User talk:Centrx/Archive9

Donnie Davies

Just thought I'd let you know that I nominated the article for a deletion reversal which you can weigh in on here: WP:DRV Thanks! SquatGoblin 04:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Deletion: Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

Centrx:

Can I ask why you deleted the article titled 'Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America', despite the fact that there was a clear explanation of the supposed 'Copyright Infringment' posted on the articles 'Discussion' page?

Thank you. --Datwood 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If the copyright holder sent confirmation that the text is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License to the Wikimedia Foundation as delineated in the Copyvio template, the copyright issue would be cleared when that queue is processed and the article restored. In this particular case, however, the text is not suitable for Wikipedia because it is copied from the organization's website, which poses a conflict of interest problem, and the article is not in a neutral point of view. —Centrx→talk • 01:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Chiţcani, Moldova

Could you please consider unprotecting the above? It has been protected for over a month, but I want to categorise it as a village and correct a spelling mistake. Protection is not intended to freeze pages permanently and there has not been a continuing dispute on the talk page or anything. I am not one of the parties to the dispute and couldn't care less about the issues at stake, I just want to tidy things up. Thank you. Pinoakcourt 20:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

See also [1]. Every user account in his block log for the last few months also seems to be a user he was in a dispute with and each has a corresponding ANI discussion admonishing him. It just seems each time to be a matter of no one thinking it worth it to spend the time to collect all the evidence, and to some extent people probably thought John Reid and Matthew Fenton "should" be blocked, despite the reason he used for it and his being altercated in a dispute with them making the blocks bogus. —Centrx→talk • 03:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned at WP:AN/I#Werdna's RfA, the fact that Phil is unapologetic and unwavering in his insistence that he did nothing wrong (which implies that he intends to do it again) is what concerns me most. It seems as though an RfC is in order, but I'm not up for filing one on my own. I'm busy with school (and already investing more of my time on the wiki than I really should be). I also don't want to place myself in a situation in which I'm perceived as a disgruntled blockee out for revenge. At the same time, I don't want to be selfish about this (as I'm genuinely worried that Phil is harming Wikipedia). If enough people share our concerns, perhaps we could work together on this (in as non-confrontational a manner as possible). Something has to be done, and I don't feel comfortable walking away (even though it would be the easiest thing to do). —David Levy 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Robert Benfer. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Esn 04:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you receive my email?

Centrx,

I sent you an email, on January 29th, that was written by my employer, and have not received any response. Please let me know if there was a problem receiving this email, if so, I can resend it. We have worked very hard to create the most cohesive entry for Wikipedia, and wish to resolve this issue as soon as possible.

ArtHandler 15:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Wikipedia talk:Notability (news)

On the Wikipedia talk page for Wikipedia:Notability you expressed some opinions about whether things covered by news media should be entitled to Wikipedia articles for having met the criteria of multiple coverage in reliable independent sources I have created a draft of a proposed guideline Wikipedia talk:Notability (news) looking at the question of whether "newsworty" equals "encyclopedic." Your input is welcome. Thanks.Edison 01:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Youth Leadership Camp

• (Query sent also to Heah)

As two previous Youth Leadership Camp articles contributed by other editors have been deleted as copyvios, and one of them was deleted by you, I want to bring it to your attention that I am working on a non-copyvio stub about the camp.

In the hope of discouraging future additions of copyvio material, I intend to include a brief summary of the fates of the earlier articles on the stub's talk page. Do you know of any objections to this? (I've watchlisted your talk page and will look for a reply here.) — Athænara ✉ 02:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's necessary—the page was created as a copyvio more than six months ago and I tend to think someone copying text wouldn't be reading the talk page—but as long as it doesn't include any copied text, obviously, I don't see any problem with it. —Centrx→talk • 07:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Centrx. — Æ. ✉ 16:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RfAr

You have been listed as one of the involved parties in a case against Philwelch. Please follow the link above. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Don Murphy wants an Admin

Here be an update: Shitapedia- Updated. I love how some people on his board are questioning him. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 17:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a thank you for your vigilance in regard to my welcome template. I feel that both changes you have made recently make a lot of sense. --Kukini 21:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-vandalism2}}

Hi Centrx, I've reverted your removal of the image on the above template. If you have any quesries please discuss any further changes you would like to make at WT:UTM. Regards ^{Khukri -} 23:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

?

[2] - I'm not an admin, so there wasn't much I could have done ... Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Change to "let it be dealt with". If it doesn't receive any admin response on ANI, then they should bring it up elsewhere, but usually it does get dealt with there, so they don't need to file some other report elsewhere. —Centrx→talk • 06:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Dabnav}}

I just noticed {{Dabnav}} that you created a bit of time ago, but it's prett cool - thanks! -- Natalya 00:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

question

I noticed that you deleted kellie everts and one of the reasons why ir was becasue it was unimproved, does that mean that if a page is not improved for a long time is deleted?Angel,Isaac 00:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It just means that it is unlikely that any of the many problems with the article will ever be fixed and that it has, from the start, not been any sort of appropriate Wikipedia article. The entire history of the article is: It was originally created apparently as a puff piece by someone probably affiliated with the subject (or the person herself), then someone removed some of the blatantly non-neutral text, then for the last 8 months the entirety of all edits is some IP adding possibly libellous statements, and Wikipedia editors reverting him. If you think a neutral, verifiable encyclopedic article can be made here you are welcome to do so, but it would essentially need to be entirely re-written because of its non-encyclopedic tone and complete lack of reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. —Centrx→talk • 01:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Gibbs High School

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gibbs_High_School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Morthanley 06:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you receive my email?

Centrx, I sent you an email, on January 29th, that was written by my employer, and have not received any response. Please let me know if there was a problem receiving this email, if so, I can resend it. We have worked very hard to create the most cohesive entry for Wikipedia, and wish to resolve this issue as soon as possible. ArtHandler 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography. —Centrx→talk • 22:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Radio Chick

Hi. Are you keeping an eye on this? Jkelly 23:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist, but I think the problem was centered around the radio show after December 13. —Centrx→talk • 00:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear someone's watching it. Jkelly 00:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Personal information on userpage

I have deleted the edit that you requested. Thanks for giving me the heads up. I doubt they care about oversight, but if they want to I have no objections to that either. Best, IronGargoyle 00:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

could you please dicuss your reasoning for changing the copyvio templates on WT:UTM please. Regards ^{Khukri -} 17:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Posted there. —Centrx→talk • 17:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:GFDL-no-disclaimers

I've reverted you here. Please do not remove usage of WP:DOC pattern on templates like this one. For all the good reasons stated at WP:DOC. Thank you. Purging the cache of 12'000 pages and causing 12'000 entries in the job queue to add an interwiki is plain silly. --Ligulem 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

{{sprotected}}

Where is this discussion you speak of? -- tariqabjotu 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

See talk section "Recent changes". This is in reference to the major changes to the template from 13 November 2006 to 29 November 2006, which has also stood and been accepted for the last two months. The purpose here was to make it shorter and straightforward, rather than cluttering and confusing otherwise fine articles, especially for readers that would have made no edits and care little about the semi-protection. —Centrx→talk • 22:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I had a feeling that was it. You're absolutely correct. Naturally. You always are. It's entirely clear those involved in the discussion were talking about a feature that had not yet been created. And this more recent conversation means nothing because people disagreed with you (and thus they are wrong). Never mind starting a new thread on WP:AN or Template talk:Sprotected to gain consensus for your position; you have decided and that's sufficient. -- tariqabjotu 22:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

They were referring to not including extraneous information, or to having only the minimal information necessary. There has been no further discussion on Template talk:Protected to address open issues, and there was never any discussion at all on Template talk:Sprotected to implement the change in the first place. —Centrx→talk • 22:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 684 revert

I guess you reverted the (relatively) recent edit to Interstate_684 because you thought the IP-based edit was vandalism, but it is correct.

It's my best guess that the addition of this 'legal definition' was a copy/paste job, and was done in error: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interstate_684&diff=prev&oldid=98838276#Route_description

There is no Interstate 284 (so sayeth Google as well), and would be rather irrelevant in an article on 684.

