User talk:Cenarium/Archive 4

Flagged revisions by Wikiproject
As you seems to be involved I was wondering if it will be possible to view flagged revisions by Wikiproject? I am interested in following the medical ones as is a number of my co editors over their. Will watch your page. Many thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The special page listing unreviewed edits can be filtered by category but otherwise you'd need a bot. You can also follow pending changes using the watchlist of your project, edits needing review will appear with a (review) link. Cenarium (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What are the categories that they can be filtered by? Is wikiproject one of these categories?  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean by articles' category, any category, you just need to type its name, but it does not include subcategories, you can test here. A wikiproject would have to use an hidden category on all the articles it encompasses to see them all on the special page, which doesn't currently exist AFAIK. Cenarium (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay were would it be best to propose this? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:VPR, I suppose. This could have some advantages beyond pending changes, although there may be objections based on maintainability and redundancy. Cenarium (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:PEND Additions
How does one add an article (or two) to the pending changes queue? A couple vandals hit the WAGA-TV, WXIA-TV and WCTI-TV articles often, blanking sections, adding hoax information and the like. They have been blocked on numerous IPs, but keep coming back. Could those articles I listed be added to the queue? -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 02:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They hardly meet the requirements for semi-protection, that this is long term may be an argument but the trial is limited to 2000 articles so we have to make choices, and keep in mind the backlog. Maybe one of them could be placed under pending changes, and we could see how it evolves compared to the other ones. There's some discussion here about which articles to used PC on. Cenarium (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you need a hand with adding reviewers?
Like the header says. :-) Despite our disagreement on the methods for assigning this tool, I really do appreciate all the work you are doing for this trial, and I do hope that it gives us a definitive result. I don't want to get in the way of a lot of the other work you are doing there, but perhaps I might be useful in assigning the tool to editors if you can point me to the list of people who without doubt should get it.  Risker (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well for sure I can't assign alone the group to thousands of users :) Feel free to assign the group to trusted users who request it anywhere, many users have manifested their interest at Requests for permissions/Reviewer, and there are plenty of potential reviewers at Database reports/Potential reviewer candidates. There may be a few things to consider before starting, though. Pending changes and Reviewing which is supposed to contain the basic criteria haven't been approved as policy/guideline yet, so are still open to debate, within the grand lines given in the original proposal. I'm also not sure if we need to leave a message to a user after granting the right, or if the sitenotice will be sufficient. Cenarium (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your false accusation of me vandalizing a page.
I didn't edit a single damn thing over at that article!

Please leave me alone.

This is the second time someone has falsely or mistakenly accused me of shit. The first accusation was from a guy named User:Dysepsion over some article about a porn star. Go here to see what I said back then, in May 2008. I registered an account after that incident, but I prefer not to use it since I was forced to register a considerably lengthy name that I would rather not type out. I couldn't use the account I wanted, "A-l-e-x-99", due to this site's ass-backwards user name policy (supposedly, there was a guy on the wiki named "Alex99", without the hyphens, that the name I wanted was too similar too).

There's who I am. Still think I'm a hardcore wiki vandal? 4.249.183.177 (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP address you're using has been used in March 2008 to make this edit, I reverted that edit and left a message. IP addresses are often reassigned, so used by different persons, just disregard messages not directed at you. Cenarium (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

oops
Been a long time since I accidently clicked on a rollback button :P Gwen Gale (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewers removal
Cenarium, please see this. I have little stomach for a long, prolonged and ultimately fruitless kerfuffle with the admin cadre regarding this, but this is my line in the sand. If admins are unilaterally empowered to now remove rights I've enjoyed for years, without proper process and serious sanction for them if it's proved to be done in a capricious and arbitrary way, then I'm in the Giano/Malleus camp and will be resisting this approach. Doubtless, if admins are asked, they'd like the power to do so, and we all know that in policy discussions like this, the numbers are stacked in favour of admin flags. So as turkeys don't vote for Christmas, I'm sure of the result. Do you have any crumbs of comfort for us lowly editors? --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll comment there. Cenarium (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read your considerable post, but I'm failing to see the crumbs. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think is lacking ? This requires a proper consensus to remove the right except by the admin who granted the right (for some time) or when the user was blocked for vandalism or accepting vandalism in bad faith, or indefinitely blocked. We should also add the case where removal is requested by the user. If an admin removes the right outside process, his conduct will be reviewed by the community or arbcom. Cenarium (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok - where does it say that on the policy page? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to write it up again? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm currently editing the policy pages. Cenarium (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Appreciated, thanks ! Cenarium (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Tag-prod removed-description
Hi. Your input is requested. Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 19:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

