User talk:Centrx/Archive10

Reply
yes the images that were in use were fair use images and they were ment for the article. according to what i heard that as long as the images dont in fringe sales and cause some sort of uproar then they are considered valid. Maverick423 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it must be impossible to replace the images with a free alternative, which is not the case for most living persons; fair use images are being phased out anyway. Wikipedia is free as in speech. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Scripts
Thanks for your help, I'll go through those channels to see what I can find out. Cheers! - Running On  Brains  05:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir

You recently deleted the bio for "Craig Nassi". I have spent a significant amount of time constructing this bio and I did not intend to make an "advertisement". I am trying to locate the prior copy of this profile. Once this is uploaded again please do not delete it.

Pelevin
Good morning:

Could you please explain why you reverted a link to the "Omon Ra" translation? Thanks, Architeuthis 06:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This link is to an illegal translation of the text. The copyright holder has contacted the Wikimedia Foundation on this matter and so it has been removed. —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Would have been nice if this explanation were included in the comment to the revert. Just curious who has contacted you - representatives for Mr. Pelevin, or those guys from "New Dimensions" who spammed this article not long ago with their links? Architeuthis 16:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I left a summary when I originally removed it a month ago. —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
Hi, I noticed that you twice deleted Talk:List of anime without providing a reason. —Tokek 08:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the talk page of a deleted page. —Centrx→talk &bull; 08:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * By deleting it, the time and effort put in by people who were engaged in the talk page were wasted. Maybe you could salt the talk page as well to prevent a repetition. —Tokek 08:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I thought List of anime was salted but I just checked it and apparently it's not. —Tokek 09:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