Aside: Any recommendation on how to better cite the law - the NYS law site is quite terrible (JS-only!), and the link expires within a few hours. Presently, it can be found here: public.leginfo.state.ny.us - very long URL

It can be reached by going to the domain, and clicking Law -> Highway Law ("HAY"), and then the relevant part to 340A.

Regards, John Silvestri 02:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Even the foundation issues are founded on the principle of consensus. Several were in fact designed on the basis of consensus on meatballwiki or wikiwikiweb, or based on consensus and concessions across 3 encyclopedia communities, etc . Consensus is ubiquitous and fundamental to wikis, and several other internet processes in general, and is very hard to escape. --Kim Bruning 23:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is based on fundamental principles. The exact ramifications of various policies were reached by consensus, but those policies and that consensus is already done under the basic premise of some general notion of a free encyclopedia. Once it is decided that 'Wikipedia is free encyclopedia', that cannot be changed without making it no longer 'Wikipedia'. There might be some consensus to do something different, but that becomes 'Wiktionary', etc. If theoretical pillars are changed, Wikipedia becomes something entirely different from what it has been since the beginning, and it is destroyed. If Wikipedia were no longer 'encyclopedia' or 'neutral' or 'free', it would mean that Wikipedia is gone and there would anyway quickly be a fork. If there were some change in 'free', it would mean that every article would need to be restarted from the beginning. If there were some change in 'sane conduct', no encyclopedia or any other project could ever work. If Wikipedia suddenly had 'firm rules', it would contradict "consensus". —Centrx→talk • 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

copied to Wikipedia talk:Five pillars

Thanks for advice

Thanks for the advice on merging Billy Mandindini - much appreciated! DocDee 00:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Brett Favre

I see you removed the talk header from the Favre talk page after I added it. The general consensus on the talk header is to add it after someone violates the policies of the talk page. As people were calling each other stupid and idiots it's addition meets with current community consensus. See the template's talk page for a discussion. Quadzilla99 06:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Trust me I violated the consensus of the community after I saw that it stated on the template's page that it can be added to any page, well I started adding it to every talk page. Due to the backlash from that, I've become familiar with the policies on the talk header and when people violate talk page guidelines consensus is it should be added. Quadzilla99 07:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think the talk header belongs on that page, go for it. I was just reversing the mass addition of it. —Centrx→talk • 07:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, there's a lot of personal attacks on there. I don't add it indiscriminately anymore as can be seen from my edit history. Quadzilla99 07:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I archived the template:talkheader page per Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Please read that only ongoing discussions are to be carried over, as there has been scant activity for two weeks and none in a week I would consider none of them active. That is the correct policy according to the guidelines there. If you wish to do so you can refactor any old topics if you wish. Thanks. Quadzilla99 08:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand how policy works. That page is a description of common practice. Common practice is not to blank talk pages when archiving. The purpose of archiving is to shorten the page length while preserving active discussions. If a set of sections, though less active than an on more active talk pages, will not unduly lengthen the page, there is no point in removing them simply for archival purposes. Some discussions have responses after weeks, and the talk page should show recent decisions about the page. There is no reason to archive this far. Where does the how-to page say what you think it does? —Centrx→talk • 14:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your prompt response to my inquiry. I know I need to read more MediaWiki manual, but I am very new to this system while I am eager to learn. I have spent past month or so trying to figure out what MediaWiki software has to offer. It's been a great learning experience, yet, since I lack a formal computer education background (while I am very open to this field and fairly quick to pick up for non techy), I am having some difficulties in figuring out what is written and what is meant. There are so many jargons that I still have to learn. While the MediaWiki home pages and manuals are fairly helpfull, they are still in the process of re-organizing and I often get lost between the links. I wonder if there is a concrete write up on what functions and features are hidden in the MediaWiki program. I have a feeling that there is a lot more to it than I am able to see, but those secrets are hidden behind the codes and jargons that I am yet to familialize. If you are so kind and able to lead me to the correct direction to such references, I would be very greatful.

Sincerely,

--Kohyin 07:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Computer programmers usually prefer to code than to make documentation :) I am not especially familiar with the MediaWiki software, but the online chat (IRC) is probably the best place to get help with it (or any computer software). —Centrx→talk • 07:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for your kind advice.--Kohyin 02:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Kristi Snowcat (1)

What happened to the Kristi Snowcat page I posted?

It was accurate. There were no copyright issues. It was not an advertisement (they went out of business over 30 years ago).

I don't get it.

Bob —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Melensdad (talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

MediaWiki:Undo-summary

1. Why did you remove the WP:AES-linking arrow?
2. I don't object to your wording, but why did you unilaterally overrule the decision reached on the talk page without even participating in the discussion?
3. What do you mean by "This is /not/ a revert, "Reverted" is simply false."? On the English Wikipedia, undoing a change (even if this doesn't affect the entire page) is defined as "reverting," and this is a good fact to convey. (I've seen numerous editors claim that they didn't violate the 3RR because they manually replaced part of the text instead of "reverting.") —David Levy 14:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

1. The WP:AES-linking arrow was for situations where the user could make some change to the page where an edit summary would be automatically and unknowingly supplied. This does not make sense for rollback, because rollback requires a knowing admin to click on a link, and it makes even less sense for undo, because not only is the editor clicking on a link, but the automatically supplied edit summary is displayed in the edit summary box before the change is even made.

2. The edit summary a participation in the discussion. I could have copied the edit summary to the talk page, but that would seem to be rather redundant. I could have brought the matter up without making any edit, but the change reversed is a brand new one and the talk page discussants appeared not to have previously considered the objections (and so, as is fairly common, would agree with them without even needing any discussion).

3. Reverting does, very uncommonly, refer to reversing some old change, though most of the time it is exactly a revert of the recent-most changes. The misunderstanding is correct considering the general meaning and common use of the word, it just does not precisely fit with 3RR's special use of it. If someone is making a single edit the undoes something from a month ago, that is not reverting. For 3RR, however, they must be doing it multiple times for recent edits. The situations are much different, and it is misleading to someone looking at the page history for the summary to say "Reverted". The developers knew the word "Reverted", but it would not make sense for someone to click on the "revert" button for some old edit or for the edit summary to say "Reverted", against the common meaning of the word—and the only meaning of the word in page histories. —Centrx→talk • 15:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

copied to MediaWiki talk:Undo-summary

Philwelch

Do you want me to leave Wikipedia? Philwelch 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Reliablesources

Looks like the merge and rename has not really gone any place between Template:Primarysources and Template:Reliablesources. Might I suggest you take the redirect off of Template:Reliablesources and apply your ideas to it. If you can make it work the way you hope, a change and merge would be pretty much moot as everyone would probably stop using the old and start using the new. Jeepday 00:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The merge was separate from the rename, and I don't see any objection to the rename. The matter was confused because I proposed both, two separate issues, at once, and then dropped and forgotten about. Any Template:Reliablesources would use identical or almost identical text. —Centrx→talk • 01:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Deletedpage

Template:Deletedpage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

International Cultic Studies Association

Thanks for the feedback. We're still republishing the staff list in the article; I only removed the one that the complaint was about. I think that was probably not the right call, but I'm also loathe to upset the article's editors further. Thoughts? Would you be willing to take this one over, given the editors there being irked with me? Jkelly 01:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protected titles

I agree with most of your points from the TfD discussion, but please note that a message nearly identical to {{deletedpage}} (complete with links) is displayed. Try viewing one of the protected pages wile logged out of your sysop account. —David Levy 03:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI AN/I thread

On AN/I your name was mentioned. It has all died down since it seems, but no-one seems to have informed you. Agathoclea 07:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Counter Terrorist Unit

After being redirected (which I agree with), I added some info to 24 (TV series) in order to complete the merge/redirect. Unfortunately somebody has removed the redirect, replacing it with the full text of the former article. Obviously the history needs to be saved (rather than deleted) but is it possible to protect a redirect? As it is now, there is redundant info in the 24 article. auburnpilot talk 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing really that could be done except revert (because it was an undiscussed, unexplained, possibly fly-by-night reversal) or AfD, and AfDs usually get confused by this because it should not be "deleted", just redirected; there needs to be some mechanism that is as powerful as AfD, but that deals with decisions about sourcing, merging, notability, etc. —Centrx→talk • 01:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Alister Taylor

