the dispute tag which you added. I posted a comment at Talk:Bae Yong Joon yesterday, but Fabshelly has logged in today [1] and has yet to reply, which shows her possible reluctance to compromise the matter. I have put up notices at the admin noticeboard and to semi-protect the page against him--indeed he has made an overhaul on the page, violating mainly Wikipedia:Manual of style, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Reliable sources these three policies/guidelines. In contrast, while she has been harping that I posted "false information" and "lies" while I contributed information and citing sources in accordance to Wikipedia:Reliable sources (see last edition before being reverted by Fabshelly: [2]). Thus I need your help to jointly either soothe this user or to take drastic actions if she goes on to violate wikipedia's policies. Cheers! Mr Tan 06:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to help. Note first that you may run into Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced criticism, which states that "unsourced or poorly sourced negative material". However, I can't see anything in the article that's really negative, so I don't think this strongly applies. Still, the best way to resolve these sorts of problems is to have the information sourced as reliably as possible. —Centrx→talk 06:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The highlighted revision highlights many sources. However, to lock the facts against any doubts, I would even add as many citations as possible in accordance to standards stated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The current overhauled version, as edited by Fabshelly, is possibly a response to noise made by people around him---(The article (translated) you removed from Bae Yong Joon). Such controversies is similar to those of Marty Meehan, as I have told Fabshelly.

What I would do is to revert to the old version ([3], of which the Acting Career is totally replaced by his roles by facts of his acting roles)---pretty plain for an actor, as compared to those of Richard Gere, Tom Cruise. People around them never made such alledged complains claimed by Fabshelly. From there, I would try to incorporate as much appropriate information from the current version. What do you think?

Furthermore, from his messages at Talk:Bae Yong Joon, Fabshelly has done several personal attacks against me, something which is not tolerated on wikipedia, such as using words like "cowardly". Unless he corrects himself, he might lead himself to disaster. I think it would be the best to soothe Fabshelly and get him familiarised with wikipedia before I decide how to re-add the appropriate information, in unision of some new content he introduced. Cheers! Mr Tan 12:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated appropriate content, along with necessary citations. What Fabshelly done has ran afoul internal guidelines and policies: see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. A section of wikipedia controversy has been edited by me, similar to those of Marty Meehan's controversies. This edit does not violate any wikipedia's rules.

I must warn you, however. Fabshelly can be severely dealt with for anymore destrructive edits, and by reading Wikipedia:Vandalism her edits shows some characteristics of vandalism, or other negative attitude unaccepted by wikipdia, as cited earlier be me. Feel free to help out if you wish. Cheers! Mr Tan 02:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cult leaders

Hey, good morning. I'm not sure what constitutes proof enough to have someone listed under that title as well. It seems the list is pretty sparce and has 3 Way leaders on it too. (You posted on Rosalie Rivenbark about the context of the cult leader category tag) I think someone added it as soon as an allegation was up. I should add here that I am a member of that group.. just continuing the discussion. In fact I have tried my hardest to ensure a NPOV...but maybe that category doesn't say that some think so.. it pretty much says they ARE so. Lsjzl 06:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikimania

Hello Centrx! Thanks for your interest in Wikimania! I'm logging for the first time in ages and am trying to catch up a bit.

Volunteering has lots of ideas on how to help out. There are particular tasks that would be good for someone local to do, like arranging some of the tours and such. Some of them might be quite time intensive; others not so much. How about if you take a look at the list and see if there's anything in particular that interests you?

If you're interested in connecting to local Wikipedians, we've got a localish group. I know Acton isn't too close to Boston, but it might be close enough.

Jkbaumga 23:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your edit of alcoholism! -- Mgcsinc 12:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-link archives

You commented on what I'd left on the Archive talk, and I wanted your thoughts on this talk page: User_talk:CoolKatt_number_99999 The user is constantly involved in some fight of some sort. He's currently up for RfC, done personal attacks against numerous users, is extremely abrasive, and unwilling to compromise. Archives are User_talk:CoolKatt_number_99999/Archive_1 User_talk:CoolKatt_number_99999/Archive_2 User_talk:CoolKatt_number_99999/Archive_3 and User_talk:CoolKatt_number_99999/Archive_4 any thoughts on approaching this issue and getting the archive links placed appropriately on the talk page without starting a gong show? --Crossmr 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Why all these redirects and dictdef notices?

I'm just going over Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics, but some topics don't make for much of an article, such as vamoose. Rather than leaving the default empty page, using {{wi}} points the user to what little information there is on the article, and serves as a modest base, should there ever be some new information to expand the subject with. At any rate, as you've been around longer, I trust your judgement, so what would you do if you came across "vamoose" as a red link, either in an article or in a list of missing articles? Maybe you can help me find a better solution. --LeoNomis 08:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been integrated at User talk:LeoNomis to keep the discussion in one place. —Centrx→talk • 11:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

{{wi}}

I've been meaning to deal with this, actually... - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Centrx! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. fetofs ^Hello! 12:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Norman Kay page

I found that a reference to Norman Kay that I put in an article on Edgar Kaplan linked to a British composer rather than to an American bridge player. At that point I started a new article on "Norman Kay (bridge players)", apparently misspelling the category; then, another user created a disambiguation page and a stub for Norman Kay (bridge player). I didn't realize, though I should have, that the original page I started was still around. Now, though, I can't seem to locate it so as to delete it (possibly due to the redirection?). How did you come across it, and can you tell me how to locate it so I can delete it? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xlmvp (talk • contribs) 12:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind -- I located it. But I'm still curious as to how you encountered it, given that the category pointed at nothing, so far as I know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xlmvp (talk • contribs) 12:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. So far as I know I've marked it for speedy deletion. Xlmvp 21:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Alcoholism