American Society of Criminology
Dear Centrx, I have mailed ASC staff and Chris Eskridge about the matter, Chris is the executive director of ASC and they have agreed to put the matter in Wikipedia. Chris will send a fax to approve the matter, as he already said it in the discussion page. Try to put the article back online. Thank you, --Cyril Thomas 18:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Confirmation of permissions happens rather separately from whatever happens on-wiki with tagging and deletion.
 * Confirmation must license the text specifically under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, under which anyone may use, alter, and re-distribute the text for any purpose; it may not simply be "agreed" to put the text on "Wikipedia".
 * Even with correct licensing, the text may still not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Articles must be in a neutral point of view and there need to be sources other than the organization itself; text copied from an organization's website is typically a problem with conflict of interest or advertising. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly
Centrx, thanks for the kind compliment. I wish it was under more pleasant circumstances we could showcase the podcast's qualities. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Winona Gone Shopping
I noticed that the talk page had been active over the past few days so I deleted it. As a follow up I checked the image that was on the page, Image:Alexander 007's hand.jpg, planning to delete it. The strange thing is that Alexander 007 was blocked by you as related to Winona but the image was uploaded by User:James 007, who has an odd contribution history. Not being too sure of the Winona/Alexander/James connenction I thought I would bring it to your attention prior to blocking James and deleting the image. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on it and look into it more deeply in a while. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * These were all the same user (or maybe, at some point, group of users). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your block of Rex Germanus
Could it be you forgot to notify Rex of your block of him? -- I very much agree with the block, by the way; in fact I was just going to do that myself when I checked the arbitration page and found you already did it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Editing of archives
No, there is no discussion around other than what was said in IRC chatlogs - but they wouldn't be reguarded as official approval at all. I just felt I should point out I did consult others before running the task, and initial opinion was that IP addresses should be changed to DNS addresses on all the pages I could drag up on Special:Linksearch. I'm happy to not edit them again, but I would be interested in finding out if things like IP addresses should be officially permitted as changes to archives, or whether there is a good reason why they should not. Also, for point, aren't archives meant to be protected anyway? --Sagaciousuk (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Archives are never protected, except under the normal circumstances under which any page may be protected. I don't really see much purpose in changing the IP addresses to DNS addresses, and it can change the meaning of a comment; there are discussions specifically about IP and DNS where changing the IP address would change the meaning of the conversation, and I doubt the bot is doing semantic natural language analysis. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of Rex Germanus
Hi, could you please explain bloc of Rex Germanus more detailed ? You left the note blocked "Rex Germanus (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Personal attacks; repeated mass page moves against consensus / to illustrate a POINT) but that's unclear.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 14:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You need only look at his move log, the conversation at the bottom of, and Requests for arbitration/Ulritz. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Centrx, something is going seriously downhill about this block of Rex Germanus. First, you forgot to notify him - okay, certainly an innocent oversight, but you could have rectified that later. Then, while I agree with a block in principle (given the breach of the revert parole) there are at least some legitimate concerns over the cited reasons and length of the block - 2 weeks is longer than the Arbcom warrants; the moves were apparently made in good faith and were at least arguably appropriate (medieval von is in fact often translated to of); I cannot see that they were "against consensus" (there was basically no prior discussion from either side that I can see). -- Then, when Rex makes a second unblock request (legitimate), it gets torpedoed on flimsy process grounds - two admins removing the "request for unblock" category without even giving a hearing to the merits of the case, simply because he didn't use the standard unblock box for it, and then another user, an opponent in a content dispute, removing it again, against my own explicit asking people not to do that, apparently in a deliberate attempt at sabotaging an unblock. And all the while we have his opponents pestering him on his talk page too. After all this, I'm seriously considering taking this in my own hands and at least significantly shortening the block, just to alleviate the sense of aggravation this guy must feel by now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He already made these page moves before. They were reverted, and then he waited five days and did them again, not because he thinks these are the appropriate titles for the articles, but because another sort of article titles were Anglicized when he thought they shouldn't be. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The conversation between Rex Germanus and Altman should not be a reason for block. Antman's edits sound offensive and he provoked Rex constantly, Antman has disruptive troubles in more cases, remember his attack userbox (directly attacking Rex Germanus) and personal attacks on his user page. Block must not depend on who complains first, thus if Rex is blocked then Antman must be blocked too. See this, it is serious point of view, Antman knows very well that he himself makes disruptive edits. Also as Future Perfect said Rex's renaming from von to of must be supposed to be edits under good faith. I think that objections against this block are so important that its lift must be taken under advisement.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 09:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read the discussion, and Antman was not uncivil. Rex Germanu's comments, e.g. "You've long since given me enough indications, you like to associate yourself with a certain people, of whoms history knows a period with a total laciking of the origins of civility.", are uncivil. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am reviewing the latest unblock request of Rex Germanus. I agree that a block was warranted under Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz for the disruptive mass page moves, but I think that your block, with no prior warning, was excessive, as the Arbcom decision calls for "brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations". Would you agree to reduce the block to 48 h, so as not to make it appear overly punitive? Sandstein 20:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He was already blocked for a week and for 24 hours, etc., for previous behavior. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad titles?
I note that on 2007-03-01 you deleted Article Name and a large number of similar bad titles. Was there any discussion about this or did you do it on your own initiative? Have you seen this RfD decision? Would you not agree that the RfD applies equally to all the titles you deleted? -- RHaworth 11:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * These were generally protected-deleted pages and were moved to the new protected titles system. A redirect to Bad title is a convenient solution when the only alternative is to have deletedpage. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have switched to using WP:PTL for vandalism-type titles. But titles of the "new article" variety are almost always newbie mistakes. I think that something more helpful than a protected title block is appropriate. Can I hope that if I create any more soft redirects such as name of page, then you will leave them untouched? -- RHaworth 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Cases where you have removed protection and re-protection has proved to be necessary: I won't bother you any more but I hope you've got the message: if it ain't broke don't fix it. -- RHaworth 22:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Name of page
 * Voden inscription - Voden Inscription (no attempt made to re-create but Kaltsev would have tried eventually)
 * Archive 1
 * Article name - recreated about nine times since Mar 1!


 * 1) Many of these redirects were prompted because of red links that no longer exist.
 * 2) Whether the red links or incoming external links no longer exist or the page was a rare search, the only way to discover that is to remove them, and replace them only if necessary.
 * 3) The page which results from a search for a non-existent page already states how to create a new page.
 * 4) Deletedpages and to a lesser extent protected redirects need to be maintained and trimmed, and are deleted only after a relatively long period of time as routine maintenance and housekeeping. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Philwelch
The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been published at the link shown. The Arbitration Committee has found that Philwelch misused his administrative tools. Because he gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions and after an arbitration case was filed against him, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at WP:RfA. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted: Bhojpur, Madhya Pradesh
Deleted: Bhojpur, Madhya Pradesh

Hi, this article got deleted recently, I believe, due to copyright voilation of the text. I had contributed to this article by posting pictures taken by me. Is it possible to reuse the pictures if I start the article from scratch?

Pls reply to my email - PiyushJ23@yahoo.com

Thanks, Piyush —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piyushj23 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC).


