User talk:Cenarium/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

User page

Hello,

User:Ironholds told me you might be able to get my user page semi-protected so that only established users can edit it. It is frequently the victim of vandalism and I don't visit it often enough to keep track of all the changes made to it. Is there any way you can help me? Thanks. --Antodav2007 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done I semi protected your userpage. This will prevent IPs and new accounts to edit the page. If you want to remove the protection, let me know. Cenarium ^Talk 17:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Krillin

Ugh. To me he'll always be Krillin. I don't think I was part of the conversation. Looks like you've moved the article there. Cool. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, and thank you for fixing the move targets. Also, could you unprotect Majin Boo from being moved? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected. Cenarium ^Talk 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the talk page seems to have been deleted somehow. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I restored and moved the talk page to Talk:Majin Buu. Cenarium ^Talk 19:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Master Roshi

I deleted that thinking it was part of some sort of housekeeping/move thing. I'm gonna restore it unless we are moving the article under a different name there. Cheers. Dlohcierekim 19:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

An article's been moved to that target. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. Behind the times. He'll aways be Master Roshi to me. Looks good then. Dlohcierekim 19:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No prob. All's well that ends well. Dlohcierekim 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! Here's your t-shirt! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now an administrator! Before jumping in with your new tools, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and Wikipedia:New admin school.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me. Congrats again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Malinaccier (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that seemed to go well. Sorry 'bout all those "scare tactics" about how bad RFa is. Yours went swimmingly :-) Congrats from me too. Hit me up on my talkpage if you need anything -- and don't break anything!  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much ! Yeah, my RFA has been very quiet, easy-going :) Thank you Keeper for your great nomination, I'll make my best to honor my engagements and help the community. Cenarium (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats cenarium, and kudos on a very speedy close EVula! what was it, 2 minutes? 1 for each oppose! ;> Cenarium, feel free to take a look at my admin dashboard - User:Xenocidic/dashboard. It can be transcluded, or just stolen copied the old way. happy adminning, xenocidic (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Just don't go about deleting the main page and blocking 'crats, and you should have smooth sailing. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't :) There's no delete button on the main page, and no move button, and even if you turn around, "You can't delete or move the main page." appears. But for the 'crats... Cenarium ^Talk 00:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, congrats! :D Let me know if you need anything (I'm available via e-mail, talk, or MSN). · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Good luck, giggy _(:O) 01:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrads! Just make certain you don't end up crashing the wiki with your new powers... ;) --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship ... -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppetry

Not sure if you've read it yet, but Thatcher has confirmed that the accounts all come from the same IP. It could be that they live together, but 1) that's a highly unorthodox living arangement and 2) they claimed to be friends "who live in the same area" and "talk by email". Ironholds 11:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

They have all been blocked indefinitely. And I just found Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/OldRight... Cenarium ^Talk 13:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

tutoring

This is something i've been meaning to ask you for a few days but never got round to it; would you consider schooling/reviewing me for adminship? I know you haven't had the mop for that long, but you're one of the admins/users I respect most and you obviously wouldn't have got the mop if you didn't know what to do :P. Ironholds 14:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, but I am not interested in tutoring or reviewing a user for adminship. I haven't done anything special to get the mop, it happened quite unexpectedly. In relation to this, I essentially watched admin places and progressively participated in more and more tumultuous areas. As a comment, I'd recommend that you diversify your edits. Cenarium ^Talk 03:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyway. I've been doing so; XfD's, new page patrol, recent changes patrol, editor reviews and RfA and my little pet project clearing missing articles out of various fauna tribes. Ironholds 03:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Egyptians

So, if a compromise has been reached, what more do we need to do to have the article unprotected? The page was protected over a month ago because of edit warring between and Troy07, and now that we've come to an agreement, I think it's highly unlikely another edit war will break out.--Yolgnu (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to unprotect, but I'm not not very experienced on this. You should discuss the issue with AndonicO, the admin who protected the page. Cenarium ^Talk 22:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

user block

Would you be able to look at User:72.75.24.245 for a possible block? Similar IP to User:72.75.18.173 and User:72.75.5.121, both of whom have been banned for POV-editing to neo-nazi, nazi and croatian fascist topics and have links to a series of blocked users accounts (mainly 'puppets) known for doing the same thing. This IP is similar, has the same ISP and is making the same type of edits (compare Special:Contributions/72.75.5.121 and Special:Contributions/72.75.24.245. Thanks! Ironholds 00:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, the involved user has put in a sockpuppet case. Ironholds 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that the IP has edited ANI a lot. So admins aware of the situation will probably take the appropriate measures :) Cenarium ^Talk 00:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Gennarous

Please see Talk:Kingdom of Lombards#Requested move and note how the result of the move request has been ignored by the user who created the problem in the first place. Once again he has made moves and redirects in order to prevent a non-admin from fixing it. I'm asking you, as the admin that closed the request, to fix the situation, i.e. by reverting the move to the page Kingdom of Italy (medieval). Please and thanks. Srnec (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignore this message. I requested it at uncontroverial moves and it has been done. Srnec (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

I've got a couple of users who appear to be using WP as a social networking site, in that they've logged on, created each others userpages affirming their RL love for one and other and then contributed nothing else. I can invoke the whole "wikipedia is not myspace" thing, but the pages are set up as standard WP userpages despite their obvious social networking intent. Is there anything I can actually do? Ironholds 21:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends. If the users are here only for social networking purposes, then it's possible to take action. But discuss with them first. Cenarium (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA Review

Hey Cenarium, I'm going through the responses to the RFA Review Questionnaire, and I'm up to the C's. You responded to question 7 as follows:

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

Up to the candidate. But no turn away.