Hi Centrx I've started a discussion entry on the Alister Taylor article regarding his inclusion in the list of New Zealand Fraudsters, and would value your opinion on this issue. Many Thanks Far Canal 23:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Elmerson

I noticed that you permanently banned this user for copyright violations and deleted some of the articles he/she created. Firstly, I'm a little concerned that you banned this user without any explanation or prior warning on his/her talk page; although this user persistently uploaded images without providing adequate source and copyright information despite many requests, he/she was not warned of the consequences of repeatedly uploading/inserting copyright violating content, so I think a permanent ban is a little extreme. Secondly, I'm wondering if you have evidence to support your assertion that the articles he/she created were in fact copyvios when they were created; for example, the first revision in the now-deleted history of Age Ain't Nothing But A Number (song) is just an infobox, and that almost certainly wasn't a copyright violation. Articles such as More Than a Woman (Aaliyah song) weren't even originally created by this user. Extraordinary Machine 00:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The user was already told that he would be blocked if he continued to upload copyrighted material. The user's first contributions were copyrighted material, and the users last contributions were copyrighted material. Regarding the specific articles you mention: Age Ain't Nothing But A Number (song) was a redirect; there is no use leaving around pages in the history from a user with a history of copyright infringement. For More Than a Woman (Aaliyah song), the first deleted revisions are a mix of redirects and page moves; he did in fact create the page after that. If you think any of these are not copyvios, you are welcome to investigate and restore them. For several of them I found exactly where they were copied from, but it is not feasible to do this for all the dozens of article a copyright-infringing user creates; our options in such case are either to leave copyright infringements on Wikipedia which we know were added by a copyright-infringing user, or to delete the articles created by a user who did not cooperate even to stop the behavior. Leaving pages like this on Wikipedia, aside from any legal problem, destroys any subsequent contributions to the page once it is discovered, because all derivatives of copyright infringements must be deleted. Also, beware that many are mixed in with articles created by User:Booze broads and bullets. —Centrx→talk • 03:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The only warning he/she received about being blocked (not banned) was way back in July, in response to his creating of an article that included song lyrics. He/she didn't insert any more song lyrics after that, so I think he/she got the message. I find it really irritating when users repeatedly upload images without providing adequate source and/or copyright info too, but I don't think one more warning before a permanent ban would have hurt. I'm uncomfortable with the deletion of articles without evidence that they were copyvios. Of the Aaliyah-related articles Elmerson created that I investigated, the only ones I didn't restore fully/at all were List of awards for which Aaliyah was nominated and More Than a Woman (Aaliyah song), because in both cases Elmerson appeared to have copied content from the main Aaliyah article without mentioning the article in the edit summaries. Could you please list the articles he/she created that were definitely copyvios? Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 00:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir Megre

Dear moderators of Wikipedia,

My name is Viktor (on your website wikipedia.org I am registered under the nickname tearslake) and I am an administrator of EnergyofLife.ca and RingingCedarsofRussia.org. A while ago I have visited your website and I have read a message where you are asking to expand your website by submitting valuable informational interesting articles. Our organization is an official representative of the famous Russian writer whose books are already mega bestsellers. I think that the Internet community will be very interested in finding more about the story of Ringing Cedars and how it started. We have placed to your website articles about Vladimir Megre which are under our copyright. Today we have received a message from the readers of the books by Vladimir Megre that this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Megre had been deleted. And I have found that the person under the nickname Centrx deleted this article and put this information “03:57, 10 February 2007 Centrx (Talk | contribs) deleted "Vladimir Megre" (Copyvio, http://www.energyoflife.ca/info_story.php)“. I personally do not understand what does this mean, if this is a copyright question, we can provide proof that this article is under our copyright, if it is something else please explain what is the problem because we do not want to bother you again by placing other valuable information or interesting articles in case you do not need our help or our information.

With all respect, Viktor Rod. Administrator of EnergyofLife.ca and RingingCedarsofRussia.org Official representatives of The Ringing Cedars of Russia. 130 Church Street Suit 366 New York, NY 10007 USA Tel: 646-429-1985 ext. 718 Tel: 1-877-TO-CEDAR (862-3327) (Toll free within US) Fax: 1-877-549-6902 (Toll free within US) info@ringingcedarsofrussia.org info@energyoflife.ca Outside USA: Tel: +1-646-429-1985

First, the text would need to be licensed for publication under the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use, alter, and re-distribute the text for any purpose. Second, Wikipedia articles must be verifiable in reliable published sources and be in a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. So, even if the text were licensed appropriately, the text would not be appropriate for Wikipedia and would need to be entirely re-written. —Centrx→talk • 03:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Centrx, here is a new article written for Wikipedia that is written in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Could you please read it and see if there are any other problems that you can identify:

Vladimir Megre.

Vladimir Megre, born in 1950, was a well-known entrepreneur and president of Interregional Association of entrepreneurs of Siberia. In 1994-95 he organized out of his own expense two large-scale trade expeditions along the river Ob using steam boats with the rout Novosibirsk – Salehard - Novosibirsk. The first expedition "Merchant Caravan" was well known in press of Siberia, Hanta-Mansiysk and Yamalo-Nenetsk regional districts.

During one of these trips heading north in 1995 he met a woman who's name is Anastasia. This meeting Vladimir Megre described in a book which was published in 1996 in Moscow, Russia. The book Anastasia became the beginning of the series of books which Vladimir Megre joined under the title "The Ringing Cedars of Russia". Books of Vladimir Megre are translated to many languages of the world, joined edition of which in 2007 was approximately ten million copies.

The writer Vladimir Megre now lives near the city of Vladimir, Russia, 240 km (150 miles) east of Moscow. Currently the writer is working on the continuation of the series of books of "The Ringing Cedars of Russia".

More information about Vladimir Megre can be found on www.RingingCedarsofRussia.org. Communication portal for the readers of the books by V. Megre is located at www.Anastasia.ca. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tearslake (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

There need to be third-party sources. —Centrx→talk • 00:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Centrx, we receive the information directly from the author, and RingingCedarsofRussia.org is his official representatives. Most of the information we provide in this article also exists in Vladmir Megre’s autobiographical book series "The Ringing Cedars of Russia". The Russian originals are published by the publishing company "Dilya", site http://dilya.ru/. Dilya is also working directly with Vladimir Megre. Here is an article by Dilya where the above information can be cross-checked: http://www.dilya.ru/information/megre/ (in Russian). This is the site of "The Ringing Cedars of Russia" in Russia: http://www.megre.ru/. On this site you can check our status as official representatives in English: http://www.megre.ru/shop/index.php?show_aux_page=2 (As of today there are only two representatives of the brand name). Please tell us what else you are looking for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tearslake (talk • contribs) 16:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi Centrx, please let us know if this is what you were looking for.

If the information comes directly from the author, then it cannot be used to create an article. If the information his from autobiographical books, that is not enough to make an article. —Centrx→talk • 22:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. We really want people to know about the author Vladimir Megre. Can you or can you recommend anybody to assist us in creating this article? Or is it possible to ask a Wikipedia.org's moderator such as yourself to write an article on the topic on a payment basis? If yes, can you please recommend someone who might be interested?

Browsing Wikipedia we have seen many articles we doubt come from a third party, for example, the articles about companies such as Amazon.com, most likely come from the respective companies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tearslake (talk • contribs) 00:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a promotional service. Articles may not be written for profit. Articles like Amazon.com have been written by thousands of contributors over the course of the past five years, and there are numerous reliable published sources about the topic. The article was not written by Amazon.com nor was it written as a service to Amazon.com; it was written as an important topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 00:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and helping us better understand Wikipedia. From what you have said I understand that the links I have provided are not sufficient as reliable sources in support of the article. In that case, what would be sufficient as reliable sources? Do we need to provide scans of each published book in each country and language or the links to publishing companies is sufficient? And second question: where do I provide these sources - within the article or in the "discussion" page for the article as I have not seen the links to sources in the Amazon.com article for instance? --Tearslake 15:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Amazon.com article is not a good example, but there are nevertheless more than a dozen reliable sources listed in the References section, and hundreds more could be found if someone were to work on the article. Sources must be about this person, not by this person, and you are not allowed to create the article because you are affiliated with the subject and doing so for promotional purposes. —Centrx→talk • 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete entries on GMA Network (Philippines) shows?

