User talk:Centrx/Archive3

Colbert protection

Thank you for alerting me to the change in protection status. I wasn't expecting my wish to be granted so quickly -- I was just venting frustration -- but I'm happy to see this change, since I was actually obliviously drafting changes to this article in my word processor while the show in question aired. Naturally, if things get out of hand again and full protection turns out to be needed, I won't complain. But in any case, thanks. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 05:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:MX-2900ZOOM

Hi, I only created that listing because some other article linked to it, and it didn't yet exist. I also noted it because I had once owned that particular camera. I will try to expand upon it from memory and/or find some details online. --Mactographer 00:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not protect main page articles

Hi there. Articles linked from the main page, like Fidel Castro should not usually be protected except for brief instances to remove vandalism. See WP:PROTECT, WP:SEMI and somewhere in Raul's user space as well as long standing precedent and practise. Please could you lift your protection of Fidel Castro on this basis? Thank you. -Splash - tk 03:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking for Raul's userspace page but in amongst all the wacky server errors I'm getting I can't find it. It's quite illuminating. Anyway, thanks for the quick unprotect. -Splash - tk 03:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Raul's user space page is User:Raul654/protection ([1]). Raul's page, WP:SEMI and, as far as I can tell, long-standing practice only apply to the featured article on the Main Page, not to every single article with a link on the Main Page. That's quite a lot of articles, they don't receive the same monitoring as the featured article, and they aren't intended to be the singular showcase of Wikipedia for the day. I don't see why they couldn't be semi-protected for a few hours. —Centrx→talk • 03:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The lower case 'p' was defeating my creativity. Actually, no, long-standing practise applies to all articles linked off the Main Page (trust me, huh? Most of them don't get protected at all, and those that do usually find it lifted fairly speedily.) The Mohammed cartoons article is a good example. This particular article, also, was protected for more than 12 hours when I first lifted the protection, and that in an explicitly pre-emptive move. In the News articles are not the showcase of the best of Wikipedia's work, but they are, very literally, the first things someone is likely to try to edit. -Splash - tk 04:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Way, way, way belated congratulations

I just wanted to congratulate you on your RfA, and I'm glad many people were able to see past their disagreements with you in Kylu's nomination. Some, however, were not, which is unfortunate (for them). In any event, you are the very embodiment of an admin--that is, someone with a "keen eye for a logical fallacy", and you have shown yourself to be quite fitting of that description. Keep up the good work. AdamBiswanger1 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Space Pirates

I AFD'd List of Space Pirates if you'd like to put in your two cents. --Awiseman 20:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish Whip Wrestling

Hi i have just noticed IwW has been deleted and protected against recreations... i know its and independent promotion but its the largest single promotion in Ireland with a multinational television deal... to me that sounds pretty notable... i would just like to offer my time in recreating the article ---- Paulley 11:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Whip Wrestling. Create a subpage in your userspace with a new article that explicitly asserts why it is notable and I would be happy to unprotect it. The relevant guidance for notability would probably be Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). —Centrx→talk • 11:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

oh Sorry i kinda created it here... i looked at some google cache of the articles previous appearance on wiki and i see how it changed from a stub promotion article to somebodies back up homepage.. as long as it is maintained as a stub page giving general info on the promotion (like i have made it) then i see no reason not to keep it... if you agree then move it to the protected page and i will do some redirecting a maintain the article so i doesnt get out of hand again --- Paulley 23:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you --- Paulley

Panasonic logo

I changed the JPG to an SVG image: Image:Panasonic logo black.svg. This time it is an exactly same black logo without a slogan. The JPG version was poor quality. ---Majestic- 14:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why deleted NUCES_OSAF

Hi, why did you delete the article NUCES_OSAF that i was creating. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, Yasir. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yasirniazkhan (talk • contribs) 15:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft historical logo

I took the poor-quality logo "Mslogohistorical.png" colors and used them on the high quality SVG B&W file. Here you can see them for comparison. I think you can see that the SVG quality is much better, it is scalable and uses exactly the same colors as the png file. So can we use the svg file now?

The first one is the svg, the bottom one is the old png:

225px SVG
225px PNG

---Majestic- 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Help Me!

I am having a problem with two articles:

• Brian Boru Irish Pipe Band
• Southern Cross Pipe Band

I blanked both pages and put copyvio tags on them because all of the information in both was copyvio. I also listed both cases in copyright problems for July 24th and warned both editors. As of now, though, nothing has happened. I would much rather see both articles CSDed because even when they included copyvios they made no assertion of notibility, and the current subpages would qualify them for CSD A1 or CSD A7. Is there any way this can be resolved?--Musaabdulrashid 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

While 7 days is the minimum time before a copyvio is cleared, there is a long backlog in this area and many of them don't get deleted for two or three weeks. No big deal. I have now deleted both, and also made it so Brian Boru Irish Pipe Band cannot be re-created as it was previously created and deleted. —Centrx→talk • 02:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks *happy dance*--Musaabdulrashid 06:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Red Green

Thanks for moving the article. However, at risk of being pedantic, I'd be grateful if you could re-move it to Red green (all lower case), as specified on WP:RM, at some point.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 03:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thaks for pointing that out to me - I've changed my vote and explained in the AfD, but basically it was my ignorance on the topic matter that led me to an opion of nn. Thanks Martinp23 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Thanks

Thanks for today's tireless efforts to keep Bobby at bay! Always appreciated. Dr Chatterjee 18:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Amusing note: This user was later discovered to actually be a sockpuppet of Bobby Boulders. —Centrx→talk • 00:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation

Nice work on cleaning that page up. I'd been meaning to work on it some more, but couldn't muster the concentration. older ≠ wiser 01:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It still needs work. Maybe I should set a goal of reducing the text length of all guidelines by a third. —Centrx→talk • 01:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bot messages

Your situation has given me an idea. Since the bot picks up that pages are deleted pages/redirects and does not list them, I could make it give notices only if it was a real article. That might be a while though, since I am busing writing a checkuser script.Voice-of-All 06:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Done.Voice-of-All 22:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Most excellent. —Centrx→talk • 23:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright on AndyKessler

Hi, You marked my Andy_Kessler page with a Copyright violation. I have made a new page from scratch. Is it OK to remove the notice now? Please reply on my Talk page. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickgray (talk • contribs) 14:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move

Why are you unilaterally moving the Welsh self-government page? Were you unawarethat a Requested move discussion was in progress on the Talk page? --Mais oui! 16:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

How on earth can you close a page move and move the page when there are3 votesagainst 1 (plus sockpuppet)? This will be taken to WP:AN/I unless you reconsider, which I strongly advise you to do. --Mais oui! 16:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate a prompt response, as the current situation is ridiculous: you had moved the page, and I had moved it back again, before you had even closed the Move request. The conclusion says that we move the page (despite zero support for the proposition) and yet the page is still at Welsh self-government. Thanks. --Mais oui! 16:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The requested move was not in progress: it had been posted at Wikipedia:Requested moves for 8 days (5 days is the minimum), and there had been no comments for 5 days. Consensus is not about counting votes, and the vote of the IP did not count. The reasoning in favor of the move was sound; it is more applicable to the article; and I verified that "Welsh nationalism" is more common using academic and general sources. The opposition did not apply to moving this article "Welsh nationalism". Capitalization was rectified, which was the only reason for one of the opposes. The other oppose was based on wanting to standardize article names and was not relevant to whether this article does not belong at "Welsh nationalism", which would be in line with one of his given examples "English nationalism". Please explain why the article belongs at "Welsh self-government", which appears much less common and less applicable than "Welsh nationalism", which was the name for a year before you moved it in February 2006. Reverting is not productive. As you thought appropriate, I have mentioned this matter at ANI. —Centrx→talk • 16:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the page back to Welsh nationalism, per your closing decision; but next time: close the discussion BEFORE moving the page! --Mais oui! 17:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

For reasons that escape me, the page has now been moved back to Welsh self-government by (?). Can you assist, or advise on the correct course of action? Tks Normalmouth 14:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nightstallion has now acknowledged your reasons. What is the best way to move the page back? Normalmouth 07:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

RFC process and page

Thanks for your note. I remember when the main RFC stuff was on page and the exception was for user RFCs. But maybe we’ve grown too much for that.

I was leaning toward a user RFC on Wai Wai, instead of one about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues, because it seems like everyone except Wai Wai that is involved with the pages agrees that changes to that extend should not be made without consensus, etc.

On the main RFC page, I’d like to see the “Wikipedia policies” template moved under the template for “Dispute resolution.”

For the user RFCs, it was easier for me when there was, essentially, a regular template page. It’s hard for me to explain, but I don’t like being taken directly to Editing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/USERNAME. I’d like to be able to edit a portion at a time, and see what the whole thing looks like before I start editing it and as I go along. Maurreen 17:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection request

Would you please protect Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin? (I am not one of the edit warriors). Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Done, or apparently beaten to it by someone else, but based on the page history still clearly a team effort. —Centrx→talk • 18:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, though you were 1 minute too late... - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pshaw, adding the {{protected}} template is what's really important. We could do without protection entirely if people would just believe the template. So, in truth, what I did was clearly far more important than any mere protection. —Centrx→talk • 18:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Infinite IP blocking

I actually lessened the conditions on that block. Another admin indef blocked the IP. I changed the conditions so that only anonymous users are affected, and they can still register an account if they wish. If you take a close look at the contributions of this account, it's been nothing but vandalism. Now that we can make blocks that only affect anonymous users, an indefinite block for vandalism-only IPs is now possible, and makes it a lot easier to maintain. Feel free to hand-hold this IP if you wish, but take a look at the block log. You've just created a lot of work for a lot of admins and RC patrollers again. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It used to matter. Now it doesn't matter as much. In any case, I didn't undo the actions of the last admin because I'm reluctant to do so without discussion. I merely reduced the conditions of the indefinite block. Quite frankly, I almost never indefinitely block IP addresses since I don't do open proxy checks, so you don't have to waste your effort trying to convince me. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Woops, and I forgot to mention that you should be careful with wording it as "Infinite" IP blocking. There is a difference between an indefinite block and an infinite block. ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Honestly, I don't see much of a difference between a very long (1 year or more) finite block and an indefinite (not infinite!) block. The IP is a school IP used by many users and issuing much vandalism. It was blocked in such a way that prevented only anonymous edits: users with accounts can still use it to edit. And it can be unblocked at any point by any administrator, given a good enough reason. My action was not a form of castigating and banning the IP forevermore, merely a measure to prevent future random impulsive vandalism by the many students using the IP. If it's blocked for three years, chances are it will have to be reblocked in three years time, but who knows what wikipedia and the rest of the world will look like by that time! I don't mind that you reduced the block. --woggly 05:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

ugg

would you mind taking a look at Talk:Joseph's Tomb? This is an insane copyvio situation developing into a revert war. Thanks --Musaabdulrashid 02:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ultra thanks --Musaabdulrashid 02:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