 * If the images are not copyright infringements, then they may freely be used. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Community noticeboard/Header
Could you bring that up on Wikipedia talk:Community noticeboard so that we can discuss the notice removal. I disagree with its deletion. Regards, Navou   banter  /  contribs  23:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It was recently added without discussion. If you want a notice against voting, put one there, not three paragraphs that no one is going to read and without fluffy infirm statements like "simple votes/recommendations without rationale may be discounted". —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made changes like you suggested. What do you think?  Navou   banter  /  contribs  03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Railpage Australia:
You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 00:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected page "LoopNet"
Hi, LoopNet is a protected page - I noticed you seem to be controlling its status. It's unfortunate that someone has repeatedly posted copyrighted material to the page, in lieu of actual journalism. I have direct knowledge of this company and would like to contribute some information about it, to the public domain via Wikipedia. Any chance of getting an opportunity to do that? LoopNet is a publicly traded company and therefore should have some space for an article on Wikipedia.

Thanks Stevemidgley 18:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Gone with the blastwave
I would want to know why you have deleted with "speed" this page? Zerat ca 05:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This page has been deleted in the past because the topic lacks sufficient reliable third-party sources to make an accurate, comprehensive encyclopedia. See Notability and Notability (web) for more information. Most recently, the immediate reason for deleting the page was that the text was copied directly from the website of the comic, which is illegal without explicit confirmation that the text is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

vandalism on Paradigm High
I know that it has already happened, but 72.25.166.218 vandalized the Paradigm High School and some people have fixed it, but I don't want to take the risk of it being vandalized again. can you please lock the article and maybe the user since more than 90% of their contributions are vandalisms of this article. Thank-you. Sir Intellegent 22:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Great (lots of sarcasm in words). Now it's nominated for deletion! It's almost like the world is coming to get me! Sir Intellegent 22:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Callum
Hi there. I am just wondering why you redirected the page to Callus, as there was other meanings for the same name aswell. Thanks.--GCFreak2 06:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary of names. Disambiguation pages are to help readers navigate to the relevant article, or the relevant future article. They are not for a comprehensive listing of all things related to a title that do not warrant and will never have encyclopedia articles and that do not assist navigation to encyclopedia articles. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution
You might (or might not) be interested that I've quoted one of your edits at Wikipedia talk:Attribution in relation to discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution. --Coppertwig 00:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Lasse Gjertsen
Please see the talk page and consider open this page. Hogne 12:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Broken
Hi, thank you for letting me know that my bot might be broken. I've looked into it, and I already know what's happening (and have also fixed it). Sometimes AFD's are malformed and point to the default PageName article which has you as the original author, which means you will get a notification about it. I've changed the bot so it will ignore the PageName article. Cheers, Jayden54 16:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am amused. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:RS fix
Assuming that was in response to my talk page complaint. I think it is important to preserve the citability of certain sources for particular purposes. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Any ideas on what to do about this unilaterial page protections? WP:RFPP doesn't seem willing to get involved much, presumably because it's other admins, Jimbo is around, and no one wants to be seen as corewarring.  I've filed RfCs about the issue, but WP:RFC:Policies rarely seems to generate much input, so I'm not sure where to go from here.  MedCab? &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 00:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AN is the place. If I had not been editing content on WP:RS right before it was protected, I would already have unprotected them. Even if there had been good justification for protecting them in the first place, plenty of time has already passed since the protection. Anyway, unprotecting them right away, and especially after three days, would not constitute wheel-warring. It just takes someone to unprotect them. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy Lists
Hi, you stopped a great deal of hit-and-run deletions from the philosophy lists last January.

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

Here is another hit and run edit. It is from anon IP 63.115.136.129 that looks like another open proxie. Thanks for any help you can provide. Steve 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And here is another anon IP user: 83.171.164.13, that is very close to one you worked with last time: 83.171.186.47 - these, I suspect are either user:Buridan (but I have no solid evidence) or Alienus. Please give post a reply here if you find anything.  Thanks. Steve 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

