User talk:Centrx/Archive8

Linux

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

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

Flagicons

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

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

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

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

Regarding reasons to have them:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please contribute to the centralised discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. Please add comments over there, not here. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pilot (House)

I've added replies to your objections to Pilot (House) becoming an FA at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pilot (House)/archive2. I hope you can give your support for the article or list any other objections I can take care of. The Filmaker 03:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Portal

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

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

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

Ozomatli.jpg

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

MEMRI article as proxy for Juan Cole

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

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

Wrestling page

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

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

Re: Old comments

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

User_talk:Franzacurta

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

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

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

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

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

Unblocking possible on Falun Gong ?

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

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

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

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

Thanks for responding by action. Jsw663 15:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Centrx, thanks for unprotecting the Falun Gong page. The cause of repeated edit wars on Falun Gong pages is that members of the Falun Gong, (particularly Asdfg12345, Omido, HappyInGeneral and Mcconn) constantly removing critical material thus turning these pages into promotional ads for their group. When they turn encyclopedic articles into advertisements, editors like Jsw663 and me have to respond. These edit wars are initiated by pro-Falun Gong editors and can only be stopped when these editors stop violating Wiki edit principles. I am going to restore the deleted material and if they remove it again can I call on you to stop them? Also, could you unprotect this page: Li Hongzhi, thanks. --Samuel Luo 20:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Chung Ling High School

Hi Centrx,

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

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

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

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

something I made up?

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

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

AFD that might need closing

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

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

Talk:Palace Square

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

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

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

Advanced Placement Gaming League

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

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

Portmanteau, again

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

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

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

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

POTD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please undelete Tale Ognenovski

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

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

Thanks for nothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advising

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

Talk page box for NOR

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

WelcomeBotResearch

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

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

User talk:Stusutcliffe

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

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

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

perth college, scotland deletion

Hi

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

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

Yours

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

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

Thank you!

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

User:GrubbyPhil requesting unblock

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

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

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

Smark (professional wrestling)

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

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

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

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

Please lend input on Pete K edit warring PLANS article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dutch Mason article history

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

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

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

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

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

Couple questions:

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

Pbythesea 04:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

User talk:207.88.52.2

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

talkheader

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

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

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

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

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

I exist

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

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

Centrex,

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

Your expertise is deeply appreciated.

  Pete Daly
  NEH staffer

William Lyon Mackenzie Collegiate Institute

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

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

Question

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

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

isothetic

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

Speedy Redirect Delete template

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

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

Alienus

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

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

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

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

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

Wikistalking?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing to Lose (Heroes) on deletion review

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

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

So called Copied articles

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

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

Flatbiller

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

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

Protection

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

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

Agim Çeku must be protected again. We have a user which is very aggressive --Noah30 17:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Salted Earth

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

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

In regards to a block

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

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

Article Revision

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

Article possibly needs protection or semiprotection

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

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

Subsidairy Alliance at DRV

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

Melissa Scott (pastor)

I see that you deleted and salted this article. I just recently started editing it, and I think I can write a decently sourced NPOV article about her. (I'm neither a religious nut, nor a Christian hater, but I find the paths her life has taken her on to be very interesting.) Can you restore the article to my user space? If there is no edit history recoverable, you could just copy the content of the last version to User:Crockspot/Sandbox, that way I can just blank it and it will be archived into the history of my sandbox, and I can work on it at my leisure. I think there is some useful information that I can glean from the old article for a new one. Thanks in advance. - Crockspot 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You can see the cached version of the article on Google. Please note that this article appears to have been created and largely edited by someone affiliated with this person seeking to portray her in a certain way and therefore the text is not reliable. Please also note that, as this is an biography on a living person, every statement must be cited in reliable sources. —Centrx→talk • 01:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find some sourcing for a new article, but there is very little other than primary sources and news group yammering, which would tend to make the article OR, so I guess I'll let it lay for a while. Possibly in the future I'll give it another shot. Crockspot 18:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of article Image Album

I've just Googled for "Image Album", and got a link to Wikipedia page 'Image Album' I was looking for. Surprisingly, this page exists only in Google cache - [8] (to be exact). I've looked through Wikipedia deletion log, and found line "04:28, 11 January 2007 Centrx (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image album" (content was: 'copyvio|http://www.animeacademy.com/fut.php')" (I removed system double { and } symbols here). I checked given URL and found only one possible reason: "Hundreds of image albums are released every year." there vs "Hundreds of image albums are released every year in Japan." in Wikipedia. I don't think this was terrible enough for deletion of the whole - quite useful - article. At least, it could be reverted to Google version, if there were any copyright problems after "23 Dec 2006 18:18:09 GMT."... Or maybe I've missed something terrible enough? If not, could you please return this article to the place it should be? ~~Const2k —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.117.110.60 (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

The article was originally identical, word for word, to the definition at the link. Insofar as subsequent revisions are successive alterations of that original copy, they are derivatives of the copyrighted work and so would be copyright infringement. Anyway, the no-longer-identical parts of the page have no reliable sources. —Centrx→talk • 01:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review#Bud Delp

Please comment. ~ trialsanderrors 09:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect

I feel I am being punished for writing something in the wrong space. I should have written it in my user space where I could have freely done what I wanted with it. The essay has been misinterpreted across Wikipedia and is an essay. It shouldn't have assumed such a cachet or status amongst guidelines or policies. It wasn't meant to become a tool with which to delete articles. But never mind, I have learnt my lessons. Stick a historical tag on it? How long do you think that would have lasted? No, it would have gone to mfd and arbitration and everywhere, and that is ultimately a waste of everyone's time. So no matter, let the monster have its head due to a flaw in the birthing process. Steve block Talk 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• And it has nothing to do with re-evaluating my assumptions. I stand by every word I wrote. What I wished to do was to assert my assumptions. If we disagree with the interpretation of something I wrote, ultimately who is right? That was my mistake, and that was the reason for deletion; it is a user essay and should be in the user space. Steve block Talk 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Pass the WP:SALT...

