Jump to content

User talk:Centrx: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
kathy kelly
Ros Power
Line 378: Line 378:
The article was not copied from this site http://vitw.org/archives/424, however, that was the primary space I retreived information, if I am understanding you correctly. This site is not only no longer maintained, but I'm sure if we asked Kathy Kelly she would have no problem granting Wikipedia rights to her story, or what do you think?
The article was not copied from this site http://vitw.org/archives/424, however, that was the primary space I retreived information, if I am understanding you correctly. This site is not only no longer maintained, but I'm sure if we asked Kathy Kelly she would have no problem granting Wikipedia rights to her story, or what do you think?
[[User:Kshanks|Kevin]] 10:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[[User:Kshanks|Kevin]] 10:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

== Ros Power ==

Hi!

Thank you for protecting the [[Civil partnerships]] article. You'll possibly also have noticed that the mediator has finally given the view on the Medcab on the Discussion page. Sadly, this seems to mean nothing to [[user:Ros_Power|Ros Power]] who has, once again, reverted to the version that she, and she alone, views as acceptable.

I have fought against this woman's blatant homophobia on WP for as long as I can, but in the end life becomes just too short. I am therefore not going to revert to the version that a) is factually correct, b) was agreed by the mediator, c) agreed by Medcab as it will only be twisted in short order by Ros Power.

I do ask, however, if it is within your power to prevent Ros from editing the page further. She is damaging the hard work and research of many editors and it is a shame to see this troll (which she most certainly is) ruining an otherwise informative and well-written article.

Kind regards
Chris [[User:83.217.190.69|83.217.190.69]] 12:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:40, 15 September 2006

This is a Wikipedia user talk page, not an encyclopedic article.
Click here to leave me a message
  • If you leave me a message, I will generally reply here unless you ask otherwise.
  • If I leave you a message, you may reply there unless it was not recent.
  • Please sign your messages with ~~~~.

Archives

  • 1: 2004 – May 2006
  • 2: Jun – Jul 2006
  • 3: Aug 2006

Cleaning the WP:CP archive

Greetings. You and I have both been active recently in fighting the backlog at WP:CP. Currently, the only ones left undone are ones that I commented on. I don't think it would be proper for me to deal with these, as it might smack of bias, so. . . could you finish these last ones? If so, we could finally remove the {{adminbacklog}} tag! All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


P.S. As I was working on the archive, I removed the entry for Suicide in the Trenches[1], reasoning that it was created before 1923, and was public domain in the U.S. regardless of British laws. I have seen this decision made many times before, and didn't think it noteworthy. However, a user strongly disapproved of my action (see User:Quadell#I said I wouldn't argue this but . . .), arguing that I should have discussed it first, or that I should have come to a different conclusion. I'd like to make sure I'm doing the right thing when I work on WP:CP. Could you tell me if you think I was correct or not? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought instead of reverting this page it would be best to open up a dialogue. The page at the moment is complicated because it is to long and when I went to it I was looking for complex numbers and the mass of text meant I took a while to find it. The inclusion of

a + ib, where a and b are real numbers and i is the imaginary number.

Seems wholly unnecessary, if the reader requires more description they will go to the relevant page. If you think that more information is needed about terms that do not have there own page then add it but I ask that a compromise is reached on the description about well know pages with their own page. Rex the first talk | contribs 21:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection

Hi Centrx, it looks to me like some of the articles you are unprotecting, you are actually protecting. Double check to be sure, looks like 4 of them to me. Regards, DVD+ R/W 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks this way because I am keeping the move protection, so the text still states "Centrx protected..." rather than "unprotected", but I am deactivating the Edit protection. —Centrxtalk • 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just making sure. Sorry to bother, DVD+ R/W 02:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out.[2] It lasted 15 minutes! Tyrenius 02:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears unprotecting the article is ultimately doomed to failure. I request it be reprotected immediately. E. Sn0 =31337= 05:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was vandalized once 4 hours ago. —Centrxtalk • 06:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know. George W. Bush