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for making such cogent comments on the Talkpage there. I'm sure you realize that you are far and away the most experienced editor involved in that article, and I do hope you'll keep dropping in and contributing as we can really use your guidance :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 15:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I am happy to help. There is a lot more productive communication now than apparently there was in the long discussions before I skimmed, and you have contributed to that. I encourage you to stick around on Wikipedia. If you have you any questions about how some things work, please don't hesitate to ask. —Centrx→talk • 15:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, they actually mean a lot to me. As a matter of fact...I've proposed a compromise intro that seems to have been well-received so far. Given your expertise I think your comments would carry a lot of weight. I know you're very busy, and I mentioned that on the Talkpage, but anytime you have a chance to weigh-in and give us some guidance it will be much appreciated. Happy editing. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have not previously expressed serious objections over the contents of the proposed revision, there is no need to wait. If people are acting reasonably, then it is often best to just implement the changes and editors will go round and tweak them. —Centrx→talk • 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually was tempted to make the change myself, but didn't want to risk bad feelings when things were otherwise progressing well. Since you have no "serious objections" I'll make the change and then await new comments. Thanks. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If everyone generally agrees and is not being foolish, it is probably best to edit away. Be bold. —Centrx→talk • 18:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thunderegg (rock and roll band) -- notability

Hello Centrx,

The article "Thunderegg (rock and roll band)" had been deleted in the winter for not adhering to notability standards. As a fan I wrote to the administrator, howcheng, explaining why I felt Thunderegg should be included. His response:

"Given the press and the uniqueness of their project, there's no reason why the article couldn't be re-created. Please be sure that the band meets criteria set in WP:MUSIC. Regards, howcheng {chat} 06:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)"

While Thunderegg is a relatively obscure independent band, the group has certain claims to fame. One is the release, earlier this year, of an innovative anthology, "Open Book: The Collected Thunderegg, 1995-2004," that collects eight home-recorded albums, 231 songs, and is packaged with a thick lyric book. This project takes the Do It Yourself (DIY) music approach to an entirely new level, taking advantage of home recording and mp3 technology, not to mention desktop publishing creativity.

Press coverage, while limited due to the group's underground nature, has confirmed that Thunderegg is unique and has a legitimate and creative body of work. Here are just a few articles that I could find:

• Review by Trouser Press
• Review by Music-news.com (UK)
• Feature article in New Haven Advocate

Respectfully yours, --Scottross 14:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that I do not know about this field to evaluate the authority of the other sources you have now given as "reliable" and "reputable" under WP:MUSIC, I have removed the notability tag. I have added the two additional links you have given. However, without more information, it may still be liable to be deleted. Therefore, if you can find it you should add more information that establishes its notability under WP:MUSIC. Album sales information could also help. —Centrx→talk • 02:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for removing the notability tag. I will keep on top of it and add new information as it comes in--the group is still growing. --Scottross 12:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

comment interruption

Hi, thanks for your comment on WP:NNOT. But I just want to ask if you could place your comments in chronological order. The way you placed your comment made it seem like the "next" comment was praising your comment, instead of the comment above yours. Please be careful in your comment placement. 67.161.46.169 23:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages comments are generally threaded by specifying the depth of a comment by indentation (:). See Help:Talk page#Formatting. While it is useful to segments large discussions into sections which are ordered chronologically—so that a recent comment is not lost among week-old comments half-way up the talk page in an active discussion—if each comment is ordered chronologically rather than threaded, then there is not a well-defined way of determining who is responding to whom. If there are few discussants, then threads may be flattened so that comments are not bunched up lengthily on the right side of the screen, but if there are many discussants with many threads, it is more conducive to conversation to introduce new sections. In this particular case, the other comment was mootly indented improperly and the way I determined its proper indentation was by comparing its contents—which is what a reader would have to do for comments ordered chronologically rather than threaded. —Centrx→talk • 02:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Theres a perfectly easy way of knowing who is responding to who - the writer names them. I will move your comment back as it is highly misleading in its "threaded" position. Its much more difficult to read every date and time tag than it is to read with context. If the comment is so far back that you "need" to thread it to make it clear, then its probably something people won't read, will misinterpret, or will be irrelevent by that time. Fresheneesz 19:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My statements about long-past comments was rather an aside to clarify the matter, and not especially relevant to this particular case. While this issue in this discussion is not significant enough for me to bother reverting you, the fact remains that you are going against common practice, against recommended style, against the format that allows for the most clarity. While it may seem sufficient to have each writer name to whom he is responding, this would actually break up the stream of discussion, with a reader needing to jump—indeed, search—back and forth up and down in order to keep it together. This is not how discussions work, and is totally inappropriate for any in which many discussants are addressing issues across many conceptual threads, or for a late-comer reading past discussion. This is especially important for policy, guideline, and style pages because editors do search through archives to find past discussions on issues, and read them. This is even if you were to change the overwhelmingly standard Talk practice to have everyone repeatedly reference their responses in a flat discussion rather than using thread. —Centrx→talk • 20:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The Talk:Charles Whitman page

You're one of the few users with an interest in this (the merger), and I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at it again. The discussion right now is degenerating into incivility, and I've decided to take the advice of WP:CIVIL and walk away without having the last word. However, I don't think that's going to work because several people there simply cannot let this alone. I'd appreciate your comments, therefore. Simply append something like "Harris, you could use a read of WP:DICK" if that's how it looks. In any case, we're badly in need of outside comments and new perspective here, and I'm soliciting some, before I say something I'm really going to regret. SBHarris 17:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA reverts

You reverted one of my edits in your RfA change, which was to the Nomination process section, which I renamed RfA process. To me, a nomination is the first step in RfA, followed by acceptance, followed by expressions of opinions and debate, followed by closing and possibly promotion. Nominate is a misnomer meaning (according to my Mac): propose or formally enter as a candidate for election or for an honor or award. Stephen B Streater 20:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the reason is that "RfA" is less clear than "nomination". While "nomination process" could be misunderstood to mean some process that must be undergone before even being nominated, "nomination" still is used to mean the whole process from naming a candidate through naming to the position, and the OED has nomination: "The action or right of appointing a person by name to some office or duty; an instance of this" with numerous quotations 1430—1983. However, it may be clearer to use "Selection process". —Centrx→talk • 20:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a better word. I think nomination isn't quite perfect, but nor is selection as it suggests someone will be selected and doesn't allow no one to be appointed. How about "appointment process"? Or perhaps "the process". Maybe I'll think about it some more. Stephen B Streater 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I considered appointment, but: 1) It makes the position sound too important; cabinet secretaries get appointed, not a thousand administrators. 2) Appointments are made by authoritative individuals or small groups, and are perhaps voted upon. It would be an appointment if Jimbo or the bureaucrats nominated all the administrators. The first Arbitration Committee was appointed. An appointment is not a self-nomination by any long-standing registered user. —Centrx→talk • 20:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've come up with Decision process or Consultation process. Stephen B Streater 06:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice. I prefer "Decision process". —Centrx→talk • 06:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - I've put it in. It's funny how the shortest things often need the most thought. Stephen B Streater 06:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Eng