I'm taking that to mean that the candidate should have the option to withdraw, and that no one should be turned away if they wish to withdraw (or, perhaps, if they have in the past). Could you clarify for me? Thanks in advance, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I mean that when a candidate has withdrawn, he shouldn't withdraw this withdrawal. This happened at least once and an edit war over the closure followed... This also shows that the candidate is inconstant and, possibly, disrespectful, the kind of behavior not suitable for adminship. I know that my answers were not much thought out. Hope it'll be okay, Cenarium ^Talk 14:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I edited my answers to clarify some points. Cenarium ^Talk 14:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted and logged. Thanks for the quick response! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just doing the statistical end of it - How many people feel one way vs another, for example - but I can say that your responses were fairly on the nose, particularly where you discuss the drama of such a personal process - a position echoed by several of the other responses I've tally'd this morning. Thanks again, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

DRV

Thanks for the note. After Stifle informed me, I checked my deletion to make sure I stood by it, passed by the DRV entry and noted the first line ("This concerns only the first deletion"), and moved on but I think Stifle was just being über careful, which is a good thing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting the vandalism on my user page. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mansion House, Swansea

It's been a while since I did anything serious in the copyright field, but it used to be that "tainted" versions needed to be removed from visible history (i.e. delete article, restore "clean" revisions). IIRC the reasoning for this was to stop people from reposting copyvios by simply pulling them out of the history. Of course, I could be entirely wrong about this. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not needed to delete the copyright violation from the history (see Wikipedia:Copyright_violations#Dealing with copyright violations), the reason behind this is that this is a kind of archiving, and is not considered a copyright infringement (like google cache, webcitations etc), as long as the copyright holder can request the deletion, which is the case on Wikipedia. Users posting copyvios are warned, and blocked if necessary. Cenarium ^Talk 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pendle witch trials

I see you removed the move protected template I added. Is there anything else that can be added? It seems wrong to have no notice of the page being protected. There should at least be a little icon in the top left. --Skunkboy74 (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is important to inform about the semi-protection or full-protection of an article, but an article is not moved everyday. So generally we don't put a tag when the article is move-protected for vandalism, particularly when it's a stable article like a FA. The little icon is sometimes used, it's discrete enough. Cenarium ^Talk 14:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

DarkSun

I think you are making a mistake, before deleting the article you should have re-opened the discussion, which was a long time ago and see why it fails to be on Wikipedia. They have released 4 major releases which have recieved very good professional critics and is related to WarCry and many other important Spanish bands. You could at least have added the article to my page User:Rockk3r/DarkSun, and not just delete it without telling anyone about it. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 05:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I can move it to your userpage if you want. I looked at the present article and before, it were no major change. You should go to deletion review with convincing sources to have it restored. Cenarium ^Talk 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll really appreciate if you could mov it to my userpage and I'll let you know when it's been improved significantly and can be on Wikipedia, just pass the last version to my page. Thanks (please place a { {tb} } template on my talk page when you answer this message). Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, note however that these pages cannot be kept in userspace indefinitely. You have to prove that the group is notable if you want it restored, improving the article is not sufficient. A deletion review is necessary. Cenarium ^Talk 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now I'm about to log out for a couple of hours, when I come back I'll work on the article, I understand that the article cannot be kept if it's not notable, I'll do my best to make it pass the review. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverts on Emmy Noether

Sorry about the rvv. I pulled the trigger before I saw it was already reverted.

Regards, Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

TW is no always reliable, you should be careful when reverting. When you'll have more experience, I suggest you apply to rollback. Cenarium ^Talk 17:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RFAR alert

One of the arbitrators has asked that every admin who is arguably involved in the events at Sarah Palin be notified of an arbitration case covering it. I therefore draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#MZMcBride. In your case, you are, like me, one of those who made an edit to the article while it was full protected. GRBerry 18:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I indeed adjusted the protection template while it was protected. I already commented there. Cenarium ^Talk 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are also welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ...

for calling my attention to WP:HG. You are right, it can be hard to keep track of changes in policy. I still believe that there is a need for further discussion about how we handle vandalism from IP addresses. In any event, as soon as one user objected to my action, I stopped. And I will leave it until/if/when there has been more community discussion on the general issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have gone through Huggle, but it is not clear to me where there was actually a policy change. to be clear, my understanding is that admins are not required to warn vandals to block them, and that the first step when dealing with an IP address responsible for vandalism is to try to identify the address. it seems reasonable that what action is appropriate depends on whether it is a public, shared, or private address. Has this been changed? Is there more to the policy I have missed? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin edit

Hi Cenarium - consensus was reached last night on an edit regarding Palin's education, and I placed a request for an edit on the Talk page; somehow a large amount of material was removed from Talk including that request this morning; I've reinstated the material that was lost (possibly that was just an accident). Anyway, the request is still standing there and I'd like to sign off on it - so would you be able to make the edit? Here's the relevant section on Talk which has the requested wording and shows the agreement to it. Thanks Tvoz/talk 02:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

YAY - will a kindly admin please replace the entire 4th paragraph about her education in "Early life" with this paragraph (refs and wikilinks as in the edit screen):

Palin spent her first college semester at Hawaii Pacific College, transferring in 1983 to North Idaho College and then to the University of Idaho. She attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term, returning to the University of Idaho to complete her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.

