User talk:Cenarium/Archive 3

G'day Cen - I thought I'd swing by to just reiterate my appreciation for your hard work in finding elusive common ground in enabling the (much needed in my view) flagged rev.s extension. Never underestimate the import of personal gratification, I say, so hopefully these titbits may at least help find some in some way... you don't pass through Sydney ever by any chance? I'd be happy to follow the virtual up with the more liquid refreshment. Here's hoping we get FR 'on' before the April showers pass.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks :) I'm not passing by Sidney, but I also hope we'll have this up before the end of April ! It'll be a really interesting experience. Cenarium (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As I read the information, it is the highest level professional league in that country, and so all its players would be notable, and soccerbase is a RS for this. I'm deprodding unless you can convince me otherwise. Before you renominate them, check for additional information in appropriate places, per WP:BEFORE. But of course you know all this, but I do not want to deprod without leaving you a note . DGG (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've searched google and except two of them (Owusu Hayford and Pradit Sawangsri), they don't have any hits save from Wikipedia and mirrors (or for some from forums), e.g.: [1]. They're not on soccerbase either. I'm all for saving notable artciles from deletion, but I can't find any verifiable info for them. Cenarium (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The user recreated all of them anyway.. Cenarium (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Flagged protection and patrolled revisions, is there a proposed configuration (from the technical side) that's ready? On-wiki policies can come later (they almost always do), but if there's actual code that needs to be enabled, it needs to be in a bug so I can start getting people to consider enabling it. Let me know. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The technical part is detailed at Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions/Implementation. Aaron Schulz has already been working on updating the extension FlaggedRevs in view of the implementation. There are still some details to work out, and we'd need more input, I'll also post a message at VPT about that. I think devs will go to a conference and we'll probably be ready for a bug after that. Cenarium (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks for the update (and for all of your effort in this area). --MZMcBride (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

ditto the above, and just wondering if there's anything you'd like any help with? I'm hoping we're nearly there! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'd need to agree on the requirements for reviewers, and if we want an 'established' group, as the autopromotion requirements should be fixed before the implementation. Guidelines for reviewing, the organization of the trial and such are still hardly discussed, I'll add some of this to WP:CENT now. Thanks to the efforts of Aaron Schulz, we now have much progressed on the technical side. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerning that: Do you have any ideas already about how Popups and possibly Twinkle/Huggle can help with the reviewing process? I've never looked too deeply into the technical side of this, and will try reading up on it over Easter, but a glance at the implementation page left me rather confused, and not only because of the differing concepts (patrolling/reviewing/validating) that I'm not yet grasping. Seeing that the extension is still being adapted, I assume I can't already see the final version on testwiki? Or are the significant features already up there? Also, would you know if there's any API support for FlaggedRevs?
Cheers, Amalthea 12:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe popups could give a link to the latest patrolled version if existing, but I don't see for now how those tools could directly help in the reviewing process. Patrolling is used for all pages and is completely passive, confirm is for semi flag protected pages and validate for fully protected pages. If you'd like some features, you can add them to the implementation subpage. The proposed implementation is a quite modified version of the initial FlaggedRevs extension, it required new wg variables, etc. It's not yet available for testing, but I've requested a test implementation, see T20334. I'm really unaware of the technical aspects such as API support. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added a request to the implementations page, with an example of a NAVPOP link that I'd find very useful: showing the diff between the latest flagged revision and the current revision, with simple means to flag the current revision, so that in simple cases this can be done from the watchlist without actually opening the page.
Cheers, Amalthea 13:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cenarium,I've sent you an email.CheersTheoracle101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoracle101 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied to your email. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear sir/madam,

I would like to inform you that the content on the Wikipedia website (english version) about 'European Syriac Union' is totally wrong. The information that has been put there is based on fictions. For this I would like that the content will be deleted or that the whole articel will be banned. For information about our organization I would like everybody to go to our website, because there is enough information about our organization.

I know that this might be against your policy of free thinking and free informational postings, but then again a big website like yours should be respected with correct information. I am willing to send you the correct information about our organization so that it can be replaced for the current one, but then again I think that some persons will change it back. Therefore the best option is to delete the current content and leave it like that or to ban the whole articel.