Why did you think this article did not warrant speedy deletion? (see [[4]]) WP:CSD specifically states "If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request.", and as explained there, "the page's only substantial content was added by its author". —Centrx→talk • 07:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Because there were two users involved in adding substantial content, being User:Janifour and User:65.92.215.153, CSD:G7 doesn't apply. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Janifour is the original author, who blanked the page[5]. User:65.92.215.153's edits[6] only move text around and put some into an infobox. He also changed a digit each of two numbers, increasing her birthdate and bust size, and added a link to an apparently pornographic website that was later deleted as it ought to have been. This user contributed no substantial content to the text. —Centrx→talk • 08:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Was it also mistakenly created? Stifle (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request.", which is what the author did. "Mistakenly created" is so that clearly legitimate encyclopedia articles are not created and then long after asked to be deleted, so that, for example a prolific user does not get angry and ask that all his contributions be deleted. This article does not approach that level and is going to be deleted anyway, and it was blanked 3 weeks after creation. This criterion was specifically created for the sort newbie-created mistake, and that is what it is used for. It does not only apply to, say, mispelling Talk:Bed/Archiive3. Note that this article also could be interpreted to qualify under A7, Unremarkable person, in that it does not assert any importance or notability in that being a hired, run-of-the-mill model on a magazine cover a couple of times is not actually notable. An extreme analogy of this would be an article that states "Bob is the lord of the universe" or "Bob is notable because he manages the Safeway in Oklahoma City". Yes this asserts some notability, but what it is asserting is not actually notable in the second case or true in the first case. —Centrx→talk • 10:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would take case 2 as a sensible assertion of notability, which protects the article from A7. It could be that there is more to the person than the article states; the fact that this is not often the case does not weaken the point. For non-sensible assertions per case 1, I would discount it when considering whether article is worthy of a speedy. Kimchi.sg 14:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Materazzi et al

My comments have been collated here, from User talk:202.141.69.21. —Centrx→talk • 02:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, discussion, or "Talk", pages of an article are specifically for discussing improvements to the article. It is not a forum for discussing whether Materazzi is a racist. Do not delete comments from the discussion page that are directly relevant to improving the article. —Centrx→talk • 04:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Also before accusing me of being a vandal, please see that Panairjdde removed my request for a controversy section to be added and my request for resources used for a paragraph(specific) to be delineated. If you think I am not adding to the discussion, thats ur POV, please dont force it on others who feel fit to respond. I couldnt care less what you think of my comments as long as you dont attempt to remove them or put your thoughts there. --From 202.141.69.21, wrongly added to userpage User:Centrx.

I have looked through all five of Panairjdde's edits to Talk:Marco Materazzi. None of them deleted any comments. If you object to his edits to the article itself, you can open a discussion section about it on the Talk page. Such a discussion states something like "What is your reason for removing that section on that goal? I think it should remain because X, Y, Z." It does not work to just say "Materazzi's goal that time was great. It really shows what a skilled player he is." Refer directly to what you think was wrong with the edit or what you think is wrong with the article. Also, keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia article. It is not to be a catalogue of all sorts of plays he has made, or of all the conflicts between him and other players. —Centrx→talk • 05:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I didnt know where to respond and was using your front page, which you quite rightly perhaps, saw as vandalism. Well if its an encyclopedic article that is to be printed, then one can understand constrictions on the length. Is the talk page also subject to being encyclopedic? In my view that defeats the purpose of open source and civil discourse.

The first para I added was not about the plays he made, but an additional section on controversies, if you know and followed the player as I have done, since his Everton days.Also a request for sources used, which were missing.

I now see it was you who deleted my request(I am warming up to wiki now) and am rather not surprised. Well, in this context, a discussion is being unwarrantedly monitored by you. How can you decide whether a call for a "controversies section" and "additional sources" is an unfit talk on the discussion page? Again, the "not racist" issue is very pertinent one because it relates to the most identifiable part of a "antic driven" career. Should we qualify his comments before 20th July hearings, is very apposite to his career as a player. If you follow the news , you will know why its so important that we talk about the comments and the need to restrain ourselves from interpretation.

As for duscussing plays, well a player is a sum of his plays. As to what should be included, befits a discussion in the least. 05:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)~

The discussion page does not itself have to be of the quality of an encyclopedia, but it does have to be about the article; it has to be about making an encyclopedia. This talk page was wildly deviating from that purpose. The comments I deleted originally were not about the article. After that, I generally reverted any edit by someone who was also doing vandalistic things, such as blanking and personal attacks, rather than sort through which comments were valid and which were hostile when both were from users whose purpose was evidently destructive.

While the encyclopedia is put on other media where length is an issue, that is not the reason for restricting what goes in an article. This is a general-purpose article. Information that might be interesting to fans should not clutter or push out information that is more useful to most readers. While select examples might be useful for giving an impression of the player, they must be select. I don't really know the history of what has been added to and deleted from this article or who did the adding and deletion, but for example, the "comic goal" item was very likely not relevant to the article.

For controversial changes, it can be helpful to propose a paragraph to be added on the Talk page, where people can give their opinions of what is wrong with it or what should be changed. —Centrx→talk • 06:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats ur POV, met with disagreement by a lot of Series A and Inter followers. Also, see the talk pages of any article. The democratic party article even discusses the electoral rep who lost faith and didnt cast his vote for gore in '00. Talk page is abt discussing any and all changes.

I am fine with all of your views as long as you dont push it down my throat by deleting my comments, civil in all respects and pointedly relevant in my opinion as well as that of quite a few informed followers of the game.

06:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)~

Certainly, some Talk pages have unrelated comments and questions, and some editors do a little more than what is necessary for creating an encyclopedia, but the purpose of the Talk page is still to develop the article. Occasional comments from article editors and unrelated questions are not a problem and sometimes no one bothers to discourage or remove them. But that is a far cry from having pages and pages of unrelated comments by a bunch of people who apparently just showed up for that purpose, some of whom were hostile, some of whom apparently vandalized the article itself. This is not merely my point of view; this is about the essential purpose of Wikipedia. It is the point of view of the vast majority of editors, it is the point of the view of administrators and those who run the servers. It is part of Wikipedia policy. See WP:ENC, for a short description, mainly "Wikipedia is not a message board." —Centrx→talk • 07:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In defining a "general reader" you are assuming his intelligence and posing your relevance. Do you follow Serie A? A lot of people who do, will agree with the goal incident being discussed, and if you see the article included as of now.

Time and again you reduce my comments to those fitting a "message board" . That is your judgement. It is a debate as to whether "not racist" should be added/used as a qualification for the comments. As such it is a discussion on the article, and very important to its theme. It is part of a pointed, vigorous, informed debate.

The first para was relevant too,you could have edited it since it was my first, and shown maturity. Addition of controversies as a part of the article befits a discussion.(So does a demand to produce sources.) Again do you follow La Liga and EPL? I can have people agree with me there. As they do if you read the talk page without assumptions. The person has been controversial.

Peace be upon us. This is tiring. And subjective. Stop judging, whatever be your opinion, respect those held by others too. My newbie attempts at grasping wiki have been part of your projecting me as a vandal. That is something known as "ad hominem" in debating. "very obviously to destruct"; if you used that in a debate, you most probably would be cut so many points that any rebuttals wont redeem you.

Like the worst thing that a comedian can know is some person saying he is not funny, the worst that a debater can hear is not relevant. Point it out I'll show you the relevance.

But this is rather tiring, and I'd much rather let it be. There are more invigorating things that attract my attention now. Perhaps I'll go back to real debates where they dont switch my mike off if they disagree. I'll repeat this though, your not contributing to the article at all while judging the contribution of others and all the while pruning and trimming them, is disrespectful to the intelligence of many people.

07:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)~

I have no idea what any of those names refer to. It is not necessary that I be involved in this football argument in order to recognize that the comments there are not about improving the article. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#What talk pages may be used for. —Centrx→talk • 02:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I saw you note on my talk page. i think you are concerned that the discussion page of Materazzi is becoming full of irrelevant discussions. I understand your point. I also see others are concerned that their comments are being deleted. In my view, it is probably best to leave people's comments as they are. The issue is very heated at the moment. I am also quite annoyed (and some would think irrational). I do think though, that this will be remembered for years. The bottom line is that football has to clean up it's act. You cannot have people saying things to other players like Materazzi did. It wouldn't be tolerated in society, in politics or in the workplace. So why should a "blank cheque" be given in this case? The discussions are important to find at what level the encyclopedia should be written. In my view, no punches should be pulled on this one. Wallie 21:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

empty pages

centrx; thanx for the help. i am a slow learner. but it just occured to me that i should write the article before i create the page. i will give you a yell when i need help. i get stuck a lot. joe 02:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

creating empty pages

Hi, thanks for the tip ... New here, just getting the hang of it. Just trying to figure which page I created that was empty, or do you mean making a link within an article to a page that doesn't exist (yet)? Anyways, pls post a response to my talk page, thanks, 'preciate it....BW (Bawtyshouse)

redir

cool! - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Player Worlds sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Worlds

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playerworlds

As the creator of Player Worlds, I know that someone have been vandalising both of these sites, placing the page to a hi-jack/theft .org page instead of the official .com page..

What are my options? How do I report this vandalism to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shannara (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:List of tongue twisters

The statement on the talk page is accurate, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tongue-twisters. I have no concerns with the soft-redirect that is in place, therefore I will leave the article as is. Thanks for pointing it out. --Jay(Reply) 22:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete it because doing such would almost certainly result in it being recreated again. The protected redirect is good enough. --Jay(Reply) 22:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your query

He's posting old comments. He does this a lot; turns up at a page, gets a bee in his bonnet about something and won't let it go, then posts and reposts old material about it at very great length in an effort to cause trouble. If you want to restore it, I'm fine with that, but if he's the only one who's doing it, I'd prefer to see it removed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Living people

Hi I've readded the above category you removed from the Michael Jackson page. It is wiki policy that ALL living persons have this category. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand. —Centrx→talk • 01:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Who has the honors of removing persons from the category when they die? —Centrx→talk • 04:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry my apology about hitting edit so much

sorry my apology about hitting edit so much. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a spirited debate. your first entry really strained my brain. You seem very intellegent, and you are a formiable debate foe. Best wishes in your future edits, Mr./Ms. Centrx. Travb (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Med Cab Case

Hi. I've taken a med cab case involving SlimVirgin and Francis Schonken. As you seem to have had some dealings with this already, I just wanted to know your opinion on the matter. Thank you very much for your time. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about this, but the case is now closed as SlimVirgin did not want to participate. Once again, thank you for your time. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Zyman Group copyright resolution

Hello,

This was regarding the copyright problem for 'Zyman Group' You mentioned that I should send an email to Permissions AT Wikimedia from the email ID associated with the 'source website' However, in the source file - there is no mention of any email ID

Here is the link again: http://www.zmarketing.com/pdfs/ZymanGroupFacts.pdf

Please tell me from which email address do you want me to send an email to you? Will any [email protected] email entry work for you?

Would appreciate your prompt help,

Thanks, Look forward to hearing from you, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zintern (talk • contribs) 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

Wow, that is bizarre as I was using the auto javascript revert, and it stated (automatically) that the reversion was back to Tawkerbot4 - so I have no idea why it didn't revert the article correctly? Will chat to Tawker about it. Thanks again - Glen 01:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My comments on RfA

I was going to ask what you meant by repeatedly stating my opposition in the other RfA, but now looking it over it I see what you mean with regard to two of my three-four subsequent comments. Their reason was to engage the comments by others, in the same vein as is done on article and policy discussion pages, and was not intended to "furthermore" oppose beyond the comments I had already made. That is, they were subordinate to the comments by other users rather than "top-level", subordinate only to the overarching RfA. I did not intend to strengthen my position in the context of the RfA nor to offend or "rub it in". —Centrx→talk • 13:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry; I have seen far worse. In fact, I'm worried some may think I was doing a little rubbing in of my own on the RfAs for Sean Black and JD_UK because my comments were so long. -- joturner 14:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As someone mentioned in a recent discussion about revising the process, in Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, one way to change the process is to only submit discussionary comments, without black-and-white "support" and "oppose". —Centrx→talk • 14:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC

Page Deletion/Removal?