Thanks. Tvoz/talk 07:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - one less thing to keep track of! Tvoz/talk 03:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And many others to come ! Cenarium ^Talk 16:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For your calm support. This was my first time trying to both keep the piece and find out what was going on. It was good to see another voicekeyboard of reason in the lynch mob.  Frank  |  talk  02:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I start to get used to it by now. When you hang around pages like Talk:Sarah Palin... Cenarium ^Talk 02:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I wimped out un-watchlisted that one several days ago. I have a life. ;-)  Frank  |  talk  02:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My Mathematics template

I have not seen any template that duplicates mine. I want better reasons for my template's speedy deletion. I have not been here for a long time so I was not able to defend my highly requested template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol (talk • contribs) 21:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Your template was breaking the pages it was in. {{wikify}} can handle formatting problems, I suggest that you use a sandbox User:Ipatrol/Sandbox for testing templates, and if a mathematics template looks good, you should propose it to Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Mathematics. Template:Too many photos also breaks the pages. And this template is in violation of WP:NCD, you should not use it. I redirected two others to existing templates, the others seems okay. Thanks for your work, Cenarium ^Talk 10:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Thanks for the note on my User Talk page. I have already offered mediation and it was rejected out of hand by the principal edit warriors who are "homesteading" there (to borrow Cb's wonderfully accurate term). WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

DarkSun

I added back the page DarkSun which you deleted and redirected to my user page, in order to improve it. Idid improved the article, and will add more important info and references in upcoming days, as their 4th album is about to be released. Take a look at it and tell me if it pass or not.

PD: There are many articles in wikipedia that don't even look like this and are still here and don't struggle so much to be kept. This band is not Metallica or Iron Maiden, so don't expect them to be so important, they are well known in Spain and Latin America. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 06:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled on how to handle this situation, as it would effectively nullify the AFD result. I'll get back to it when I'll have more time. Cenarium ^Talk 15:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

re: your comments

i responded on my page.24.11.214.147 (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

both were warned? well it is only i who has that rude & bogus warning flickering at the top of my page. either give him same warning, or delete mine. 24.11.214.147 (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't issued this warning, talk to the admin who did it. Cenarium ^Talk 13:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

he doesn't know what he's doing, otherwise he would not have singled me out, hence i'm not gonna deal with yet another time waster. 24.11.214.147 (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you are allowed to remove warnings from your talk page in the circumstances, per WP:TALK. Cenarium ^Talk 15:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Cenarium, when you get a spare moment, I've posted a question for you at the bottom of my user talk page. Mgy401 1912 (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cenarium. I appreciate your help so far and am sorry to trouble you again, but it appears that we may again be getting to the point where we need the assistance of a disinterested observer over at Talk: Titanic alternative theories. Mgy401 1912 (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, don't bother right now, if you're swamped. I just discovered the WP: Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I'll try my luck there first. Mgy401 1912 (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope you do not mind

Hope you do not mind, but I took the liberty of warning [1] GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) regarding the editor's blatant vandalism [2] to the Large Hadron Collider article. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind. I was about to do the same. Cenarium ^Talk 19:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

... for defending my user page (and blocking this IP) :) →Christian.И 20:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Hello, Cenarium. You have new messages at User_talk:IRP#Restoring_libel.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

RfA thanks

Hello Cenarium. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A simplex, thanks! Congratulations for your successful RFA. Cenarium ^Talk 01:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I hereby award this Barnstar to Cenarium for his consistent efforts to protect Wikipedia from vandalism, and specifically for going out of his way to revert vandalism done to my user page. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate the help you rendered to me in saving my user page while I was away. I can see from your contributions that fighting vandalism is a regular thing for you, so consider this just a small token of appreciation for your efforts on my behalf and for all your past efforts on Wikipedia's behalf; vandal fighters don't get recognized nearly enough, in my opinion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated, Cenarium ^Talk 17:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Portal History featured Article

I see you protected the page, but there's still vandalism in the FA. I reverted to the last good edit but for some reason it's not showing up correctly on the portal page, though when the featured article alone is viewed it's ok. Not sure how to fix the portal, I suspect the protection is doing something? MadScot (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Strike that, it's fixed now. Sorry for the confusion MadScot (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have only added protection against moves, the current editing protection for this portal is 'autoconfirmed', but subpages are not protected. I suspect that your cache was hiding the vandalism reversion. Cenarium ^Talk 19:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

It may be too late to undo the damage done to Ceoil, but the gesture helps. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks so much. It was really my mess, and I can't say how much I appreciate your help in cleaning it all up, and for being a voice of calm and moderation in the discussion. I didn't examine your RFA when it went through. But I feel confident from your actions here that the community got it right. --JayHenry (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

Hi Cenarium! Thanks for your comments on my Main Page redesign proposal just now. If you've got a moment, I'd really appreciate it if you could elaborate on "ITN too low, unneeded links" on my talk page. Many thanks - Pretzels^Talk! 18:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll think about it. Cheers, Cenarium ^Talk 22:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cenarium. Thank you for your participation in this poll. I just wanted to drop a note to inform you that the wrong version of my design was placed in the poll. The current version is here. The differences may or may not affect your decision. Regards, لennavecia 02:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I was away for a few days and see that the discussion is now closed. Your proposal is probably the most interesting. Regards,
Cenarium ^Talk 14:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And another comment

Hi, you voted against 88wolfmaster's design because of the icons and reduced visibility of ITN. I have a draft based on his that fixes both problems (okay, so there are still a few icons, but they might not survive; I don't like them much more than you do), but I missed the deadline for the current poll. Instead, if you like my design, the best thing to do is vote for 88wolfmaster and then bring up my design during the next creative phase. I appreciate your feedback, positive or (and?) negative. Cheers, HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is now closed, I'll see in the next poll. Cheers, Cenarium ^Talk 14:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Cenarium/Protected templates

Cenarium, I don't think that using your userspace to manage these protections is the most appropriate method. If you want to propose a project page to put 'double protection' on pages I can't see any reason why the community can't decide how best to use it; but managing this in your userspace is leaning towards an WP:OWN issue. Are you up for changing this method? (please reply on my talk). Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A thread in Wikipedia talk:Protection policy may be a good starting point. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

meta question

Hey, man, I have a question for you. I've been using Wikipedia for a long time, but I usually just create articles and edit articles. I don't really participate much in meta part of Wikipedia, so I don't know that much about it. However, I have a policy recommendation based upon my experiences using Wikipedia. Do you know where I should submit this recommendation for feedback? Thank you. Chicken Wing (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It depends. If it's on a specific subject or policy (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for a list), you can discuss changes on the respective talk page. There's also the various village pumps for general discussions, and especially Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Regards, Cenarium ^Talk 18:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps out. I'll probably go to the Village Pump. My problem is that I have come across a lot of editors over my time here that make dozens, if not hundreds of edits a day, and they never use edit summaries and never respond to talk page messages asking that they use edit summaries. Their edits are hard to follow, and when they make controversial edits, it's almost impossible to find out why they felt the edits were justified. It might seem harsh, but I think those kinds of editors need to be blocked. Chicken Wing (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Block