...and a lightbulb suddenly went on over my head
Well, Cenarium, I suddenly discovered tonight that we were *both* right about multiple edits, reverting changes and stuff like that when looking at pending changes. Gmaxwell was describing what he thought should happen when reviewing multiple edits, and I *still* couldn't figure out what he was talking about, so he and I got together on IRC to go through things step by step. Turns out, I've always been trying to figure out what you were saying by using a reviewer-only (no rollback) account on the testwiki, and clicking the "review pending changes" button, which takes one to a special review screen. That screen gives a diff that includes *all* unreviewed revisions (whether it's just one or 20), with no option to look at each one individually. Gmaxwell (and, I assume you too) was working from the page history, something that isn't really described in any of the processes documented either on this site or on the testwiki. Once I saw the page history option, and played with it for just a few minutes, everything you said became clear. According to Gmaxwell, the reviewing screen was a very recent addition (last few weeks), and I can understand that most people who've been working on this prior to that time would use the reviewing process with which they are most familiar. I've written up a non-techie friendly step-by-step section for reviewing multiple edits, in consultation with Gmaxwell, and have done some significant reworking of Reviewing, mainly to focus on the actual task of reviewing and to pull out sections that aren't specific to that task. I apologise for having caused you frustration, and I hope that you can understand why I was frustrated as well. Best, Risker (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Wow--awesome user name ;) 65.78.185.61 (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Cenarium (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Eren Derdiyok problem
Dear Cenarium an anonymous user keeps vandalizing the Eren Derdiyok article, I know that there is a rule for 3 reverts per day so I cannot revert it back all the time, I suggest you protect the page because this user is reverting it back to his own wishes the whole time, thank you Redman19 (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding. I've temporarily protected the page since there's persistent edit warring (it doesn't look obviously like vandalism or policy-violating so I can't take action against the user). I've commented on the talk page. Cenarium (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin removal
There is no issues that clearly will require this addition to admin authority and it should not be added without community consensus, please do not replace it again without consensus and discussion, there is no displayed need for it at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are linking to this link Wikipedia_talk:Reviewing as if it shows community authority for you revert but I don't see a consensus there at all. If you assert that your desired addition is necessary then please start a community RFC to seek consensus for your opinion.Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I linked because I've commented there. Recall the consensus previously established for removal was at admin discretion, now you say that the right should never be removed, unless requested by the user. It means that misuse or abuse can only be handled by blocking, for a brand new permission, so we don't know how it could be used, misused or abused. I don't think it should be at admin discretion, community consensus would be fine for me, but what you propose is just too risky. Cenarium (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any risk at all to this tool, in your comment here you appear to agree with me, lets see this tool in action and comment later. Blocking would normally occur and is the the way to go, suggesting that for such vandalistic edits the removal of reviewer right would be a way to go is imo not correct at all and would leave a vandal with editing rights.Off2riorob (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Say for example I have gained 100 good ish edits and I got the tool and then I add a vandal edit...I will be rolled back and warned as per now...if I do it again I will be warned again as per now.....do you think some admin will come rushing up to remove the reviewer rights of this vandal? ...no it is a block block block situation. Thanks, he can keep the worthless right as he is blocked, if it is bad enough he can be blocked indefinite. if not he can get 48 hours and if repeats the violation can be blocked for longer, the silly reviewer right was meaningless throughout, Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the most likely case, but we can't predict all the scenarios which could happen, there may be situations where in the interest of everyone removing the right would be better than blocking. I think we need to keep as many options open as possible in a trial, but I don't mind particularly either. Cenarium (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, I may not have understood what was meant by review by the community or arbcom. It has since been clarified and I'm fine with it. Cenarium (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Fram
He suggested on AN or ANI that there should be a noticeboard. Thank you. Done. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The section headers were too accusatory, I've created a noticeboard at Pending changes/Noticeboard, as it had been suggested a few times and we should use the current terminology. Cenarium (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I try my utmost to be polite.  In fact, I ask others to be less accusatory.  I am happy that you have notified me of being accusatory because I am very conscience not to be.  However, my English is reasonably good but not perfect.  Sometimes, I read a film review and haven't a clue what the author is trying to say because he is using flowery language.


 * I was trying to create sections so that nobody has to sort through it. A quick glance could determine if the flagged trial is being too restrictive or not restrictive enough.  This was my intent, not to be accusatory.  Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

PC edit conflict
I'm sorry about the edit conflict here. I saw there had been one, but when I looked I couldn't immediately see what had been changed, so I went ahead and inserted my edit because I'd made a lot of changes. I shouldn't have done that, or I should have gone back later and restored yours. My apologies. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

EDit conflict
Hi

I just got some crazy comment from an ec on the Lewis Hamilton page,it said there was a conflict with you, but afterwards there was no edit appearing from yourself ??

Any idea what happened ?

I accepted a revision, noting it needed some work, and then went in to tidy it up when it gave the ec

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A new page I created
I just created a page to direct others too that a friend of mine started on Facebook(FB) entitled "Joey's date fan page". It can be googled, binged, asked among other sites. I have never done a page on here before but hope it was ok to start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djchillman (talk • contribs) 09:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Firefox freezes when I go to Ancient Italic peoples
Whenever I go to the article on Ancient Italic Peoples, firefox freezes up. Opera does not freeze though. FF is in the italian localization and Opera has italian as the installation language. Is this a problem with the HTML code somewhere or a firefox issue? DarkArcher25 (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Submitted
I've added to the comments. I just wanted to personally congratulate on what I consider a successful trial; I have made some comments on other pages about things that could be improved, but they are in general minor and some have to do with guidelines such as the oft-brought-up guideline for accepting edits. The tool does fight vandalism quite successfully, however, and that was the goal I believe. =)

Do we want to cease edits to the other feedback page? CycloneGU (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, yeah we should probably ask people to comment on the closure page now. Cenarium (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes closure discussion
I see you created the /closure discussion page, definitely a good idea. It fleshed out fairly well and includes a thorough summary of issues/suggestions/questions. We're trying to figure out on Talk what might happen next. Did you have any ideas about how to gear the discussion towards something more organized or specific than a simple up or down vote? What would the continued trial be for? The same goals, the same number of pages, the same types of pages, the same guidlines, etc... If you want to drop by and shed some thoughts, it'd be great. Thanks Ocaasi (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Closure

These are the links from pc/feedback which discuss watchlists. Actually, you participated in one. See if they clarify. Ocaasi (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'll try to think about something, though I don't have much time to edit. Cenarium (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, there are a few of us keeping the list updated. Ocaasi (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

PC/ Straw poll
So, in looking over the current polling controversy, I realized that the following was included at PC/Closure but not mentioned at PC/Straw Poll:

Developers have indicated it would be too complex to turn off the feature then back on in case of decision in favor to continue the implementation, so they'll wait for the community decision, unless it takes more than a month in which case they would turn off the feature.

I believe you added this. Its absence in the poll is part of the reason, I think, that is seems like the wait-and-see option is missing. I want to add it to the poll's introduction, but figured I'd check with you to see if its status is still intact or if there's been any changes there.