It's been less than an hour since you removed the protection, allowing anonymous users and new accounts to edit the George W. Bush article and it has already been vandalized twice by a new user who wouldnt have been able to edit the article had the protection been there. AuburnPilot 02:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is actually rather low. I thought it would be much higher considering the history of vandalism on the page. It is about the same or less than many other, lower profile pages and was reverted quickly. —Centrxtalk • 02:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I hope my comment didnt seem blunt. I actually am in favor of it being completely unprotected permanently. Of course thats only after Wikipedia requires that all users register before editing articles, so I guess I really want the whole encyclopedia semiprotected. Oh well. Thanks. AuburnPilot 02:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Who are you?

yes, I have previously edited under a different account. I just didn't want the old name anymore, so I'm starting over. And no, I'm not under a indefblock from my old account, so I'm not block evading with this account. :) — The Future 12:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

linkspam

By all means, remove that stuff. (I realized I made another mistake by carrying over the category tag, which put the draft version in the category. It's commented out now.)

Keep up the good work! A.J.A. 16:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word/Void copyvio deletion

Centrx, I was hoping you could help my figure out why you deleted the articles "Running with the Demon", "A Knight of the Word", and "Angel Fire East", citing copyvio. There were plot summaries there that I don't think violated copyright - they certainly weren't detailed enough to be "abridgements" per the policy. Thanks for your help. Sraan 02:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on which, they were copied from the website http://www.terrybrooks.net or descriptions from http://www.amazon.com, etc. that were from the inside or back covers of the books. —Centrxtalk • 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. After a litte investigation, I found that you reprimanded another user for posting copied material. I had written my own, original plot summaries on those sites that must have gotten deleted with the infringing material. I will put them back up, but if there is any problem with them, please let me know. Thanks again and keep up the good work. Sraan 03:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking through them to restore the ones by you that were deleted erroneously. —Centrxtalk • 03:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry for the inconvenience. —Centrxtalk • 03:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks! Have a good week. Sraan 03:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Koochee deletion/protection

This page was probably deleted/protected because of frequent edits. First version ran into copyright problems (an article which I own the rights to was used, but it also appears on my site so Wiki kicked it off). A completely new article was written for Wiki and with some copy/formatting changes it may have earned frequent edit status. Still new to Wiki, sorry, but I think it can easily go back up. Please either reinstate it or let me know what else I can do to have it included in the resource. Best Regards, Koocheedog 07:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Koocheedog[reply]

— → Thank you for bringing it back. I realize it still needs work, I will upgrade the style and cited sources asap. Best regards, Koocheedog 07:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Kelly

Do you know why the Kathy Kelly article was deleted? Kevin

Kathy Kelly was deleted because it is copied from http://vitw.org/archives/424, which infringes on the copyright of that website unless permission is given by that website to re-use that text under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), or it is released into the public domain. If such permission is given, either a note may be made on that website that the text is released under that license, or an e-mail or postal message may be send to the Wikimedia Foundation (permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org for e-mail) from an address associated with that website. Otherwise, that text may not be used on Wikipedia. If you would like to create a newly written article on this person, which does not infringe on a copyright, you may create it at Talk:Kathy Kelly/Temp and inform me when it is ready. I will then move it to the proper article space. —Centrxtalk • 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Greeting Users

How does this template for greeting new users look (Click here to view it)? Thank you -ENIAC (Talk) (Current Projects) 15:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few minor changes to it, as explained in the edit summary. I think it looks great. One minor thing that I think should be fixed is the formatting of the "Useful Links for New Wikipedians" heading, it looks a little detached. I don't have time to figure it out right now. Otherwise, it is great. —Centrxtalk • 15:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! -ENIAC (Talk) (Current Projects) 15:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MedportalSA

Thanks for shortening, that was indeed necessary!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for wrapping up the David Horowitz move. I thought it was a good idea, but I wasn't sure if I could've justified it with wiki-policy any stronger than with a weak support. Sam 03:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unclosed Requested move of Red vs Blue

Hi Centrx,

I noticed that you cleared out the August 26 backlog for requested moves, but didn't close the discussion on Talk:Red vs Blue, which was one of the proposals listed as of that date. Can you take a look? Thanks. — TKD::Talk 04:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are no pages blocking the move, it does not require an administrator. Because it is quite a hassle to make the move and deal with all the double-redirects, that is one reason why the "Recommend sticking with the status quo" idea is reasonable—it is after all only a minor formatting change. So, you are welcome to make the moves, it looks like you have the agreement of the interested users, with the only opposer saying "It doesn't seem to matter". If you think it needs the Official Administrator Seal of Requested Move Closure, I suppose that can be done, as the "Red vs. Blue" is the more typographically correct and seems to be more commonly used, but the move can be done by anyone. —Centrxtalk • 04:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is one page blocking the sequence: Red vs. Blue. — TKD::Talk 12:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Centrxtalk • 14:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! — TKD::Talk 04:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about inappropriate policy discussion