Awesome! Thanks for your inputs Centrx...

I will adhere to the format you mentioned and write a new article from scratch. Can you delete the existing article on 'Zyman Group' completely so that I can write one afresh? Do let me know... Thanks!--Zintern 14:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have tagged the page to be deleted, and it will probably be deleted shortly. If you would like any help, please don't hesitate to ask. —Centrx→talk • 14:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Centrx... Thanks for the update on page deletion!

I just wanted to know will it be fine if I write a new article and send it to you first for reviewing before uploading it on Wikipedia. Once it is uploaded and is found to have some issues, I have a hard time resolving it plus anyone who queries on that keyword will see that ISSUE upfront. Hence, I thought a safer way would be to get it reviewed from you and once I get an OK from you, I will upload it... Let me know how it works for you....

Once again, appreciate your quick responses!!! --Zintern 15:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind reviewing it, but I am not sure what issues you are concerned about that would stop you from adding it yourself. You are free and welcome to upload it yourself. —Centrx→talk • 15:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

MoS page moves

Do you think you could fix the double redirects after each move instead of en masse at the end? --Usgnus 14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty good with en-mass. --Polar Deluge 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No big deal. Just thought I'd ask. --Usgnus 14:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope the en mass isn't too en mass.  :-) --Polar Deluge 14:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the reason for moving all of these Wikipedia:Manual of Style pages? Where is the discussion about this? —Centrx→talk • 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

They are minor moves which follow the Wikipedia namespace naming convention. The page names are virtually the same, except now they are subpages of the master page they belong to, which takes advantage of the Wikipedia namespace's backlink feature. I'm in the process of fixing the double redirects now. --Polar Deluge 15:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For changes of this magnitude, you should always bring it up on the relevant discussion page first, in this case Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Even assuming subpages are appropriate, other issues like having parentheses in the name of the subpage, which is non-standard, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/(dates and numbers), could have been brought up and resolved. Also, the many archives of these pages are still under the old name and need relinking. —Centrx→talk • 15:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The parentheses were retained because they were in the original titles, and to differentiate the pages from subpages that are drafts. --Polar Deluge 15:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Some issues on copyright...

I am just concerned about the article getting into any kind of copyright issues... Hence, just wanted to get it cleared from you about the content. If you are fine, then will go ahead and upload the same and avoid getting into the copyright hassle...

Thanks again!!! --Zintern 15:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cvio

Hi, Centrx. I don't know what the template is for. I only modified it so that it would show up in a certain place in the category of possible copyright violations. I assume that it was created to save time in tagging copyright violations. You should ask the creator. However, unless it is causing problems or is no longer in use and has no potential for use in the future, I don't think it should be deleted. It doesn't take up a lot of space and it will be saved as a deleted page, even if deleted. I suppose it might save a tiny amount of space in the database dumps and any backups that don't include deleted pages, though. People have made a lot of shortcuts and such over the years. Some of them save an inordinate amount of time for certain tasks while others just make something tedious a little bit easier. They tend to be made by the most prolific editors. Even if they are the only ones that use them, I think it is worth having them because it lets them get more work done and probably makes them happier, too. If they make something that is useful to other people, it would be nice if they let people know so that they can use it, though. -- Kjkolb 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Vizconde Massacre

If you want to create an article about the movie, I will remove the protection. But the repeated creation of articles about an nn event caused me to protect the page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nanaimo's Maple Sugar Festival

I'm about to delete it. I just wanted to mention that your speedy deletion tag didn't really help anything: I still had to check that it was actually a copyright violation myself... and editing on top of the copyvio tag actually makes it a couple clicks harder for me to look at the previous content of the article so I can compare it to the external source. Mangojuice^talk 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that whereas CSD gets cleared out fairly well, and PROD and AfD get cleared after their 5 days are up, the 1000+ items in Category:Possible copyright violations don't. This one was a week after it should have been deleted, there have been several others that are two weeks after they should have been deleted, when these have a legally compelling reason for quick deletion absent from the aforementioned deletion processes. —Centrx→talk • 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my RfA

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit curious as to your own RfA and am not going to do the typical "I'm going to oppose you because you opposed me" play, so have voted neutral. I really do appreciate the criticism and will attempt to correct the flaws you've noted. I wish you luck in your own RfA, though I doubt you'll need it. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Robert/Rob MacKenna

I see that you deleted my article on Robert MacKenna. However, I cannot locate any discussion about this decision. Did you just unilaterally decide to delete it? --Davecutler 09:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I tagged Robert MacKenna for deletion because it was a repost of an article that had previously been decided to be deleted, according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob MacKenna, and according to the reposted article, nothing more had happened to this person since the article was deleted to warrant its recreation in the encyclopedia. An administrator then agreed/verified that reason and deleted it. —Centrx→talk • 09:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, that's a real shame - the article never should have been deleted in the first place, so now the fact that some trigger-happy person deleted it is supposed to justify deleting it again? (There was certainly no consensus that the article should have been deleted in the original discussion, and the article clearly meets the criteria for notability.) This kind of nonsense is why Wikipedia is fatally flawed, there is utterly zero accountability when someone goes and wipes out other contributors' hard work on a whim.--Davecutler 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't on a whim. All but one of the Wikipedia users who commented in the 7-day period of the AfD supported the deletion. —Centrx→talk • 08:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly not the way that I recall it (I did not participate, being unaware that some busybody had decided to delete it, but I looked into it later after someone who tried to look up the entry told me it had been deleted.) - I thought there were several people who didn't think it should have been deleted. There was certainly a pretty robust discussion about it, but perhaps all the advocacy was done by a single user (again, I don't think so, but the hell with it).