Your input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Deletion of salted pages (no this is not another session of bashing Centrx for deleting old deleted-protected pages, it's a bit more constructive than that). Thanks, Guy (Help!) 19:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lakefield College School

Centrx,

I've taken the liberty of undeleting this page, as there was no discussion prior to deletion. I have no particular attachment to the article, and would not object to you listing it on afd; I simply believe the previous deletion was out-of-process. Please let me know if you disagree with my actions. CJCurrie 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Bernard M. Gordon

You may be right, centrex, or not, I don't know. If you want to list it for deletion, go ahead. I notice not everyone agrees with your deletions. Perhaps this is a matter for discussion. I will put some material on the discussion page for the article, which see, please. I understand that Wikipedia is not for propaganda and I try to avoid it. The person referenced is an important figure in electronics. By the way, it seems to me it might be a little harsh to delete ALL of Lymanschool's articles. Most of his writing is of a non-propagandistic nature and definitely not copied. Ciao.Dave 11:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright infringement is a separate issue than deletion related to notability and verifiability. Copyright infringement is absolutely and without exception not allowed, and a copied article can never be made into an appropriate article unless it is entirely re-written; it destroys the work of everyone who works on an article subsequent to the copyright infringement. Every article created by User:LymanSchool where I spend the time to examine its origination has been a copyright infringement. He has done nothing to address this concern despite it being brought to him, and his re-writes continue to contain copied parts. Since he has done nothing to eliminate the copied articles or the parts of articles that were copied, without co-operation there is nothing else that can be done except delete them. I am not going to spend days of my time examining which articles and which parts of articles are copied, when the person who illegally copied them and who knows best which are copied and which not has not done anything about it. —Centrx→talk • 12:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Copyright Infringement

You are incorrect. I have not copied anything. Furthermore, Bernard M. Gordon was not created by me, only the Bernie Gordon link. You ordered me to schedule all my articles for deletion, which I have not done. You also picked on my article, Lahey Clinic. I made changes but I guess they were not acceptable to you. For some reason, you have decided to take an extremely offensive position towards me and I think it seriously detracts from the spirit of cooperation within which Wikipedia was created.---LymanSchool 13:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I know quite well that there are several articles that you copied. If you wish to follow the spirit of co-operation of Wikipedia, please have them deleted. —Centrx→talk • 18:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that I found that might raise some eyebrows is the Barre Falls Dam which contains text similar to, but not the same as, the cited United States Army Corp of Engineers reference, http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/water/topic.asp?mytopic=fd-barre, which is not copyrighted because it's a work of the United States Government. The same text is also used in the Ware River article, referencing the same flood-control dam. If these bother you, I can reword them or even temporarly delete them, pending revisions. Let me know. It's not often possible to write a list of technical specifications in a manner that is different than reference material. Let me know what you want to do. --LymanSchool 19:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Text published by the U.S. Army is fine, but text from state governments is not and neither is text from consultants for state governments or electrical manuals or company websites. I have not found an article you have written that does not contain verbatim copied text. You cannot create an encyclopedia article by pasting together tracts from various sources. —Centrx→talk • 19:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The only electrical things I have written are:

• Folded unipole antenna This was an antenna designed by one of my mentors, John Mullaney, who gave me a summertime job between college classes. Since I knew everything there was to know about it, and “original research” is not allowed, I cited articles that contained the information presented, and patents. The first patent explaination says; “Abstract:” and copies the abstract. That’s what they are for! Using such syntax for cited patents is correct. In fact, copying the entire contents of a United States patent is allowed, because that’s what they are for (once published, they are a work of the U.S. government). Of course I didn’t do this, I just copied a portion of the abstract –and once you use the word Abstract: the following text must be copied verbatum. It's similar to quoting a person like; John Brown said, "Hello World!"

• Electrically short Since this definition is used in several antenna articles, I wrote the exact technical definition known to electrical engineers. I cited the Kraus “bible,” even with the chapter. It is unlikely that you have a copy of this book, but the presented equation is derived from t = L /c where L is the length of a radius, and c is the propagation speed. The textbook equation is no more copyright than R = E / I. If it was, you couldn’t have any EE articles at all.

• Rubber Ducky Antenna This antenna was invented by me when I was a teenager. I cited proper references. Any text copied from anywhere would have been copied from me. However, I was very careful not to use the same words or phrases as in the references. Also, since it is an electrically short antenna, it uses the same equation for aperture as shown in Dipole antenna (Hertzian dipole). This is all standard stuff.

Okay, how about the rest of them? You really do need to go through and check each of them, assiduously and in good-faith, because even the Lahey Clinic Hospital article still contains substantial copied text, and there are several other articles that do as well. —Centrx→talk • 22:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A responses to your message

This is a response to your message here [9]. I was defending the neutrality of Falun gong related pages when I repeadtedly restored critical material deleted by pro-Falun Gong editors. These pro-falun gong editors have aggresively and repeatedly removed critical material about the Falun gong thus leaving these pages with only pro-Falun gong povs. When they damage the neutrality of these pages I have to respond. They are the cause of revert wars and why don't you issue them a warning? I have no intention of initiating edit wars, I have simply responded to them. --Yueyuen 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Responded there. —Centrx→talk • 01:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you seem personal attacks left on my page from pro-Falnu gong editors? Anyway, I might have called an edit vandalism, is that not allowed? I don't remember doing any personal attacks. --Yueyuen 01:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I just read my edit summaries. Do you consider this one “You first lied and now pretending to be blind. Why don't you compare the two yourself?” a personal attack? I did repeatedly point out that pro-falun gong editors lie about their edits. What else can I say when they so blatantly lie about their edits? --Yueyuen 01:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

EMS-05 Agg

The content from this article was merged into MSM-04 Acguy before it was deleted. Could I ask your advice as to whether we now have a problem with the GFDL and maintained contribution history? (The same applies to MS-10 Pezun Dowadge and MS-09 Dom). Cheers --Pak21 16:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What I have seen done for images migrated to Wikimedia Commons is to copy the page history listing, with the usernames and dates. If there are any concerns about it, this is rather the most that can be done, and I or any administrator could do it. For most merges, this is not done; I do not know the legal implications of this, but anyone can request the page history listing at any time. —Centrx→talk • 21:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

IP Block

Apologies if this is the incorrect way to go about this procedure. IP address 199.72.185.34 has a history of vandalism and is even while we speak engaged in a back-and-forth vandalism of the Ludwig_van_Beethoven page. Thanks. --Milton 20:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This IP belongs to a school. Since the vandalism is relatively limited, I would not block it in the long-term, but if there is a persistent larger problem then school IPs are typically blocked from anonymous editing for 6 months or so. You can report vandalism at WP:AIV and receive a quicker response. —Centrx→talk • 21:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

CTU redirected to 24 (TV Series)?