While I'm at it, do you know who picked 1 month as the limit? Is there a reason a longer evaluation period wouldn't be possible? Would the developers really shut this down while its issues are still only first being addressed? Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * RobLa did, as head of the WMF team in charge of the trial, I don't think we could extend this period without a clear consensus. I've a bit more time now, I've left a gigantic comment at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Straw poll which sums up my thoughts. Cenarium (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Who said it was too complex to turn off and on again? As long as all flag-protection is removed from pages, then it's not hard to turn off and on again.  Aar on Sc hulz  21:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * William Petri then Robla said the extension would not be turned off until a decision of the community, then Robla added the one-month limit. It should probably have read 'project manager' instead of 'developers'. I suspect the reasons for not turning it off immediately were more organizational than technical. It has been vaguely discussed in the mailing list but there hasn't been a proper discussion of how the trial should end. Cenarium (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's chat?
Do you come into IRC much?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but I have email. Cenarium (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

facts and figures 'pending'
Hi, is there a place I can perhaps see the reviewers that have reviewed a change in the last two weeks? I would like a list of who is actively reviewing to compare against the number of articles currently protected and the current review edit time. Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Special:ValidationStatistics gives the top 5 reviewers in the last hour, for more you need Special:AdvancedReviewLog which can filter out automatic reviews. If you need to extract some specific data, a bot operator could help you. Cenarium (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, cool, thanks a lot. Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice
A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 12:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)  You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

the SP
Hi, I saw your edit to the mandelbrot thing. HaeB, the Managing Editor, is pretty familiar with all of that, and maintains high standards of neutral journalism. I would be very suprised if his wording were inappropriate. Thank you. Tony  (talk)  03:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm reading the SP from time to time and I think HaeB is a good writer for it. But the insinuation that the New York Times engages in copyright fraud is totally unjustified, and, quite simply, unacceptable. Cenarium (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Dear Cenarium, a user on the Hakan Sukur article keeps reverting the article to his own likings, I invited him to the talk page before to discuss it but he seems to ignore it, can you do something? I dont want a revert fight again, thank you. Redman19 (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Bypassing redirects
Hi, concerning, and since I've discussed that very link a few days ago at Template talk:Welcome, in what way is that bypassed redirect better than it was before? Cheers, Amalthea  20:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think the mediawiki namespace should be an exception to R2D, I've seen several sysops bypassing redirects there and I've done so myself a couple of times. Since mediawiki messages are less accessible for editing than usual pages and even templates, in cases of problems such as a second move which would result in a double redirect, or a hijack of the redirect, it would take longer to fix than for other pages, so many editors would be inconvenienced. This would go for high visibility templates too. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

GMT
Can you please unprotect GMT? It has been almost two years since you protected it. Because the page has no history of vandalism, even from IP users, it seems a bit extreme to have full protection. Currently, the redirect is not categorised and needs to be.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  17:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've reduced to semi. Cenarium (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  23:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

moved comments
I moved your comments to here Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 as they were imo of the focus of the ongoing discussion. Your comments are on the talkpage for you to engages users there. Please read and assimilate previous and ongoing discussion as regards the main discussion as there are attempts to keep it on focus and less vague, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged, thanks. No hard feelings, of course. Cenarium (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards.  My 76 Strat  08:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation, but I don't want to use IRC for Wikipedia matters except on immediate technical issues. Cenarium (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

BLPSE
Really? The first sentence of BLPSE says that "administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy". I think it is obvious that the edit tool is one of the "means at their disposal". T. Canens (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between what admins can do as editors and as admins. As abundantly clear from the text of the decision and log page, by administrative action, the committee means use of admin tools or imposition of a sanction (including restrictions and such), a content edit is neither, therefore it is an invalid addition. Furthermore, per the arbitration policy, arbitration cannot mandate specific article content. I consider a log as just a log, the note was to invite a response on your part, not an attempt to overturn anything. Cenarium (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the BLPSE provision itself is written in very broad terms, and does not make a distinction between editor and admin tools. I'm not sure how we can somehow make an article BLP-compliant using only the blocking, deleting, and protection tools - the only one that affects what is displayed on the page is the deletion tool, and surely, when we encounter a BLP violation, we are not limited to the choice between deleting a page and doing nothing if we want to remain clearly uninvolved? Besides, I didn't intend to mandate specific article content - it's not meant to say "the article should include X" or "it should not mention Y". Rather, it is limited to the specific edit at issue, which is unquestionably a BLP violation. T. Canens (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Admins can of course edit out BLP violations, but this is not an administrative action, all editors can edit out BLP violations. Admin edits are not and cannot be given more weight or otherwise treated differently than non-admin's edits, as stated in the admin policy: "[admins have] no special powers or privileges when acting as editors". I'm 100% certain that ArbCom never intended to give a particular status to admin edits, nothing suggests otherwise in the BLPSE decision, it is only concerned with administrative actions. The edit is indeed a BLP violation, and it is appropriate to warn the editor, under BLPSE if desired, but BLPSE cannot give a particular status to your removal of "certain material". I want to make clear that all your actions (revert and warning) were perfectly reasonable, but I take exception to the notion that admin edits can be given special status. Moreover, giving particular status to admin edits would mandate specific article content: the content of (as modified by) those edits, so would violate the arbitration policy (in addition to the admin policy). Cenarium (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Mandate specific article content" means that no one can change the content after I made the edit. That's patently not true. The only thing I arguably "mandated" is that the article not include a particular BLP violation, but that's not really mandated by me but by BLP itself. If I'm understanding you correctly, your argument is that it is impossible for administrators to use the edit tool in an administrative capacity. This I think is incorrect, and I think there's a distinction between "use of the edit tool" and "action as an editor"; admins are indeed not entitled to any special treatment when they act as an editor, but not all edits made by an administrator are in their editorial capacity. When an administrator closes an XfD, for instance, it is, I think you will agree, indisputably an administrative action, not an editorial action, even though the edit tool is used - and, in many cases, may be the only tool used, and even though non-admin closures are also permitted. Again, I maintain that the phrase "any and all means at their disposal" necessarily includes all tools available to admins, not simply those tools only available to admins, because it is simply impossible to effect BLP compliance with only that limited toolset. Frankly, I find the idea that admins must "capacity-dance" in order to maintain BLP compliance, and open themselves to allegations of involvement in the process, to be quite bizarre. But I suspect that this is not something we'll agree on, and I doubt that it will have any real consequences, so if you want to end this before we're all blue in the face, I'm all for it. T. Canens (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing an AFD isn't a content edit (and in many cases, can also be done by non-admins). All editors can enforce BLP with editing, this is among their "means at their disposal", admins just have a little more "means at their disposal". Of course editing is among their means at their disposal, but note that the first sentence of the decision which you cite is a general statement, while the rest of the decision is only concerned with administrative actions. And content edits (that is, edits of articles' content) are not admin actions. Reverting a content edit, for whatever reason, is again a content edit, and therefore cannot be given special status as admin action (per admin policy) or as arbitration enforcement (per arbitration policy). Only BLP, which is a content policy, can mandate the removal of a BLP violations and give particular status to such removals, together with a specific way of treating involvement. Cenarium (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law