I need an explanation why you deleted almost all wikientries regarding shows of GMA Network (Philippines). I wonder if this has any connection with the network war of ABS-CBN and GMA Network here in the Philippines, I noticed that all articles regarding shows of ABS-CBN were not at all deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyupayb (talk • contribs) 07:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm suspecting someone (not Centrix) has been speedily tagging GMA Network programs. I've request undeletion on StarStruck (see below), I haven't heard of the others. I'll be doing something about this. --Howard the Duck 09:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

These articles were copyright infringements. Of the ones deleted, most were copied from http://www.igma.tv/ and all were created by User:Booze broads and bullets. —Centrx→talk • 21:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there was a version in which no copyvio can be found... --Howard the Duck 06:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The articles deleted were all originally created by this banned user, so there were no revisions prior to his (assuming no error of the kind below). It is possible that some are not copied, but that is difficult or impossible to verify (proving a negative), especially because for some articles his major source, the GMA website, has substantially changed since the creation of the articles. It would not be wise, however, to make possible a situation where the copyright holder asks why the substantial text added by this person, who infringed on copyright and then obstinately refused to stop, was allowed to remain when most of them are blatantly copied and the remaining ones are probably simply less blatant. If another administrator wants to take the time to determine whether any one of them was actually copied and take the responsibility for restoring possibly infringing text, they are free to do so. —Centrx→talk • 16:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually some articles (I Luv NY, for example) were so bad they don't have that much text, just a list of the cast, so I doubt if there was a copyvio on that article. I'm not sure on other articles but it seemed they had the same basic structure, an article almost entirely composed of lists of cast, characters and sometimes ratings, very little prose. I even think the copyrighted text (probably the plot and/or synopsis) can easily be reverted. So with a bad article with almost no prose, I fail to see how some can be copyvios. You even deleted a template, how can that be a copyvio? --Howard the Duck 04:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I Luv NY contained several paragraphs of text, which were copied verbatim. There is no prior revision to revert to, because the article was originally created as a copyvio, which is true for all of the articles deleted. I do recall some articles that had nothing more than lists and such, but: The form of these lists is copyrightable, and they are anyway pages with no content. —Centrx→talk • 04:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, when I last saw it, it was just listy; I even edited it. Perhaps it was deleted, then recreated with copyvios. Although I remembered all it had was a list of the cast. --Howard the Duck 04:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You can still see it in the Google cache. —Centrx→talk • 05:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How can I do that (look at the Google archives? --Howard the Duck 12:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Any Google search result has a "Cached" link unless it has been disabled for various reasons (e.g. copyright). —Centrx→talk • 22:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, seeing how simple the copyvio was, it was an overkill to delete the entire article on the fault of a single section; its like killing a family because the father killed someone. You could have just removed the section and walked away. --Howard the Duck 12:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no other way to do it. Even if we were to be absolutely certain that there is no other copied text, the copied text was added at the very same time that whatever uncopied text was added; there is no way to delete part of a revision—the entire revision must be deleted and there is no prior revision to revert to. Therefore, there is nothing left, and regardless the remainder of the text may very well have been copied also, considering the user, and no copyright holder would look favorably on restoring the part that "appeared" uncopied if it turns out it actually was. —Centrx→talk • 22:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I get your point, seeing how much pain the ass that user was, but seeing one section was suspect and even if the cast and characters section may have been taken copyrighted material (might as well speedy delete all TV program articles), what you could have done was to exterminate that single section, then the article, although bad, looks clean enough, I mean, how can the other sections be copyrighted? --Howard the Duck 06:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The revision that contains the copyvio has to be deleted from the page history, and regardless there is still the problem that the remainder could be copied. In fact, the text in the version that you restored is copied; you can see it at [3] and [4]. —Centrx→talk • 15:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So what's stopping you from removing the copyvio from the deletion history and the "copied" (wasn't able to see all of it since the first page was loong and I'm on dial-up) text; about the second link, seeing it was posted on August 22, can you investigate on the deleted history if it was added before that time? --Howard the Duck 03:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that one of the deleted articles (Princess Charming) was made from scratch by me and another user before it was edited by User:Booze broads and bullets. -Danngarcia 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you created the article after a deletion review, and the revisions prior to the deletion review were not deleted, so the first revisions were his so it appeared he originally created it. I have restored the revisions that came after the deletion review, which start with yours. —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -Danngarcia 07:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Undelete request

As far as I am concerned, much of the material on StarStruck (Philippine TV series) was original. If you'd still want the deletion process to continue I suggest AFD. --Howard the Duck 07:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

On further inspection, this user did a cut-and-paste move, so it appeared that he created the article, but in fact it was created much earlier by someone else. I restored it and merged the page histories. —Centrx→talk • 23:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Howard the Duck 06:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion procedure

I just recreated Berth Milton, Jr.. Why was there no proper AfD or even an attempt to contact me (the creator) before it was deleted?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The user that created the article has not been on Wikipedia since 2005. Wikipedia articles must have reliable sources. For future reference, never re-create a deleted article from a cache or other saved copy; it severs the page history. I have restored the page history to allow for you to improve the article. —Centrx→talk • 23:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Two questions:

1. How did you manage not to notice that User:Karmosin redirects to my user page?
2. Did you do even a minimum of web research before you decided to delete an article about the CEO of one of the most prominent porn companies in the world?

Peter ^Isotalo 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

1. The dates of contributions, which was checked not the user page, end on October 2005, though it is noticeable on closer examination that the user was renamed. The article has also been tagged for ten months as having no sources whatsoever, during which time you or anyone else could have improved it.
2. If a proper encycopedia article can be created for this person, then it should not be difficult to find multiple reliable published sources independent of the person that cover him as their main subject. As it stands, there is one reference in the article that appears to be a general history that may or may not mention him in passing, and a Web search leads to the Wikipedia article being the top result, with paltry few other results; there appear to be a handful of passing mentions in Google Books. This would indicate that he may belong in a general article about the history of pornography, or somesuch article (see Wikipedia:Notability#Merging. That is, from the present article and from some simple Web research, notability is still not demonstrated. I don't doubt that this person exists or that he runs this company, but that does not entail there are enough sources to make an encyclopedia article about him. —Centrx→talk • 02:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Put it to an AfD if you're actually serious about this. I can assure you that I'll rise to the occasion if needed. It'll be very interesting to see how many print sources will be demanded of a famous pornographer compared to a high school.

Do try to show a bit more humility, though, because all I can say is that your modus operandi so far has been high-handed and sloppy.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to improve the article, there is no reason to AfD it. The occasion is that the article does not have sufficient sourcing, and you should "rise to the occasion" whether someone puts it on AfD or not; an AfD only makes the matter more urgent, but regardless better sources should be added. Also, note that articles about high schools are frequently deleted, though there are always local and regional newspapers that have articles about the schools. —Centrx→talk • 16:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Milton was interviewed in Fortune back during the 90s internet boom when people actually thought porn companies could make billions and prosper on NASDAQ. He was one of the main protagonists behind the promotion of porn companies as future multi-billion dollar cash cows, a notion that was a very wide-spread idea only about a decade ago. There is at least one book written on both father and son (Private med Milton och Milton by Thomas Sjöberg) and he's infamous and generally loathed in Sweden due to his involvement in porn.

Notable enough?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You should probably mention the book in the article. —Centrx→talk • 20:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Article: Christian Brothers High School (California)

I would like to know why you deleted this article. It seems a bit premature - you could have easily put some kind of a tag on the page listing the problems with it and/or added something to the talk page.