I honestly thought that the issue was more than one person sharing an account with administrator privileges -- thus it was a policy issue -- but obviously I was wrong in thinking such marathon editing is impossible for a single individual. The conversation did go off track though and it was right to delete it. --Ben Houston 06:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Just keep in mind Assume good faith, that long-standing users and administrator's are generally trusted for good reason and violations of that trust would not go unnoticed for long regardless. —Centrxtalk • 06:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect Smadar Lavie

Please re-protect Smadar Lavie. The value is prone for attacks, libel,defamation, etc. Danny, a Florida Wiki editor, has put a lock on it. Given the many instances of vandalism the value suffered, a permanent lock would be better than living it unprotected. C.B. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.226.40 (talkcontribs) 23:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not permanently protected. That is against the nature of how Wikipedia articles are written. Libelous edits will be removed, and editors who make them will not be allowed to edit the article. —Centrxtalk • 23:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't noticed your response and re-posted my request. I fear your assertion re the value of "Lavie" doesn't stand the test of the reality of the value's history. the Value has gone through copious libelous and defamatory versions from April 2006 on. They ought to be removed from the history pages of the value and of the discussion, and as of today Wikipedia has not done so. C.B. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.226.40 (talkcontribs) 06:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion and protected pages

Hi Brookie here - thanks for the note; has the system altered what it does recently - as I haven't (consciously) been doing this any different way than I have for ages - I normally normally add {{deleted}} and then protect afterwards and then list it - so I'm not sure what has been happening to throw things out of sync - I'll watch it carefully in future! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few you had used {{protectedpage}}, which isn't the right template for several reasons. —Centrxtalk • 07:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting Falun Gong Pages

Hi I just notice that you have unprotected these two falun gong pages [3] and [4]. Please note that there has not been any discussion between the two sides who reverted each other; unprotecting the page right now would only allow them to start their edit war again. --Kent8888 19:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection is only a temporary measure. If edit warring begins again you may request the page to be protected at WP:RFPP and offending editors may be blocked from editing. —Centrxtalk • 19:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Tech

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy) (3rd nomination). —Centrxtalk • 21:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM

Hi. Both of the times that you have moved the intro material from WP:RM into a separate header page, you deleted the {{adminbacklog}} template. Was this intentional? Please do not remove this template while there is a backlog.--Srleffler 23:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was not intentional. Also, the previous time I was not the one who erroneously deleted it. —Centrxtalk • 23:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, and I knew that but forgot. It just didn't get restored when your changes were reverted. I notice you moved the backlog notice to a less prominent position in the page. I'm not sure that's a good idea. It seems more effective at the top, where it is easily seen by administrators visiting the page for other reasons.--Srleffler 00:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible. I moved it because the page is used far more by non-admins, and the notice is useless to them. Mostly, admins get to this page through Category:Administrative backlog, and there are a handful of admins who work on these Requested moves. Admins are much less likely to visit this page normally, because most of the moves on this page are simply where the move is blocked, which being uncontroversial can just be deleted without fuss by an admin. —Centrxtalk • 00:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admins who come there are looking for administrative assistance. It is useful for a non-admin who is requesting a move to know that there is a backlog, and that the move may take longer than expected.--Srleffler 00:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted you last edit on this, can you please discuss on the talk page. Especially had you have some references for use of the "Meter" spelling in other countries. - SimonLyall 00:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at Talk:Metre, [5]. —Centrxtalk • 00:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you just said

..."if that's your objection it is probably best to clean out the guidelines category of things"... I wholeheartedly agree, and have been attempting to do just that. Your help would be appreciated to clear out the wrongly categorized pages. >Radiant< 19:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse PA

yes the piercings are similer, but they are really very different none the less, i am trying to help reduce confusuion and meybe give people a place were they can elaborate on the subject further, isn't that the whole reson for this site. maybe instead of deleting info on the page all together maybe we can come up an agreement. have you seen the bmezine page [6] Randywilliams1975 00:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at User talk:Randywilliams1975, [7]. —Centrxtalk • 05:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your mass reverts of my edits