The article Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -Temporal User (Talk) 04:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am having problem in editing the page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_S._Obaidat. It is showing the warning of neutral point of view policy.Please can you let me know what type of content I need to remove from his biography to remove the warning. Thank you, Anil Ammula — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga obaidat (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Question
Do you think you could do a peer review on the Frank Buckles article? I have it at PR but it is really backlogged. If so, please let me know. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 18:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * User:ResidentAnthropologist has taken up the PR cause. Thanks though. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 18:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

PC Q1
Re. leave both the questions of long-term use and of temporary removal prior to further discussion out

There's 2 problems with that;


 * Resolving use of PC is the core issue in the RfC. If we can't discuss that, it's hard to make any progress
 * All of the other issues depend on that one - all the IF stuff, which I've already spoken about on the talk page (so won't repeat).  Chzz  ► 22:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be patient and don't forget what I said just following that, I said I'd propose something. There I just say that the central question can't be resolved through the simple question "should PC be used", because among other reasons, users tend to support only some form, not "any form". Cenarium (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the 'preliminary motions' thing? (I'm being patient; I don't mind if this takes a week; I've been trying to get it sorted for 8 months). And 2nd question - shall I just answer over there?  Chzz  ► 23:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes. Cenarium (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I responded; sorry it took a while; I was being badgered from all angles (about PC, and other things). Also sorry for length; tried to keep it short - but couldn't express what I was thinking in just a couple of sentences. Much as well all dislike long debates, this one just ain't that simple. I have, however, given it considerable thought; Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 08:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

neutral point of view policy Problem
Hi,

I am having problem in editing the page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_S._Obaidat. It is showing the warning of neutral point of view policy.Please can you let me know what type of content I need to remove from his biography to remove the warning. Thank you, Anil Ammula — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga obaidat (talk • contribs) 17:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Try to find more reliable sources independent of the subject discussing him, write neutrally, see WP:NPOV, don't use aggrandizing words, stick to the sources. Cenarium (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving "Purge" link from the Current Events Sidebar header to the Calendar header
Hi, if you could add some info or documentation about your change here, it’ll be helpful. Can’t find any discussion about it, but it’s a certainly useful link for users that might leave the C E page up a while, and don’t have another place to click to purge/refresh the page (doesn’t apply to me, however). I have no opinion on the best location for it, fyi.

Thanks.

---Schweiwikist (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Put it on the same line, where it currently fits okay. May need to be watched when the long month names arrive. ---Schweiwikist (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I put it there because it seemed to me more apropos than below in the sidebar with about this page. On the same line is good. I've tested with a long month name and it doesn't seem to cause problems. Cenarium (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Got your response, thanks. ---Schweiwikist (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for being responsive and prompt regarding the issue of Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles! Whether the protection was the right call initially or not, you kept things running smoothly by responding to comments and unprotecting quickly once consensus formed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC
Read WP:WW? Ironholds (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was in the process of writing the note when you unprotected, and I think you misunderstood the reason for my protection, so I had no reason to think you opposed the protection for the reasons detailed in the note. Cenarium (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI. Basket of Puppies  16:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Cenarium, regardless of what misunderstandings there may have been, I would recommend you revert yourself and discuss the matter. I'm not even sure what the dispute was about, but you've just redone an administrative action that was undone and that's never the right thing to do. &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then please familiarize yourself with the matter. I've renamed and unprotected the page a long time ago. Based on talk page comments, I had decided to halt the RFC until the name was changed because it was highly prejudiciable to the debate, it was in no way a unilateral action but to assuage concerns raised on the talk page. In between the time that I protected the page and posted the explanation note, Ironholds unprotected based on a misunderstanding of the reason for my protection. I didn't think that was sufficient to cancel the temporary halt and reinstated the protection with further explanation. I had no reason to believe Ironholds were opposed to that so it was not wheel warring, I never intended to. Then a rename was agreed so I moved and unprotected the page. Basket of Puppies seems keen to dramatize this issue without even engaging with me for reasons that I do not fathom. Cenarium (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Cenarium, I am keen to discuss the issue, not dramatize. That's why I opened the discussion on the talk page and left you a note about it. I haven't initiated any sort of action at all and haven't called for any heads. I am simply discussing the issue. Is that ok? Basket of Puppies  17:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for engaging with me. As you should know, this is the first step in dispute resolution. The talk page of the RFC is for discussing the RFC, not alleged incidents of wheel warring. It is OK to discuss here, keeping all proportions in mind. Cenarium (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * While I agree that the call to drama is unnecessary and I think it's clear that Cenarium had good intentions, it seems obvious that the correct action, even if he thought Ironholds had misunderstood him wasn't to revert his action. If Ironholds performed an admin action based on a misunderstanding, you should have discussed that with him, not reverted him. Wheel warring is a bit of a bright line for just this reason - good intentions notwithstanding, re-doing an undone admin action is problematic. Would you be willing to just read over our WW guidelines and commit to being a bit more careful about not reverting, without discussion, admins who undo your actions, even if you think it's just a misunderstanding? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree to follow high standards when it comes to reinstating undone admin actions and will keep this case in mind in the future. I consider that in this case I should have written the note before making the protection, so that there would have been no interval between the protection and the posting of the note. Cenarium (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just for my 2c; I think he shouldn't have redone my action, but I also think people shouldn't be calling for his head. My comment was with the desire to chat about it, not have FORMAL COMMUNITY DISCUSSIONS about the most dreaded (from an admin's point of view) of policies. That's all. We've had that discussion, and it's over; can the drama be over too? Please? I'd ever-so-love that ;p. Ironholds (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Cote d'Ivoire
I just saw you removed the merger proposal template on Second Ivorian Civil War, saying "no consensus to merge in a reasonable time". How come? As of now, there are only two users opposing the merger, and five users in favor of it. --bender235 (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion seems to be hopelessly confused - it was taking place on two separate talk pages and people seem to be discussing different proposals. I don't see how it can possibly be actioned. If you really want to try, I suggest relisting it on a single talk page with a single clear proposal. Prioryman (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, I was only aware of the discussion at Talk:Second Ivorian Civil War. Taking the two discussions together, there's still no consensus but it might warrant more discussion. I second the suggestion above. Cenarium (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