Hi ya Cenaruim, you recently put a block on 69.133.93.71, however since it came off he got straight back at it again [3]. Quite a comical edit war there don't you think. When you get a moment could you please revisit it. Cheers  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 19:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The deletion put an end to their edit war. But they have found other articles to keep on.. I'll watch the two users for some time. Cheers, Cenarium ^Talk 21:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Pacific Biosciences page

Hi Cenarium, Am not an IT guy. Am lending a hand since I had made a page several years ago (XPS page). Try to bear with me as this is not my normal work. Gimme a coupla of days before deleting my efforts, OK? Vcrist (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Vcrist

Pacific Biosciences & Copyrights

I am currently employed by Pacific Biosciences and they gave me permission to copy whatever I needed to help them build a page. The information provided is presented copyleft (correct term?) and they are happy to have this bit of duplicate info be copyright free to be on Wikipedia.

What do I need to do to make this page become permanent? Thanks Vcrist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcrist (talk • contribs) 23:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

CSD A2 covers redirects?

Regarding this deletion, I don't think the page was covered by A2. It was not an article, but a soft redirect. WP:CNR doesn't mention anything about interlanguage links to the article namespace, and neither does WP:RFD#DELETE. I understand that there may be reasons not to keep such redirects, but I have so far found no guidelines regarding the issue. Neither do I think it the intention of the CSD criteria. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 04:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I failed to notice the discussion two sections up. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Entsagen

I would like to ask that you reconsider your A2 deletion of this page. The page was a soft redirect, and WP:soft redirects are not supposed to be subject to article deletion criteria, but rather to redirect deletion criteria. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Rinnooy Kan as well. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Pia Malakul. I have used the most relevant csd to my disposal, maybe in an excess of IAR. Soft redirecting pages to articles from other languages amounts to the same as copying the content here. A2 was specifically created to discourage copying the content of other Wikipedias on en. However, I'll undelete them and send them to rfd if you request it. (Note that I won't be able to answer until tomorrow.) Cenarium ^Talk 18:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do so. In some ways I'm a bit zellos in my protection of soft redirects. A3 is generally much more of a problem than A2, as A3 cuts against the very nature of soft redirects. But if I want to defend against A3 deletions, I really have to be consistent on my stands against these things using any Article CSD reasons. So, no rush, but I would really prefer that soft redirect are kept out of the A# CSD deletions. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have sent the pages to rfd here (I restored them a few days ago). Regards, Cenarium ^Talk 22:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Poll

About your question; why not? Where's the harm in getting some non-confidential information for the purpose of bettering Wikipedia? Also, nobody objected to the proposal when I asked on IRC. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied in part on the proposal page. Cenarium ^Talk 01:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Same. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 01:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have replied, I'm watching this page. Cheers, Cenarium ^Talk 01:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Glimcher Realty Trust

Hey - Sorry to spam the speedy deletion on Glimcher Realty Trust, but I'm not sure what else to do. The article has been created and deleted over 6 times, many of which by the same user, who ignores the Admin verdict and recreates the page. The page doesn't meet notability requirements, and is probably the user's own company - How do I resolve this without resorting to edit wars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.105.121.61 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 30 November 2008

Replied on your talk page. Cenarium ^Talk 14:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Threats - request user block

User:Ie-Brazil made threats to another IP User on Talk:New Age. Lumos3 and I moved the edits off of the talk page, so please see the discussion "history" tab for the two reverts; read the last few edits there. Thank you for your consideration. This is an article related to spirituality; many people who read it may be searching for meaning in life and could be depressed —this was a suicide threat. Please block this user. ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time to look into this now, could you go at the admin noticeboard ? Or I'll see tomorrow. Thanks. Cenarium ^Talk 19:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the user. Cenarium ^Talk 18:01, 1 December 2008(UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your help. Take care! ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Primate at FAC

Hello! As a previous reviewer of Primate at FAC it would be great if you could have another look at the article. The FAC has been restarted, and any comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have specific comments and would have supported. I am satisfied with the evolution of the 'Interactions with humans' section. Congratulations, Cenarium (Talk) 12:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As of

Hi, if you're going to be deleting the "As of" linking, as you did in Tomomi Miyashita, please use the template {{As of}} so that the articles continue to appear in Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements. I've corrected Tomomi Miyashita already, so you can see that as an example. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have already used this system, as you can see here. Those pages should be delinked per the new wp:mosnum as well (since it's a link to a date). "As of" constructs are still accessible by special:search, for example [4]. I am still perplex on the compared usefulness of the new categories though. I won't continue to delink for now. Thanks, Cenarium (Talk) 00:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Be careful of how you use the template. By default, it generates "As of"; in the case of the Carey article, you want "as of", because it does not begin a sentence. To force lower case, use the "lc=on" parameter, i.e. {{as of|2007|1|lc=on}}, not {{as of|2007|1}}. As you edited it, the Mariah Carey article rendered as:

According to Forbes, Carey was the sixth richest woman in entertainment As of January 2007, with an estimated net worth of US $225 million.

(note the spurious mid-sentence upper-case 'A' in "As of")

Also, as I understand template talk:As of#Parameters?, while {{as of|January 2007}} will work, it's fragile ("its usage is deprecated and discouraged as it is more likely to create errors through typos"), and {{as of|1|2007}} is the preferred usage.