Scotty1394 03:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Substantial portions of this article were copied directly from [5], which is not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License or in the public domain and as such is a copyright infringement. The remainder of the text essentially read like an advertisement for the school. If you choose to write a new, original article, do note that Wikipedia articles must be in a neutral point of view and be verifiable in reliable published sources. It is unlikely that this topic satisfies Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 05:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok thank you, I was not aware the text had been copied. Although, are you sure that deletion was necessary in this case? Is that always the response to copyvio? Scotty1394 05:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

For any copyvio, all revisions after the copied text was added usually need to be deleted, because they contain the copied text or are "derivative works". In this case, the revisions prior to the copyvio could be restored, but the entirety of the text would be "Christian Brothers High School is a college prepatory school in Sacramento, California. The school's mascot is the Falcon." I can restore this, but it is insubstantial and unreferenced and, unless there are reliable published sources on the topic, it could not be made into a proper encyclopedia article. —Centrx→talk • 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

One more question: What did you use to find the page that the text was copied from? Scotty1394 06:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I just selected some phrasing from the text and put it in Google, within quotation marks. A tip off that it was copied is that the article read in parts like a promotional brochure from the school, and the major text of the article was added in a text dump in a single edit, which was then refined. —Centrx→talk • 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

03:12, 14 February 2007 Centrx (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Freebutchery" (content was: '{{deletedpage}}' (and the only contributor was 'Aaron Brenneman'))

What's the story, morning glory? - brenneman 01:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just housekeeping. See Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages. If someone re-creates it and they shouldn't, just put the deletedpage template back. —Centrx→talk • 03:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, they did and I did... ^_^ Back to our schedualed programming. - brenneman 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Arsène Lupin III

I noticed you deleted Arsène Lupin III with the comment "Likely copyvio, no reliable sources". Because no clarification was provided -- your description suggests you're not even sure it's a copyvio, let alone of a particular source -- and no deletion had previously been proposed, I concluded that this deletion did not fit Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and undeleted the page. At the very least, you could have formally proposed it for deletion first using Template:prod. Please exercise caution in deleting articles. Thank you. - furrykef (Talk at me) 03:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You should probably figure out where User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso copied them from before re-creating a possible copyright infringement. They are all text dumps uploaded by this user in the space of a couple of hours. The only reason they are "likely" copyvios and not "copyvios" is there is the unlikely possibility they were copied from a GFDL or public domain source. —Centrx→talk • 03:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea where they were possibly copied from. I tried googling a few key phrases and came up with nothing. In any case, I don't think deleting the article outright is the proper procedure. Remember that we're supposed to assume good faith. It is possible that you are correct, but I don't think we should jump to conclusions. - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have no idea where they were copied from, then you should probably not post the article on Wikipedia. This is not an assumption of bad faith; he probably copied the text in perfectly good faith, just not knowing that doing so was illegal. Assume good faith is not a reason for not responding to a problem and is irrelevant here. —Centrx→talk • 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring a problem isn't an appropriate response, but I don't think simply deleting the article is an appropriate one either. In any case, I found where he copied it from. He copied it from Wikipedia itself. Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ars%C3%A8ne_Lupin_III&oldid=51296259 (Arsène Lupin III after he finished creating it) and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lupin_III&oldid=50951425#Ars.C3.A8ne_Lupin_III (Lupin III before he edited it, which was in the same timeframe). I myself wrote much of that text, though I'm sure much of it had been changed in between the time I wrote it and the time it was pasted there. I wonder how many other "copyvios" from this user are simply rearrangements of other material from Wikipedia. I think this is a perfect illustration of why it is not a good idea to simply delete an article you merely suspect is a copyvio, because I am now 100% certain that there is no copyvio here. - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. These are not in the tone of an encyclopedia article. —Centrx→talk • 23:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but that doesn't justify deleting it out of process. Just be more careful in the future, OK? :) - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not the reason for deleting it, that's the reason why it appeared to be a copyvio, that it could only have reasonably come from a guide published by the show's producer or a fan website. —Centrx→talk • 00:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

But I mean you still shouldn't jump to conclusions. We have a process for dealing with this kind of situation, and outright deleting something isn't it. We should put a little more thought and effort into things like this instead of reasoning "he created this many articles in such a short time, he must have stolen the material" without so much as allowing for other possibilities. I don't think a single person should act as judge, jury, and executioner when things aren't so clear. - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't want to appear hostile, but I think there's a real issue here that needs to be resolved. It's not that I care deeply about the article that was deleted, I just don't want a repeat of this scenario where a page is deleted when it clearly should not be. If a page does not meet the speedy deletion criteria, it should not be deleted without some kind of process. Do you agree? - furrykef (Talk at me) 17:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This was an aberration, done while in the process of deleting blatant copyright infringements created by a now-banned user. —Centrx→talk • 17:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:U

Hi, please may I ask why you removed mine and pshemps joint addition to WP:U? We put disallowing wikipedia terms under wikipedia terms that aren't allowed because that is what it is. The policy for trademarks specifically says that the major point of this is for trademarks within sport RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not exclusively refer to sport, sports team names are just excellent examples of a "unique" name. "Mills" or "Brookfield" would not qualify, or "IBMAF" or "Goggle", but something with "Microsoft" or "Wikipedia" would. This should probably be clarified, because these sorts of names are not allowed, regardless of whether the trademark is held by the Wikimedia Foundation. —Centrx→talk • 01:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you possibly have a go at editing this in then for me? I'm just really not sure how to word it RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, [6]. See if you can come up with any other good/better examples. —Centrx→talk • 02:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Pshemp has removed your addition and the original back, to be honest, I think this is the best way, there has bee a huge discussion on WP:RFCN regarding this, and it has been clear that this should be added under wikipedia terms RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there is nothing special about trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation as opposed to the trademarks of other organizations. If something special about Wikipedia should be stated, it has nothing to do with trademarks and should be added to the above section, about "Wikipedia terms". —Centrx→talk • 02:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability reply

I have replied to your question on my talk page, to keep the discussion together. --Gerry Ashton 04:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Writing (Film) Should be deleted

The Writing (film) article should be deleted for all its information is FALSE. None of the talent mentioned nor such film is in production. The page should be deleted and has already been reported for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stepford (talk • contribs) 20:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm on it , it is fake. I'm going to afd it now. - X201 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive icon

Hi. I noticed you recently changed (or reverted a change to) the icon at {{Archive box}}. I have started a discussion in order to reach a consensus on which icon should be used for archive-related templates. --Random832(tc) 21:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion on WP:RFC

Centrx, on a WT:RFC thread that started back on February 5, there was a request for article and user-conduct discussion/RFC templates, parallel to the username templates for WP:RFCN. The requested templates were up and running on February 7, with a request for feedback and/or edits. A week-and-a-half later, the templates have been stable, there's been no objection, I put the mention of the article-related templates onto WP:RFC, I get a network interruption before I can mention the user-conduct templates, and by the time I see Wikipedia again, my first edit's been reverted with the comment: "This doesn't make much sense; anyone in an article dispute is already on the article discussing the matter, and the RfC is discussed on that talk page, there is no reason for any notification".

Of course, if that were true, I wouldn't need to be writing this on your talk page now, because you'd have been active on WT:RFC, you'd have seen that thread, you'd have commented on it long before I went to the effort of either creating the templates or editing WP:RFC to mention them, and there'd have been no need for reversion because we would have come to an agreement first.

The same may be true of other article disputes. Perhaps one party never went to the article talk page to discuss edits; or a primary contributor of the text at issue had gone on to other articles before a dispute broke out among other editors, and has no idea that his contribution is now controversial, challenged, or otherwise in need of discussion. In such situations, a courtesy note to the user's talk page might be a good idea.