Hi, What gives? You reverted the placement of the Template:policylist on (i'm assuming) all the policy pages that I edited. I find your reverts unfounded, and you really should have written me a message when you started doing that - so that both of us wasted less of our time. Please give me an explanation. Fresheneesz 00:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template does not belong on all those pages. It may not belong on any of them at all, but the ArbCom-related pages are especially incorrect examples. The problem with initiating mass changes is making a mass error. It is unfortunate when it is. It would have been better to try the change on 5 pages or so and see what the response was. Copyright problems and image fair use have nothing to do with the policies in that template, and there is no need in general to have it on any of them. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and Wikipedia:Requests for comment are, however. Editors going through the dispute resolution progress are dealing with issues most related to the foundational and courtesy policies and are the editors who are least likely to know about them, whereas it makes no sense at all for someone looking at the bots policy or the sockpuppetry policy, where they are totally irrelevant and most any user looking at those pages already knows about those policies anyway. There is no need to navigate people away to something totally different from what they are looking for. —Centrxtalk • 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. May I suggest that we (or I) create a separate template for each of the categories in the list of policies, and add the appropriate template to each page in the category?
Also, I don't understand why you reverted my edit of the main template. I simply added a link back to the rest of policy, and to the founding five pillars. I don't understand why you would have a problem with that. Fresheneesz 01:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (Ad astra)

Just a quick "Thank you" for taking care of the move over at Ad astra, et. al. --DragonHawk 02:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linux and Linus Torvalds

You state here in your edit summary that the template does not work in this case. I agree, however, is it actually inaccurate to have the founder listed as the sole "developer". Is this discussion more appropriate at the template or at the articles talk page? If so, please feel free to move it. Cheers, Ansell 02:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to change it to "Linus Torvalds, leading various individuals both paid and unpaid" because it is all individuals, some of the ones paid do it on their off-time too, it is not whole companies that are developing the software, etc. but then I realized that it isn't even just Linus: The subject of this article can very well be something where it is being totally revised and maintained by someone else; though it would still have the history of it, it would be like changing the template on DOS to say that whatever that QDOS company that created it was one of the main developers. The problem is with a lot of templates. Linux is a good example because the template is clearly designed for proprietary software created by companies, or software created by one individual, or a few individuals organized cleanly, not "several people who don't really know each other but collaborate on this sourceforge site". I don't know what to do about it, so I just try to tweak things on the articles I am watching. —Centrxtalk • 02:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What attributes would have to be in a Collaborative software project description? I would think that in collaborative cases there would be a small set of original developers which could be legitimately put in a list on the template in place of a single company or full-time developer(s). It seems okay to me to have that list in the developer field still. BTW, I do not know either... :) which is why I am trying to get down to it here. Ansell 02:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The only reason it works otherwise is a company is this fictitious person, with several developers and even several groups contributing (Internet Explorer group plus the Windows group plus the old DOS group plus the Xenix group, it's not even clear there), whereas in free software the fictitious person is stripped away and we are left with a bunch of people who doing different things for different reasons in different capacities at different times. In an extreme example, we might have an original creator who 'invented' the software, but then now he doesn't work on it at all or maybe he works on it in only a minor capacity where before he was the only and major contributor, and maybe none of the code he wrote is even in the software any more, and it has been forked by two groups that both claim to be, and are, fairly legitimate branches of the software, each of which has several persons working in different capacities both paid by companies and independently, and also much of the code comes from some other software project.
In this particular case, the subject of the Linux article has made it even more complicated because the article is not talking about the kernel like it should be—there was an argument about this a couple years ago—and so now it talks about some vague nonexistent fake thing that includes distributions and GNU and the kernel. So, "Red Hat" and "Debian" could both fairly be called "Companies/Developers" of this Frankenstein, but Linus also is a creator, but the majority of the code apparently isn't written by him any more, and there are different release managers for stable branch and the unstable branch and if GNU is really so important Stallman and a dozen other people also are developers. I just think the infobox item doesn't work at all for cases like this. It's not one entity that is creating any of these things. If it were cleanly the Linux kernel it might have a "Founder" or "Original creator" or "Bully pulpit figure", but it's not even that. This is a problem with infoboxes, they are trying to cut down real information to a superficial level when this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and it doesn't work. —Centrxtalk • 05:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A heads up