I've corrected it in the Mariah Carey article TJRC (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have noted that and made sure my edits were correct. Thanks, Cenarium (Talk) 13:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Jerk

We were actually just about to move Jerk -> Jerk (physics) and disambiguate the base case. Could you take care of this for us or allow moves by non-admins? Thanks.--Loodog (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, I actually thought the same. Cenarium (Talk) 19:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Slow down, please?

Hey. The protection templates are a bit of a mess, as are the categories, but creating more templates without any real discussion is just creating a bigger and more confusing problem. Can you please slow down a bit? :-) Things like Template:Pp-move-project don't really make any sense. It makes maintenance of the templates far more difficult (now instead of one or two edits, one has to find every Pp- template...), doesn't have automatic detection for namespace, etc. Perhaps Protection policy would be a good place to discuss all of this before new templates and categories are created and pages are tagged? Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. There's a new thread here regarding protection categories if you're interested.

I have already opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#New_protection_templates_and_categories (that I linked from WT:PPOL). I have created them only to show how they would work and didn't use them, except pp-move-project that I had created before thinking about creating other ones. Cenarium (Talk) 19:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, fantastic. I'll go take a look. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

:) --Tamás Kádár (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Help me delete the File:Sfc first.pdf

I uploaded the File:Sfc first.pdf wrongly on Wikipedia mistaking it as Wikisource, while using multiple windows in my computer. So please remove it. I dont know how to remove an uploaded file. As well please tell me if there is a way to remove such files by the person uploading it. Rajankila (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A question

Dear friend

I am K. Duvvuri from Indian Univesity, I am working on Special Functions. I saw your works and contributions..

Please can you help me (help or hints) concerning two items:

- the existence of an exponential generating fonction to the Boubaker polynomials (see page :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boubaker_polynomials)

- the eventual ANALYTICAL expression of the reoots of these polynomials. Please answer here, in my talk page or in my email:
duvvuri.kapuryahoo.in

Thank you for help. Duvvuri.kapur (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a specific knowledge of this domain. Cenarium (Talk) 10:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Editnotice

I've done as requested--the mediawiki version is now deleted. (Somewhere in the instructions I originally found re: how to create an editnotice, it had to have said "use Mediawiki:" or I wouldn't have done it; I poke my nose into Mediawiki almost NEVER and wouldn't have thought to do it on that occasion either. This would be a more useful statement if I had the slightest notion of WHERE those original directions could be found. So thanks for explaining!) Happy New Year... GJC 03:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of block banner

Why did you remove the block banner from User talk:!? -- IRP ☎ 12:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This was added in November, more than 2 years after the block et al. There's no purpose to have one now. Cenarium (Talk) 15:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of my duplicate account

Hello, by mistaken i have created my duplicate user id as varunkaushikh. Can you delete my duplicate user id? I am active with my id varunkau. ---Varun (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. We cannot delete accounts. We can only delete user pages or rename accounts. Cenarium (Talk) 21:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Active Editnotice

You added {{Active editnotice}} on {{Current U.S. Senators}} today. What does this do?—Markles 21:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The only effect is to categorize pages containing (non-blank) editnotices in Category:Pages with editnotices or Category:Articles with editnotices. This is much more efficient than using prefixindex since it returns blank editnotices, and categories are more convenient. Cenarium (Talk) 22:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

McCain

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McCain&action=history

can you unprotect it please?

Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cenarium (Talk) 16:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks 똥침 Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As of

Done. Lightmouse (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There are still some 'As of' links going to 'Present' and 'Current'. Perhaps there are more. Can you give me some 'before' and 'after' code? Lightmouse (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There are some links coming from templates where you can run the same before/after code: [5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14]. The remaining ones have the form [[as of ...|something]] and I can't think of an automated way to address them: they are too many cases. When the templates are done, I think I'll can handle the rest. Thanks, Cenarium (Talk) 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the template examples. I have just thought of a way to address [[as of ...|something]] in ordinary articles. It won't get them all and it won't get instances in non-articles, but should get the majority. Leave it with me. Lightmouse (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. There are some in talk pages but articles, templates etc are all gone. Please check. Lightmouse (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed some others and deleted the remaining month redirects. I'll wait a few days, to double check whatlinkshere still clogged by old template links, and then nominate the year redirects for deletion. The 'as of' arc is almost over, finally... Thanks, Cenarium (Talk) 00:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought that I had found them all using the 'What links here' examples you gave. I don't know how there were some left. If you find any more, just give me an example. It is fairly easy for me to run through them using automation. Lightmouse (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think all or almost all are gone, but they still appear in what links here because of old links in template, WLH is slow to refresh, see [15]. Cenarium (Talk) 12:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those. What does 'WLH' mean? I thought templates updated withing a couple of hours or at most a day. But those seem older. Lightmouse (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just WhatLinksHere. It's done by the Job queue, and it's very slow since the end of December, same for changing categories after a template updated. Cenarium (Talk) 12:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting information about the job queue. Incidentally, have you considered becoming an AWB user? You could have done this yourself using AWB and I would have helped you get going. Lightmouse (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have considered it. As an admin I am automatically allowed, but I don't intend to make much repeated editing and that would incite it. Recently, I had to make repeated edits due to as of links and the protection templates update, but this shouldn't happen too often. And the latter also allowed me to remove some old semi-protections now unjustified. Cenarium (Talk) 13:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Well, I am glad you are on the 'As of' case. I have long wanted to get them sorted. Lightmouse (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

templates commons and commonscat

Hi, I think the wording of these two templates should be changed to show that the first relates to a gallery and the second to a category. "Wikimedia Commons has a gallery of images related to Cenarium" and "Wikimedia Commons has a category of images related to Cenarium" would help to differentiate. ciao Rotational (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Since those templates are heavily used, you should first propose the changes on their respective talk page. Cenarium (Talk) 01:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Big Bang opening sentence

"The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation."