An anonymous editor is copy-and-pasting the contents of Second Ivorian Civil War into Battle of Abidjan, which I've replaced with a redirect. Quite apart from being unnecessary, this kind of thing isn't compatible with Wikipedia's licensing, as the edit history of the content is lost. Do you think you could possibly semi-protect the redirect Battle of Abidjan for a few days? Prioryman (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think SP is needed at this point, you could leave a message to the IP about that. Cenarium (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Thanks. Prioryman (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

2010–2011 Ivorian crisis
I'm afraid there has been some confusion over exactly what has been proposed with regard to a possible merger of the 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis article with Second Ivorian Civil War, on which you commented recently. To clarify this, I've relisted the merge request at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis. Grateful if you could state what your preference is. Prioryman (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't be available in the next ~12 hrs. Cenarium (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sand cleaning bot
See. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 15:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 Chzz  ► 23:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC
I'm thinking this needs its own page so the discussion can be wide-ranging. I could move it if you agree but aren't keen on doing it yourself. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, OK. Cenarium (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, maybe it's better where it is, so that it's not so wide-ranging. I just glanced at this monster. I'll leave it up to you—though if you want help setting up a full-page one, let me know. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Merging the two spinoffs
We've inadvertently created two sub-pages on the RFC that ask sort of similar questions. Is there some way we can combine them? WaID's comments on the talk page regarding a trial are spot on, there are some basic decisions that have to be made first before we start kicking around actual trial designs, and it'd be nice if we could incorporate those into yours and then just give the page I created the crushing boot of deletion. SDY (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I should have made the note more prominent.. I'll take a look. Cenarium (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the objectives of the trial be determined in the preparation phase ? Cenarium (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added the effectiveness and safety questions. Do you think we can merge them ? Cenarium (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think that nails it. Go ahead and merge them.  SDY (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Confusion
Hi, Cenarium. I'm probably being inexcusably dense (it's been a long day), but regarding this edit, I'm not clear on why the comments weren't moved when the page was redirected. You summary says "feel free to move your comments when the poll begins" and I'm afraid I can't make head or tail of this. Has the poll begun? Sorry for being clueless, but I've been through the main proposal page twice and can't quite figure out where we are. Rivertorch (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's still just a suggestion for now. I don't think there should be comments before the poll is endorsed and begins. I've made a note on the removed comments. Cenarium (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WT:AC/N
FYI, I've posted a late reply to you at the ArbCom noticeboard talk page thread on the request for changes to CU/OS. I was surprised to see that you replied to Risker with "No he does not imply this. Please take more care at reading what users say" when you have done precisely that to me! AGK [&bull; ] 22:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand by my comment, this still appears like reversing the burden of consensus to me. Cenarium (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of wedding guests of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of wedding guests of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  Fish Barking?  19:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Help request
Hi. Someone has moved the page Sayyid Jamal-ad-Din Asadabadi after a move request without any consensus. I think it's an abuse of administration power. would you mind if look at the article and help us? P. Pajouhesh (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Elros/Kings of Númenor
Hello Cenarium, and kudos coming up with the appropriate list to merge Elros in the deletion discussion. I had originally suggested List of Middle-earth Elves but as you aptly claimed, Elros eventually became a mortal man. This must have slipped my mind while I had previously suggested the same solution for Finwë's deletion discussion. Regards, De728631 (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please unprotect Stupid
I am requesting you unprotect the page at Stupid, it is very infrequently edited, and has been protected since February 2009. Username1234567891011 (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * why would you want to edit that? XD-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  10:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ryan Vesey
A vandal with an unusually promising unblock request. I'd appreciate your thoughts about it. Regards,  Sandstein   20:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've no objections to unblocking. Cenarium (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Un chimpanzé en rut
Regarding your blank of this quoted remark in Tristane Banon I have replied on the talk page as follows


 * Disagree. It is a notable comment that has been repeated in all French MSM (in itself remarkable given its long tradition of protecting the privacy of figures in public life) and much outside . At first you deleted because you said that the source (a blog as it happened - I just used the references I found in the French BLP) was inadquate. So I supplied an impeccable AFP source archived by Google and now you say regardless of source it should be removed because of WP:BLPSTYLE. Why didn't you say that originally? Of course there is legitimate encyclopaedic interest in repeating the remark because of the current charges Strauss Kahn faces and the prosecutors' public confirmation that they are interesting themselves in Banon's accusation.