I just wanted to let you know that I have reverted your last edit to Talk:Blood of the Fold per my interpretation of wikipedia policy. I know this is rapidly becoming a pain in the ass but it is my conviction that this is the correct course of action and I apologise for any grief. NeoFreak 04:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NeoFreak was already warned for this action, in great detail. Feel free to block for 24 hours if he does it again. Kim Bruning 08:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is it you purpose I be blocked for? "Disruption" of wikpedia? Last I checked a disagreement over policy does not constitute a bad faith disruption. NeoFreak 13:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I convince you to give him a block longer than 3 days? His last block was for a week (and he just got off of it). I think we should go beyond that for this offense...not a shorter block. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Unfortunately I think this is going to end in an indefinite block regardless. —Centrxtalk • 08:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say, you guys are good.... I wandered into that discussion about two weeks ago (to avoid my masters thesis), and pretty soon I realized I needed to wander my way on out. YOU ROCK! Zweifel 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And. Thank you. :) Yeah I feel the same way, Centrx. He just won't stop. He pretty much defines "troll". --Woohookitty(meow) 04:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you beat me to that move; having reworked the text, I'd thought about moving the page but was a bit concerned about the several double redirects that would result (mainly in view of my laziness and intent always to avoid work), but I've fixed them now. Good on ya in any case... :) Joe 15:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought about moving it in June when I rewrote part of. Oh, what a tortured history this article has had. —Centrxtalk • 20:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently deleted all of the That '70s Show episode articles I made from "that70scentral.com". I realize it was dumb of me to copy verbatim from the website (even though I credited the site). However, one article titled Ramble On (a.k.a. Promise Ring Redux) was not taken from the website, but completely created by me several weeks ago. I was wondering if there was any way you could un-delete the article. Thank you. - Zone46 19:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Centrxtalk • 20:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sorry about the copyright thing. - Zone46 22:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend. I saw youe edit: Complained to the United Nations. Was it necessary? Now persons like you and me shall have to go there. Let usa keep our dirty linen hidden instead of bringing the same to the notice of the world! Do not you know that most of our administrators are better trained in all the arts and sciences of the world than most other human beings. We could have dealt the issue here instead of taking this to the international organization. Let us try to withdraw the complained from the United Nations. BTW, did you have the power of attorney to file the complaint? Cheers! --Bhadani 23:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(lol, i hope he was joking. Actually I hope you're both joking. Fresheneesz 03:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

your revert at WP:NNOT

You reverted my use of a nutshell template. What gives? If you're going to revert peoples work, either MESSAGE THEM, or explain it on the talk page. Unexplained revertions like that border on vandalism. Fresheneesz 03:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was an error. Sorry. —Centrxtalk • 03:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English cricket

Thanks for pointing that out. I will put them on watch. You wouldn't have a list of cricket pages that are unwatched, by any chance? Regards. --BlackJack | talk page 05:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively, no; I would have to pick them out manually. —Centrxtalk • 05:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: MediaWiki capitalization

I just got really tired of looking at the (Talk | block | Block log | Logs) in someone's contributions and changed those to match. And after that I made them uniform in the watchlists/histories by changing contribs. I'm not going to edit war about it, or even start a large-scale discussion since it's pretty much a non-issue either way. Thanks for your concern though. - Bobet 07:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ya ya

I wonder if you might unblock Ya ya. While bringing arbitration against a raft of users is disruptive, it's common courtesy to inform them of such on their talk pages. As it stands, he didn't finish those notifications before you blocked him. Mackensen (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His arbitration case was previously removed by Sam Korn for not providing any evidence, and the majority of the users he "filed" the case against have no idea have no relation to the dispute he alleges or, in some cases, even any idea what he is talking about. It is a barratrous case levied broadly against a host of users, and it would be disruptive for those who actually think it legitimate. This is the same user as User:Freestylefrappe, by the way, there is a history associated with it. This isn't just a newbie making a frivolous complaint. —Centrxtalk • 19:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! See my comment (subheader "My talk") below for confirmation of that. I wasn't even "filed", and he/she still notified me :D. --Crimsone 19:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My talk