Such situations may never happen to you. Even in such situations, you may never feel a need for any of these templates (even as sample texts), because you're an experienced and articulate editor, and you could write such text from scratch every time. But for others, especially newer to Wikipedia, these may be useful; even for me, they save typing time. Would you please, of your generous heart, allow other editors to have the same tools available to them? Thanks! -- Ben 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: I see that Goldfritha, quite without my asking it, has restored the text at issue. Nevertheless, I still hope you will reconsider, and permit the text to stay there. If it requires revision for the sake of improvement (as it well may), please don't hesitate to either make or suggest such "tweaks". Thanks! -- Ben 04:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• The templates you came up with are irrelevant to the problem brought up there on the talk page. If the editor never went to the article talk page, then they should be queried on their talk page before an RfC. If a primary contributor has moved on to something else, they can be notified on their talk page without a generic off-putting template of the kind used for warning vandals and welcoming new users. Any notice to a primary contributor should have a summary of the problem, and does not need any boilerplate fluff. A generic template is not a "courtesy note", it is an impersonal mass message. —Centrx→talk • 05:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• "If the editor never went to the article talk page, then they should be queried on their talk page before an RfC." That's exactly the purpose of {{ArticleConcern}}, to help open such a discussion on the user's talk page before going to RFC. It mentions some of the dispute resolution options, with links to further such information.
  • Then it would belong listed at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, not Wikipedia:Requests for comment. In any case, the template is bloated and sycophantic, and using templates on established users tends to inflame disputes, not to resolve them.
• "If a primary contributor has moved on to something else, they can be notified on their talk page without a generic off-putting template"... Yes, they certainly can. And without hand-typed off-putting words, too. These templates are optional, and readers are repeatedly invited to either paraphrase or ignore the templates to write original text instead. For those less certain of what to type, the templates may help, or at least offer examples.
  • If it is for example, then it should not be a template; and using generic messages should not be encouraged.
• ... "a generic off-putting template of the kind used for warning vandals"... No, the "Concern" templates explicitly try to avoid being so confrontational or making any such insinuation. That's why they were written (see WT:RFC#biting), and what other editors have said they achieved (e.g. the exchange between Philippe Beaudette and Planetary Chaos on an RFC/NAME discussion).
  • That discussion is about usernames, which almost exclusively applies to brand new users. Disputes, on the other hand, are almost always between established users, who would generally insulted if a demeaning template like this were used. All of the information in the template is redundant with Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which should be where people are directed for information.
• ... "and welcoming new users." Well, yes, I rather expect many of the "Concern" recipients will be new users, or at least new accounts, and that's why the templates have so much explanation (and so many links) about the recipients' options. New editors tend to make more innocent mistakes, and need more explanation, than experienced editors. By the time they've become "old hands", it's likely they either don't make so many mistakes, aren't so innocent (so the RFC process is dropped in favor of the warning/block escalation) or have grown savvy enough (and thick-skinned enough) to handle blunt or cryptically brief messages.
  • Almost all disputes that go beyond a talk page are between established users. WP:RFC is not for "mistakes", it is for disagreements which require outside intervention. New users should not be encouraged to immediately take their problems to RFC, mediation, etc.
• "Any notice to a primary contributor should have a summary of the problem"... All the "Concern" templates have the option to insert "a summary of the problem", in the "reason for concern" parameter; this is documented at the template pages. The "ArticleDiscussion" template links to the RFC/Articles page where the reason for the RFC is given, and to the article's talk page where the actual discussion takes place. The "ArticleResult" template has the option to insert the outcome of the RFC. These latter two templates are for when the recipient hadn't shown up in discussions and might not know about them. If he clicks on those links, he'll see the actual discussion, so these templates needn't include "a summary of the problem". However, nothing stops you or anyone else from adding such a summary after the template -- or from writing the entire text from scratch, if you prefer.
  • There should always be a kind of summary that explains what the situation is to the user, and the other fluff in the template is irrelevant to it.
• These templates are not mandatory; no-one is forced to use them. If you don't like them, you don't have to use them. They exist for use by anyone who does find them helpful. Apparently there are such editors. I think that's good enough reason for WP:RFC to mention them as "optional templates". -- Ben 08:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The presence of these templates on the pages implies that they are encouraged and normal, when in fact the opposite is true. No one is forced to do anything at all, but a template and a listing on a dispute resolution page is a recommendation, which ought not be there. —Centrx→talk • 16:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Centrx, thanks for getting rid of that thing from my talk page and blocking. Much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Short disambig pages

I had thought I was checking the formatting. I've been doing a lot of reformatitng myself on ones that did not look properly formatted. I hope I did not miss any, but if I did, it was unintentional. On this point, at least, I am already doing it. I'm only sticking the filler on things that, IMHO, are good as is, and are not really likely to change. Unlike the previous time we discussed this, I am using a lot more discression before I stick in filler.

As for the link issue, I'm not sure what you are referring to by "link to the articles of the same name on Wikipedia". Not really sure what this phrase means.

Finally, as for stubs, I thought that the point of the stubs was to get things sorted so that they would get the attention of people who have the expertise to do such verification, cleanup, and expansion. No way do I have the knowledge needed to verify the variety of short stubs that are out there. You are asking for an impossibility, IMHO.

And also, there is a bot running around sticking the base {{stub}} stub on lots of articles. The bot certainly is not verifying the things it stubs. So if the stub people are OK with a bot doing it, I really wonder why they would have a problem with a human putting even more specific stubs onto things.

So, in general with stubs, IMHO stubbing them with a specific stub increases the chance that the articles will get attention by a qualified person. While on the Short Pages list there are only a few of us sorting through these things. - TexasAndroid 04:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The link issue is that for disambiguation pages there are other articles that are on Wikipedia that should be listed there. For stubs I just mean that it can be good to do a cursory check that something actually exists and is not vanity or hoax, and then place a passably reliable reference. I'm just referring to cases where the long comment is used, which takes it off the list for what might ultimately be no reason (as the byte count increases, there will become fewer and fewer actionable pages on Shortpages, and if adding long comments were continued endlessly, we would just end up at the same dab pages that had the long comment added originally). —Centrx→talk • 00:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, don't take this as negative criticism or even necessarily empirically accurate. I am just conveying some thoughts after seeing some pages pushed off that shouldn't have been. —Centrx→talk • 00:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. We are acting at opposing purposes here. I just was working on the disambigs, seeing ones I've seen over and over and over on the lists, staring at them, and thinking that there was nothing more that needed to be done with them. As far as I can see, they are good disambig, just short, and their continuing to show up on the short pages list served no purpose at all. So I started bumping some of them off the list. But after a while, I started to get deja-vu on some of them. Hadn't I already removed these from the list before? So I checked the history, and, surprise surprise, a bunch of them had been reverted by you. And I had no idea you were systematically reverting me. I had come here and explained myself, and two days later you start mass reverting me.

As I said, I'm bumping out articles that noone else is bothering to touch. Even you are just reverting me. You're doing nothing to improve them, just blindly reverting me, it seems. I still look at those disambigs, like Tarsal, or Red sandstone, or Honau, and I have *no* clue as to why you reverted me, and especially why you did so and then did nothing yourself. Either they are needing additional improvement, in which case I wish you would just make the bloody improvement, or they are not, in which case reverting me serves no purpose at all.

Addressing some specific points of yours from above. We are definitely still finding lots of trash articles in the newer stuff that is being uncovered as we slowly push larger numbers on the page. Today we pushed through 100 characters for the first time. I count 16 articles deleted today out of the 99 and 100 character count ones. And I have not even looked at everyone of those yet, especially not the disambigs up there. So pushing upwards in numbers is still, at this point, very productive for finding bad articles.

As for eventually catching up with the ones pushed off, yeah. 'Eventually. But we still have quite a ways to go before that. And we are going to hit the brick wall of the pushed Delete Pages long before we hit the pushed disambigs. The salted pages are being pushed up into the 140s. 143, 147, 148, or higher depending on which template is used. Catching up with that will bring the pushing up into higher numbers to a hault. But even that is a good, long way off. We are gaining 1-2 in the page count at best most refresh cycles of the source Shortpages list. Less, the longer it goes between refreshes. It is going to take us quite a while before we get anywhere near the pushed salted pages, let alone the pushed disambigs. And besides, IMHO the fact that there is an eventual ceiling to how far we can go with this effort is no reason to not make the effort. Pushing up into the higher numbers is bringing to light more and more pages that have not been looked at and giving them attention they have not gotten before. For improvement, deletion, or acceptance as-is and thus a bit of a push out of the way, down the chain. It is an effort that improves the project. And I simply do nto see the fact that it is an effort that can only go so far as a reason to not make the effort. Sorry.