Sincerely yours,Sargon AygurEuropean Syriac Union member —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saygur (talk • contribs) 01:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there's an ongoing RFC on User:Collect [2]. You've been an editor on Joe the Plumber so your perspective might be helpful.Mattnad (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cenarium. I've been reading through the Flagged Revisions discussions and I'd like to have a play. Am I able to download a version of FlaggedRevs which includes the proposed changes (as they currently stand)? Cheers --MoreThings (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs, there's a subversion link. Amalthea 14:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a link to the default version, which I already have installed. I thought I'd read somewhere that the proposed version uses modified code, and that's what I was looking for. --MoreThings (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's been updated yet, maybe Aaron has a svn version, but it's not fixed yet. New code is used, e.g. wgFlagAvailability. You may request it at the implementation subpage. There's a bug for a test implementation, T20334. Cenarium (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on bugzilla. Presumably, I'll be able to get hold of a copy when it's rolled out to one of the test platforms.--MoreThings (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I checked the log and saw that Aaron made changes today, so I assumed that it was the modified version for here. --Amalthea 17:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What's flagged revisions. That may be ok for the article on George Washington or History of the Roman Empire, but not for the 2009 swine flu outbreak. User F203 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

An extension to flag edits, and if configured by admins on a page, to show the latest flagged revision by default (as a protection measure on Wikipedia), see Wikipedia:Flagged revisions. In the case of 2009 swine flu outbreak, the editing volume being very high, it would be more difficult to manage, even though flagging can be done very quickly. Semi-protection would probably be preferred in those cases. Cenarium (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please could see the article Moulin Rouge! Music from Baz Luhrmann's Film and Editing Template: Infobox Album / color. Thank you postdata I not speak English —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan6hell66 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Template:Infobox Album/color ? This is a metatemplate, you don't need to edit it for specific uses of the Template:Infobox Album. The colors are predefined, see here. Cenarium (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I submitted an article about Bentoun County Parks and it was deleted because of copyright concerns. I am the Park Director and the sources referenced were from the County Park website that I wrote. Why was it deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benton county parks (talk • contribs) 04:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You have protected Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table (with semi-protection). On its talk page I've stated my opinion that that template should not be protected. I'd like to invite you to take part in the discussion. Sincerely, Debresser (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not initially protected the template, I just reprotected it to give the reason back instead of a "moved protection settings..." with a redlink. The initial protection is here. Cenarium (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

just fyi - I flicked wiki-tech an email to try and encourage attention to the bug you re-opened requesting enabling of flagged revisions. As you know, I'd like to see this extension up and running asap! :-) well done, and thanks for your continued hard work on this front. Privatemusings (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It'll take some time to implement, I'm afraid. Cenarium (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

just a quick update - I flicked wiki-tech another email after 2 weeks, and someone's noted that bugs labelled 'shell' apparently take a while to happen - hope this tallies with your expectations etc. - when you mention that it'll take some time to implement - is that what you meant? - or perhaps you feel that there's more work to be done within the en community too? Hopefully flagged revisions can be enabled soon! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that. Important configuration changes require planning and testing, and in this case, the extension still requires some tweaks. There's not much work to be done for the enwiki community now, just waiting updates from developers. We can polish the policies and conduct of the trial later, or on the fly. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I am writing the page in the headline.

I am not absolutely sure everything i write is absolutely true since it is difficult to
find much of it on internet and sometimes i even see contradictions.

It would be great if some expert reading wikipedia could check the page for errors.
Not the years, that is far to much work although digging up the years is 10 times more work.

Judging from others that have edited the page they don't dear to correct the facts,
or to improve on the contents because it is so difficult.

How can i find an expert that edits wikipedia to read and improve the page?

I have already found some improvements and a much larger new version will be posted soon.
But the larger the page the greater probability for errors, unfortunately.

Also, is there a chance to get this page into WikiProject Mathematics?