And again, this kind of garbage is exactly why Wikipedia will never be a legitimate resource for researchers - there is zero accountability when people try to make legitimate contributions, and then some teenage kid comes along and wipes the entire thing out just because he can. What a total crock.--Davecutler 13:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did actually bother to go back and look at the archived discussion, it appears that FIVE users disagreed with the decision to delete the original page, not the "one" that you stated. I'm still utterly mystified how REMOVING legitimate information from Wikipedia is supposed to make it a better and more comprehensive resource, but c'est la vie. I shouldn't have wasted my time trying to contribute in the first place.--Davecutler 13:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

All of the people you are referring to were anonymous IPs who, based on their contributions, only showed up to oppose the deletion. They did not cite any reason related to Wikipedia guidelines why it should not be deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not to indiscriminately collect biographies. See WP:BIO. —Centrx→talk • 19:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, simply incorrect. From WP:BIO: "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage." A quick look at Google would have verified that MacKenna's campaign was featured in AP wire stories, in the Miami Herald, the New York Times, and numerous times in both local major newspapers, the Tampa Tribune and St. Petersburg Times, as well as articles in a number of other smaller publications.

The next time someone tries to tell me Wikipedia holds any value whatsoever, I'm going to refer them to this ridiculous incident.--Davecutler 20:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As you get to know Wikipedia better, you'll find out how to raise these issues in an appropriate forum such as deletion review. Stephen B Streater 21:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There WAS no deletion review in this case. There was back in December of last year, which I wasn't aware of at the time, but in this case this character just deleted the article with no warning whatsoever - which is the main reason I'm annoyed.--Davecutler 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: CSD A8

Thank you very much for telling me. I looked over your counter-proposal, and, as I noted on the talk page, I like your amendment better. Nice job! -- Where 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the redirect

Thanks for fixing the redirect on the (now former) fleabitten gray article. My question is: What did I do wrong there? I tried to make it redirect but it wouldn't go...how can I do a proper job next time? There are two other stubs out there that need to be somehow incorporated into the main article...Thanks! Montanabw 20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason that redirect didn't work is it had a space (" ") before the "#". When there is a space at the beginning of a line on Wikipedia, the line gets put in that dotted box you may have seen and the redirect doesn't work. I see that you have been here a few months but no one has given you a welcome message with useful links, so I have put one below. If you have any questions about anything, I would be happy to help. —Centrx→talk • 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. I think someone did send me a welcome message somewhere a ways back, but I also had my login name changed, so the talk page probably vanished...and it's a handy reference to keep, I now know!Montanabw 21:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

PW.

I would of thought that if someone if someone did not do the research, and went ahead and edited the page, putting a site that is not the pw (offical) site on it, vandalism? They did so continously. Where a little research would have told them that org is not the site, as well as .org having a long history of trying to hijack the pw site (not only on wiki). What would be a better term then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shannara (talk • contribs) 22:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

CSD A8

I am removing your speedy tags for copyvio's. CSD A8 states the copyvio must be caught within 48 hours of creation to be eligible for speedy deletion. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

These violations may be deleted by any administrator under the WP:Copyright problems process (see also Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins), and therefore qualify for deletion as housekeeping. I will try to make this more clear in my tagging. (The criteria under A8 are all for ensuring that a page is not hastily deleted when there is possibility that it is not an infringement or that the page history may be redeemed. The 7-day period and process at WP:CP is for ensuring this is not the case. In particular, A8 requires that it be tagged within 48 hours so that the page on Wikipedia is not mis-identified as a copyright violation being found on a mirror of Wikipedia, when in fact the mirror copied it from Wikipedia.) —Centrx→talk • 00:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes they may be deleted - and likely will be. They don't need to be marked for speedy deletion though. Speedy deletion needs to be covered by something in WP:CSD. I appreciate your enthusiasm in trying to delete copyvio's but marking them as speedy deletions is not covered under any policy. The 7 days is also a minimum, not the rule. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Some have been 2 or 3 weeks old, perhaps not the ones I most recently tagged. Category:Possible copyright violations has an endless backlog made worse because its entries are not dated, so that old copyvios sit there in the long list, unknown and undeleted. If you find that this is somewhat less the case at the moment, it is in large part because I have tagged on the order of 100 of these for deletion. A couple of weeks ago, there were about 500 items in the copyvio category; it appears that many administrators do not monitor this category and, even if they did, it would be difficult to clear it: unlike CAT:CSD, its backlog cannot be brought down to 0; unlike CAT:PROD, old items are mixed with newer ones. I have asked about having dated categories at WP:AN and Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems but, having yet received no response and thinking it a proposal to which I cannot think of an objection, I shall soon be bold and try to figure it out myself. Regardless and until then, I do not see any reason why the old copyvios that I come across should not be brought to the attention of administrators for deletion. If they are not tagged 7 days after, they will likely not be deleted until 3 weeks after; if they are not tagged 3 weeks after, they may not be deleted until 5 weeks or longer. These deletions are not "controversial" under G6, Housekeeping. Their deletion is specifically a result of the process at Wikipedia:Copyright problems cited by Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ, under which they are pages that "Wikipedia administrators may delete" "'on sight' without further debate". —Centrx→talk • 02:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please wikify for Jean-Marie Buchet

I tried to do my best (I'm learning!) for it. Can you tell me if I have to do more (if it's OK, just scrap the "Pease wikify" notice. Thanks in advance, Have a nice day. Alex —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Busch2 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

RFA

Hey, I wanted to nom you for RFA! After I got involved in Alcoholism I was impressed with the quality of your contributions, and when I ran your name through Interiot/Tool2 I was astounded by the sheer number of your edits. Now I regret that I didn't approach you about it earlier, but I've corrected my mistake by voting in your support...of course :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit on Zyman article

Hey Centrx! Thanks for the edit on the Zyman article. Really appreciate your help. The article definitely looks a lot more polished and I hope will convince the other editors to keep the article from deletion.

One quick point - the article still mentions 'tagged for deletion'. What should be the next course of action? Is there still a possibility of this article getting deleted?

Do let me know Once again - appreciate your help... and its people like you which make Wikipedia rock!!!

Thanks! -Zintern 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Awesome Centrx! You are simply amazing! Thanks so much for the frank, quick and crisp comments...