request for move

Hi, on the 18th, i put up a request for move for Fantastic Four and the Silver Surfer, which you can find here: WP:RM#18_August_2006. There are a few supports, and no other responses, but given that there are lots of fans who would like to edit the articles, and that the studio itself has announced the new title, can we get a move done so that we won't alienate other editors? I know someone would get to it 'soon', but every day seems like a day risking upsetting good faith editors. There's not likely to be any opposition coming forth. Thank you, and I know that a personal request seems slightly presumptuous, but thanks for tolerating it. ThuranX 02:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Also, while I know it can be annoying when someone does wacky things like copy-paste moves, they are likely new users who just don't know how to do it properly; rather than a shouting exasperated message a calm, instructive one works much better and does not bite the newcomers. —Centrx→talk • 03:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind, thank you for the move. Th reason that guy got bit a bit was that he'd pulled the move in the same way a week before without citation and then pulled it again, despite a talk page plea for citation before action. But I'll try to not bite so much. ThuranX 04:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Mun Charn Wong article

Hi Centrx,

Just wondering why you deleted my article on Mun Charn Wong - I was in the process of editing it into a much fuller article when you ax'd it. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mochikochicken (talk • contribs) 04:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for your help, Centrx! --Citefixer1965 05:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your block of User:Sakura Avalon

I have replied to your thread on AN/I. [2] Kimchi.sg 13:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Mun Charn Wong on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mun Charn Wong. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Kimchi.sg 14:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: User page

Thanks for your reply. I just checked my user page again, and now it's fine. I guess the edit just took some time to show up, not sure why, but... all's well that ends well :) Cgingold 18:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for reverting all of 75.34.4.23's edits on India/Hindu related articles.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BOLD

Could you please explain this edit? Your edit summary, "Revert undiscussed changes, somewhat WP:POINT, by sockpuppet," doesn't make much sense. The user you reverted, JYolkowski (talk · contribs), does not have a sock message on his userpage. I am interested to know how this is an example of WP:POINT, the material you reverted without discussion, that is. Feel free to reply on this talk page, and thanks. BigNate37_(T) 20:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I was reverting User:JohnLai who, as a sockpuppet of User:Wai Wai, has been making undiscussed, heavily contested additions to various guideline and styleguide pages, and who added the text to WP:BOLD somewhat as a complaint against the several editors who have reverted his changes. The changes by User:JYolkowski got caught up in that revert, and should not have been reverted; my mistake. I have restored the changes by User:JYolkowski. —Centrx→talk • 20:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I only looked at the most recent editor before your reversion. Thanks for taking a look at it. BigNate37_(T) 21:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Open Europe

Please see my note on the talk page of Open Europe. I don't understand why it was suddenly deleted again. If it is NPOV I am happy to try to edit it accordingly. Thanks. Sceptic 12:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Largest-Scale Trends in Evolution

Hi Centrx, If you want to merge and link this article, that's fine with me. Pdturney 14:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Ackoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you indefinitely blocked, has filed a Request for arbitration appealing the block. I am posting this notice for him since he was unblocked only to file his appeal and is worried about directly posting this himself. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyvios in books?

Since I have seen you around WP:CP a lot: what do you usually do with copyvio claims that you can't verify because they are a published book? I found the book on amazon but can't search inside it. I am looking at Marty Rimm right now. Thanks :) --Aguerriero (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

For this particular article, note that it is not written like an encyclopedia article; it is written like a story and somewhat presumes that the reader already knows who Marty Rimm is (i.e., probably because he was already mentioned in the book). Also, look at the page history. This version was added in [3], with an edit summary "...as cited in Barry Glassner's "The Culture of Fear"". Before the revision, there is what appears to be a fairly clean version of the page. So, I would delete it, and then restore all the revisions up to 00:08, 28 April 2005 TheBlunderbuss.

In general, Google Books can be useful, though not in this particular case. Another really useful site is Copyscape. You can copy the URL of any revision in the (not-deleted) page history and Copyscape will give you likely websites where it is copied from, with highlighted tracts of where it is copied from. It still needs to be somewhat compared, as it comes up with false positives, and some of them are from sites that actually copy Wikipedia, not vice-versa, but it is really useful.

Two heuristics that make checking copyvios more efficient are whether the article belongs in an encyclopedia anyway, and whether it is wikified or written wierdly (e.g., is just a list or timeline of factoids; or "The ST-50 is the phenomenal invention of the future"; or "When Bill Shibble began his music business, there were three factors inhibiting his progress"). The way it is written is a clear indicator that it is at least copied, which almost always means it is an infringement. Both "belonging in an encyclopedia" together with "wierdly written" means think: Even assuming it were not a copyvio (2% chance or something if there is no claim of permission), would this article be deleted anyway? So, if you have to go through any hoops, and it is clearly some badly formatted copy about the Vice President in Charge of Washing Windows, then might as well delete. The page history is also important; if there is a long page history, several people have passed through it and there may be a salvageable article (sometimes, someone has come along last month and over-written everything with a copyvio, when there used to be a legitimate article). If a new user two weeks ago just copied the biography of the local weatherman, just delete. —Centrx→talk • 22:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent - thanks for taking the time to respond thoroughly. This is more information than I've gleaned from most places thus far. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My welcome

cool...but more mellow...less of the orange...just reds, burgundy, black...and can we have the hyperlinks a different hue like on the original? Kukini 22:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just joking. More mellow definitely. I myself like the current scheme, the new one recently changed. :) —Centrx→talk • 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Whew...for a minute...i felt like we had gone Marines. Not that there is anything wrong with that! Of course, you can always put your own on your user page and use and develop that into whatever you like. I just appreciate people who DO welcomes on wikipedia, but some people think that welcomes are earned. Kukini 22:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Band of Liberty link

At the Hanscom Air Force Base page, you have removed my link to the United States Air Force Band of Liberty website three times over the past two months. The link is hardly "tenuous." The band, while not cited in the entry, is one of the primary tenant units at Hanscom Air Force Base and has been in existence since 1978. I would have included it with "Hanscom AFB Tenants/Organizations" page but all I get is an error message.