Best regardsFotinoFotino (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"I don't think, I hope not, that Xeno is on the edge of leaving" I was not even talking about Xeno there, btw. But Giano was starting to (again) create a hostile and unwelcoming environment where ever he poked up. That makes people who do not care about working in such environments to leave. These kinds of "atmospheres" are very much below our observation radar here on Wikipedia, because we tend to go by edits, but they are still unquestionably present. Personally I find those kinds of effects worse than Personal Attacks (esp. when the person in question is known to be able to tolerate them). I wish he would have taken a wikibreak instead however. Any conflict like this that ends with an administrator leaving is a sad day. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Xeno is not going to leave, apparently. But Giano did. There's some attitudes creating hostile environments I really don't like (from some editors hanging around date unlinking, more explicitly). But in this case, I don't think Giano was at fault in creating hostile tensions, but rather Xeno, as he baited him, maybe not maliciously, but then in an ignorant and patronizing way. Though I'd rather say any conflict like this that ends with a valuable user leaving is a sad day. Cenarium (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You made sense on RfAr, and I congratulate you for it. --Tznkai (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You restored the awards section on Adobe Acrobat and posted a message on 91.201.3.7's talk page. The awards section was actually his own creation, and he appeared to have started an edit conflict with another IP user over it. There was no verification, so I removed the awards section again. 10metreh (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the IPs are edit warring over this, I blocked them 24 hours for WP:3RR. I agree this awards section is quite weak and should go. Cenarium (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My bad. OtisJimmyOne 17:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem ;) I tested a new version of filter 29, so I needed a speedy deletion tag anyway. Cenarium (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I restored it because the tags that were laid down in the interim lost the AF: prefix. –xeno^talk 21:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This tag functionality is quite useful, but there's a few issues, hopefully it'll improve soon. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw you created Category:Current events from June 2009. Please do not create maintenance categories in advance by more than 1 day. There are people who date templates in advance and you creating this category prevents SmackBot from detecting those incorrectely tagged templates and fixing them.

See also: Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month.

Thank you for your understanding, Debresser (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Õkay, I did that because sometimes they were not created in time. Why not use a bot for that ? Cenarium (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Noticed your comment that it's invalid to move that debate there; perhaps adding a bold message to that effect, but right at the top, will help to avoid more and more people turning up and ploughing through it all needlessly, adding their support/opposition? I was tempted to do this but I'm only going by what you said so I'll leave the idea with you. It does seem skewed though, as you say, to start with a pre-loaded bunch of supporting responses from a minority viewing. PL290 (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to do for that. But it may also suffer from its own fault. Let's see. Cenarium (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think it's only a preliminary discussion, at the stage of gathering ideas. If they work out something, it'll be discussed again and proposed to the community in a more definitive form. Cenarium (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I jhg found and listed alot of other fellows work and research in order to bring light and attention to my research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.200.45 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

My name is Todd Sherman, and I'm the webmaster of Mobile Scanner & RADAR-Detector Laws in the United States, which you're referencing in your page about radar detectors as 'US Radar detector laws', which you then link to my site. Technically, if you're going to reference, you should quote the NAME of the book, magazine, article, web page, etc. Was just wondering if you could correct the name of my site, there, so that people know.

Heh, not trying to be a butt-hole. It's just that USA Today did this to me before and without knowing it, they gave full credit for the work I did to someone else because of a carelessly worded link at someone else's site. They created this huge article raving about the 'SpeedTrap' website and how it contained a list of scanner and radar detector laws across the US. It had nothing of the sort. It had a very vague link to an external site referenced simply by the words "Scanner/RADAR-Detector Laws". It gave the user no clue that they were leaving the site, and when the user came to my site, they simply assumed that SpeedTrap had done all the work. Not QUITE the same thing is going on, here, of course. I know that. Still...if you could use my sites actual name, that would be cool.  :) (It really stank, too, because they really gave my site a great review. They just...ATTRIBUTED ALL CREDIT TO SPEEDTRAP, and so I couldn't even use the article or point to it or reference it in any way on my own site because they'd completely messed the credits in the article up. Couldn't get them to correct it, either.  :( I guess when you're a national newspaper and you make a mistake THAT horrendously big it just costs WAY too much to print a nation-wide and internet-wide correction...and who wants to admit to millions that an entire article was...a total flub-up?  :( I guess in that situation, that's what I was up against.)

Thanks,

Todd

Stormspottertodd (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, since non-administrators are unable to upload files to a name that already exists on Commons, this page doesn't actually seem to do anything. Is there another purpose to it? Gurch (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I had thought to expand it to certain files hosted locally, and an image on commons may also be deleted and/or an admin may upload it locally for some reason then forget to protect. But those cases should probably be very rare and thus difficult to exploit by a vandal; and on commons, they are reluctant to protect locally high risk images anyway, so it doesn't matter much. I could just unprotect it for now. Cenarium (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem with having a shared media repository... nothing here (including cascading protection) stops a Commons image being vandalised if it isn't protected. If it's deleted on Commons, the protection would stop it being uploaded here (but not re-uploaded there), but if that happened with such high-visibility images we'd have enough of a problem with broken image links everywhere even without any vandalism. Actually now I checked, the cascading protection does do something, namely prevent non-administrators creating local description pages for the images. Which is possibly useful, though since the description pages themselves are not high-visibility, nothing drastic would happen if they were vandalised. I guess they're more prone to vandalism than the average image description page. Gurch (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello... FYI, I've taken the liberty of adding three templates to your list of protected templates. They are {{cite doi}}, {{cite doi}}, and {{cite doi}}, all of which are used by Citation_bot for auto-generating references. (I've also added them to Hersfold's list.) Hope this is OK, and thanks for taking the initiative to institute such a useful service. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