 * I shan't enter into an edit war with you over this. I edit Wikipedia as a service to the community and not to pursue some personal agenda but I do ask you to reconsider. Why didn't you seek to get a consensus here on the talk page first?

FightingMac (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (added) I have now created a subsection for the assault allegation (as in the French BLP) and include this quote: "It finished badly … very violently … I kicked him ... When we were fighting, I mentioned the word 'rape' to make him afraid, but it didn't have any effect. I managed to get out." Perhaps you can let me know on the article's Talk page if this is in suitable conformity with WP:BLPSTYLE FightingMac (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (added your reply article talk page) It's flat out false that most news articles didn't single out the chimpanzee comment. It was repeated in virtually all that I've seen (in various translations if not French) and by no means only by red tops. The UK's The Daily Telegraph is not normally considered sensationalist but it today runs a staff article entitled Dominique Strauss-Kahn 'acted like chimpanzee on heat', woman claims. Chimpanzee banon strauss-kahn currently brings up 36,900 Google hits, chimpanzé banon strauss kahn returns 194,000 hits.
 * I am speechless with indignation that a Wikipedia administrator patronises me thus.
 * You deemed the chimpanzee remark was in breach of WP:BLPSTYLE. I'm not convinced. I was simply quoting a remark that is impeccably sourced (you can view a video on You Tube of her making the remark). I quoted it 'dispassionately' I believe. Why do you say it 'seems just sensationalist'? I asked you whether the new quote I offer is WP:BLPSTYLE but you duck and move on (yet again) to undue weight. But there's a section in the French BLP.
 * There were indeed RS affirming that the prosecutors were interesting themselves in the Banon allegation (not just implying it) but I didn't note them and it's clear now that Banon's lawyer wants to distance her from the American process. FightingMac (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no need to repeat your comments here. Cenarium (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification
Jfgslo has started an RFC on whether it would be appropriate to merge or redirect an article that you recently participated in an AFD for. Please join the discussion so that we may try to form a consensus at a centralized location. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles
Hi Cenarium. This has now been closed with a consensus that I anticipated and hoped for. There was a strong consensus that the reform should take place on the basis of a finite trial, which  included recommendations for duration. The proposal for the trial need therefore only address the basic requirement of the resolution to require require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles, and to agree and establish the duration of the trial, and possibly  a post-trial  evaluation  period. What are your thoughts  on  this? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. First, the closing summary makes it clear that the restriction will be lifted at the end of the trial, an evaluation will occur and discussions, and the restriction will be reinstated only if consensus develops for it. There's a userpage draft for a RFC on a trial on which I've commented, I'll consider more thoroughly later. Cenarium (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know about the draft - it was move-deleted from my user space without discussion, and the contents altered. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Palazzolo
Hi Cenarium - You commented on Palazzolo before, so I want to bring your attention to a new BLPN section I have presented at - Neutral BLP for Palazzolo

I was advised by an editor (after a long wiki journey) to give a few pithy examples of what has been written that is wrong, and then offer an alternative BLP, which I have done.

Thanks in advance for considering this case

--Fircks (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed article creation trial
I'm contacting you because you participated in the proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles a few months ago; and particularly because you had some interesting ideas on how to implement the trial. I have set up a discussion page for various aspects of implementing the trial at WP:ACTRIAL. Please feel free to join the discussion if you are interested. I am not initially contacting a large number of users (in an attempt to keep the discussions contained and manageable), but feel free to invite any other users who might be helpful. Thanks. &mdash;SW&mdash; talk 00:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

New release editnotice
You are receiving this message because you contributed to Template talk:TFA-editnotice. A similar edit notice has recently been developed at Template:New release editnotice. It is intended for films, video games and other prominent popular media items which may be subject to high levels of editing by newcomers around the time of their release date.

Any thoughts would be welcome.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case: Tristane Banon
Hi Cenarium.

I hope you shan't mind my opening a new thread here on Banon. I did accept your judgement on the chimpanzee business above (I mean I disagree, but it's not an issue I care to dispute beyond writing long learned essays about it on the talk page :-) ).

Can I ask you look at this concerning Banon in Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case?


 * Strauss-Kahn's biographer, Michel Taubmann, who has interviewed many women that have known him, said "these women described him as a sweet and charming man, sometimes engaging, but completely incapable of any violence." Nevertheless, the author admitted that while later claims of a sexual assault by French journalist Tristane Banon had tormented him, he concluded after interviewing several people, including Banon herself,  that there was no proof of her accusation. "Strauss-Kahn is a great seducer? Of course! But he's not a raper.""Biographer: Strauss-Kahn a 'great seducer'

I maintain that's simply not NPOV. The diff for the edit is here.

In the first place it references DSK's biographer which plainly raises conflict of interest issues (what if he's an "official" biographer?) In the second place it repeats an opinion of his ('no proof') and finally quotes another opinion of his that he's not a raper. No attempt is made to balance the content from the source (it included a comment that Banon's mother arrived an hour and a half after the alleged assault to find her daughter locked up in her car looking 'roughed up'). I can add 'many women' is weasel vague.

I raised the issue with the contributing editor Wikiwatcher1 here on the talk page. He is unrepentant and I know that trying to edit it for neutrality will incite an edit war with this editor who has form for CRUSH editing, notably in Roman Polanski.

I ask you for an opinion on behalf of the adminstrators' community.