I shall await for 7 more days and then get back to you! Hoping for the best... -Zintern 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ohio districts

No, I do not think it should be deleted. I have tried my best to get people to comment on it, posting notices on many Ohio pages. I had also hoped that it might serve as an example for naming articles on other state's school districts. PedanticallySpeaking 16:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

Have fun using the new tools to help make this a better place, but be conservative with them, especially at first. Re-read the relevant policy as needed before taking action and ask questions where you may be unsure. The community has put its trust in you, and I'm sure you'll do fine. Again, congrats. - Taxman ^Talk 13:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy your success. Stephen B Streater 13:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

()

Do not make en masse changes to articles against consensus. Do not try to circumvent blocks preventing you. I suggest you take a couple of days off and return only when you are ready to reasonably discuss the date issue and are prepared to accept the conclusion of that discussion.

How? If I come back, and edit, you will block me for evading (which is what you did today). Probably you will block me even for this post.--151.47.87.229 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If you come back in a week or two and abide by Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Disputes over style issues, Wikipedia:Consensus, and Wikipedia:Civility, I think you will be welcomed as a productive editor. 00:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I always did: since the beginning I was productive and abode the law. Then Llywrch came into action.--151.47.87.229 00:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not supposed to be a punishment. I mentioned a couple of days, I mentioned a couple of weeks. The interval is to let the issue cool down and put it in perspective. I recognize that you have been on Wikipedia a long time and have been a productive contributor. I just want you to recognize that having dates indicated by "AD" or not is not a major issue, but trying to force that format against everyone is, and it doesn't accomplish the goal anyway. If you keep making the changes, they are just going to be changed back. There are much more productive and interesting things you can do on Wikipedia, or off Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 00:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

AD/not-AD is an issue I want to be discussed and settled. However, whenever I try to discuss it, only those previously involved in the matter show up (see Talk:Montanism). People like you become interested only when someone has "particular" behaviours like mine.

Furthermore there is the issue of llwrch. However matter ends, I truly believe he should apologize to me.

Do you think all this can be settled avoiding editing for a month? In that case I'll do it gladly.--151.47.87.229 00:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I do think it can be settled by going away for a month. When you come back, just don't bother with the AD issue, or if you feel you must, bring it up again on the Manual of Style page. I would be happy to explain why I and other people on Wikipedia think that an acceptable style should not be changed to another style en masse. I happen to be one of the people on the Manual of Style who was discussing this with you when you brought it up there. —Centrx→talk • 01:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry for the mistake: You actually was there to answer my questions since the beginning. (I still think you have a strange interpretation of MoS, however :-)) Please, consider allowing me to strike out my comment about you

Now, the problem is that, apart the AD/CE matter (something I could pass over, given a change of the MoS - I still hold mine as the correct interpretation of the MoS), I really have an issue with llwrch. I really feel offended by his behaviour in my case (I am referring to the beginning of this story, all the sockpuppets matter was handled flawlessy by him). I realize that admins can't go against other admins, otherwise there would be even more fuss by blocked users, but I still believe that real persons should admit their errors and ask to be forgiven.

I am willing to stay away for at least a month, to abide for my "disruptive" behaviour, but what should I do on this last matter?--151.47.87.229 01:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at the Administrator's noticeboard discussion, and a lot of the related discussions, etc., but I am not sure I know what you are referring to. Do you mean zealous enforcement of 3RR, or mischaracterization at the noticeboard...? —Centrx→talk • 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, you may also find the exchange at User talk:Yom/Archive4#Message from Panairjdde relevant. -- llywrch 16:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. See my last message (to which nobody relplied).--151.47.119.2 23:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

RE

WOW. That acctually came at the best time possible because I'm just starting to feel like a dick for deleting everyon's vanity articles about their pipe bands. I thought for sure that you were going to be an angry author when I saw that I had a new message. Thanks alot, I have to get back to deletion now but I'll find somthing to compliment you on later.--Musaabdulrashid 08:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Move of Bands (neckware)

Good catch... I think you are right. I think it ought to be moved back. I also notice that the article should probably have a once-over for cleanup and copyediting because the article uses the singular form more often than the plural. Let's do it...

--Pjvpjv 12:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Your question about bots on my talk page

Hi Centrx, concerning the question you left on my talk page. At first glance, it looks like it would be easier to get User:DumbBOT to do the job rather than User:Zorglbot; however, I don't mind adapting Zorglbot to any uncontroversial and straightforward task if needed. I'll have limited connectivity in the next few days, and no way to program a bot, but don't hesitate to ask me again at the end of next week if you still need help with that. Cheers, Schutz 23:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Panairjdde IP

Could you do something about the latest Panairjdde sock, he is again edit warring, has repeatedly placed a spurious sock template for one of his socks on my talk page, and made arguments all over the place. Cheers, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(Centrx, I am sorry to bother you, but CS is defaming me in some talk pages.) I am quietely discussing on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Interpretation, and my position is getting supporters, while your reverts to my edits have been reverted by others. So you come here and cry. Well done. Furthermore, note that it takes two persons to editwar.--151.47.119.2 00:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't you leave her alone? I'm the one who blocked you for disruption; but you appear to be far more eager to wikistalk an average editor, rather than vent your considerable anger at someone with Admin powers. If you have a beef about how I treated you, deal with me; otherwise limit your comments to the MoS talk pages, & prove to the rest of the Wikipedia community by your civility how I overreacted to you.

Maybe I overreacted to your actions on Wikipedia -- however, with your repeated misbehavior you only weaken your own credibility, & prove to ever more Wikipedians that you should remain blocked from our project. Centrx has offered you a way to redeem yourself, & I see no reason not to assume she/he is acting in good faith. I'll state for the record that if Centrx asks me to lift a block on any (or all) of your various accounts, I'll agree to it. Only thing you need to do is convince Centrx that you will behave. And that has been the one thing I have asked of you since the beginning of this conflict. -- llywrch 03:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I fear he is prepared to evade his block every night like this and repeat the same disturbance to make a WP:POINT for as long as he is able. But it seems all the older ranges were successfully blocked, apart from the 151.47 range...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

re:AD edits by anon IP

This is how I read the guidelines from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The formats for references to years are: (note, not a single format referenced has CE/AD included, the positive years are simply 474 and 1987, etc) and Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range. Thus, I see nothing wrong with removing redundant ADs and CEs from articles, and therefore, I saw nothing wrong with anon's edits. That said, now that I know that this is a sockpuppet of a banned user, I do not agree that bi-passing a ban is justified. So I'm split. I found the content of the anon IP's edits to be helpful and not breaking any rules, but the simple act of sockpuppeteering is against policy. So, I'd favor efforts to block the IP, but I wouldn't revert the helpful edits. Unless I'm missing something (which, just coming into this whole mess, I probably am).--Andrew c 03:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Andrew, having been part of this mess a little longer than you, I think you have expressed the my feelings quite well. Probably another useful tool would be to sprotect where this individual has crossed the 3RR electric fence. But I welcome any new ideas. -- llywrch 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome!