Finally, as for the stubs, I'm really not a good one to be making hoax judgements. And IMHO, by properly stubbing them and getting them categorized where they can come under the eyes of people who do have the proper expertise in a certain field to make such judgements, rather than letting them languish in obscurity on the shortpages lists, progress will get made.

Enough for now. I know we are both working to better the project, but it's very frustrating to be working at cross-purposes like we have been. - TexasAndroid 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because no one has improved some of the disambiguation pages in a week or even a few months does not mean someone won't notice them on Shortpages and improve them; all of the ones on there now have been there for only a week or two, as they are at the size frontier (i.e. they are being brought into the light and then being pushed right out of it). I have been improving the pages, but not so quickly as to get to them all in a few weeks. The Excess comment ends up in main pages rather than just maintenance pages that happen to be in the mainspace, like before. Anyway, I only reverted a couple dozen. The deletedpages are being migrated into Wikipedia:Protected titles, so that will be less and less of a problem. For stubs, they should be tagged with the appropriate stub templates, I just mean there are typically more, even simple grammar or bolding and spelling that can be done too, which would be useful. —Centrx→talk • 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Web 3.0 deletion and protection

I'm thinking it's time to revisit this term. The pro-arguments on the talk/AFD page are increasingly true. Semantic web, plus system level interoperability driven by emergents standards . . . more or less as the aforementioned pro-inclusion discussions have it. To someone in the IT industry it seems sort of luddite not to include it. We're all talking about it and working towrds it as if it were real. Even if it is largely a marketing or geek term, who is to say that marketing is not real or notable? Numskll 14:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What determines notability is whether there are sufficient reliable published sources to make an encyclopedia article about the topic. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a crystal ball. —Centrx→talk • 00:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Documentation?

What documentation are you talking about? That is a talk page, not documentation of anything and how is anything being eliminated? It's being archived. Maybe you don't understand the procedure for archiving a talk page nowhere in "how to archive a talk page" does it state to leave "documentation" whatever that is. Please refer me to whatever policy you are talking about. If you are referring to any official policy please explain it to me. If this is some kind of personal thing please explain to me what it is so we can resolve it. Also if you feel anything needs to be refactored please tell me what it is and I'll refactor it. Quadzilla99 17:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay in order to try to address your points I refactored some of the old discussions. I'm not sure what you're really upset about as long as nothing open is left out and people get a general idea of the discussions that went on, it should be fine right? Quadzilla99 18:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The documentation is the supra-section at the beginning of the talk page, which was apparently just deleted when someone did a faulty archival a few months ago. Keep in mind that WP:ARCHIVE is a rather old and rather unmaintained how-to page, and that Wikipedia is to do what is appropriate for developing an encyclopedia, in this case for facilitating discussion on the template talk page. Do note, however, that the purpose of archiving, as stated on WP:ARCHIVE is to archive old discussions when the talk page becomes too large. New discussions should not be archived; and if there were no size problems a talk page never need be archived. —Centrx→talk • 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please move this page?

Can you please move Talk:Orgy_enjoying to Talk:Orgy? I forgot to delete enjoying from the Brian Peppers fiasco, and the page is now locked. :-( Thanks. Real96 02:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 02:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Automatic edit summaries

OK, thanks for telling me that. –Llama man 02:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Automatic - Iwan Griffiths

any reason why The Automatics drummer iwans page has been deleted and prevented from being re-created, arnt you meant to discuss in the discusion page before deleting articals? chaars. jack. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacksack (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia articles must be verifiable in reliable published sources, especially articles about biographies of living persons. See also Wikipedia:Notability. It is unlikely that these persons are notable independent of the band, and so ought to be merged into the main article on the band. —Centrx→talk • 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

List of football (soccer) players with 100 or more caps

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of football (soccer) players with 100 or more caps. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. howcheng {chat} 18:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters now, but at the bottom of the original source page, it says: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors." Thus, it wasn't really a copyvio in the first place. howcheng {chat} 19:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL requires that anyone be free to alter and re-distribute, not just copy. —Centrx→talk • 19:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

KRISTI snowcat (2)

Noticed your previous deletion of Kristi Snowcat, looks as if it was recreated as KRISTI snowcat. FYI--Hu12 23:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

KRISTI snowcat (3)

You deleted a page that you claim was just a reposting of a previously deleted page. However what you deleted was a totally new page that was factual and historically accurate. I do not understand why you would eliminate all that work without any discussion? The page was up for quite a while, it had numerous personal photos of unique Kristi history. It did not violate any copyright laws. I cannot understand why you would have removed it!

The original page has a false allegation that copyright laws were broken. So now a new page, that eliminated that text (despite its legitimacy) was deleted. WHY?

Please explain! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Melensdad (talk • contribs) 00:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, you're right, my mistake. I've restored it. Sorry. It does have some problems though. —Centrx→talk • 01:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the problem is really that there is very little history that can be confirmed because this was a private company that has been out of business for 30+ years. I've made a couple edits to state the source material, most if it comes from factory brochures and the factory operator's manual. There are only a handful of articles written about the company and most of the information came from current owners of the machines who have banded together to preserve and restore them. I'm not really sure how to provide them at sources other than to give you our names and addresses?!?

Wikipedia articles must be verifiable in reliable published sources. If the only sources are your personal interviews, that is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. See Wikipedia:Attribution. —Centrx→talk • 04:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To add to that, this also may fall into the realm of WP:NOT#OR and WP:COI. Obviously alot of hard work into the article, however to echo Centrx i has to be verifiable (WP:SOURCE0 and meet WP:RS.--Hu12 04:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Changed title to KRISTI snowcat (3) for ease of navigating. --Hu12 04:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now added some U.S. Patent Office images, to verify some of the additional technical issues. I presume that the owners manual and sales brochures are considered verifiable and reliable published sources because much information came from those documents as well. Melensdad

I also cited a magazine article. Melensdad

Re: Hamilton Stands

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 24. By your same standards and assertions, the articles on both Dunlop Manufacturing and Ernie Ball should also have been deleted. I think you're setting the bar too high for "notability", if notable uses by Bob Dylan and the Monkees of Hamilton products aren't sufficient. I have photos of Dylan using Hamilton capos in a biography or two, but not handy; if I can find my books, I will include a scan in a future update. (I have also seen large posters for sale, of Dylan in the recording studio, playing a Stratocaster guitar with a Hamilton capo. They have a unique look, and anyone familiar with the design won't miss it in the picture.) I will ask again: Are you a musician yourself? Zephyrad 08:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Undeletion of Super Twins

I want to re-create Super Twins from scratch. First, I request that the former Super Twins article be undeleted. Then I will blank the article and start anew. Is it all right? Perryv 14:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is it was a copyright infringement. I cannot restore that, but you can see most of the content at [7], and maybe related pages on the GMA website. After the copied text was removed, it was just a cast listing and an infobox, which you can view at User:Centrx/Temp. —Centrx→talk • 16:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So can I instead create a brand new article called Super Twins (overwriting any page history connected with the original article) and put original content in it? Perryv 04:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. —Centrx→talk • 04:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Democrat Party (United States)

It has been through two RFDs. The first one, closed by me, was the one that targeted it to Democrat Party (phrase). The second one, closed on the 18th, changed it to Democrat Party. While I tend to agree with you the first one is a better target, I did want you to know that your reliance on the RFD in your edit summary is shaky. The RFD you refer to is the first one. -- JLaTondre 17:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

An XfD that comes so soon after the first one is properly speedily closed, deferring to the first one. If the first one were somehow patently ridiculous, that could be ignored—though properly it would then be brought up at WP:DRV. Inasmuch as RfD is binding, then the proper place to change its decision would have been WP:DRV. Inasmuch as it is not binding, then it is quite alright to change it to a more reasonable target. Actually, it looks like the second RfD must have been advertised somewhere (in comparison to the first one), and the participants who advocated redirecting to "Democrat Party" appear not to have understood the issue or the options and were not involved in the discussion (i.e. the admin just counted the votes that appeared at the beginning of each major line, rather than reading the discussion which clearly does not come to that conclusion). —Centrx→talk • 17:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

KRISTI snowcat (4)

I am totally confused. The Kristi snowcat page is gone. I uploaded patent office documents, cited source materials, provided more links to verify the content and now the Kristi snowcat article has vanished again.