Today I created a separate entry for the United States Air Force Band of Liberty with a link from the Hanscom Air Force Base page and, conversely, linked the band's page to Hanscom's. Please refrain from further link deletions. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Green3r (talk • contribs) 01:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the rude comment on my talk page and taking care of the vandal. -- Gogo Dodo 05:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Paradisi

Whoops. I see you already -did- move the temp page, and all I changed were a few words and added a couple of categories. *blink* I really need to check the history page. Thank you. Gah! Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The copyright infringing history has to be deleted in such cases, so copy-pasting isn't a good idea. There is a long backlog for copyright problems, but eventually someone gets to it and you can always poke an admin. —Centrx→talk • 18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering about the history, actually- I knew such things could be deleted but wasn't sure if they had to be in all such cases, though it makes sense (and yes, that's one admin power that, even if it's available to me, I don't know how to use. If it is available to me is something I'll have to check; it's safe to say I've only reverted edits, banned/unbanned individual accounts/IP ranges, and deleted pages themselves to date, so I don't know.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 22:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In cases where there has been a rewrite at the temporary subpage, the whole page just gets deleted and the rewrite moved over it. Page history can be selectively deleted by deleting the whole page and then selectively restoring the revisions to be kept, but it is a hassle. —Centrx→talk • 22:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: AngieR

The articles I submitted, and the numerous others that I planed to submit at all copywritten for the law firm I work for, The Kavinoky Law Firm. Because of your policy against blatant advertising I thought it would be a better idea to submit the articles under a private name without the law firm being mentioned. If there is a particular way you would like for me to cite the firm without violating policy that would allow the articles to stay up and be informative, please inform me as to the procedure.

Template:UsernameBlockedEmail

Where does it say this is against policy? Why should it be prohibited? —Centrx→talk • 18:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• WP:USERNAME#Inappropriate_usernames. I see a few reasons:
  1. By having an email username the email becomes an instant target for spammers, it might be used to create problem for other people
  2. Email username can be used to pretend to be somebody else. I guess there are many Alex Bakharevs on internet but only one Alex_Bakharev@gmail.com
  3. Email username can be used for spam and advertisements. E.g. john@inkcartrige.com is an advertisement for both inkcartrige.com and for john as a sales rep, nickname zanuda@livejournal.com is an advertisement for the correspondent blog and for the site livejournal, etc.
  4. Email as a username is usually long and ugly abakharev 01:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Understandable, but most of them are the true person with that e-mail and isn't advertising. Anyway, the reason I noticed this is because I saw one person who moved their account (username changing) after getting a {{WelcomeEmail}}, and then right after someone who was just summarily blocked who, if they hadn't received a scare-off message could have become a productive contributor. —Centrx→talk • 02:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

{{rfd}}

Redirects I'd like to think I've been pretty judicious about rfd's. Which of the following don't count according to your interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria:

• Dr. H.t. Sangliana
• H.S.(Hans Schindler) Bellamy
• H.S. "Buddy" Garcia/Temp
• Scripps (E. W.) 'A'
• Eosmith
• Military of the Western Sahara (note that no Western Sahara article is entitled "X of the Western Sahara")
• Flag of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (not that no SADR article is entitled "X of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic," without "the")
• Foreign Relations of Morocco this one might be legitimate
• Wall of shame (epithet) and Wall of Shame (phrase) - these come from ridiculous move wars

I honestly find it doubtful that anyone would ever search for "Scripps (E. W.) 'A'" or that we need "H.S. "Buddy" Garcia/Temp." -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 12:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah That makes sense. Thanks much! -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Centix

Thought you might like this. User:Nobugs was claims to have created it and he was blocked as a sockpuppet of EddieSegoura. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom

Yes, the discussion is spread all over the place, so it's hard to follow—a lot of it is here—but you can see the current Manual of Style page here. The specific interpretation is here, but I'll copy what I think is the most pertinent part here for you.

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk

On the basis of his interpretation of this, User:SuperJumbo has decided that it's a good idea to convert all dates not in specifically American articles to "International" date form, and all "International" dates in "American" articles to "American" form. It's a resurrection of an old battle. I, as you may have guessed, think this interpretation is wrongheaded, and tends to lead exactly to what the Arbitration Committee surely meant to discourage, not encourage: battles over dating formats, which I would prefer simply be left as found, and think that the construction of an encyclopedia would be facilitated by an instruction to make no edits which simply change date formats from one acceptable form to another. - Nunh-huh 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of the styleguide and this sort of issue. I was just wondering if there had been a new arbitration ruling; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan is more recent than Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk and more explicitly forbids these sorts of style-changing actions. —Centrx→talk • 01:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one has mentioned that with regard to SuperJumbo's changes. I wasn't aware of it, or any other pertinent ruling. - Nunh-huh 01:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a little more reading is in order. I've mentioned Jguk at least once. In the case of dates, changing date formats to one appropriate to the article is sufficient reason to make the change. --Jumbo 01:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps reading a little more carefully is in order. Centrx alludes not to Jguk, but Sortan. And yes, your assertion that "changing date formats to one appropriate to the article is sufficient reason to make the change", and that your changes are "appropriate" are the matter that's open for comment. - Nunh-huh 01:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Centrx refers to both. Jguk is explicitly mentioned in MoS. Sortan is not. It will help keep things clear if we stick to the facts, rather than concealing or misrepresenting them. --Jumbo 01:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would. - Nunh-huh 01:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. Sortan has been mentioned previously at least once in this long-running debate. You have evidently missed it. I reviewed the ArbCom case, and I remain satisfied that I am on solid ground. Although the language is more sparse than in Jguk, it clearly draws on Jguk and must be interpreted in that light. --Jumbo 02:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt you think you are right. The question is what others will think. - Nunh-huh 02:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As noted, I have sought other opinions. We both know what others think. I am happy with my position, as supported by informed opinion. Thank you for your contributions, and I appreciate your concern in this. --Jumbo 02:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

SuperJumbo's actions are correct.