This is extremely no big deal so I am not going to argue much about it, but I don't really understand why you removed the tiny notice that a special barnstar was available for swine flu articles. How else is an editor to know such a star intended for only a couple articles exists?

It had been there a while & no one else objected, which doesn't mean it was OK, but I see no reason why it was wrong either. However, please do inform me if there is one as I am always willing to learn.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello.

Well, this is not really the purpose of a talk page. I think there are some ways to share and advertise barnstars at WP:BARN. Many talk page headers are already quite bloated by templates, and we should generally only keep the essential. Barnstars are nice, but they stay behind the scene, they are not directly related to improve articles. There are barnstars pertaining to certain groups of articles, but they aren't advertised in main talk space; it's the first time I see this, and I don't think it's fitting for the above reasons. But no big deal, yes. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for helping out with some of the nitpicky tasks I've missed during my months of editing and improving the wind article. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ;) It's a pleasure to edit an article of this quality on such a major subject. I'll add follow-up comments to the FAC in a short time. Cenarium (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

How are the recent edits stacking up against your comments from a day or two ago? I've heard they've previously been aggressive in delisting FACs which descend into inactivity. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look, I should comment within 24 hours. Cenarium (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Responded to your latest responses. Station model and wind scales are now within one section titled "Meteorological use." Let me know if this is too broad of a header for the section. I've added a couple lines about the khamsin wind's influence on historical events, and did add a line concerning the Nor'west arch's influence on art in New Zealand, within the "near mountains" section. I'm asking for additional feedback on the FAC page, to see what others think might still be missing. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you did an excellent job, and I'm satisfied enough with the present article. Moving to support. Cenarium (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I disabled this for now - we have an IRC bot watching the abuse filter, and since non-admins do crossnamespace moves all the time, it is constantly going off (anything that sets of a page move filter is considered high priority). Also, given that non-admins do do this all the time, why would we want to tag that? Seems like something better handled by existing tools to me. All of the information for detecting a cross namespace move is in the IRC RC feed, you don't need the extra power (which uses server time) of the abuse filter. Prodego ^talk 07:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no easy on-wiki way to detect page moves into mainspace, which is a problem, because it bypasses the NewPages monitoring. We frequently had requests for a feature to detect that, which can be done through the abuse filter and the log or tag system. A couple of hours is not sufficient to determine if the filter impacts performance or if this is done all the time. We should have in a couple of months a usergroup intermediary between autoconfirmed and sysop that we'll be able to use to extend the group of exempted users, but as of now it's not possible. Although we could use a time since registration/number of edits to limit this. If there were a more server-friendly way to detect cross-namespace moves, embedded in the software, we would have no need for that. But as of now, there are no efficient existing tools for this. IRC is not relevant here, just fix it so that it doesn't trigger on this filter. Cenarium (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It is trivial for a bot to detect cross namespace moves, without using any server time. Such a bot would simply check all page moves in the IRC RC feed (which is run by the wmf and part of the site), and look for any that are crossnamespace. There really isn't any need for the abuse filter. Prodego ^talk 16:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is a better way to detect that, then fine, but I'm still unsure on how a bot could present this information. It's better fit for a log. The best would be to be able to filter the move log, but internal filtering of logs has never been easy, so it's where tags could come into play. Tags embedded in the software, which doesn't take out server time or rely on the abuse filter, would be much better for that purpose, and I plan to request that kind of things if it's not already developed. Cenarium (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Fairly sure MiszaBot won't work if it's not on the page in question. I could be mistaken, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely remember some comments implying this doesn't work too. Cenarium (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, and I'm sure you have a reason for it, but why did you remove FlyingToaster's Autoreviewer rights? Is it just because she's inactive? TheSavageNorwegian 00:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we had come to the conclusion at AN that inactive users shouldn't be given the rights, to allow an easier management of the usergroup (it's a new userright that has been given out based on a whitelist, a little in a hurry, see WP:AN). More than 50 users had it removed due to inactivity. Cenarium (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Abuse filter/Performance/Header}} should be added on the next update. Dragons flight (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Although the death shouldn't be overly emphasized in the lead of the article on