I hate to make it an issue, but you've set Counter Terrorist Unit to redirect to 24 (TV series), yet there was no discussion on this topic and a lot of detailed plot information is now no longer easily accessible. Is there a plan to merge the two articles? Some clarification/justification would be nice. Thank you. Nfreader 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the information is available in the page history, though because there are no reliable sources for the article you should be careful about what you merge. —Centrx→talk • 03:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to keep bringing this up, but I can't help but feel that a considerable amount of fairly credible information (I highly suspect that a TV script is credible) has been rendered inaccessible (to the average person who has no experience with Wikipedia's other features) with little to no previous discussion on removal. Again, apologies for bringing it up again, but I don't feel like the article is being treated correctly. Nfreader 04:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You can add any reliably sourced information to the main article, or if a reliably sourced article can be created at Counter Terrorist Unit, okay, but as it stood it was not a good thing that the "average reader" was confronted with an article of dubious or unknown reliability. If you look at the page history, there is no way for me to verify any of these edits or to have any confidence in their reliability. Was the text some IP added or changed based on his own faulty memory? Even if his memory was not faulty, is he giving his own naive characterization or narrative of it, or did the characterization change in another episode he never saw? How am I to know that any of these edits are not complete hoaxes? See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. —Centrx→talk • 04:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jack_Tweed

I'm confused as to why the result was merge and not keep. Could you enlighten me? Dmn € Դմն 23:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not enough reliable information to support a separate encyclopedia article. The first two sentences of the article were "is most famous for being the boyfriend of someone else" and "was on that television show". The article had only one reliable independent source, and it was a trivial mention of him being the other person's boyfriend. Wikipedia articles must be verifiable in reliable published sources. This is especially true for biographies of living persons. If there are indeed multiple reliable sources that have this person as their main subject, then an article could be created, but currently there are no such sources demonstrated and keep votes that you think there may possibly be many such sources in the future or that "he is also fairly attractive" do not change that. See also Wikipedia:Notability#Merging. —Centrx→talk • 23:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the person who closes the Afd debate, was responsible for looking at the votes and follows the apparent consensus. Your opinion, whilst valid, should probably have been written down as a vote surely? Dmn € Դմն 16:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am just explaining what the delete and merge comments were referring to in terms of policy, and that "by the end of the show he will be famous" or "he is fairly attractive" or "I have heard of him" or "I have never heard of him" or "If these other persons can have articles, he can too" are not valid arguments. Consensus is in reference to Wikipedia principles and policy, not counting votes regardless of their reasons. Either there are enough reliable sources to support a separate encyclopedia article or there are not. —Centrx→talk • 16:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Copying

You left a message on my talk page... would you like to explain what you're on about? Mauls 00:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Responded there. —Centrx→talk • 01:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That was not a duplication, it was using facts from that page. That is allowed.Mauls 01:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hercules Cycle and Motor Company. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

No, it is a duplication. You cannot undelete a copyright infringement. —Centrx→talk • 15:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm at a disadvantage here, because I can't see the deleted content anymore. I am puzzled, because I do have strong recollection of spending an entire evening working on that article, and referring to a couple of sources, including a book I've got. Then again, I also remember writing a lot more for Eileen Sheridan (cyclist) than appears to be there, so perhaps the final posting of those two (done at the same time) went a bit wrong.

On the other hand, maybe it was posted as I thought it was, and my idea of rewriting something isn't adequate. In which case, there's a strong chance that many of the other articles I've made big contributions to have copyvio problems, as I always source material I add rather than 'make it up'. Given that I don't quite appreciate the exact problem here, I'd hardly be the best person to review those contributions, so if you could check them over I'd appreciate that.

Finally, I must say that the way you appear to be approaching dealing with alleged copyvio problems, especially use of speedy delete, isn't hugely helpful, and isn't really going to lead to others understanding properly what was wrong. Is there really such a rush that you can't leave a message for the original contributor, and give them a couple of days to sort it out?

Likewise the original message you left me was more vindictive and accusatory than in any way constructive.

All the best, Mauls 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the paragraphs in the article were copied verbatim from that website and the Wikimedia Foundation received a complaint from the copyright holder. In such a case, there can be no delay in deleting the material. My message to you should have been clearer and more diplomatic. I was trying to simply state generally what the situation is with regard to copied text for all contributions. —Centrx→talk • 06:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've reworked it from notes I had from before. Let me know if there's a problem. Mauls 18:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Gulabjammin deleted

Hi Centrx;

I made a wikipedia entry titled "Gulabjammin" for a new aspiring band. This was deleted in Sep '06. Could you perhaps tell me why exactly it was deleted? I want to know in case I decide to make any other postings here. Thanks Gagan512 00:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need to be substantiated by reliable published sources independent of the subject, such as books, magazines, and academic journals. Without multiple such sources that focus on the subject, a neutral, comprehensive, accurate encyclopedia article cannot be created. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 01:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your backup there

Thanks. --Guinnog 00:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Schoolhouse Home Education Association

You deleted an entry for the above on 19/1

Why exactly?

delete log says (Copyvio/advertising)

Not sure how it could be both anyway, but if you can explain what you believe to be copyvio and what you see as advertising I can address your concerns.

I modelled the entry on that of a similar organisation that exists in England (Education Otherwise) but using the correct information for Schoolhouse. I also used the Schoolhouse logo with the permission of both the charity and the author. I am therefore mystified by your actions.

Fluffmeisteruk 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fluffmeisteruk (talk • contribs) 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

This article is directly copied from [10]. If the copyright holders did not give explicit permission for this text to be published under the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use, alter, and re-distribute the text for any purpose, then it is a copyright infringement. If the copyright holders do give permissions for this licensure of the text, it remains promotional material copied from the organization's website, not a neutral encyclopedia article verifiable in independent, published reliable sources, such as books, magazines, and academic journals. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 20:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

National Children's Book and Literacy Alliance

Hello! I am the technically challenged president, executive director, and entire staff of the National Children's Book and Literacy Alliance. I took the time to try and create an entry for the NCBLA on Wikipedia and our entry was rejected. Could please you tell me why?

I find the process of doing this to be challenging and the process of acceptance and rejection dumbfounding.

I am the author of the NCBLA's website and have control and copyright of all the material on the NCBLA site so that I can use any of that content anywhere,including submitting the material to Wikipedia - so if using that copyrighted material has been done with the copyright holder's permission, what then is the problem? It was far easier creating our own website, www.thencbla.org, than submitting this entry.

And it is also very frustrating since our not-for-profit fights for universal free information access for all--something that I assumed Wikipedia stands for, too-- to have our entry rejected. Wikipedia is slamming its own champion. Also all the content in the article was a factual description of the organization,not a piece of propaganda or an advertisement.

Please send your response to my email address listed below.