I do think the issue is rather important for this article (which I did not support and voted against at its AfD). You asked me earler if prosecution investigating the case has directly named Banon as a subject of interest and I said I thought they had, but on checking my sources I think you're right to say they haven't directly - the French article cites a Wall Street article that comes the closest and I think I must have had that in mind. There's also this recent from New York Times referring. Nevertheless, Kenneth Thompson, the complainant's extremely high profile attorney, recently referred to 'another woman in France'.

Although I don't support this article I have been defending it to the best of my ability against CRUSH editing. I have placed this on my user pages documenting my experience of this article and defending myself against a charge that I am a POV pusher for feminism in the article, which is nonsense: I contributed absolutely nothing of the feminist content that was added and merely defended the content against a blank from another difficult editor (he competed at the Dec 2010 arbitration committee elections with a history of ten blocks, gaining an eventual 17% vote of confidence) who then went on to accuse me of POV pushing (added: to be fair I should concede that he edits exceptionally difficult articles and he does have my support on investigation). In my user page article I record the history of the Banon edit here. It arose in connection with a BLP noticeboard thread I began regarding the same editor's content referring a story about an alleged liason between DSK and an Italian porn star Michelle Conti. Consensus went against him but he has violated it twice since, once in the article and once in the Talk page. He evidently doesn't think it a serious matter.

You should consider this as my notice to the administrators regarding balance documenting Tristane Banon in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case. Regarding Tristane Banon itself, where I am a substantial recent, but not the original, editor, I have made a recent edit addressing your concerns about the weight given to the assault allegation, notably removing the "pull" quotation, which I accept was bad style and undue weight. Although a long term, and rather substantial, IP editor of Wikipedia in my areas of expertise, I'm a relative newbie to BLP editing. FightingMac (talk)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Usertc
Template:Usertc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Articles with editnotices
Category:Articles with editnotices, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"matrix" versus "align"
Concerning this edit: "matrix" is clearly the wrong environment here. I've changed it to "align". With "matrix", you get things like this:

\begin{matrix} a & = & b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i+j+k \\ b & = & x+y \\ c & = & 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 \end{matrix} $$ With "align", you get this:

\begin{align} a & = b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i+j+k \\ b & = x+y \\ c & = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 \end{align} $$ Michael Hardy (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Cenarium,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk)
 * Hi. I haven't the time to participate. Cordially, Cenarium (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

WP draft proposals
You have three draft proposals listed at Category:Wikipedia draft proposals. I am in the process of cleaning up the category. Do you still need those drafts listed at that category? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And one at User:Cenarium/PCP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's going to be a while before I'll get back to working on WP proposals. I've removed them from those categories. Cenarium (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggested update/changes for Franz Lidz entry
Cenarium, I am writing to propose updates for dead links and additional source links for the Franz Lidz entry you oversee. The entry currently is currently under a limited restriction. Hariman256 (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interest in updating the Franz Lidz entry. I've removed the semi-protection and you should be able to edit the article yourself now. You can access the text you proposed from the edit window of my talk. (If you don't edit for a while, I'll make the edit anyway.) Cenarium (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Double Redirect of History of the universe
An article/redirect you protected has ended up in Double Redirects section.Since I'm not authorized to edit/fix this page and may end up breaking something, I request you to fix it or take any other necessary measures.


 * History of the universe → Timeline of the Big Bang → Chronology of the universe

Sorry for the trouble and Thanks !
 * trunks_ishida (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Help with Move and Re-Direct Please
Cenarium,

I need help undoing a move and re-direct that I did today from my sandbox. It wiped out a previous contribution of mine on Francis M. Forster and replaced it with Karl Lennert. I did not intend to do that. Thanks for any help you can give. mrwick1 --Mrwick1 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) This has been fixed after Mrwick1 posted at the Help desk. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/India
Hey! I'd like to revitalize the said Sub-portal which you had blanked as per the page's history. Do I need to make a request or can I go ahead and undo this edit and take it from there? Kindly suggest! -- Harsh  Mujhse baat kijiye(Talk)(Contribs) 09:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey how do i edit im new thank you (Gdelta (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for February 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prolefeed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Novelette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here
Hey Cenarium

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Please leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox talk heading)
Template:Please leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox talk heading) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission
You are invited to join the discussion at WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Top icon template
I saw you reverted my edit to the top icon template with the edit summary "revert, breaks GA template". Did you mean Template:Good article? What happened to the template? I tested my edit to Top icon on Template:Featured article, which is much alike, and nothing happened. I just now had a look at the code of Template:Good article, and do not see what might have gone wrong. Could you please describe to me what happened? Debresser (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see what happened. It started adding . I'll see how to fix this. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13#Section editing reflinks idea
You are invited to join the discussion at Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13. &#x0020;This is an idea that I think may interest you and would love to hear your feedback on. Thanks! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 16:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Revreview-reject-summary-cur
Thank you for your work on this template. Please see discussion at Village pump (technical)/Archive 124. For replies, please go there, not my talk page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * At the time several other default revert summaries linked the help page so I did the same but it's indeed too costly with the size constraint. Cenarium (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal (Facebook F8 into Facebook)
Before placing merger template on the article Facebook F8, I would like to know your views on this matter, according to me Facebook F8 to be merged with Facebook or nominated for deletion.  WOW  Indian   Talk 10:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No opinion, I'm not involved in this article besides having semi-protected it. Cenarium (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent change to Template:CSD/Subcategories
As a matter of interest, why did you make this change? Is the filter no longer in use? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's indeed no longer in use. Cenarium (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

request for history merge to new page
Hi, I noticed you're on a list of wikipedia admins and I have a request I was hoping you could make. I'd like to take the info from this page Pudupatti (the village info) and merge it and the history of the info to a new page: Pudupatti, Alangulam. Thank you Goin' South ☼  07:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * thanks. Cenarium (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

uniqueness of dual object
For dual object, "Revision as of 15:58, 24 January 2008" you added that the left and right duals are unique up to canonical isomorphism if they exist. Is there a published proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.56.166.130 (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See here. Cenarium (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Bosniaks
Hi. Could you please have a look at the latest edits and some edit summaries like 'don't be a fool' at the Bosniaks article? Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

oops
you forgot the link in thread at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've now added it. Cenarium (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you,, for your suggestion to nominate Vijayanagara literature in Kannada to appear at WP:TFA.