Michael Jackson, it should have at least one sentence talking about it, like other articles on the deceased do. Hello32020 (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That was reverted in this edit, propose to revert it on the talk page. If you get enough support, an admin will revert or add something similar on his death in the lead. Cenarium (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a clear reason why this page should not be semi-protected instead of full protection. As new information is released by the mainstream media and other reliable sources we are preventing a 'normal' user from adding relevant materials. Am I wrong on this ? I'm not really familiar with the policies, but I'm more than happy to learn more. Thanks! e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 00:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I gave my reasons on the talk and in the log. Check my reversions in the history. Three vandalism in seven minutes, it was reverted by me relatively quickly because I refreshed the page history ready to rollback. But that's way too much vandalism with this extreme traffic. Cenarium (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you should read the comments at WP ANI Corpx (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep I headed over there and read the comments, I didn't realize that would be another avenue to head down as I'm not an Admin and I'm not stirring any pots, I was just curious as someone who doesn't really know all the in's and out's of Wikipedia Policy. Thanks for the link. e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 01:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Two things: 24.94.40.184 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) should be blocked for posting negative BLP/vandalism on the talk page; and the dashes in the lead should be spaced (birth and death range). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This loks like an isolated edit from this IP, blocking probably uneeded. For the edit request, please request on the talk page, tere are plenty of admins available. Cenarium (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cenarium
you wrote that your {{On google news}} got superseded by Template:Linked on Google News, do you think it is enough if the template is changed once per hour (snapshot)? The editors on Google News change their front page references pretty often/fast. I am just asking to make sure the template will be updated often enough to reflect things properly. --- Kind regards, Melancholie (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This is already much better than relying on users adding the template on articles. When checking google news, I haven't found the template to be outdated often, I think it should be enough for our purposes, for now. Though I'd suggest to keep articles that have appeared recently on google news, even if they have been removed, as they'll probably still get traffic and deserve some attention, maybe below, hidden like in Template:Popular articles, for a few hours. Wikipedia entries are also often linked, removed then linked again, so it would limit back and forths too. Regards, Cenarium (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cenarium, could you advise whether this abuse report is a false positive? PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a false positive. I always found strange how this filter catch some edits. I'd support removing the action to warn, or use a more precise filter to warn. Cenarium (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. A request, based on your recent protection of other Portal:Contents pages: To protect (semi or fully, whichever is appropriate) the following template elements: Portal:Contents/Types TOC, Portal:Contents/Types header, Portal:Contents/Types layout, Portal:Contents/box-footer, Portal:Contents/box-header, Template:Box-footer, Template:Box-header-watch - all for "high visibility" reasons, I'd presume (all are used at Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge and the others).

Much thanks. (only need reply (here) if you want me to find a different admin delegate (lack of time, etc), or if I've made a mistake/bad assumption anywhere in there) :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I protected those pages because they had been regularly vandalized. It's not the case for the ones you mention though. I don't think they are particularly high risk, and they are better hidden than those I protected (those had 'edit' links), so I don't think they'll attract much vandalism in the future. Protection is probably unecessary. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I like your proposal, I need to mull over it. in the meantime, I hope you will actively participate in my new project page, WP:Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 23:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This looks interesting. In relation to this, I've proposed an Appeal Committee. Cenarium (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My attention has just been drawn to this innovation. Can you let me know whether ArbCom has approved this in principle, or whether it is your own initiative. (I presume you are not officially affiliated with ArbCom, as a clerk or otherwise.)

Since my User:Tony1/AdminReview initiative lies almost finished, but of uncertain future, I wonder whether is has a bearing on this proposed policy. I have always seen AdminReview as optimally finishing up as such a subcommittee of ArbCom, but a few things concern me about the proposal. One is that no non-admins will be able to serve on this Committee; we had assumed that at least some non-admins were essential, to gain the confidence of the community. The perception that ANI is populated by admins and admin-groupies alone has caused a lot of misgiving about its fairness when it comes to complaining about admin actions. Tony (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is entirely of my own initiative, I let them know about this.