Thankyou very much for reverting the comment on my talk. Apart from being in entirely the wrong place, I'm all "mediated out" after my recent work, let alone taking on an arbitration case I'm not involved with and know next to nothing about! lol. I think I'll pass on that one and continue on taking a break from mediation for a little while lol. Seriously, Thanks. :) --Crimsone 19:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give up

I have given up. Here's the ISV's base. Dr. Kaori Takeshima

  • I'll assume you clicked it already, so allow me and my fellow ISV members to laugh at your face! Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't say something that heinous, but for you, I'll make an exception. Dr. Kaori Takeshima
Actually, I don't use Flash. —Centrxtalk • 19:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Centrx, you have been editing the {{chemistry}} template over the last couple of dates, and I'm not convinced you have improved it. Would you care to elucidate what you are doing? Preferably on the template's talkpage, viz. the talk page of the chemistry wikiproject? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The purpose is to make it smaller because it is used as one of numerous headers on many already-crowded talk pages; of course there are many possible wordings that could still accomplish this. The most recent edit was purely technical formatting and had no effect on the appearance or substance of the template. —Centrxtalk • 19:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at an NA-classified pages (e.g. wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, and see how bad the layout now is. If I look at the last version before you started editing (bigger pic, narrow pic, etc), I just see a better layout. If you merely would like a less wordy template, then please revert to the version of a couple of days ago, and just delete a few words. I'll gladly do it for you if it might be to difficult or so? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
It looks perfectly fine to me, except for one word trailing onto the third line alone, which can be easily solved. What exactly looks bad? The reason for shortening is not just the wording; shortening the wording does nothing if the structure around it takes up the space no matter what is inside. —Centrxtalk • 22:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it some change I made after [8]? You seemed to think it was fine then. —Centrxtalk • 22:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to pin-point the exact change, but found that one of my own edits wasn't useful either. Bottomline remains that he picture just isn't a good one on such a small scale (not your fault). I have done some minor tweaking in the same line of smaller/narrower too. It isn't a major issue anymore. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Your warning to User:201.43.19.123

Your warning on User talk:201.43.19.123 seems a bit overkill. Not sure it deserves a level 4. The users's other edit seems reasonable, as was the one since. And Mariah Carey is a bitch, so it's not really vandalism ... more POV ... :-) Though I certainly applaud you anti-vandalism efforts! Nfitz 04:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. —Centrxtalk • 04:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your online

Would you mind looking at Talk:Cynthia McKinney? I have made a user very mad. There is acctually an extensive edit war going over that article over an extremely small detail (as they always are) and the other user feels that I have insulted him. I can't see how I have, but that definately isn't a good sign. Musaabdulrashid 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was this edit a joke? —Nate Scheffey 23:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just redirected WP:VINE to WP:VIE, it's polar opposite. I've reverted it, since I believe it to be an absurd decision. Precisely what purpose did you intend to fulfil by those actions? If WP:VINE is to be cast aside, then the proper courses of action would be to just leave it as an essay, Template:rejected it, or maybe run it through MfD. Not redirect it to its inverse. --tjstrf 23:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is to redirect to the accurate description of Wikipedia practice. Having a title does not mean that that what's under the title is obligated to make an argument for the title, and it would be perfectly appropriate, for example, to redirect Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a dictionary to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If someone were to write an essay at Wikipedia:Vanity on how it is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia to write an article yourself, you being the random schoolchild or businessman, it would still warrant being moved or removed elsewhere while having Wikipedia:Vanity be a redirect to Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. Wikipedia:Voting is not evil is, based on the page history and the talk page, clearly one user's personal essay recently created; in comparison no one ever links to it, and there is every reason to have the page at that title redirect to the much more widely referenced page. —Centrxtalk • 23:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then MfD it, slap rejected on it, make a notice saying it's been superceded by WP:VIE, rewrite it to be about specific situations in which Voting is not evil, or some combination of the above. A Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a dictionary would be easily dealt with in any of those ways without requiring we create a useless and counter-intuitive redirect. --tjstrf 00:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A move would be more appropriate. —Centrxtalk • 00:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tj's argument seems stronger than yours. All of his suggestions would be more appropriate. —Nate Scheffey 00:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fascinating. Thankfully, my talk page is not a vote. —Centrxtalk • 00:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. :) --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, it is for discussing your actions, specifically this one which I Oppose. —Nate Scheffey 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. After all, it's the arguments that count. --tjstrf 00:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaori Takeshima / Sakura Avalon redux