None of these three appear to be open proxies. They could be independent persons or otherwise hacked machines. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wish you had blocked him again
"01:13, 21 August 2006 Centrx (Talk | contribs) blocked "203.217.8.19 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 months (Vandalism only from this IP (iiNet AU)) " Wish you were handing the blocks out. He has a whole page of them and the newest many after yours is only 1 week? I like your style. No reason to pander to serial vandals. Especially one of this caliber. --Xiahou 02:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Short blocks on IPs are usual because most active IPs are shared or frequently re-assigned, and the blocking admin may not recognize that this is an IP consistently used by the same person. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ivanhoe fire.gif
This image was taken in 1908, but that is not what matters; it had to be published before 1923 to be public domain under that criterion. All we know from is that it was taken in 1908 and published in 2001; it could have been sitting in a private collection or a library or historical society. --NE2 18:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wanda G%C3%A1g
You removed the move-protected template from Wanda_G%C3%A1g but I don't think you actually un-move-protected the page. You've also removed a cleanup tag I put there to have the pronunciation redone in IPA. Just wanted to let you know. Ryanjunk 20:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was coming here to report the same thing. -- Hús  ö  nd  20:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Counter Terrorist Unit
Why did you redirect this to 24 (TV series)? That section consisted of just a link to the Counter Terrorist Unit article. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is merged now. It was merged a month ago until some random person reversed it. An independent article needs independent sources, but the CTU has never had any sources, let alone reliable sources, and that sourcing problem and the merge were noted for weeks without any sources being found. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That would explain it. I went ahead and re-redirected it. Thanks for the quick response. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 21:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
Hello, may I ask why you chose to unprotect Michael Jackson? I think it should remain protected.UberCryxic 14:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This was just a routine unprotection. In general, articles should not remain protected for a long time, or at least it is sometimes good to unprotect them and see if the coast is clear. If heavy vandalism renews, you can ask me or ask at WP:RFPP to protect it again. —Centrx→talk &bull; 14:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I apologize that I have to be so direct, but heavy vandalism has already resumed, and will continue to I suspect. We are talking about a person whose fame is equivalent to that of the President of the United States, if not greater. The article will undoubtedly receive a steady stream of attention, much of it negative. I implore you to please protect it again, if only to make the lives of so many editors that much easier.UberCryxic 15:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, in general, I would agree with you that no article should remain protected for too long, but this article is about Michael Jackson. I'm sure we can make a reasonable exception here.UberCryxic 15:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey again....look, this is becoming really urgent now. The levels of vandalism are atrociously high; it's like the article was on the Main Page or something. Please please please protect it again as soon as you can. Thank you.UberCryxic 16:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, can you please protect the Michael Jackson article again? Its April 6th semi-protection deadline just passed and I am hoping to avoid the quasi-inevitable nightmare that will follow. Thank you for your assistance.UberCryxic 22:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

IP Range Block
Hi, I just fired up AWB and wasn't logged in under that tool (I use Firefox normally) and I noticed that my IP address is blocked. Now, of course, it doesn't actually effect me as I can still log in. However, you've effectively blocked anon editing from a major UK ISP for a week! This seems to be a very extreme reaction to vandalism by one person.

My IP address is 90.240.x.x. You've also blocked the 90.241.x.x range. I ask you to review whether these range blocks continue to be necessary and whether they are in line with Wikipedia's goal of being "the enyclopedia anyone can edit". Thanks. --kingboyk 16:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca Brandewyne
I saw that you had deleted the Rebecca Brandewyne page over a copyright violation. There was a lot of other info in the article from sources that weren't the website listed, although they probably weren't explicitly cited. Would it be possible for me to get a copy of the text so that I could clean out anything that is a copyright violation (or at least salvage the non-violating stuff)? That will be a lot easier than starting the article over from scratch, I think.

Thanks. Karanacs 17:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You can find it in the Google cache for the time being. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection of RuneScape
Why did you unprotect RuneScape? You seem to have provided no edit summary explaining your reason for doing so, and you didn't discuss it on the talk page, either. RuneScape has a long history of semi-protection, as the page log shows, and it is pretty much semi-protected indefinitely. Every time it's unprotected, including this time, we have to get it protected again in a few days; it gets so much vandalism that progress on the article pretty much stops because everyone is busy reverting vandalism to it.

Could you have at least discussed it briefly on the talk page before unprotecting such a heavily vandalized page? RuneScape is a page that should stay sprotected unless discussed first. Pyrospirit Flames  Fire 02:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It was unprotected because it has been protected for 2.5 months. Eventually, it will not need to be protected anymore; apparently that time is not today. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection
Hi, I notice you've just unprotected a large number of pages. Can I ask that you take the time to remove sprotected2 and any other protection templates from the page when you do so? That would be a great help. In case you were wondering, unconstructive editing and reversion of these pages is already in full swing. This is, of course, the wiki way. Thanks – Qxz 03:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The templates should be eliminated altogether. Also, there appears to be a bot that removes protection templates from unprotected pages. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing a protected article
Blair was protected for vandalsim. Your inclusion of aPOV edit without unlocking the article is a good case for Rfc for adnmin abuse. Please undo your edit or unlock the article. Your edit summary was also meaningless if not deliberately confusing, SqueakBox 04:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was reverting what I thought was vandalism that had occurred after I unprotected the article, i.e. the undetected removal of an entire section. The edit summary is as meaningful as that of any other vandalism revert. Perhaps you should not jump to wild conclusions and make unjustified threats. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, it was vandalism that caused the removal of that section, specifically an incomplete revert that left this and then a later removal, rather than revert, of the vandalism. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent block of Indian Joe
Hello. You recently blocked, and they have asked to be unblocked. Thank you, Sandstein 10:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The block was in error; I have unblocked him. The block was because of repeated uploading of this image despite being warned, but in fact the second upload was an entirely different image not found on that website, though the image is still questionable. —Centrx→talk &bull; 15:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Archolman thanks you.
Cheers for that--Archolman 20:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected
Until recently the protection-confirmation page said that pages semi-protected for a finite period shouldn't be tageed with the sprotected template; that's now disappeared. What happened? I've seen a number of cases recently where a page has been sprotected, another editor has added the template, and no-one has bothered to remove it after the protection has expired.