There's no restriction on the membership except meeting the wmf requirements for access to nonpublic data policy, since members may be forwarded private material, or need access to some CU findings, etc. So in practice, it would be indeed difficult for non-admins to be elected to this committee, but this is no different than ArbCom in this respect. Cenarium (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a typo in the sentence "If undeserved, it is possible that arbitrators be temporarily appointed to the Appeal Committee in rotation, until all seats are taken." (my emphasis). Undeserved is defined as "not deserved: unfairly awarded or unfairly endured, or not merited on the basis of the facts". Could it be that you meant "underserved"? Regards -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I meant underserved. Now corrected, thanks. Cenarium (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to ask you to undo your recent addition of a new topic here. I think your ideas are interesting, but there is already a category for dealing with this, number 7, should there be more commitees. How about moving your proposal there? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved there. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You make some important suggestions, I hope people discuss thm seriously. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Since that page has suddenly seen the arrival of many OTRS members bearing text, I've listed this at CENT and turned it into standard RfC format, with responses above and discussion below. I thought we might resolve this more cleanly, but I was absolutely mistaken. You may want to note that NonvocalScream, Swatjester, Georgewilliamherbert, and Shell Kinney all identify themselves as OTRS members on their user pages. It seems that they are against identifying themselves as such at this RfC, though this is very important and should be noted.    M   14:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

i want to edit Encyclopedia Dramatica why is it protected?--Cddoughty (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cen, what is the rationale behind not tagging autoconfirmed users' edits? Rich Farmbrough, 16:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

Hi. Because autoconfirmed users tend to be disappointed when one of their edit is tagged. Isn't the log sufficient for this ? The tag functionality should be used with care for now. Cenarium (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that they, or someone involved with the article, would see and fix the date. There are already about 15,000 articles with these types of date in them since I last cleaned them all up. If someone is going to follow the log and fix them all, then great, but otherwise tagging seems best. Rich Farmbrough, 07:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

Any reason you put up those tags? 99.151.253.124 (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't put those up, I actually removed them. Cenarium (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You may may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Flagged Revisions. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#Filter Cleanup, a filter/filters which you were the last to edit is/are on the list of filters that I identified to disable. Please comment there if you do not want this/these filter/filters disabled. Prodego ^talk 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't worked on any of those, I just removed an action to warn and commented. Agree with deactivation. Cenarium (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Though you announce that are "on vacation" I see you have found time to unprotect Odysseus, Demon, Athena, Apollo. I recommend that you keep these articles on your Watchlist, now that you've unprotected them just before the abuses connected with the public school year commence, and that you will do your fair share in reverting the constant vandalism that these pages are subject to, as a look through their page histories would show you. Thank you. --Wetman (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite protection is not permanent protection. They'll be reprotected if they need it. Cenarium (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And you'll be good enough to keep a responsible watch on those pages in the meantime. Keeping these pages free from school-year vandals is very tiresome, as you'll discover for yourself.--Wetman (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as I can, I will. Cenarium (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in a discussion and poll I've started to decide the criteria that will be used for promoting users to the reviewer group at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers#New discussion and poll: reviewer criteria - please put your comments there. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please unprotect Template:Prose timeline; it does not really qualify as a highly visible template, the protection prevents it being properly TfD tagged, and RFPP won't do anything about it until I've asked you to deal with it directly, as the protecting admin. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Now unprotected. But I'm quite certain it was high visibility at the time of protection (nov 08). Cenarium (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize I was being warned. I think that the main cause for most of my good faith edit reverts is that the editors did not supply a source at which you could check them. Gaelen 00:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I replied at WP:AN. Not supplying a source is not a reason for blanked revert. Only vandalism may be reverted without explanation (normally). If you feel a non-vandalism edit should be reverted, revert it manually and give your reasons in the edit summary. Usually, not citing a source doesn't call for immediate removal (there are cases, such as negative information in a WP:BLP, which does), they may be tagged with {{fact}} for example. Cenarium (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have taken you advice and repaired links the traditional way complete with edit summary. I would be very grateful if you could take another look at my profile and determine whether or not you think that I should be re-granted rollback. I promise that I will be more careful in the future and will refer to the guidelines in times of doubt if you do. In any case, I would suggest however that you propose an optional summary to accompany rollback reverts at some point in the future in order to avoid this fiasco in the future and so that other people do not make the same mistake. Its a very easy one to make, I can say from experience.