I don't think this is either factual or NPOV- but can't change it because the article is locked, and in any case, the article's currently pro-Bang slant is fanatically protected by the user ScienceApologist. Just kind of throwing that out there.

Wannabe rockstar (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A clarification on uploading pdf documents to support contents in Wikipages

I have interest to upload some Government reports in pdf and provide link to them from Wikipedia pages so as to give additional information. Is there any way for that in Wikipedia? It seems that Wikimedia Common allows to upload only multimedia documents,but not text in pdf. Kindly advice me. Rajankila (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Email

Thanks for the heads-up. Article was full of lulz, such as how they described me as someone making sure somebody was “hanged” and not “hung.” hbdragon88 (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and now there's another one ! It looks like the only references to the band in google news come either from the Las Vegas Mercury, the Las Vegas Review-Journal or the Las Vegas Sun, owned by the related Stephens Media group and Greenspun Media Group. I also noted that the two articles didn't show up because the band's name was misspelled with one l. Cenarium (Talk) 21:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hagerstown

just to let you know, there are some other Hagerstown articles that were protected for a long time (such as Hag. Indiana, Hag. Airport, Hag. Reg. Arpt., etc.) if you want to 'unprotect' them.Vpuliva (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've unprotected Hagerstown, Indiana and a few others. I kept move protection since pages with variants of Hagger are regularly targeted by Grawp. Cenarium (Talk) 03:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

You semiprotected this article a little over a month ago, based on only one case of vandalism (a page-move). I'm thinking this may be a bit excessive - page-move protection seems logical as there won't be any reason for this article being moved, but the edit=autoconfirmed restriction should be lifted, IMO. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 18:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have only added the move-protection. The semi-protection was already present (see the log). The semi-protecting admin is Casliber. Cenarium (Talk) 15:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP header question

I don't do much editing to my monobook so I'm a bit novice, but when I add importScript('User:RockMFR/blpeditintro.js') to my monobook, and clear my cache, I still can't see the result above the text box on edit pages for BLPs. Any ideas? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It works only when you click the edit link (or by shortcut) directly from the article. Cenarium (Talk) 18:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean the edit tab at the top of the page? If so, it still doesn't work for me. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you see the disambig edit intro when editing a disambiguation page ? If not, maybe other preferences are interfering. Or try to clear your cache again. If it still doesn't work, I don't know. Cenarium (Talk) 18:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I see disambiguation page edit headers, but not BLP ones. Ah well, I don't really edit BLPs anyway so it doesn't affect me, I was just curios to see the result. Thanks anyway. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RE; File:Cv2.jpg

I just wanted to let you know the reason I had asked for protection is the editor who uploaded the logo had reverted and I wanted a preemptive strike, if you will, so they would not come in and do it again. From looking over their logs they seemed to do the reversion just to "do it" because they did re-up the logo under another name the same day they made the reversion. Thanks for considering though. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I see, now the user has the logo for Convenience Valet so it should stop. I'll protect the image if the user reverts again though. You can request protection of a page at WP:RFPP. Protection tags are applied only when the page is in fact protected. Cenarium (Talk) 18:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to the redirect Jeffrey C Wright

... because there's no article for that person, the redlink on the dab page is equally red, and because redlinks serve a purpose. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirects are not subject to the red link guideline, those pointing to invalid targets such as non-existent pages are speedy deletable, see WP:G8 (the old R1). Thus it should either be deleted or point to the dab page. Cenarium (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Links to dab pages are also discouraged. Suggest you either write the article or tag the redirect for deletion. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Then I deleted it. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll get the resultant redlinks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Protection

Hi,

What's this template for? It's not documented, and the output isn't clear from any of its transclusions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The old purpose of this template was to indicate the page was protected. It's long deprecated and superseded by the protection templates, so I've been thinking about making something useful of it using the new {{PROTECTIONLEVEL}} magic word. But I haven't found a good use for it yet, so I'll maybe delete it under WP:T3. Cenarium (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Chaosdruid Sandbox 1

Apologies - have deleted.

thanks --Chaosdruid (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

PS do I have to simply put <no wiki> at the top of the page to prevent this problem in my sandbox pages ?? Thanks --Chaosdruid (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You can use either <nowiki> </nowiki> (which removes wiki formatting) or <!-- --> (which hides the text) around the categories and interwikis, and remove or do the same with any protection template. There is currently no other way to prevent the categorization of a page. Cenarium (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that info - will do that now to other sandbox page and put not to self for future ref --Chaosdruid (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Re Chris King

OK, great. Thanks for your help. Zagalejo^^^ 05:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Files deleted - Reply

Thanks for deleting. -Iross1000 (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC).

Draft article deletion

Hi,

You deleted my draft article on Recommerce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tatiana317:Recommerce) on 2/9/2009 due to me being a nonexistent user. I am very new to Wikipedia and am working on my first submission. The Wikipedia guide to writing your first article suggests doing so on a user's sub-page. Please let me know if I have violated any community rules, and what I should do to avoid this confusion in the future.