What did I do wrong this time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Melensdad (talk • contribs) 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC). --melensdad--

re:Welcome

If you have any other questions, I am the one to ask to get complicated theoretical answers. —Centrx→talk • 05:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Question: I just saw this user (User talk:Truth005) blanked his page. Then before I could revert it, he changed it several times. Now it is an attack on another user. This is above my edit skills. Can you help me with it? Morenooso 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The user account has already been blocked for vandalism. It looks like he was attempting to advertise or add linkspam. The open-editing nature of Wikipedia and its high visibility makes it a prime target for this sort of thing, but vandalism is usually corrected within minutes and the same facility with which Wikipedia can be defaced is the facility with which it can be improved and the reason why it is so successful; there are more good people than jokesters and advertisers. If you encounter such a thing again, you can report this sort of blatantly obvious vandalism at WP:AIV. —Centrx→talk • 17:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, that is just what I did. I figured it out at Recent Changes page where I do RC Patrol. I saw it there and submitted a report on the user. It took a while to catch up and revert his changes. Morenooso 03:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Question: on one of my Watchpage articles (Spanish naming customs), I tried to explain on user's talkpage, [8] that he was making unsourced edits. I think I did it civily and actually did not revert it because I thought he was doing a good faith edit. However, in his edit summaries, he has become belligerent. He went so far to include my username in his latest summary. Could you help me with this one? Morenooso 02:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like his summaries are resentful, but he is not really engaging in personal attacks. At the moment it is the sort of thing that I think you should ignore. There are a huge number and huge variety of people on Wikipedia, and even aside from that a person can just be having a bad day generally, perhaps in something totally unrelated to you or Wikipedia, or things can get heated for a brief period of time. Obviously if it becomes more belligerent or becomes harassment then something forceful should be done about it, but I don't think it as that stage, and will probably just go away. I think your initial comment on his talk page might have aggravated the situation, because it says "Please stop editing"; it would be best to focus on what should be done, e.g. "Please cite your sources. This produces a better encyclopedia all around and allows others to verify facts and to find further information about the subject. See Wikipedia:Citing sources." Also, citing WP:CIVIL and using personal attack templates to an established editor gets on their nerves. This is all perfectly innocent on your part, but it does not in the end resolve the tension. His comments are not appropriate, but there is no point in trying to change his behavior if it is just a one-time thing where he happened to get pissed off. —Centrx→talk • 03:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I guess my choice of words in asking him to stop editting was strong but basically he took out a weedwhacker and editted the article with a Spanish perspective. Unfortunately as with some Mexican, Latin American and South American, the perspective needs to be global. Granted he is working in the Iberian section, which derives from Spain, but it is the root of the article. You attack the root, and the rest of the article begins to loose perspective. Plus, there are a lot of variations to this surname convention that may not be apparent to a non-Anglo Saxon editor.

As for the warning, I felt I needed to get his attention. As I told you before his post, I assumed good faith with him and tried to begin it as a conversation. I could tell from his edit summaries he was blowing me off as an editor who may not know much and then later as a troll, his words, who chases down vandals, again his words. Yes, tonight's focus was RC Patrol for me as I wanted to watch the Oscars. But, I do contribute to articles when I can. As an editor, I too have the right to ask another editor to consider their edits. I may not like when another editor undoes my edit(s) but we all have a right to contribute to Wikipedia. Morenooso 06:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

why was the sugarblast entry deleted?

Could you please let me know why the Sugarblast entry was deleted?

Several people have noted its removal. Please let me know why

I accidentally left out a deletion summary. It looks like it was deleted because it is an article about a group of people for which there is no evidence of notability. The article would need to be verifiable in reliable published sources unaffiliated with the group (See Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability). If after looking at these pages you think that there are such published sources and a proper encyclopedia article can be made about this group, I would be happy to restore the page for you to work on it. Also, the article would need to be cleaned up so it is written as prose, in the proper form and tone of an encyclopedia article and with links to other Wikipedia articles appropriate to the context. —Centrx→talk • 23:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Unused

Yes, {{descriptive}} is unused. It was an attempt (not by me) to reduce the amount of different tags (pol/gl/essay) in Wikipedia namespace. Exactly how one reduces the amount of tags by adding one more is quite beyond me. At any rate, descriptive pages tend to be guidelines or essays. >Radiant< 12:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Toajaller3146

Can you please tell him to stop the increasingly negative attitude towards me? I would do it, but I lack patience and teeth, and treating him as I think he is would only make uninvolved parties cry WP:CIVIL. ' 16:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

German Christmas traditions

Why have you deleted German Christmas traditions? I believe there was along article I had contributed to. Many articles still linke there, see [[9]]. See also [talk page]. Where is the discussion that supports your deletion? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       04:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The original creator of the page copied it directly from the URL given in the deletion summary. So, the page and all derivatives of it were copyright infringements and had to be deleted. You are welcome to create an article at that location that does not use any text from the previous article or copied from elsewhere. —Centrx→talk • 04:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pierpont place articles

Those are the same town, [2] the shorter name is the commonly referred to name, [1] the longer name uses the township and county.

[1] Pierpont Township, Ashtabula County, Ohio

[2] Pierpont, Ohio

Editting question for you - 100 Pine Center

Yesterday while on RC Patrol, I saw Pine Center being created. The article did not establish notability and still does. The db tag I placed on it was removed by its creator. Now it was removed by another user in the same Wikiproject who does not appear to be an administrator. There must be more than 300 business buildings in San Francisco, with even a list, and my number is probably a conservative. There is nothing notable about this building. I believe the tag should be reestablished but do not want to get in an edit war as I already placed the tag twice. Could you review this article for notability worthiness? Thanks, Morenooso 14:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The speedy deletion criterion technically requires that the article be about a person, group, band, club, company or website. While this is to some extent about a company, I would usually let an article like this be, in the possibility that someone might make it into a legitimate article, and then it eventually gets deleted later. —Centrx→talk • 15:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Newbie

There is a problem with Newbie. I am trying to remove this 8==> from the article which has been placed in several times. I removed those (you know whats) and saved the page, but they are still there! and don't appear on the edit mode. It is what I would call ghost vandalism. Possibly subject of hacking... Retiono Virginian 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in - but its now done :-) It was vandalism by User:Nemanjanoob RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Super Inggo article

Dear Centrx,

I have been contributing to the Super Inggo article for a while now, and as of today I have just found out that it has been deleted. Could you please explain "Created by banned copyright-infringing user" a little more? Since this television series was popular and had high-ratings in the Philippines, I think it deserves to stay in wikipedia. Could you please restore this article? I'd be happy to fix and change any information if needed.

SapphireJeans 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This article was, from the start, copied from various places on the ABS-CBN website, including [10]. Text on Wikipedia must be licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, and text copied from elsewhere may not be used without explicit permission from the copyright holder. You are welcome to create an original article about the show, but the previous article cannot be restored. —Centrx→talk • 02:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock of a banned user

Hi Centrx

I noticed that you've blocked Dos lingo as a sock. You might want to block user:63.3.11.130 as well. This diff looks like block evasion. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Thank you. —Centrx→talk • 22:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you blocked User:63.3.11.130 for a comment that user made in early January. Why was that? Curious. Purgatory Fubar 23:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the same person and has been since November. The most recent edits are fiddling with another banned IP's user page and there is blatant vandalism as recently as yesterday. —Centrx→talk • 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the intrusion. Purgatory Fubar 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)