• It is mandated by the Manual of Style. MoS styles are the basic standard. You don't have to follow them. But if you don't another user will come along and adapt anything you write, the date format you use, the grammar you use, etc to follow the relevant MoS and Naming Conventions rules.
• The issue has been discussed a clear majority of supported Super Jumbo's actions.
• The issue has been supported by Arbcom rulings on the acceptability of conversions to reflect local usage. That has been ruled to be correct. Unilateral blanket changing to a user's personal preference has been prohibited by the ruling.
• Users have been ensuring that date usage in each article reflects the relevant context. Large numbers of us have been doing that for years and will continue to do that. It is mandated by the MoS rules which were installed after a debate on this issue and implements the consensus viewpoint, namely that articles should reflect the location variations in language and date usage. So all US articles should be American English and American Dating. British, Irish, Commonwealth and UN articles should reflect International English and International Dating. Other countries' topics should reflect local usage. That is policy. You are entitled to ignore it. If you do however, other users (and there are hundreds who spent their time on all the Wikipedias doing it) will change text you write to conform to the MoS rules and the Naming Conventions. That is what they are there for.

In conclusion Super Jumbo has the full support of a wide body of users in his actions. He is unambiguously supported by the Arb Com since he is applying local usage (changing topics on US topics to US dating, and International English user areas to IE date usage), which is allowed, not blanket changing of everything to a format unrelated to preference, which is not allowed. He is simply doing what has been done, and will continue to be done, by many others. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read the recent discussions and I have been involved with the manual of style and many discussions about this sort of thing for years. You are over-stating the support of this and the MoS is not a mandate; it is weaker than a Guideline even when it is unequivocal, and on this issue it allows for multiple styles.

Arbitration committee rulings do not support this. One, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan, specifically states:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

—Centrx→talk • 04:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sortan clearly depends upon Jguk and must be interpreted as such. There is nothing in the evidence or conclusions of Sortan that justifies a tightening of the view in Jguk. I am allowed to make changes in styles to bring articles into line with MoS guidelines so long as I have sufficient reason to do so, and changing formats to reflect local usage is sufficient reason. Your interpretation sees this change as justified, and I seriously cannot see this as having much support. --Jumbo 04:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the previous change was unjustified and that change was reverting an unjustified change; it is not itself a change. Sortan clearly states that Wikipedia does not mandate styles for date formats and editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their preferred date format, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting the date format. That is all; if you think this is wrong, you are welcome to ask at [4]. —Centrx→talk • 04:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit inaccurate. The MoS clearly does mandate users to ensure that date usage and language usage is appropriate to the topic (ie, use British English on British topics, American English on American topics, American dating on American topics, International Dating on topics from areas that use ID). Both it and the Arbcom prohibit users simply blanket removing dates or spellings they do not like where those actions are based on personal choice, not accuracy. Super Jumbo, and all others who have been changing, and will continue to change, dates, have not been changing things from personal preference. I personally never use American Dating in real life (I hate the frigging thing). But I have for four years been correcting articles on say the US presidency, or clear US topics to ensure that American spelling and American dating is used. That is what Super Jumbo has been doing. If you look at his edits you will see that he has never once changed a US topic to International Dating. He has corrected datings to reflect local usage, something unambiguously and explcitly endorsed by the MoS (I was one of those involved in agreeing the format that was written into the MoS) and the Arbcom. He has corrected British articles where both date formats were used interchangeably to follow the one format, the one Britain uses. He has corrected American articles to follow American usage. He has corrected articles on Monaco to reflect Monaco usage. He has never ever blanket changed everything irrespective of local usage. His actions follow the MoS, follow the arbcom rulings, and have been endorsed in debate after debate. It is getting a little tiring to face the likes of Nunh continually mispresenting what Jumbo is doing. It is a pity that you too seemed to be accusing him of doing something he has not done.

Perhaps you misunderstood what he was doing. He is being fair, upfront and honest and following the spirit and letter of the MoS and arbcom ruling. Please be fair to him and stop accusing him of doing something he is not doing. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit inaccurate. The MoS clearly does mandate users to ensure that date usage and language usage is appropriate to the topic (ie, use British English on British topics, American English on American topics, American dating on American topics, International Dating on topics from areas that use ID). Both it and the Arbcom prohibit users simply blanket removing dates or spellings they do not like where those actions are based on personal choice, not accuracy. Super Jumbo, and all others who have been changing, and will continue to change, dates, have not been changing things from personal preference. I personally never use American Dating in real life (I hate the frigging thing). But I have for four years been correcting articles on say the US presidency, or clear US topics to ensure that American spelling and American dating is used. That is what Super Jumbo has been doing. If you look at his edits you will see that he has never once changed a US topic to International Dating. He has corrected datings to reflect local usage, something unambiguously and explcitly endorsed by the MoS (I was one of those involved in agreeing the format that was written into the MoS) and the Arbcom. He has corrected British articles where both date formats were used interchangeably to follow the one format, the one Britain uses. He has corrected American articles to follow American usage. He has corrected articles on Monaco to reflect Monaco usage. He has never ever blanket changed everything irrespective of local usage. His actions follow the MoS, follow the arbcom rulings, and have been endorsed in debate after debate. It is getting a little tiring to face the likes of Nunh continually mispresenting what Jumbo is doing. It is a pity that you too seemed to be accusing him of doing something he has not done.