 * I left the above at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, and they advised me to ask you... --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 09:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed this line, which included the above text, as ever-increasing instruction creep that was now much less important because of technical improvements and which dilutes the importance of the other messages. Also, it appears that the templates have now been changed to incorporate expiration dates? —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Could be; I suppose that it's OK, so long as editors who apply the templates are committed to removing them when sprotection expires... --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 22:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Aradia image
Hey, you altered the description of the Aradia image on my subpage yesterday, asserting that as it is pre-1923 it is free. Unfortunately, that would require the book to have been first published in the US, as PD-US only applies for work first released there. Aas "London" is stated there I'd suspect it was first published in the UK... which means a probably image problem :(

No problem about the edit actually happening though: it was good faith and I want it edited by others.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting
Er... hey, I was just wondering why my article The 7th Portal was deleted. It wasn't making stuff up. If there is a reason regarding this thank you for your time. I'd just like to know why. Thanks!--Darren.kalado 00:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable in published third-party sources. See also Notability and Verifiability. Separately, you cannot link to the website that illegally hosts the videos for download. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Nobody expects the Spanish Economist!"
In re your edit summary ... you left out fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. (full dialogue) I hope that helps. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 07:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Usercheck
If you don't want to use usercheck please feel free to use or create another template in its place. However, please do not simply chop it in half so that those who do want to use it can't.

I'll be happy to discuss with you the purpose and function of this template and each constituent link, if you like. They are there for a reason, to give a quick idea of a user's background. When grayed out to indicate no subpage exists, the links still function, going instead to the main topic page: for instance, if there is no "rfarb" subpage, that may only mean the request for arbitration hasn't been accepted yet, so it's still on the main WP:RFARB page -- and the "rfarb" link points to WP:RFARB#username.

This was documented on the separate subtemplate pages. I'll write more documentation for Usercheck itself.

Thanks! -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 22:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds pretty useless, and for templates it works the other way around: put it in your userspace if you have some special reason to use it, or at least do not list it amongst all the others. I have not seen a single instance where this template was used in a situation where it would have been useful. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I asked on the noticeboard talk pages, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Community sanction noticeboard, and nobody said "No, we don't want it". You are in fact the first person from whom I've heard any objection. Several others have put this template at the tops of their own proposals for community bans, perhaps because those right-hand links tend to light up in blue for troublemakers, which helps make the case for a ban; or perhaps because it saves time, effort, and pagespace to have all those links compacted into one line for the readers' quick reference when only one template actually had to be typed in. I'd leave it listed for those who (like them) find it useful. Let those who don't, use something else. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 23:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of the Community sanction noticeboard, and I would bet there are a lot of people who haven't either, so asking there is not going to get many eyes on it and anyway people usually ignore proposals like this until they see it in action. Anyway, it is not unlikely that many people are using it because it is listed in some official-looking place. Most might assume, for example, that the proposed template only would show the relevant links, rather than totally irrelevant ones. Instead, the template is useless: you still need to go searching on Google--a far more efficient method anyway--because you would never know that there are not subpages or alternatively named pages about the user. "Links that tend to light up in blue" is not a basis for a ban--and in fact the links would only work for the user if they have been recent trouble because the template generally links to sections not subpages, in which case the problems would appear in the user's recent contributions anyway. What's worse: people seeing that the links do not light up will think that the user has no problems. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It also appears that's the talk page of the community sanction noticeboard, i.e. the talk page of a new and low frequency noticeboard when even posting on the talk page of the Administrator's noticeboard will not garner many responses. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The letters "e.g." mean "for example"; I'd posted on WT:AN and WT:ANI as well. If you'd never heard of the Community sanction noticeboard (formerly just the "Community noticeboard"), should you really make any bets about how many others have, or how many eyes will be on it? That's where community ban proposals get sent most of the time now, though one did get through on an admin board in the last day. Likewise, crystal-ball-reading about what others think is no more persuasive than about what next Tuesday's morning headlines will be; if you don't know, you don't know, and no amount of certitude gives certainty. If you want a template where the links simply disappear when the subpages aren't there, may I commend vandal-m to your attention? -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 00:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see quite well by looking at it how how frequented it is. I also know quite well how template and policy proposals go on Wikipedia. What is the purpose of having usercheck with non-disappearing links when it is possible to have disappearing links? If a user is not listed on any page, the most efficient way to find them is by a Web search, not by scouring through the archives of the linked page. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * When gray, the links do not go "scouring through archives"; they point to the present-day main topic page, so non-subpaged entries can be found (on WP:RFARB, WP:LTA, WP:RFCU, and WP:SSP) or created (on all graylinks). Where user conduct is the topic, both report-finding and report-creation are useful links. One could go through more effort to get to those pages (we could delete the talkpage and contribs and blocklog links for the same reason), but why make things harder than they have to be? I'm not trying to make trouble for you or anyone else, Centrx, I'm trying to make things easier for those who may (and at least sometimes do) want to use these links. Compacted as they are onto one line, along with the standard userpage/talkpage/contribs/blocklog links which would take up that one line anyway, I really don't see why they would bother anyone who doesn't want to use them. Like the tabs for "Random article" and "Upload file", they can simply be ignored except by those who want to use them. There's no need to delete them and thus inconvenience those who have uses for them. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 00:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