Thank you,

Tatiana317 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for keeping an eye on Portal:Islam. Cirt (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Move protection

Hiya. Please remove move protection for User talk:EEMIV. I'm going to archive the page soon, and it hasn't been dicked around with in a month+; hopefully the protection isn't necessary any more. --EEMIV (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for such swift service! --EEMIV (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Removal of advanced permissions (proposed)#Neutral

I have created a Neutral section for those who agree with the premise but not the method, or some other aspect, which may be altered following talkpage discussion. Perhaps you would wish to review your !vote under the changed circumstances? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection Request

Dear Cenarium,

I noticed that you applied protection for the Bernard Madoff page in the past: "Cenarium (Talk | contribs) protected Bernard Madoff [move=sysop] (indefinite) (Highly visible page)"-- 3 February 2009. I would request that you please semiprotect the page. We get drive-by IP POV and vandalism everyday and it's a struggle just to keep it maintained, let alone being able to improve it. Thank you so much for your time! Magemirlen (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've protected this page from page moves. But I don't think that at this time, semi-protection is justified, as the levels of vandalism/disruption are not excessively high. Cenarium (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates

Regarding this category, I was thinking that it would be more useful to have more specific tracking categories. For example if there was a category which contained articles with a protection template which were unprotected, then it would be very easy to automate the removal of the templates. At the moment, it seems that you have to look at each individually to find whether its status. What do you think? Martin^Msgj 14:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If using subcategories is useful for bots, we could do that. Sometimes bots use other information to detect the protection levels and the protection templates on the page, so they may not need this. It'll depend on bot operators. Cenarium (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of RCM

Hi, you've just deleted the tag for a Cabal Mediation on Freida Pinto's article. You wrote that "not supposed to be placed here". Where is it, then? Velho (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it should be on the talk page (see the transclusions), at the beginning of Talk:Freida_Pinto#Goa_and_Pinto (it's where the dispute is discussed). I placed it there. Cenarium (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

I realize you were slightly involved in this thread, but I do not believe the degree to which you were involved should sway your opinion on the matter one way or another.

My question is thus: Bish Closed the ANI thread with a threat aimed at me to topic ban me. I am rather miffed at this, as, as far as I understood the situation, I was not the only one at fault. Yes, I admit I was at fault.

In my opinion, Bish appeared to take the side of the other two editors, especially with how he failed to warn them against obvious baiting.

So really, I guess I'm asking two things. One, I would like opinions on this small matter, and two, if you feel the same way I do, could you please change the archival to not be so one-sided. In my opinion, I was not the only one at fault, and I shouldn't be treated that way.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it was not a great move of Bish to close the thread since she was particularly involved and supported the two users in question. But trying to change the close now would probably lead to more drama and I prefer not to do that. Her conclusion of the thread was unilateral and biased, so it shouldn't have consequences in the future. ANI has the effect to dramatize situations, and reporting users there in the middle of a dispute generally increases tensions, it should be avoided, admins can't really act in those cases and a RFC at a later date is preferable. There is a long-standing and deplorable contention between some article writers and some administrators popping up from time to time, added to the date unlinking dispute and RFAR, it's a very contentious zone. The best thing to do is staying away from it, or be prepared ! Cenarium (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it be posssible to draw your attention to her calling me the only one at fault at her talk page?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

At least make a note on the ANI thread closure the I am not the only one at fault.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I amended the close with a neutral statement regarding the entire thread. Please don't continue to post on Bishonen's talk page, you may still be upset, but this is not going to achieve anything and only helplessly maintain drama. Cenarium (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Warning

Persistant refusal to get the point? What -point-? That he can use his admin status to push me around when he has an obvious bias in relation to the articles? The article was a g4. It was exactly the same as the deleted version, and it's the same thing with all the other articles. There is no reason they should have their own article, none of them have any sources, and none of them indicate why they're notable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

PediaPress

Hi Cenarium, thanks for correcting my mildly embarassing 'tha.' But listen, when I click on "create a book" and go to "show book" I do get a button that says "Order from PediaPress." Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's only available for logged-in users on en, for now (help:books). Cenarium (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Care to add that? Drmies (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We'd need a source for that, I've found this from TechCrunch, but nothing more. Cenarium (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I proposed to limit book creation in WP space to autoconfirmed users. Ruslik (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I had also proposed that on this page. Looks like it's underway. Cenarium (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Help

hi. Cenarium, I am a new user on wiki pedia. I am not able to find how to use WIKIPEDIA. cOULD YOU PLEASE HELP ME, HOW TO USE WIKIPEDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manalishyam (talk • contribs) 06:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I welcomed you on your talk page. This should give you some hints on how to use Wikipedia, see especially the introduction. If you have questions, feel free to ask me. Cenarium (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Revisions using Huggle

Thank you for your warnings about using Huggle in rollbacking. I'll be sure to be more careful while using the program. AeonicOmega (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

for pressing on with hashing out flagged revisions proposals, even when most of the discussion has stagnated.

		The Original Barnstar
		For efforts to move an important discussion forward, I award Cenarium this barnstar.--ragesoss (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your valiant attempt to save Wikipedia from the greedy clutches of the Wikimedia foundation, I hereby award you this barnstar! Themfromspace (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If I hadn't missed the AfD I would have fought against it as well. Themfromspace (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bit confused

Apparently, Template:ISO 639 name, which I just created, is cascade-protected from User:Cenarium/Protected templates but I can't see how. Can you shed any light? Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See {{Lang}}. Ruslik (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting flagged revisions going

Hello. I want to start a drive to get flagged revisions going. I liked your recent proposal, but I believe it would be easier to get consensus with an implementation that is as simple as possible.