My nomination was successful, and you can see the archived discussion at Today's featured article/requests/Vijayanagara literature in Kannada.

The article will appear with this blurb: Today's featured article/November 20, 2014.

Thanks again,, for your helpful recommendation,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, Cirt. Thanks. I've changed my vote on the Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties nomination to weak oppose because this article is just an example of a larger problem. Cenarium (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC
As you participated in a previous related discussion you are invited to comment at Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

RfA
Hi. I'm not sure that I find this edit wholly accurate. Not only did it not reach consensus, but no RfC were started that required one. As it stands, the project is still a much visited and valuable resource of research, much of which is just as pertinent and relevant today as it was then. I'm not one to be bold and revert a fellow admin, but it would be nice to have some discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, would marking it as or  be more appropriate then ? My concern is that it remains in Category:Wikipedia draft proposals but it hasn't been edited in more than two years. Cenarium (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The project home page is no more expired than the home page of any other Wikipedia project or essay and has been visited 37 times already this month alone. RFA2011 was a primarily a research project rather than a proposal and its 100s of pages should really be regarded as a whole rather than individual sections for condemning. I would suggest marking (if you really feel it is necessary at all) parts of the project as dormant, and only marking those pages that specifically contained an open RfC as not having reached a consensus. As far as housekeeping is concerned, I am rather surprised that you felt your time was required to do anything about the project at all. After all, discussion about RfA is one of the liveliest on Wikipedia and the RFA2011 resource is constantly being referred to and used as demonstrated by recent discussions at WT:RfA; some of the pages still get the occasional comment and/or update and a lot of people are watching. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it would be controversial and am sorry to have upset you. I only did it because I was checking out pages in Category:Wikipedia draft proposals ; I expected that pages with the template were actively worked on, and I replaced it on a bunch of other old pages as well. I'm really not picky about that kind of tagging, so if you want we can just put no template at all on subpages, and dormant on the main page. Cenarium (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. Please don't  think  I'm  being  picky  either. I  think your suggestion  is a good solution. Could you  do  it  when you  get  time? Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Cenarium (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on TFA day
Congratulations on TFA day for Vijayanagara literature in Kannada!

Glad the nomination was successful, and it's now on the Main Page.

Cheers,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:YetAnotherTestAccountOfCenarium
Hello, could you please explain why you have not blocked this user? - Hoops gza (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Because that's a test account of mine, I need one that is not autoconfirmed, so I have to create new ones when older ones get autoconfirmed (it's frustrating, but necessary). I needed in particular to test a change at MediaWiki:Revreview-edited. Cenarium (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for splaining. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Pakistan constituencies
Just to let you know: I've begun working over these articles using AWB, and that should take care of most of the issues you've raised. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
okay, thank you very much. I am new to this and not used to hows and whys. I will surely take a note of what you suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamranahmedar (talk • contribs) 23:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Accountcreator
I meant the bug for configuration change (like your bug about, but thanks anyway :) &mdash; Revi  09:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Should I file one now or wait until the right is created ? Cenarium (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you should wait until right is created. If you file bug now, you're requesting to add nonexisting rights (for now). &mdash; Revi 10:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks :) Cenarium (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete these pages please
Hey can you please delete these two pages.
 * This one (spelling mistake fixed -Redirected-)
 * This one (spelling mistake fixed -Redirected-). Saadkhan12345 (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, and history merged. Though there is still Blambat Tehsil which is linked from several articles. Cenarium (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey if you don't mind can you also delete the following template Here Saadkhan12345 (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is still transcluded. It's no big deal if it's a redirect, or what the name of a template is. Cenarium (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

rmail
Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

about article of Akshata Shete
Hello sir, Akshata Shete is a real gymnast from India. She has played for India in Common wealth games too. so i don't find your argument very flattering. and you simply undid my work of hours gone in a click.

If still you are going with the same argument, then you should find other sportsmen/sportswomen articles too as advertisements. So i request you too look into carefully before you delete/undo something without even thinking.

And where was the advertisement in my article, I was just filling in the personal details of the gymnast such as name, date of birth, nationality and i was not yet done with it completely. The article was not yet written apart from those details(name and all), so from where did you get all that advertisement vibe, even before a article is started. and i hope it is some Wikipedia bot that undid all these things, otherwise am really disappointed in how you really treat a new article( and i quote, "non-advertising") into which nothing was written except name, date of birth and nationality and profession(Line of work).

kamranahmedar

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamranahmedar (talk • contribs) 23:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. I didn't do anything to this article, I had no idea it even existed. It was tagged by another user for deletion for having no content. It wasn't deleted, just tagged, and you removed the tag and added content so it's okay. (For your information, I'm an admin so I don't tag for deletion myself, since I can delete.) The user who tagged your article is MelanieN as you can see in the message about it at the bottom of your talk page (the most recent messages on a talk page are placed at the bottom, the first message you received, from me, was from two weeks ago). No content was deleted, this is how you created it, almost empty, you probably saved a wrong version and forgot to save the new version. The edit interface is not intuitive at all so it's the kind of things that happen when you start, but don't worry, you'll get used t it. Next time, you can create a userspace draft then move your draft to the article title, or use the wp:article wizard, this way you won't be bothered by deletion tags. You may also want to try the wp:visual editor. Cenarium (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)