They link to the present-day main topic page—which almost always contains nothing about the user in question, so one must either go scouring or use a search engine, which is the superior option not requiring any of these links. The talk page, contribs, and block log are all directly and inextricably linked with the user. They authoritatively have all relevant information. They contain all contribs, all blocks, and all warnings to that user. If these pages do not list any contribs or blocks or warnings, there are no contribs or blocks or warnings; if the other pages linked in that template do not list anything for that user, that shows nothing conclusive and is useless—worse than useless if the person gets the impression there are no sockpuppet reports, etc. for that user. (There also happens to be no way to search contribs or the block log using a Web search engine.)

The Upload file and Random article links are in the sidebar, not in the midst of a discussion. (I can also remove Random article by a script, and any other link in the above part of the sidebar.) By the same principle by which the template you have created and encouraged the use of is "no problem", I could very well create a template that has links to all of WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:CN, WP:TEA, WP:ER, etc. etc. etc., but it would be pointless and has no place in a list of templates advertised to all users. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To search for entries on the page one is viewing -- for instance, to see whether the username shows up among the sockpuppets rather than the puppetmasters on WP:RFCU or WP:SSP, or in a case not yet accepted for arbitration at WP:RFARB -- one need only use the "find text on page" feature of one's browser, not a web-based search engine like Google. One is viewing the current version of the page; Google's search results are based on the last time it cached the page, so a current entry many not show up there. But one is certainly free to use Google, whether or not one also uses this template.


 * The talk page, contribs, and block log will very often not have links to WP:LTA, WP:RFCU, or WP:SSP. They may not have links even to WP:RFC/USER or WP:RFARB, unless one "scours the archives" to find the talkpage notice that should have been given. Until this lengthy conversation, I was merrily spending my time finding the links to document how banned users got banned, so I could update their entries on WP:BANNED, and I must tell you that I'm getting few such links from the talk page, contribs, and block log -- only the time and date and general reason of blocking, rarely with a pointer to the page where the decision was declared. If you would like to help, please, by all means, do -- on WP:BANNED, find a &#123;&#123;specify&#125;&#125; tag by the word "ban/banned" or the phrase "community assent", and wikilink those words or phrases to the actual decisions. Please tell me how helpful you find the talk page, contribs, and block log, in this process.