It is located at Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions#Let.27s_see_what_we_can_get I would appreciate if you read and comment. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cent

Just a note that when you're removing old discussions from this, you should place a summary of the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive. I've done so for the BAG proposal you removed. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks for the info, Cenarium (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please advise

Please note this edit summary by User:Mokele. During an editorial disagreement last month, this user berated me with similar lack of civility as recounted here. It's frustrating that the rest of us have to watch our P's and Q's and this particular editor keeps getting pats on the pack for personal attacks and lack of civility. In this edit summary, User:Mokele freaks out and says he'll report me for harassment if I warn him about civility again. An idle threat, but I would rather not deal with the confrontation. I haven't combed through this user's edits, but at a quick glance I see from this which added to the rest indicates that this editor frequently responds to good faith edits with profanity, insults, and hostility. What is the proper way to address this persistent behavior? - --Boston (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in handling incivility. As you have been in dispute with Mokele, and your user talk interactions have been quite negative (also avoid templating a regular, as it isn't a good way to establish reports), I'd advise to keep interactions at minimal. You did well to revert the last warning. Mokele has been warned for his incivility during the dispute after the WQ report, there is indeed an incivility in this edit summary, done when reverting similar stuff. But I don't think it's sufficient to justify another warning, let alone a block. Let time pass and if it continues, you can ask an admin more experienced in this domain, and maybe consider a WP:RFC, see Wikipedia:Civility#Dispute resolution, but now may be premature, and you'd have to establish a pattern. Also, keep in mind that it'll result in an analysis of all the situation, the dispute (over the Python article) and the actions of each party involved. Cenarium (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"MAM" vandals

Hi. Is it fair to assume that 172.164.101.15, 172.129.228.68, and172.131.117.27 are IP socks of the same puppeteer as the one that you call "MAM vandal" on Filter 44? If so, then is it fair to assume that I am correct in suspecting this filter to be malfunctioning, right? There are 0 hits regardless of those edits by the ips. ~ Troy (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it appears that they made the edits days ago :( I thought at least one of the ips would've edited today, because one of the edits didn't get reverted until now. Never mind. ~ Troy (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it is working properly (an error on my part to assume that it wouldn't :). ~ Troy (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

Cheers on continuing to push this forward :-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks so much for helping advance the flagged protection trial. You helped worked out the details after everyone stopped paying attention. I don't want to jinx it, but I think we'll soon get to see how it works. Cool Hand Luke 00:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with the CHL and DG. Excellent work. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice to see that there is support for this. ;) Cenarium (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for putting that work into it! Good going! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Filter 18

Are you sure that 2 false positives in 398 hits is enough to disable the filter? In all cases the edits contained something wrong anyway, so I am not sure that is would be such a huge problem to fix a couple when it can stop hundreds of bad edits for each false positive. Prodego ^talk 16:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, new users add items from the toolbar by mistake or inexperience, while making a valuable edit besides that. For example, this shouldn't be disallowed. We shouldn't scare away new users. Some additional conditions are needed for disallowing.Cenarium (talk)

There is no way to add a check that would prevent it. If you look at diffs, sometimes you see a whole section 'removed' then 'readded'. So we can't check if something is the 'only' change. Prodego ^talk 19:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Then we shouldn't disallow, per WP:BITE, and discussions at WT:ABFIL. Genuinely vandalistic edits may match other filters and most test edits are not made when the user has been warned. We could make a database report to detect remaining test edits. Cenarium (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection of New York

Hi, Cenarium. Could I persuade you to unprotect New York? It's been about four months, and I think we should avoid protection unless absolutely necessary. Thanks! Powers ^T 17:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have only added move protection to the page, which should stay. User:DMacks has semi-protected the page from editing, you should ask him first if you'd like edit protection lifted. Cenarium (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies; the protection log displayed when I edited the article was misleading in that respect. I do question the need for move-protection, but certainly allowing anonymous edits should come first. Thanks. Powers ^T 19:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

St. Joseph School

Just out of curiosity, what did the user St. Joseph School do wrong? TheThingy ^Talk_Website 19:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on the user talk page. Cenarium (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Signpost

If you'll tell me what exactly is a misconception, I'll be happy to rewrite - publication isn't for another few hours. Hermione1980 23:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay, I though it was at 00:00. It's really nothing huge, but thanks for your attention anyway. I didn't propose to turn off the autopromotion (I though it was clear, but some users also thought that), but just to add the possibility for admins to grant it prematurely (before 10 edits, 4 days) and remove it. Autopromotion would be similar to the one provided by the extension FlaggedRevs, but in any case, even with Happy-Melon's suggestion, it requires an (explicit) usergroup. I've clarified the poll by adding options. It's not going to help for page-move vandalism, since the autopromotion would still be active, but some autoconfirmed users vandalize and are still not blocked indef (not enough warnings, only a temp block, lenient admins...), so removing their (auto)confirmed status would reduce the risk of them to skip through anti-vandalism protections. I've given examples at the end of the poll. Granting prematurely would be for good-faith new users needing the rights, bots, known trusted users (e.g. from other projects), etc. Discussion is at the early stages and maybe you'll have more matter for a subject later. Also, is something going to be said on this poll, or in the next publication ? Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How about this:

Cenarium has suggested that autoconfirmed status should be able to be granted and revoked manually (by admins). The status would still be conferred automatically at 10 edits and 4 days, but admins would be given the capability to grant it early. This would decrease certain types of vandalism, including malicious page-moves, while allowing certain users who need autoconfirmed status early to be given it. This would require making autoconfirmed an explicit usergroup in MediaWiki. Most users who have commented are in favor of allowing autoconfirmed status to be removed, while maintaining the automatic granting that is currently in place.

About the flagged revs poll -- is that a new poll? I know that (at least) one flagged revs poll was mentioned in the Signpost recently, but I haven't been keeping up with the discussions. Hermione1980 00:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It won't have a significant influence on page-move vandalism, I don't think I mentioned this there. It'll just allow to remove the status in case of vandalism by an autoconfirmed user when blocking indef is not an option, thereby limiting the damage potentially caused by the user.

The poll on FLP/PR started two weeks ago, it's mentioned in the current publication, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-03-23/News and notes. We had another, bigger, poll in January. Normally, it should end on 1 April, so that may be a subject for the first publication of April, some technical, trial conduct and policy aspects still needs to be worked out before the implementation, should take a few weeks, so the trial should be able to run through ere the end of April (but it's just speculation). Cenarium (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove the bit about pagemove vandalism, then that should be good. :-) I'll make a note on the tip line about the poll, so that a story about the results can be included at the beginning of April. Hermione1980 01:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, thanks. Cenarium (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)