Thank you,

Mary Brigid Barrett [email protected] www.thencbla.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Digirb (talk • contribs) 22:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

If you were to license the text under the GNU Free Documentation License, under which anyone may use, alter, and re-distribute the text for any purpose, there would be no copyright issue. However, Wikipedia articles must be in a neutral point of view and be verifiable in reliable published sources, such as books, magazines, and academic journals independent of the organization. As such, the text would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. If there are multiple such sources that have the organization as their main subject, an encyclopedic article could be written on this organization, but there is typically a conflict-of-interest problem with neutrality if someone affiliated with the organization writes the article. —Centrx→talk • 21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous...

You deleted a page I created for Craig Slaight even after Craig Slaight himself sent permission for his bio to be posted. You rely on people to provide correct content for Wikipedia and then you do everything in your power to put roadblocks in people's way when they try to create a page. Why are you being so difficult?

Mr. Slaight sent his permission for hsi bio from a.c.t. to be posted, per your instructions, to the following address [email protected] If you looked at the discussion page you would have seen that I stated that yet you deleted the page anyway.

So why did you delete the page I created? Please contact me because I really would like an answer to that question other than just some form letter that completely ignores the specific information that I provided!

[email protected]

Comedyfan1964 02:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The processing of license confirmations happens independently of deletion on-wiki, and the article would be restored once that permission has been processed. In this particular case, however, I do not think that text of the article would be restored, because it is not written in the form of a Wikipedia article and is not verified in any independent sources. The topic of a Wikipedia article must be the main subject of multiple reliable published sources. This topic may very well meet that standard, but those sources should be cited and the article should be written as a Wikipedia article, in the proper format with links and sections and written in a neutral point of view, not a copy of the biography on the conservatory website. —Centrx→talk • 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Questioning the deletion of an article

Is there more information you could give to explain why the Martínez Celaya article was deleted? Why wasn't there a discussion on the articles Talk page, or some editting on the artcile itself, before it was deleted? It is confusing as to why the article was deleted without any descussion. Thank you. ArtHandler 15:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Enrique Martínez Celaya was deleted as a copyright infringement. The text was copied from the publisher, which can be viewed at [11]. In addition to the fact that text on Wikipedia must be licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, it would not be appropriate for Wikipedia even if permission were granted because the text is copied from a source affiliated with the person—that is, the publisher trying to sell books. You are welcome to create an article about this person that does not use copied text. Keep in mind that it should be in a neutral point of view and verifiable in reliable published sources unaffiliated with the person. —Centrx→talk • 21:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nimbus cloud

Centrx,I am having a problem with the page Nimbus cloud a user keeps reverting and it's not for the good,is what this user is doing vandalism?  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  20:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is possible this was just a naive new user, but given that he ignored all warnings and was not discussing a contested change at all, maybe not. Someone else has blocked the user account. —Centrx→talk • 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted pages

Centrx, hi. I've been surprised recently to see two pages that were delete-protected reappearing in my watchlist: Horseshoe Theory and Talk:Brian Peppers. I found in both cases that you had deleted the protected page, leaving it possible for people to recreate the page, which happened in both cases.

For Horseshoe Theory, I re-delete-protected the page, because it was a word-for-word recreation of content that was deletion-endorsed at DRV. To be fair, before I found that out, I was inclined to take it to DRV afresh, because it was greatly improved over its original form, which was the one I remembered. Did you delete the protected version to give it another chance, or for some other reason? Should I not have reprotected it?

As for Talk:Brian Peppers, we're a month off from the day Jimbo said the page could possibly be re-created. Since December 29, when you deleted the protected talk page, it's been re-created, re-deleted, and re-created again. Do you think we shouldn't protect that one again, at least for the next month? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This was just housekeeping. Deletedpages appear in the main namespace as top Google search results and as results on Special:Random. The vast majority are never re-created again. Any that are re-created in unencyclopedic form should just be deleted and protected again. Talk pages are a similar issue and should just be protected again if they become a magnet for nonsense or personal attacks, and are anyway regularly deleted regardless as being the talk pages of deleted pages. —Centrx→talk • 23:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for explaining. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy Lists

I believe you put the partial lock on the Ayn Rand page back in October (only registered users and no new users). It appears to be working very well - much less vandalism. I would like to ask you to consider the same for the following pages:

• 20th-century philosophy (which is the middle of an AfD - so it may not need anything),
• List of female philosophers where cited entries have been removed,
• List of philosophers born in the twentieth century where cited entries have been removed,
• List of philosophers (R-Z) where cited entries have been removed, and
• List of publications in philosophy.

A number of anon users delete Ayn Rand's name from the list. On several of the lists, her name has a footnote link to the a citation. It might be because they don't like Rand, or they want to fuel an edit war, or they are hoping an edit war will result in the deletion the entire list (there have been several AfD's on some of the pages. This is a pattern of behaviors that preceded the elimination of the List of major philosophers. This kind of thing has been going on early last summer (when I arrived) but the number of suspicious IP user activity is increasing.

Here are some of the suspicious IP users:

• 66.108.138.149,
• 70.23.44.82 - this one uses language very similar to user Buridan - Removed cited sources and again here,
• 80.176.236.81,
• 83.171.186.47,
• 128.197.11.30,
• 195.158.167.6 Appears to have been blocked before,
• 195.176.254.74,
• 195.7.251.96,
• 207.44.180.92 Deleted cited entry,
• 207.210.106.104,
• 212.202.50.65,
• 217.172.182.239

There are other philosophy list pages under attack and a few more IP addresses - but these are the worst and the freshest. Steve 07:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Two more instances this morning:

• 72.192.9.180 - Another suspicsious IP user whose only contribution was this and two other reverts of Objectivism/Rand.
• 195.176.254.74 - This IP users only contributions are two deletions of Rand material and one constructive edit on Takfir wal-Hijra, a violent Islamic group allied to Al-Qaeda.

---

p.s., If you want more information (history, key registered users, issues, AfDs, RfC, etc.) please let me know. I've just assumed you will find all you need looking at edits, and talk pages, and following tracks. Please do leave me a short message here. It would help if you would say you are unable to look into this (so I don't bug you) or that you do intend to look into it. Thanks, Steve 23:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it when I have more time in a couple of days. —Centrx→talk • 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Here are two from this morning to add to the list.