With regards to this:

When unblocking SA, I did consider the possibility we're dealing with another Sunholm-type sockmaster. However, since nothing as conclusive as a CheckUser result or the presence of identical edit patterns was available at the time, there wasn't enough evidence to link him to BB. I was waiting for more evidence justifying a block, and there came to be. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through his contributions when I blocked him. He made a big deal of talking about being a former vandal, made several references to Bobby Boulders and "ISV" in addition to talking about a host of users he suddenly happened to meet who later turn out to be related sockpuppets. There was absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he was a sockpuppet of a banned user. Allowing someone who previously vandalized to make productive contributions is fine, but this user was making no encyclopedia contributions. —Centrxtalk • 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ros Power

Hi!

A little while back you were kind enough to assist me with homophobic vandalism by [user:Ros Power] After what must have been a week's vacation, she is now back and up to her old tricks. (She is editing just using her IP at the moment) This time it's messing up the Civil partnerships article for the n-th time - see also the Discussion page, particularly the 'Couples' subsection. Admins, Mediators and many editors have pointed out the error of her edits and the appallingly dictatorial manner in which she acts, and yet it goes on.

I would welcome any advice on how to protect what seems to be a well-researched article from this woman's intrusive, inaccurate edits and her beligerant attitude.

Regards, Tod

Trance or Daze? 08:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected this article to ensure that the edits are clear with that account. —Centrxtalk • 15:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OutlookSoft Deletion

Hi can you tell me why the page on OutlookSoft was deleted and protected (by you according to the deletion log)? Was there any inappropriate content? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.3.8.114 (talkcontribs) 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The text of this page was copied from another website, which is not permitted without explicit permission from the copyright holder permitting the re-use of the text under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). This must be verified by having the copyright holder do one of the following:
  • Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at Talk:ServersCheck where we can find that note; or
  • Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL.

The text also must be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Centrxtalk • 15:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ServersCheck removal

Why the hell did you remove it???

What is the reason behind it? It is an excellent product, that company was big in the news in May for their lawsuit against Google. They have 1.3 m pages about them in Google

Sounds really unfounded by me. One administrator has amended the text a friend of mine initially wrote (we are both 2 guys in fond of this FREE product) and you delete it.

Isn't that abuse of power.

Needless to see that is not even politically correct to remove a page without informing the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.132.131.250 (talkcontribs) 15:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did inform the author. I also explained that it must be written in the form and tone of an encyclopedia article, not an advertisement, and that it must not infringe on the copyright of that website. —Centrxtalk • 15:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not -> I do not even get a message nor my friend. Copyright violation of text? Show what words were copied. Although there was explicit permission to use the pictures (they wrote a letter to Wikipedia authorizing it). So just because of the tone of voice??? I hope you are kidding because the fact that not everyone speaks so well english as you do (excuse my french) is a reason for that. Articles like following are better written?? Intellipool Network Monitor

Permanently blocking the article doesn't give anyone a change of altering it. I am disgusted by your abuse of admin rights. This is not what wikipedia was intended for.

Courtesey is the basis of everything. Abuse of power is the end of everything. Golfieke 17:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Log in to the account you used to recently post it, or go the talk page of that account. The message is there. If a letter has been sent, then the page can be re-created when the permission is received by the Wikimedia Foundation. The problem with the writing was not that it was written poorly, but that it is not written like an encyclopedia article. —Centrxtalk • 15:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to the facts: 1/ Removal one -> copyright violation (text version with visuals) 2/ Removal two -> copyright violation and tone of voice (text only version with no visuals)

   * 15:13, 14 September 2006 Centrx (Talk | contribs) deleted "ServersCheck" (Re-created copyvio/advert)
   * 04:07, 14 September 2006 Centrx (Talk | contribs) deleted "ServersCheck" (copyvio http://www.serverscheck.us/network-monitoring-tool.asp)

By the way if above is what you call communicating then well done. You are not consistent in what you are saying and until now you have not been able to prove that content was copied. I and Kurt did write our own text. Show me what text was copied! I verified word by word and none (=0) has been taken from the so called reference url. That page didn't even handle about sensors like in our article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.132.131.250 (talkcontribs) 15:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Golfieke 17:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into an argument about this. Substantial portions of the text was copied—which is not allowed, and the remainder was mirrored after that website. See User talk:Golfieke if the copyright holder has given permission. Stop making ridiculous accusations. I've given you all the information you need. Bye. —Centrxtalk • 16:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the mistake in thinking that you did not send a message. I found it in my new messages. It was probably a caching issue. I was wrong. So no problem admitting I was.