Perhaps you misunderstood what he was doing. He is being fair, upfront and honest and following the spirit and letter of the MoS and arbcom ruling. Please be fair to him and stop accusing him of doing something he is not doing. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think there is a mandate to do that? Where does it say that? I am not accusing him of anything nefarious. I am telling him what the current standard practice and policy is, and why it is. —Centrx→talk • 04:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been a mandate to do that for three years. It is covered in a series of MoS dealing with dates and langage usages.

The opening line of the relevant section on the main MoS dealing with dates is quite clear.

“ If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. . . For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually [[17 February]] [[1958]] (no comma and no "th"). In the United States and Canada, it is [[February 17]], [[1958]]. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance. ”

That explicitly allows editors the option to use the relevant format matching a country's usage on a topic by topic basis. For years editors have been ensuring out of respect for local usages that topics clearly identifiable with a country and so a usage has the correct local English and date usage, not least because we knew that Americans would go ballistic if someone wrote colour and 21 January in an American topic, when they prefer color and January 21. Ditto with Irish and British editors who go apeshit if you write color and January 21 in their articles. French people go into a fury if you use what they term "Americanisms" in their articles, etc etc. Though corrections are made, over time they are screwed up when new editors add in their own as opposed to the country's format into articles, often producing a mishmash of both formats. So every so often various users spend time going through articles correcting articles that have mishmashes or where someone has changed usage from the local usage to their own preference.

Jumbo is simply doing as we all have done. He is doing a big clean up. Most of his changes are from AD to ID simply because the worst offenders in terms of changing dates are AD users, who regularly change British, Irish, European and Commonwealth topics to AD. (It drives Europeans mad when they do it.) Indeed whenever the cleanup occurs it does usually involve changing a lot of AD to ID not because it is American but because it is articles on country topics where AD is not used and where locals go ballistic and fight edit wars when they spot it. Equally when he finds American topics where someone has changed AD to ID he reinserts AD. We all do that. It just do happens, as I say, that whereas ID users seem to be quite willing to use AD when writing on American topics, a lot of AD users seem to refuse point blank to use International Dating, insisting of plastering AD all over topics where AD is never used, and where indeed ID is already in place. That is these clean-ups tend to involve probably about 70% AD->ID and 30% ID->AD. It is not anti-AD. It is simply that AD users seem to the worst offenders when it comes to putting the wrong formats on articles, or adding in their own preference when the other format is already in situ. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Editors may choose" and "the formatting is usually" are not mandates; the Arbcom decisions are more relevant. These are not general article cleanups, they are specifically confined to changing the date format. These are not "wrong" formats and if some format is present at a particular article it has clearly not aroused any editor's fury to assuage. If there is a mishmash of both formats, that is irrelevant to this discussion, there is no dispute that articles should be self-consistent and most of the articles he is changing are not mishmashes, they are short articles that use only one format. The problems here are: a) the edits are specifically to make only date changes; and b) once reverted, the changes should not be re-reverted, they should be brought up on the article talk page. This causes far more "fury". Please be more brief in your comments. —Centrx→talk • 06:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

list of pipe bands

Hi again. I'm experiencing some stress relating to the use of this list as a promotional tool for people to put external links to their favorite bands on. I've tried to redefine the criterion at the top of the page to prevent people from doing this, but it's very hard to tell people that list of pipe bands is not an acctual "list of pipe bands". lease give me any suggestions you might have, I'm thinking about submitting the article for AfD as we already have a category for this. Thanks Musaabdulrashid 03:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like these are being added by IPs and non-regular users. This sort of thing is common; they see a list of something and they want to add their favorite thing to it. Basically, all you can do is just revert it. Deleting it is a possibility, but I think this is a pretty good list—and I don't like lists. It has a nice introduction, it is split up into appropriate sections, and it has the links to the websites. —Centrx→talk • 04:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, come to think of it, it is alot better with the newer intro --Musaabdulrashid 04:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Help

I know we had a disagreement in the past, but I hold no ill will and I hope you don't either. I need some help with a situation and I feel as though I'm floundering here and getting no feedback anywhere. I would appreciate some feedback and intervention on this matter User:Crossmr/incidentwithUser06201--Crossmr 18:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No ill will. I think this has been dealt with satisfactorily. I have confined him to one account, and if he continues doing what he is doing now: being wierd, making attacks, and not making contributions, then the result will be obvious. If he becomes productive, great. —Centrx→talk • 19:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate that. I'm bracing myself for his return, I suspect it will garner another long diatribte on Sue Anne (talk · contribs) talk page.--Crossmr 22:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary progress

Thanks for the feedback. It's very difficult for me to tell sometimes, and I'm bound to make mistakes. Feel free to restore the page to whatever you think is best, so long as your sure it's not a copyright violation. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Centrx. Thanks for intervening. --Pdturney 01:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:User06201

I've read the history at Sue Anne's talk history page, and it appears after looking at it, here is what I have to say: User06201 is actually engaging in "Trash-Talking" and "Taunting an Administrator". I really can't assume User06201 a newcomer anymore as he's been trash-talking and taunting ever since he first started his edits on The Apprentice 4. I really don't like his choice of words, neither the fact that all he does is beg and taunt, beg and taunt.