• 62.75.220.75 - Deleted Rand with no discussion. First time I've seen this IP doing this. This is the Timeline of Western philosophers article - a list page not included above.
• 81.24.157.145 - Deleted Rand and the footnote citing her This is the only contribution for this IP and it's not listed above. Steve 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Here are two from this afternoon:

• 81.57.37.188 - Another new IP address deleting an entry sourced in the footnotes with no comment on the talk page. And this is the only edit from that IP address.
• 88.130.108.78 - Deleted Rand with no comment on talk page and no reason in edit comment. Also deleted Rand from list of female philosophers (same day) saying "not a woman". Steve 01:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Another from this evening:

• 89.149.194.143 Deleted Rand with no comment on talk page. This was a sourced entry. This the first time this IP was used to delete a Rand entry. Steve 06:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Most of these are open proxies; some were already blocked and I have blocked the remaining ones. There are a few where it is not certain whether they are open proxies. I have also put these articles on my watchlist and they can be semi-protected if necessary. These edits are probably all from banned user User:Alienus. —Centrx→talk • 01:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Your actions take so much of what would otherwise fuel an edit war. Please feel free to let me know if I can help in any way. Steve 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been pleasantly quiet on the pages that used to be like battlegrounds. But there is one individual that has started deleting Rand from one of the pages. He is not a vandal and not an anon IP user, so this is a little different.

20th century philosophy page change. This is a page where there is a properly footnoted source that is cited in the entry being deleted. It is his opinion as to Rand's relative importance that he uses to justify the repeated deletions. Many, many pages of discussion haven't changed his position. I'd appreciate your help or advice on this. Thanks, Steve 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes is the way to go. —Centrx→talk • 03:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Information

FYI Information is not covered by copyright, only the way it is written. You won't have an encyclopedia at all of you exclude all the articles that provide references to the sources of information. But you don't really care. It is you with the personal attacks, not me. I just hope that somebody soon will discover you and your misbehavior. In the meantime, have fun! --LymanSchool 13:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The text of these articles was copied verbatim. You can see this simply by searching for strings from the copied text. —Centrx→talk • 15:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No. This looks like a quoted string to me, with proper references.

Boston Strangler case

Mr. Soshnick obtained his first great public visibility while working on the Albert DeSalvo (The Boston Strangler) case [1]. In his 1966 book, "The Boston Strangler," Gerold Frank introduces Julian Soshnick this way; "Soshnick had driven up a few minutes before. He had brought, in the locked trunk of his car, two large boxes. One contained the nylon stockings, scarves, blouses -- the 'decorations' -- used by the Strangler on his victims. The other held nearly three-hundred, eight-by-ten police photographs of the strangling scenes, in sets from fifteen to twenty-five, in each case. Peter had asked for both -- objects he would use in his psychometry[1]."

The fact that the cited article and the Julian Soshnick article you deleted as a vendetta, both quoted Gerold Frank, is not a copyright infringement. But, it's worthless to argue. I wonder who you really are as you hide behind your keyboard and destroy the good work of my friends. N26825 17:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That entire articles is copied, not just that one paragraph. I do not care about you or your friends; I do care about him copying the work of others onto Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holders. —Centrx→talk • 18:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Long comments for Shortpages

I guess is boils down to the purpose to which the Shortpages list is used. You appear to be saying that you view it as a source of good, but short, articles that need to be made better. I rather view it as a way to find bad articles that need to be dealt with. Vandalized articles, broken redirects, etc. It is to this latter purpose that I use the Shortpages list.

But the number of entries on the Shortpages list is limited. 1,000 at a time. And at times the page is updated very infrequently. It hasn't been as bad during January, but the list was not updated for most of December, as an example. When it's not updated, the data on the list grows stale. Adding the comments to the disambig pages moves them down off the list so that, next time the list is generated, there are more bad pages showing up on the list.

I guess one key point is whether you are talking about an active use to which you are putting the Shortpages list, or a theoretical use. If theoretical, then I'm sorry, but IMHO the way the page is actively being used to find bad pages outweighs the theoretical use to which it could possibly be put. If, however, you are using, have been using, or plan to actively use the Shortpages list as you describe, then I would gladly stop bumping them with comments. There is room on the page for multiple people working towards multiple ends. And if you are fleshing out the disambig pages, then that serves the same goal anyway of getting them lengthened. - TexasAndroid 14:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. You are using it for the purpose you describe, so I will hold off on pushing the disambigs down to let you work on them. As for me doing that work, sorry. I work on the technical side of things, not the actual writing of articles. That's where I enjoy working, and that's where my strengths and talents are. I'm far from the right person to be doing the fleshing out of such pages.

Are we seeing much vandalism at 90 characters? No. But we are still seeing bad articles that need attention. There are many types of bad articles, I just named a couple of types above. I also suspect it would take a long, long, long time to cycle back to the ones that have been pushed down. As we go higher in number of characters, we are getting more and more pages at each number.

But that's mostly moot. You say you are actively working to flesh out the short disambigs, and so, as I said above, I will stop bumping them down so that they will be there for you to flesh out. Good luck with that effort. - TexasAndroid 16:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

deletion of stream uk entry

You have deleted the entry for Stream UK citing copyright violation (as far as I can tell). I was the person who wrote the copy at the page you cite. Could you re-instate the entry/advise on how this is done to [email protected]

Streamuk 15:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For copied text to be used on Wikipedia, the copyright holder must license the text under the GNU Free Documentation License, which permits anyone to use, alter, and re-distribute the text for any purpose. However, in this case the copied text would not be appropriate for Wikipedia as it is not written in the form of an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia articles must be written in a neutral point of view and must be verifiable in reliable published sources independent of the company, such as books, magazines, and academic journals. —Centrx→talk • 15:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Patty Columbo

Hi there. I think a banned user (ColScott) may have come back as a different user (Spawnopedia) and created the article Patty Columbo. How was the original article Patricia Columbo deleted (speedy, XFD)? I came to you because I saw that you were one of the admins that deleted it. Could you perhaps e-mail me the original text of the article so I can see if this is a sockpuppet case? My email is phil.gronATgmail.com. Yours, Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Responded by e-mail. —Centrx→talk • 16:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Out Of Control Admins

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Patty Columbo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Bill CLinton

Could you have a look at the recent edit history for Bill Clinton - I think longterm sprot needs to be reinstated, but another admin declined. Thank you Tvoz | talk 20:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

never mind - another admin reinstated it. Tvoz | talk 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Law

At last a discussion. Naturally, Wikipedia does not want to violate the copyright law and it is worth some trouble to make sure it does not. I always think carefully before I use a source and attribute what I use. I believe you can use short quotations. If I knew of any violations I certainly would report it; in fact, I'd be the first to do so. If anyone showed me that I inadvertently violated the law I'd take it off immediately. It has always frosted me that some people on the Internet (not Wikipedia) copy work from someone else, such as right out of a published book, and then have the nerve to copyright it themselves! And, you can't contact them to express your outrage. No, we don't want that to happen. Wikipedia would soon drown in a flood of lawsuits. I'm not a copyright violator that I know of myself nor would I get any satisfaction from such a thing nor understand how anyone could. A college chancellor or dean sometimes copies from speeches he thinks no one knows about but he is usually in too much or a hurry to work one up. Thank God Abraham Lincoln did not feel that way.