To avoid further escalation (and since we are stupid authors with no power), I called ServersCheck and explained the situation. They were charmed by my efforts in trying to fix it. I told them that we need a quicker permission. As a result they have given permission for the text although not copied on following url: http://www.serverscheck.com/network-monitoring-tool.asp

Me making accusations? You are telling me that it was copied but you have not showed me what to date. It is easy to say it was copied. I have both text in front me (ours and the one from the website). Not even one line was copied. Prove me wrong and I will admit I was wrong. If I believe that I have a valid point, shouldn't I defend it?

Giving all the information I need? So you decide what information I need. Would I be posting this if I hadn't have enough information? I asked for what piece was copied as you state. You don't deem that information needed? User:Golfieke

Please calm down, and please sign your comments! It would be abuse of power for an admin to provide information which was removed for copyright violation. If that is the reason it was taken down, Centrx cannot simply show it to you or it is still a copyvio. Whether you agree or not with his assessment of the material, Wikipedia:Deletion review is that-a-way. BigNate37(T) 16:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the text was copied although claimed by Centrex! I ask to show me what (offline or not - I don't care). I admitted my mistake regarding the message left and I apologized. Don't tell me to calm down. 2 different reasons have been given for the same text and I have to think that's normal? The GDFL notice on the reference url has been added and still the article is offline. I ask for explanations and I get none. Is it so abnormal? Golfieke 17:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand if you're still looking for explanations, but the article isn't offline...the page was restored an hour ago.--Onorem 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onorem, thanks for pointing this out. At last someone understands that I am looking for explanations. Wished Centrex told it instead of you. It seems that you have a lot of experience regarding Wikipedia. Could you help it write more like (or point me to what exactly is meant with it - examples?): "form and tone of an encyclopedia article". I would be grateful. Golfieke 17:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a highlighting of what is copied verbatim, [9]. The remainder is paraphrasing of glowing advertising from the the ServersCheck website. —Centrxtalk • 17:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centrex, can you verify if the modified text is applicable? If have done an effort following your tone of voice (thanks for the example). Are the tags for the images OK? Golfieke 18:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for your kind msg

I was heartened by your message on the admin noticeboard. I will be offline for 24 hours or more in a short while. Perhaps someone will guide Yy-bo to enlightenment. All I see if a furious volume of activity to try to create as many articles as possible with no concept of notability. I am assuming good faith over this, but it does become increasingly hard to do so Fiddle Faddle 21:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the revert.

File:Hand with thumbs up.jpg The well done fella award
Centrx has been given a monster thumbs up in recognition of protecting the pages of another vandal fighter from vandalism. Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edits

Right oh - thanks for the heads up - I'll try and be more careful in future. Dave 22:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I know the procedure now, so I'll be more careful next time! Stu ’Bout ye! 08:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kathy kelly

The article was not copied from this site http://vitw.org/archives/424, however, that was the primary space I retreived information, if I am understanding you correctly. This site is not only no longer maintained, but I'm sure if we asked Kathy Kelly she would have no problem granting Wikipedia rights to her story, or what do you think? Kevin 10:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ros Power

Hi!

Thank you for protecting the Civil partnerships article. You'll possibly also have noticed that the mediator has finally given the view on the Medcab on the Discussion page. Sadly, this seems to mean nothing to Ros Power who has, once again, reverted to the version that she, and she alone, views as acceptable.

I have fought against this woman's blatant homophobia on WP for as long as I can, but in the end life becomes just too short. I am therefore not going to revert to the version that a) is factually correct, b) was agreed by the mediator, c) agreed by Medcab as it will only be twisted in short order by Ros Power.

I do ask, however, if it is within your power to prevent Ros from editing the page further. She is damaging the hard work and research of many editors and it is a shame to see this troll (which she most certainly is) ruining an otherwise informative and well-written article.

Kind regards Chris 83.217.190.69 12:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]