I might consider putting User06201's "trash-talking" and "tauntative" behavior at the Administrator Notices board, if by all means possible, otherwise, I'm pretty sure other admins might place a notice on this. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 01:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with blocking is the user often just comes back under a different name. If there is some possibility he is just a silly new user who could become productive, or at least not harmful, blocking isn't necessary and could exacerbate a problem, where now we can monitor him. At the moment, he has been fairly warned, he is rather confined to that one account, and it seems there are several people, me included, watching. If he continues, it will be noticed and he will be blocked. —Centrx→talk • 01:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The other problem was that I had his behaviour on AN/I for over 48 hours trying to get help with the harrassment and personal attacks he was launching and didn'get a response. its nice when you find an admin willing to step in.--Crossmr 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes things on ANI don't get noticed. The other, more specific incident boards, such as WP:PAIN, will always get a response at some point. —Centrx→talk • 04:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:User06201 has been indefinitely blocked—I checked the logs, and hopefully, the trashing won't happen again. I'll also try to watch the choice of words I use as well to avoid another commotion like this. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 02:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Paracetamol "Cultural References" section

You've removed this section. I couldn't find a wikipedia policy on this. Do you think it falls under an existing policy, or are you proposing a new policy against "Cultural References" sections? TRWBW 08:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:TRWBW, [5]. —Centrx→talk • 16:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Expand versus Stub

It was my understanding as per Wikipedia:Requests for expansion that short articles are marked with a stub tag and longer articles that still need more information are marked with expand. I noticed that you have been adding the expand template to one line articles already tagged with the stub template. --- Skapur 13:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I mostly did this on articles that had been classed as "stubs" for a long time (through Special:Shortpages, a very useful list), though I was probably lax on this and tagged many that were only recently created. Basically, {{expand}} brings it to much wider attention, and doing that is appropriate for articles that have been tagged as stubs for months, or in some cases more than a year. —Centrx→talk • 16:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks/Ros Power

Many thanks for your advice re the above editor. Much appreciated. Trance or Daze? 22:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with copyvios

No problem. I'm always happy to get the feedback. Even when I disagree, it's good to see how other people do things. Thanks for working on the backlog! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Sandbox

Even though the user is a bit obnoxious, why revert his sandbox actions? Rsm99833 05:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The image was obscene—this was not an article—and I had an ongoing joke in the sandbox;. It is also an image often used for vandalism; this person was not testing out Wikipedia. It would have been deleted within a few minutes anyway by the bot. —Centrx→talk • 05:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked, none of that mattered. The sandbox is for doing experiments, regardless if you find them "obscene" or not. Remember the good-faith rule. If they're within the guidlines, don't issue a warning. Have a good weekend! Rsm99833 06:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you know

That your recent revert on the Vandalism page was actually to the favor of the person you reverted? He likes the policy as it was in July and is making changes to accommodate people who feel it is too restrictive. But he would be glad for the policy to remain as it was in July. Not sure if that was the effect you wanted. --Blue Tie 05:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The effect of possibly favoring or disfavoring a particular proposal was not my intent. The changes should not be made before there has been much more stable agreement; the text was clearly controversial. If anything, I would disfavor this revision for being poorly written; for policy pages a new proposal should be fairly tight and clean before being added, especially when there is any controversy as the writing should have been cleaned up in the discussion that preceded the implementation. —Centrx→talk • 05:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Makes good sense to me.--Blue Tie 05:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Mintimer Shaeymiev which was deleted

Hi. I was wondering about the Mintimer Shaeymiev article you deleted as a copyvio. I stumbled across it and noticed it had 48 deleted edits. Were all 48 of those definitely copyvio's? That seems more like someone overwrote a legitimate article with copyvio at some point and then someone noticed 2 months later and marked as copyvio. Admittedly, I did not do a check on all 48 edits... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The copyrighted text was added in one fell swoop in the 3rd edit [6], March 2004. The very first edit looks like it might not be a copyright infringement—though maybe only because it is so short, but I probably did not notice it because it was by the same IP that added the copyvio, on the same day. This looks like a legitimately important person though, so I should have written a stub about him after deleting the copyvio. —Centrx→talk • 03:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is a long page history on a copyvio, I click around until I find when it was added, starting with the last edit by the first contributor and the most recent edits. —Centrx→talk • 05:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Essjaybot & Sandbox

How does Essjaybot decide when to clear the sandbox? It is doing it on average once every 20 minutes, sometimes every 5 minutes. —Centrx→talk • 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of Essjaybot's cleanings of the sandbox are manual resets, meaning someone clicked the link in the sandbox header to reset the sandbox. From what I've seen, Essjaybot automatically cleans the Sandbox at noon and midnight (00:00 and 12:00 UTC). Timrem 14:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Dudu Aouate

Why did you vandalize/move the Dudu Aouate page? Please move it back as his name has never been spelled the way you wrote it and if it was it was a mistake by the Spanish media. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NYC2TLV (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved this page because, based on looking at various online sources found through Google, it appears to be by far the most common name used in English. I did this after a bad copy-and-paste move by another user. If you disagree with this move, please explain on the Talk page there why the reasoning for the move was incorrect. Do not assume that an action you disagree with is vandalism. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. —Centrx→talk • 03:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 11:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Template moves

Yes you are right, I noticed that immediately and was working to fix it, but was multi-tasking with a mediation case in an unrelated area. Of course I was doing it in the first place due to a mass problem with all the crash articles as I mentioned in the Talk page. But thanks for fixing it and the advice. Crum375 23:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That tool is cool - gives you a real objective list of human priorities :D (and nice to see Pluto win!) Crum375 23:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard Barone

Dear Centrx,

It appears you have deleted or 'protected' the Wikipedia entry for Richard Barone. I would request that you restore it. It was erroneously cited for copyright violation -- I responded on the 'talk page,' ensuring that it was not a violation and, and gave full permission to use the article. It was factual, and kept within the guidelines of form and content of Wikipedia.