It's just that, I'm not sure copyright violation is happening in the case of lymanschool. I know that he uses sources from the Internet (don't we all). But, there is a question here, of what constitutes a copyright infringement. If I do an article about two and two adding to four, that does not mean that every person from then on adding two and two to get four or writing that it equals four is a copyright violator. You can't copyright public information, only your own creative work! I have not seen any violations of lymanschool and I know he is not the kind of person to deliberately do that. If he did do it deliberatley, he would not long be my friend, or anyone else who does so. You called him a prevaricator. As you do not know him I am assuming that is the way it seemed to you at the time. HE thinks you are conducting a vendetta! I would say, now is the time to be sure you as administrator are right.

Let me make a suggestion. As I read through your discussion I see that quite a few people feel as as lymanschool does, that you moved too abruptly. If you see a paragraph copied verbatim then of course you want to move right away. But, if there is any question, why not introduce a bit of a delay to consider it, maybe even get a second opinion? And, to follow up on discussion is a good idea. If you have a real phony or a vandal in disguise then discussion might serve to smoke him out. Move in your own good time, when you are certain, unless it is a clear emergency. Is there any point in unnecessarily irritating good people and good or potentially good contributors?

I suppose that you got to my discussion page from the others discussing this matter. To answer your question directly, no, I do not know of any copyright violations. As you can see from my edits, I have different interests and a different background, so I don't customarily involve myselve in lymanschool's articles. The few I have read are in my opinion quite good. Of course If I see any violations I certainly will report them and would have reported any had they existed and had I known about them. As you are not at this time stating or implying that there is some reason why I might not have reported them or that I am part of some conspiracy to violate copyright laws, I see no reason to make such conclusions or to take action on them. I would like to see you handle this problem in such a fashion that everyone concerned says "why, he turned out to be quite a wise administrator after all." I'm always happy to see good work, either administration or articles. Excellence matters to me. Thank you very much for consulting me on this matter.Dave 02:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My statement was in response to LymanSchool's comment about "untouched" articles that I he supposes I did not delete because of whatever vendetta he is on about. It was not directed at you and is not any sort of accusation of you, though you of course are welcome to respond regarding the matter or report any copyright violations. In the case of User:LymanSchool, his articles contain vast tracts of copied text. Some articles are copied in their entirety. You can verify this, for example, by comparing the Google cache of the Julian Soshnick page on Wikipedia with this Boston Globe article. You can do the same for any of the other deleted articles. There is no question that these articles are directly copied. I told him about this problem two weeks ago and has done nothing in that time to correct the matter, responding only with contempt. —Centrx→talk • 06:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

RFI

I found you have removed my request for investigation of User:VinceB's behavior. He has changed a citation from an academic journal (replacing "nationalist" by a weaker description, not mentioned at all in the cited article).[12] After this vandalism was reverted, an IP with only three edits in its history (all of them reverts to VinceB's versions of articles) did absolutely the same.[13] A very similar situation has happened in the past (VinceB and his sock puppets trying to remove academic references describing a political party as nationalist). I do not dispute your right to remove requests from that page. But would you mind suggesting what to do, when a user compromises integrity of a referenced text, so any future readers will think that his/her formulation is supported by published works though it is not? I am afraid your decision not to deal with my request will just encourage this type of vandalism. It certainly will not make Wikipedia more reliable. Tankred 16:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I will look into this when I have more time. Please note that WP:RFI is not for content disputes; both of you may very well be acting in good faith and both of you may very well consider the other's changes to be "vandalism". —Centrx→talk • 21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Other questions

I have another question regarding the Enrique Martinez Celaya article you deleted.

I found this in Wikipedia:Verifiability When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.

First, Dan Siedell is the curator of The Sheldon Memorial Art Museum[14], and has produced numerous articles "published by credible, third-party publications". In addition he is a scholar on Mr. Martínez Celaya's work, and was asked to contribute to Martínez Celaya's published works.

Second, Thomas McEvilley is a Professor of Art History who has been published in several books, once again by "credible, third-party publications"[15]. He was also asked to contribute to Mr. Martínez Celaya's publications.

In the previous conversation you sited [16], and if you notice, both writers are noted as contributors.

Given this information is this article now Verifiable? How much research is done to determine the author of the writing and not just the publisher? Should there have been some discussion on the Talk page of this article in stead of just a deletion? ArtHandler 18:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The text of that article would still have been a copyright infringement, or in the unlikely case that the publisher were to release the text under the GFDL, it would still not have been neutral. Having enough sources to make an article is a separate issue. The part of WP:RS you found is to allow for information to fill in articles that could not be obtained elsewhere, such as if a professional historian were to release an e-book about Roman History that had not been published by any third-party, or a "professional researcher's blog". That section of the guideline is not about having an article about the professional historian sourced from his own writings. Over-all, any sort of self-published source is for supporting an article that already has other sources, because if a reliable article can be created for a topic, there will usually be numerous sources. If there are no sources except this one book, that is not enough to make an article. There may very well be sources for making an encyclopedic article; after all, as you say, a book was published about this person, with bona fide scholars involved. I do not know, but a single, somewhat autobiographical source is not enough to make an encyclopedic article. If you think a proper encyclopedia article can be created, you are welcome to create one—as long as the text is not copied—but if this is the only source on the person, the article will be deleted, sooner or later. See Wikipedia:Notability to get a better idea of this. —Centrx→talk • 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert?

Does it count as a revert if you have a back-up copy of the page (the text in the edit page thing) and you select all of the page's code and repace it with your backup, does that count as a revert if it is fixing the article or otherwise? Sir Intellegent 20:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "count as a revert". If someone directly reverses the changes of another editor, that is a revert. If someone revises an article and happens to undo some intervening changes, that is rather a semantic issue and not important, unless the part reverted is repeatedly reverted. In all cases, if a change is contested, it should be discussed on the talk page, not reverted back and forth with the same text. —Centrx→talk • 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for the support, I appreciate your time spent with my questions. I am working on another article. Would it be possible to submit it to you for review before it gets uploaded? I am new to Wikipedia and I would like to make sure everything I do is correct.