 * Or, if helping out like that is too tiresome for you, perhaps you could at least simply find someone else's tools to crop without discussion or thereafter repeatedly call "pointless" in the face of their actually being used. Preferably off-wiki, please. I'm sure there must be car-repair shops in your area that wouldn't at all mind your throwing their tools in the dustbin as unnecessary because you don't use them yourself. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot substituting welcome templates
When MetsBot substitutes a welcome template, e.g., it also has been substituting the helpme which breaks up the welcome message and leaves a recurring message on the IRC channel. This could either be fixed by changing the template using some noinclude or HTML markup magic, or perhaps something with the bot. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it works fine if I do a normal substitution like it's probably best to have the bot do that rather than whatever direct substitution it is doing. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See the previous two sections on my talk page :-) — M ETS 501 (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of Chessmaster8x
Hey, I was looking through the Recent changes and noticed a request for unblock by the user Chessmaster8x, and also that he or she has had an indefinite block since November 16th of last year. But looking through his or her contributions, this persons edits though reverted were small and minor and not intended to be malicious. They were done in good faith. Perhaps an indefinite block might be too harsh for this situation. -- User: (talk • contribs • count ) 02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This was a sockpuppet of/with several other user accounts and deleted revisions. The remaining revisions shown in contribs would not be sufficient reason to block. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have amended the summary in the block log. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see. thanks. -- User: (talk • contribs • count ) 22:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just curious
Um. What is that user adoption thingy about anyway. I couldn't find a page that described what it is and how it works. Example, A.Ou, 4th user box from the top. can you let me know ( I am ok with answers form anyone). thanks. P.S.: If this section is closed before at least one person answers, put your answer on my talk page. Sir Intellegent 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really know. Presumably it connects new or inexperienced users with more experienced users to help them learn how to use Wikipedia. See Adopt-a-User. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Sir Intellegent 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Episode list
You have no consensus that I can find to remove the image from episode list. You need to propose changes to the talk page just like everyone else. Furthermore, your change messed up the formatting. Cburnett 01:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please respond on Template talk:episode list if you wish to pursue this. Cburnett 01:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Responded at User talk:Cburnett. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a highly disputed matter. Unless you get a VERY wide consensus I do not encourage this change. A lot of discussion has been done on this specific matter, and actually again is being debated. You claim to know the exact interpretation of US Fair use, but you cannot, because it's a very loosly defined law, that can only be tested in court. As such only through wide community consensus this will be an exceptable change. In my eyes this is Village Pump stuff. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, its Copyright problems stuff. The field may make sense in the template, when it is no longer used in lists that majorly or entirely consist of copyrighted content, and when it is not mostly used for high-resolution images. There is nothing loose or vague about fair use when there is little or no original work alongside it, and there is nothing uncertain about requirements that have been part of Wikipedia's fair use policy for more than a year. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists and Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2 before you try and remove images from the list of episodes template. It's a long story, but breaking US law isn't one of the reasons to make the change you made. If you want to discuss it, a conversation on the issue just died down yesterday at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. If you see summaries copied from anywhere, tell me and I'll remove them. I already do it a lot. - Peregrine Fisher 01:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The poll was clearly not advertised very well or it would have more than 17 respondents, some of whom oppose it not because they oppose limitations on fair use images in lists but because they oppose fair use images entirely or oppose cementing some broader view of them. The amendment discussion was at loggerheads and didn't reach a conclusion. Anyway, the fact remains that the template is used mostly in situations where the text too is copied and the images used are high resolution, i.e. where having the images is not fair use even in the broadest terms. List of Red Dwarf episodes, List of Jeremiah episodes, List of Friends episodes, List of The X-Files episodes are just a few which appear to be copied and derived from either the official website or the summary on the DVD that can be found on Amazon.com. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up on those LOEs with copyright violations, I'll get on them. Drop me a line if you know of any others, maybe we'll start a project or something.  Yeah, the discussions on the LOE issue haven't gotten very far.  It's mostly people who would like to get rid of FU entirely, but they can't, so instead they attack the LOEs vs. people who feel strongly that these LOEs are acceptable, or at least that it's possible for an LOE to be acceptable.  Not much room for compromise.  The people who find the LOEs acceptable would probably be willing to make some compromises, but not any change that outlaws per episode images.  The anti FU side doesn't want any FU images, so there isn't any compromise in their best interest.  People in the middle aren't that interested either way.  The obvious compromise to me is a minimum amount of accompanying information, but the pro LOE side isn't going to work that out without the other side participating.  And there we are.  You could try and start some larger discussion, but you'll have to do it some smart way I don't know about.  This issue has honed the wikilawyering skills of about 5-10 people on each side, and whenever it comes up, they pounce (me included). - Peregrine Fisher 04:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This has always been a big problem with the pop culture articles. There isn't much you can do about, except fixing it wherever you find it i guess... Also, about episode list, perhaps it's a good idea to note somewhere in the template documentation, that the template is an essential element of several Featured lists and that changes to the template should always keep in mind the effects that will have on those articles... ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 09:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I need your help
I've been trying to use Template:Talkheader on the DragonBall wikia here, but I just can't seem to get it right like the one on Wikipedia. You seem to know how, right? I don't edit this Wikipedia here, so I wouldn't know what to do there. Can you help me out? Thanks! (P.S.: I'm User:Burdock on that wikia, please respond there instead of here. See ya.) I&#39;m anonymous
 * Responded there. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

response
Discuss it on Talk:Gnosticism and see also Resolving disputes. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that Wikipedia’s Editors might eventually understand that conforming to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy can not be interpreted so as to only allow the modern points of view, but rather a truly “Neutral” view would be that of an objective viewpoint which would offer a more realistic and accurate sample of comparative truths which are important to the understanding of any description of Gnostic belief systems. However, if you were wondering if I think I will get anyone to listen, my answers is probably not, but I also think it is worth a try anyway, especially given that even I can’t figure out how to organize my working draft on the subject of Gnostic belief systems so that it will pass their Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy in terms of objective and accurate comparative truths because I am obviously very biased in my opinions, such that, although I believe that Wikipedia’s Editors are not presenting an accurate review of the subject, I am ultimately looking at my own stated weaknesses in terms of my ability to express myself and I do think that is important as well.