Dear Centrx, thank you so much for your comments and helpful advice - it'll keep me "centrx-ed", you may rest assured. Cheers for now, Frank Landsman 08:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Linux

In case you're interested... Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

mjbookster asking for help

Um i was wondering how do you get those things on your userpage that look like the Babel things but say stuff like "this user is shortsighted" and stuff?

Mjbookster 18:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

never mind Mjbookster 19:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Another Panair sock

User:BocciDaniele evading block again? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Panairjdde

I think User:Panairjdde is back, as User:AlessioMinieri. He is editing on the same articles that User:BocciDaniele was just yesterday and today. Should I go through the formal accusation, or is there a quicker recourse? --Ptkfgs 02:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ptkfgs 02:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Threats

I never threated anyone of block. This should be clear. Going against an ArbCom can be punished with blocking, and this is a fact.--GiusvaFioravanti 03:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected species

Well, it took 59 minutes for a vandal to find the unprotected Bulbasaur article! Myopic Bookworm 08:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting my userpage

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage a few days ago. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Urby2004 Block

Thank you :) --SγωΩηΣ ^tαlk 12:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And thank you from me too :-) I can confirm you that 151.44.0.0 too is from the same ISP (Infostrada DSL, Central Italy and Rome); unfortunately, both of these ranges are dynamically assigned to users (random attribution of both the last two triplets, so plenty of possible combinations), and as I told you, these are very popular services (cheapest "flat" fees), so I have really no idea on how to identify a narrower range. I'm looking however if the guy edited on it.wiki too, as we received some funny stuff about Materazzi here too (nothing I'm aware of, instead, about years); in case I'll find other SPs I'll let you know. As well, I believe that any trouble eventually experienced by honest users would be reported in our WP, I'll keep an eye on it :-) Ciao e grazie :-))) --g 13:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

BLP RfC

Thanks for your helpful response to my question on RfC's for BLP's! How do we go about creating a section for that? It also might make a good Wikiproject, if there isn't one already. Dreadlocke 17:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Category:Living people that cover this matter, and because of libel and human dignity, BLPs are a concern of the higher Wikipedia administration. I have asked for general comments on creating the subpage at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. —Centrx→talk • 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Dreadlocke 22:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Adrianople

Klokotnitsa is something else, yeah...I don't know why I made that redirect. Maybe it is another name for Adrianople, but it is also a different battle entirely. I've deleted it. Adam Bishop 03:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Blood for blood

Hello,

I am very sorry with what has been happening with the page, however, I am only doing this with wikipedia's users at mind, I am trying to help. I have made changes to the main page and will have blood for blood (band) removed, and then move blood for blood to blood for blood (band) is this ok?

Thats cool centrx, look I thought it would be better if wiki had all bands with the (band) title, all albums with the (album) title and all songs with the (song) title. Thankyou for actually listening to me, unlike most other a****ole users around here.

Thing is I tried to talk to that guy but he just thinks he knows everything and can do whatever he wants. He deserves a ban! afterall he achieved nothing just pi**ed people off.

Actually, I need help with some of the albums, the images wont work, could you take a look at them and get them going? They are in wasted youth brew and onwards...

Thankyou,

Ok will do, so can you have a look at my pages... the image problems? --Aaron J Nicoli 08:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks again man, --Aaron J Nicoli 08:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Mindrot Entry

I am currently working on a more suitable entry. When I do complete my work I would appreciate it not be deleted just because of someone else posting articles that are not relavent to the subject. I am new to adding articles to wikipedia and I only feel that Mindrot deserves an entry. They may not have been huge but they did make waves in the music world. I have seen many reviews that have mentioned them, weither or not people enjoyed their music they made a mark. I am trying to follow the rules of wikipedia, and I am in contact with former members of the band for permission to use images. I am currently searching for information on the band to make an in depth entry for them. --Ambiguousfrerak 08:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Stukov

On 26 July 2006, this user added the category of "Notable Niggers" to the Denzel Washington page so I gave him a test4 because the user has been warned numerous times before. Just look at his user page. Then on 29 July, the user added the pic of an Asian man to the USS Tang (SS-563). I clicked on the pic and it turns that person's name was Tang and he sells peanuts at Toronto home games. I know this because he made a page for the guy! Which thanks to me has been speedy deleted. I really don't think this guy is such an asset to the site. MrBlondNYC 10:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Mindrot Entry

I have compiled what I hope will be a suitable entry for Wikipedia. --Ambiguousfrerak 11:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

removal of cultural references for paracetemol

I couldn't find a wiki guideline or policy on which articles should or shouldn't contain cultural references.

If this is just a matter of your personal taste, I disagree with their removal. Many pages contain them, and I find them useful.

This is an application of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, "not a collection of trivia", and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Generally, cultural references can be appropriate for indicating the impact someone or something has had on a culture. See, for example, Julia Child, which does this by stating that she was featured on the cover of Time Magazine, and parodied in a Saturday Night Live sketch, etc. But it is not to be a list; if others are added, they may be combined or deleted or replace others to integrate them all into a cohesive whole, not added as a disconnected line as another bullet point at the end of a growing section. This is also a person and with that specific purpose. Paracetamol is a drug that is sold. The importance of it might be indicated by sales figures or examples of historical uses of it, but certainly not by mentions in the lyrics of random unrelated songs. —Centrx→talk • 00:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

I wish to thank you for your help with my entry for Mindrot and I sincerly hope that it will meet the criteria and be allowed to remain. --Ambiguousfrerak 07:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)