Thank you again for your help. ArtHandler 19:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I could look at it, but it is not necessary for you to submit it to me first. If there are reliable sources cited in the article, there should be no problem. —Centrx→talk • 01:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

falun gong pages

Centrx, I thought you should know that after you unprotected the Teachings of Falun Gong page pro-Falun Gong editors (Asdfg12345, Mcconn, user:HappyInGeneral, Fnhddzs) have again deleted two important sections. These two sections, “Depravity of today’s people” and “Sickness Karma” collect Li’s (founder of the Falun Gong) own statements on these aspects. They are important parts of the Falun gong belief system and therefore have to be included on this page. In their attempts to conceal the core teachings, pro-falun gong editors have repeatedly removed this material leaving only those they approve of, those that make the Falun gong look like a pure spiritual group. I am tired of reverting them again and I hope you can use your power to stop them from removing these two sections and all sourced material. Could you help? If not do you have any suggestions? --Mr.He 19:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I just notice that pro-falun gong editors have also deleted “Interviews with Mr. Li Hongzhi” and “Li's claims of divinity” sections on Li Hongzhi page. Since material in these sections are from Li’s own mouth and sourced to US major media, there is no justification for their removal. These aggressive and outrageous edits from pro-falun gong editors are the cause of repeated edit wars on all falun gong related pages. Can you help to stop them from conceal the truth to the public? --Mr.He 20:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

White Panther

Why did you delete my White Panther article? How can I violate my own copyright? The source page http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/mutant-bigcats2.html carries the GFDL licence at the foot of the page - did you not check this?

It is very, very discouraging to have to recreate an entire article because it was erroneously labelled as copyvio. All of my mutant-bigcats and hybrid cats works are licensed under the GFDL and an email was sent to Wikipedia to give explicit permission. I spent a lot of time researching and writing that material in order to contribute something educational, having it deleted in spite of the GFDL licence is a real slap in the face of contributors (including those friends and colleagues who help to maintain pages that reuse Messybeast.com licenced content).

Please can you check the source page BEFORE deleting next time. Messybeast 21:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have restored the article. —Centrx→talk • 01:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hamilton Stands

I disagree with your deletion of the Hamilton Stands article (which I only recently discovered, so I can only presume this was the proverbial speedy deletion or it would have appeared on my watchlist), and do not understand the reasoning behind it. The reasons for the company's notability should be evident in what was shown. Are you a musician yourself? Zephyrad 01:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If the company is notable, it should be possible to find multiple reliable third-party sources, such as books and magazines, that cover the company as their main subject. If there are such sources, I will restore the article and you can substantiate the article. —Centrx→talk • 01:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the article Ken Navarro?

Why have you deleted the article Ken Navarro? I have done my best to follow the Wikipedia rules and have continued to work very hard to adhere to the guidlines.

And why have you "protected" the article so that I can not continuie to fix it?

Please advise.

Kristin Leonhard www.kennavarro.com Positive Music Records, Inc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elon2008 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

This article was copied directly from the Ken Navarro website. If this text were appropriate for Wikipedia, explicit permission from the copyright holder to publish the text under the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use, alter, and re-distribute the text for any purpose, would be necessary. Regardless, this text is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles must be in a neutral point of view and must be verifiable in reliable published sources unaffiliated with the person, such as books, magazines, and academic journals. Text copied directly from his personal website is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and a person affiliated with the person writing an article on him poses a conflict of interest. —Centrx→talk • 02:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fathers of Mercy

Hi Centrx.

I noticed you're involved with copyright issues quite a bit and had a question for you. I came across the article, Fathers of Mercy, while random page patrolling. At the bottom, it says This article incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 and links to this page. That page includes Copyright © 2006 by Kevin Knight. All rights reserved. So...is there a copyright issue here? The Wikipedia page for Catholic Encyclopedia agrees that it has public domain status, although it does also state that derivative works such as translations, presentations and edited versions are subject to copyright law, and might not be public domain. --Onorem 11:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia was published before 1923, so it is in the public domain, regardless of any copyright statement otherwise. Other things on that website or the design of the website might be under his copyright, but the text of the Catholic Encyclopedia is in the public domain. It is not a translation, the presentation is the design of the website, and it does not appear that it has been revised in any substantive way by the authors of the website. This could be verified directly by finding a published text edition of the original Catholic Encyclopedia, but there is no reason to believe it has been revised. —Centrx→talk • 22:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That's kind of what I was thinking, but wanted another opinion. --Onorem 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

About dispute resolution question

Thank you Centrx for answering a question I need help with.

If you go to this topic Correlation does not imply causation you can understand my issue with someone who refuses to discuss the changes I propose but instead keeps reverting the first paragraph back to how he wants it. It's the refusal of discussion that leaves me no choice but to request arbitration. I posted a message at cleanup too, but I don't think this topic will attract too many users.

Could you please help me a bit more about how to SUBMIT an arbitration request? The contact links only got me to the templates, which I can fill out but I do not know how to submit the request. There's no button that says "submit" or anything.

thanks

4.240.183.104 23:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

All the information is there, but it doesn't matter because your arbitration request would be rejected summarily. It appears this dispute began today an there has been nothing more than a brief talk page section. Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Requests for comment are where you should go to get more people involved, but you can probably resolve it amicably yourselves by more explicitly stating what is good and bad about the current and proposed introduction. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. —Centrx→talk • 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

ITN image

I agree with you that having a flag on ITN is rather meaningless, but you should not just remove the image without having a replacement, since ITN is supposed to have one image at all times. I've restored the previous image of the comet. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-01-27 00:26

Protection time in history

Expiry time is not shown in the page history, it is shown in the protection log.

On the contrary... -- tariqabjotu 04:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[17] doesn't have it. —Centrx→talk • 04:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to that because it's patently obvious why. -- tariqabjotu 04:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how it would be patently obvious. The reason, it turns out, is that the expiry was not added to the page history until a later MediaWiki revision, [18]. Prior to that revision being made live on the English Wikipedia servers, there was no date in the page history. —Centrx→talk • 04:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Vague intro?

Re: your {{vagueintro}} tag at Prem Rawat. After re-reading the current lead, I can only see the need for shortening it as it may be too verbose for a lead. All material contained is properly sourced as per WP:LEAD and otherwise it looks fine to me. If there are other concerns, Centrx, it will be very useful if you can express them, so that it can be addressed by involved editors. Sometimes we get "too close" to an article and may miss what is obvious to a fresh pair of eyes. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding "is a spiritual leader" was just a stop-gap; I do not know who this person is and if I recall correctly, "spiritual leader" was contentious the last time. Notice: "Dan Rather is the former longtime anchor for the CBS Evening News...", "Juan Cole is a professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History...", "Daniel Brandt is an American activist on the World Wide Web..." Encyclopedia articles do not begin "Prem Rawat was born on December 10...". Overall, introductions are not narrative summaries of a person's life from start to finish. —Centrx→talk • 22:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. There have been attempts to fix this, and it has been problematic. Hopefully a suitable description will be found. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a source for the term spiritual leader though it strikes me as neutral and fair, so that cannot stay. What can be written and sourced is that Rawat was the former leader of the new religious movement the Divine Light Movement. Do you think that will help? Andries 10:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Drum Set Tuning

Hi there Centrx,

I uploaded the article 'Drum Set Tuning' which is an update on an original written by myself in the early 2000s and shelved because I received a donation of a similar piece from a fellow contributor on my primary drum site www.drumdojo.com.