Blessings, Bill --Wmgreene 23:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

IP was Spamming

 * I removed them because they were being spammed onto articles, they werent being utilised as a reference (see the list below). The editor was making no other edits to the articles just adding links. I removed those edit added by the annon IP, these are the only edits the IP made. Gnangarra 02:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 12:05, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Joseph Horrocks (→References)
 * 12:02, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Joseph Foveaux (→References)
 * 11:59, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) John Septimus Roe (→References)
 * 11:56, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) John Pascoe Fawkner (→External links)
 * 11:53, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) John Hampton (→References)
 * 11:48, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) John Carne Bidwill (→References)
 * 11:43, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) James Stirling (Australian governor) (→External links)
 * 11:40, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) James Simpson (Tasmanian) (→References)
 * 11:38, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) James Scobie (→References)
 * 11:36, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) James Hurtle Fisher (→References)
 * 11:34, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) James Battye (→Works)
 * 11:26, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Henry James O'Farrell
 * 11:24, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Henry James O'Farrell
 * 11:01, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) George Fife Angas (→Publications)
 * 10:57, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) George Augustus Robinson (→External links)
 * 09:56, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Charles La Trobe (→External links)
 * 07:08, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Charles Hotham (→References)
 * 06:55, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Alfred Bussell (→References)
 * 06:52, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) John Bussell (→References)
 * 06:45, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Anthony O'Grady Lefroy
 * 06:37, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Alfred Felton (→External links)
 * 06:32, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Daniel Deniehy (→External links)
 * 06:28, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Daniel Deniehy (→External links)


 * as per WP:SPAM
 * Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.
 * The removal isnt an opinion about the site, its purely in response to the IP actions. Gnangarra 04:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Logos of the Walt Disney Company
Centrx, Eloquence undeleted in July 2006 because "deletion discussion on this talk, CSD G8 does not apply". You deleted it in October. Did it or did not contain undocumented deletion discussions? --Iamunknown 23:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no Template:Logos of the Walt Disney Company. Logos of the Walt Disney Company was deleted by someone else in June after Articles for deletion/Logos of the Walt Disney Company. It was then salted by someone else because of repeated re-creation. In October I deleted the deletedpage template in the course of normal housekeeping. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, some clarification is definitely in order: In reference to, Eloquence undeleted the talk page with the log summary that "deletion discussion on this talk, CSD G8 does not apply". Did it or did not contain undocumented deletion discussion? --Iamunknown 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The CSD is referring to the old deletion system whereby all deletion discussions took place on the talk page of the article. The page does contain a comment by Eloquence pertaining to deletion/creation of the page. It seems rather moot now, but the page was deleted as the talk page of a deleted article. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds trivial enough. Also, I just came across User talk:Lucky 6.9. Are you aware of Administrators%27 noticeboard? Would you consider unprotecting Lucky's talk page? --Iamunknown 00:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The page had been deleted, which is not appropriate, and I restored it. I am more interested in preserving the substantive comments that other users left on his talk page and would expect to find there if they go looking to remember something, that is not allowing for antagonism that would prompt someone else to delete the talk page, than in letting future, potentially derogatory, comments be made there for someone who appears to be gone. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fair and it was the motive behind protecting Essjay's talk page. I doubt, however, that Lucky 6.9 is in a position where he or she truly needs to be protected from defamatory comments to the degree that Essjay needs. I could be wrong. Very few user talk pages that I am aware of are protected due to a permanent wikibreak. I feel strongly that Lucky's should at most be autoconfirmed protected; this is a wiki and, for good or ill, can be edited by anyone at any time with few exceptions. Contributors may be flamed, articles may be vandalised, but we just revert, warn (and, in some instances, block) and continue editing. I don't want to be stubborn on what is likely a trivial subject but, well, I'm going to be. --Iamunknown 01:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just keep in mind that a possible outcome of such stubbornness is that the talk page is simply deleted, as it was before, which would be far more against a wiki spirit. The purpose of talk pages is to communicate with the user. If the user is gone, there is no reason to communicate with him. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * True. I've got to leave the computer for a while anyways; I'll notify you if I do anything else. --Iamunknown 01:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)