Thank you for your diligence, but please restore my entry.

Regards,

Richard Barone, New York City -- rbarone@earthlink.net

cc: alexandra parent, richard barone music alex.rbaronemusic@earthlink.net; elizabeth granville, esq.

Responded at User talk:Robertbanks, [7]. —Centrx→talk • 17:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Centrx:

Thank you for your response, re: writing from an email address associated with site posting the original article in question, www.richardbarone.com. http://richardbarone.com The associated address is richard@richardbarone.com, which is set to forward to personal address in my original note above. I have written letters to Wikipedia: permissions@wikipedia.org and board@wikipedia.org advising them that there is no copyright violation invloved in this article, as I own the website in which the original article appears. The Wikipedia version was vigorously edited to comply with the tone and purpose of the encyclopedia.

I appreciate your diliegence in policing a possible copyright infringement, but, again, I request that you restore the page as it last appeared.

Much appreciation,

Richard Barone, New York City -- richard@richardbarone.com mailto:richard@richardbarone.com

cc: alexandra parent, richard barone music alex.rbaronemusic@earthlink.net; elizabeth granville, esq.

Re: Friendly note about deleted pages

Protecting deleted pages, with {{deletedpage}}, is only for when it is likely that the page will be re-created, which usually means, that it has been re-created before, so that legitimate articles could be created at the same title. —Centrx→talk • 01:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(You may already be doing this fine, I just noticed a few in a row that were only created once and didn't seem to be related to a persistent problem.) Cheers, —Centrx→talk • 02:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, Thanks for all of your help while I'm getting into the groove of things.

As far as protecting those deleted pages, they were all created by a single user and were all hoax pages that a few of us had noticed on IRC. There were about a dozen images that had been negated in MS Paint and reuploaded as creatures that really didn't exist. From the logs, I understand how that could look suspicious. Thanks for ensuring that I was staying on track. :-D --Zsinj^Talk 02:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, it didn't look suspicious, it just means I have to do more pages when I go through on Special:Shortpages and later when deleting old deletedpages. Unfortunately, they do not automagically delete themselves on a time limit. —Centrx→talk • 02:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Richard Barone

Thank you for your response. Here is a copy of the email I just sent to "Permissions." Hopefully, this will resolve the issue.

Appreciatively,

Richard Barone

--

Dear Permissions@wikimedia.org,

As per request of administrator "Centrx" (copied below), please reinstate page entry for Richard Barone as it last appeared in Wikipedia.

There was a question of copyright violation, but, as owner of the website posting the original article (which was highly edited and adapted to conform to Wikipedia guidelines) I hereby grant all permissions for re-use, to post article as submitted, under the GFDL, as outlined below.

Thank you and best regards,

Richard Barone

cc: Alexandra Parent - alex.rbaronemusic@earthlink.net

--

Richard Barone Music New York, NY 10014 USA richardbarone@mac.com rbarone@earthlink.net richard@richardbarone.com

http://richardbarone.com http://myspace.com/richardbarone

Copyright permission

The note granting permission has to to be sent from an e-mail address associated with the website from which it is copied. —Centrx→talk • 00:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to use the text on Richard Barone on Wikipedia, it must be released under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). In order to confirm this permission, please:

Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at Talk:Richard Barone (my talk page, User talk:Centrx may be preferable for quicker response) where we can find that note; or Send an e-mail from rbarone(at)earthlink(dot)net to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org permitting re-use under the GFDL. Only after this has been done can the page be re-created. Sorry for the inconvenience. —Centrx→talk • 17:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

-- Richard Barone Music New York, NY 10014 USA richardbarone@mac.com rbarone@earthlink.net richard@richardbarone.com

http://richardbarone.com http://myspace.com/richardbarone

Dear Centrx,

Thank you for restoring the page. It concerns me that you say, "For the moment." Please let me know what more we must do the ensure the page remains online. Again, I appreciate both your concern and your quick responses.

Richard Barone New York

Centrx writes: I do recommend that you find some external, reliable sources about, for example, the concert preparation or record sales. —Centrx→talk • 04:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you tell me what you mean by 'concert preparation' (all concerts described have been documented in major publications). And for record sales, do you mean radio and retail charts, e.g. Billboard Magazine?

Appeciation

Thank you for your suggestions. We have added some sources and details within the text, and a link to a pivotal New York Times review in the 'External Links.' I feel your advice has made this a stronger entry.

Best regards,

Richard Barone

"rm my silly comment"

Your comment on WT:RFA was no more silly than the whole discussion about the 1000th admin. Of course, there is a natural fascination with round numbers, and I hoped the discussion would help prompt some extra nominations out there (but it didn't apparently). Cheers, NoSeptember 11:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

LDDS Communications

Why have you deleted this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crothersk (talk • contribs) 04:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Crothersk, [8]. —Centrx→talk • 04:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will contact these people and learn more of how they have copyrighted this text decribing the history of LDDS Communications. It appears they are only using the text as marketing material for the selling of WorldCom, Inc.- MCI Group - MCI Tracking Stock. LDDS Communications deserves its own page within Wikipedia, and I'd like to help make it happen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crothersk (talk • contribs) 04:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)