I recently published this article for the first time on its own site at www.tunadrum.com. I reported this in the article I uploaded.

I saw the violation notice and I followed the instructions on the page to send an email from the www.tunadrum.com email to Wiki citing the GFDL and giving a link to the page on tunadrum where the license is published. http://www.tunadrum.com/gnu.htm

I am the original and only author of this piece it took me 20 years to get the experience and several weeks to actually write it many years ago. This is my own original work and I would like to submit it to wikipedia.

I do hope that the article still exists at Wikipedia because I pasted and then edited it directly on the screen from my basic document, I have no record of those changes. I hit save because I believed it was 'a save the document' not a 'submit to wiki' whch I expected might be a 'submit' button. This the reason why the article was without any significant formatting, links or images, all of which still reside on my hard drive.

I would be grateful if you could please let me know where I failed to satisfy WikiPedia in this instance and how I may do so to ensure that the article is uploaded for the good of the drumming public.

I navigated to this page by typing in Drum Set tuning and following my nose. if I can't find it again could you please respond to [email protected] or [email protected] as well as here. Thank you for the extra effort my request brings, it is appreciated.

Thank you

Paul Bingbangbong 22:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Usually the copyvio process on-wiki runs separately from the permissions confirmation process, so this article would be deleted and then restored once the permissions queue is processed. Anyway, I have found the permission and restored the article. However, this article is not appropriate as-is for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a how-to site, "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice, suggestions, or contain "how-to"s." (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). As such, it would need to be revised and possibly merged into Drum set. Also, you should cite the sources you used to make the text in the first place, or reference sources that can be used to verify the information in the article. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. —Centrx→talk • 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Centrx. Thank you for restoring the article and giving me the opportunity to complete it. I do take your point on board about the how-to delivery nature. I will review the article with this in mind. Reference sources are more difficult to provide as this is something of a folk art and there is a high degree of subjectivity regarding the various mechanical methods of achieving the same thing.

I am qualified to write this: I have 35+ years drumming experience, I am a professional instrument designer and consultant, my clients include Stomp, I have been running Drumdojo.com, the drum 'encyclopaedia' for almost 10 years and have a host of specific satellite sites (such as tunadrum) where I can be particularly indulgent. My standards for contributor rigour and diligence are only hampered by my ability to police them over such a wide span.

I shall seek out additional verifying sources for the content of the revised version.

Thank you for your help and advice. Paul Bingbangbong 21:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Robert Nardelli Article.

If you think there is copy righted content, please delete the copyrighted content. Don't delete the whole article. Robert Nardelli is famous person and he is in the news. He deserves a wiki entry. I understand the article is not favorable to him, because news is not favorable to him. So I request you to restore the article after removing copy righted content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 04:47, 28 January 2007 (talk • contribs) Devmoz.

Most of the article is copied, and has been since the start. I am not going to scrounge to find which parts of the article you uploaded are copied and which not, if any. Simply, do not copy text without explicit permission from the copyright holder under the GFDL. Also, never re-post an article from the Google cache for any reason. The page history must be preserved with the article, even if a deletion were completely baseless and to be reversed. —Centrx→talk • 18:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to contribute to an article, then why do you want to delete it. Do NOT delete an article, just because you think some part of it is copyrighted. Just remove the copy righted part. If you want don't want to do that, leave a comment. Others will do it. Being an administrator doesn't mean that you can delete everything you don't like.

Now please let me know how to proceed on this. I would to see article restored, of course the copyrighted content can be removed. Rob Nardelli is famous man and he is in the news, hence he needs to have a wiki entry. Devmoz 18:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright infringement is forbidden. If you want to create an article on this person, you are welcome to create one that does not copy any text without explicit permission. Also, make sure to cite reliable published sources and make it a comprehensive article, not just based on whatever this one incident is written about in Bloomberg. See also Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, let us move on, please unlock the page, so that we can edit it and relevant content. Btw you are not working for Rob Nardelli or Home Depot right ? Devmoz 23:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Georgia's 7th congressional district

Hi Centrx. I noticed you deleted Georgia's 7th congressional district. Was thsi a copyvio (guessing so based on reading your talk page). Just wanted to ask as this article needs to be recreated to fill out the Georgia US Congressional districts.--Roswell native 03:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This was deleted for having no content. It also did have no sources. —Centrx→talk • 05:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on RfC Sexual Objectification

My apologies. Atom 05:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Alexandra Borgia

Why do you want to merge this with Law & Order? All principal characters have articles written about them. Why is it that you just want to merge one? Michael 05:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

They should probably all be merged. I only happened to come across this one. These characters do not have and, having no reliable sources focused on them cannot support, independent encyclopedia articles. See also Wikipedia:Notability#Merging ("Information which is given only superficial treatment or which is tangentially mentioned in discussions surrounding the actual focus of a work, is not sufficient to build a full, sourced encyclopedia article that stands independent of the main subject."), Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia ("Major characters...in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction"), Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information ("Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Topics within a work of fiction however may not have a real-world context, and should be referred to their parent articles."). Also Wikipedia:Verifiability ("Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.") and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (rather most of it). —Centrx→talk • 05:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

QEstion

how do u find people on other forums —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ivanmess (talk • contribs) 16:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

What do you mean? What forums? —Centrx→talk • 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinion on Dispute

Top Chef

There is one person in dispute about the amount of information to be on the Top Chef main article. There are 2 versions of the article, a shortened one, which some feel is enough, but others feel make it a stub; and an extended one, which some feel is good, but others feel it is too much. I felt that a consenus was reached and changed it back to the extended version, but one of the people immedietely changed it back. I started a new discussion, with the page in two different versions (I hope I did that right, I don't know how to do subpages), and am asking for users to explain which they prefer. I was just wanting to know if I could get an administrators opinion on the deal. Thanks a lot Centrx :). Tinkleheimer 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have commented there. Also, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes should be of some assistance. —Centrx→talk • 04:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking time to help. I really appreciate it. Tinkleheimer 04:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)