P.S. I have corrected my signature and it now contains a link to my user page. Thank you for your suggestions

Gaelen S. (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a way to add a summary in Huggle, but no easy way for rollback, in this case just revert manually or with Twinkle. I'd be happy to grant you rollback rights when you have a little more experience. This could be in a few days. Cenarium (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been working whenever I can and have been doing my best to repeal vandalism with caution. Could you look over my contributions again?

Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk Contribs} 07:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

After a request made by Gaelen S. at WP:RFP/R I have revisited their contributions, and I see no indication of abuse. Please reply there if you have any objections to Gaelen S. being regranted the rollback user right at this time. Regards, decltype (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections. Regards, Cenarium (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your decision. By the way, what exactly do you mean by asking me to change my signature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelen S. (talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

At the end of your posts, when you add four tildes, ~~~~, it automatically adds your signature and a timestamp. You can define your signature in your preferences. If you tried to use a custom signature and there's a problem, blank it and uncheck the box below, so as to reset your default signature. See how to customize your sig, you must use the wiki markup to make it work, in particular the [[ for links. Cenarium (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't move your userpage to mainspace, it's reserved for articles, use [[User:Gaelen S.|Gaelen S.]] to link your userpage in your custom signature. Cenarium (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this poll valid? That is, is there somewhere such a policy that supports: "After the poll has closed, the majority result will prevail, and the results of the poll will be implemented."? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is covered at Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. It explicitly states that polls in themselves are not binding; and consensus is the only decision-making process recognized within the community. So it depends on how the poll is conducted and on the discussion surrounding it. Certain polls will allow to establish a consensus, others not. The judgment call on whether there is consensus should generally be left to one or several uninvolved administrators for complex or controversial issues, as is the case for this discussion. Cenarium (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, what does

{{[[Template:WPBannerMeta|WPBannerMeta]]}}

actually do? I'm trying to remove your subpage from Category:WikiProject banners with formatting errors but can't work out how, except by removing them entirely. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It does nothing actually, just {{WPBannerMeta}}. There's no way to translcude a category without the inherited categories in all cases, unless T2835 is resolved. I added |substcheck=|category=no and the page is no longer in Category:WikiProject banners with formatting errors (at the time of writing). Cenarium (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

After reading over the Playstation 3 page, I was wondering if it would be helpful to some users if you offered a history of changes between firmware revisions.

Or more importantly, put up a notice regarding firmware v3.0 and v3.01 (the latest), which are causing PS3 owners a lot of grief with regards to Blu-Ray functionality. Either the machines freeze during game play, or fail to read at all.

This is happening to machines after installing the latest firmwares, with no apparent way of knowing any particular PS3 will be affected negatively.

It could serve as a warning ;)

Thank you!

Tryoung (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, you should probably make such suggestions to the WikiProject PlayStation, although note that Wikipedia doesn't use disclaimers in articles. Cenarium (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Noting this un-collapsing of "Petition" section on Talk:Roman Polanski which you collapsed. (I would normally undo this myself, but have already sufficiently displeased the editor, which perhaps inspired the un-collapsing above.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a habit of seeing 'uncollapsings'. This probably served its purpose though. Cenarium (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Glancing about (on ANI/Edit warring) I see perhaps you have lost enthusiasm for dealing with that article.:) (Including possible perpetual block-evasions by 99.142.[whatever path], who, based on similar behavior, appeared to simply shift to another ip in the range during the block period—which is not an allegation, but only an impression) ...

Sorry for the bother/Cheers. (Now if it Roman Polanski could just be locked for a year. lol)
_{No response necessary} Proofreader77 (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the obsolete protection template. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As you are well aware, since you note my every edit, your name has been mentioned at AN/I regarding your disdain for talk pages and enthusiasm for judicial pages.

Please feel free to discuss article content rather than gaming your fellow editors. -99.142.8.221 (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not judicial pages, but administrative. A judiciary could help in such situations though. Cenarium (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you could get a lot more done if you could just remove those you disagreed with on content more rapidly. All that pesky reasoning and discussion must slow you down. Well, at least it would if you deigned to engage in it.99.142.8.221 (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's when someone rehash the same arguments over and over without regard for compromise or consensus that everyone is slowed down. Since you invited me to it, I engaged in the discussion. Though I'm a little surprised, as you very loudly complained that I had discussed content issues on the talk page during our first ANI encounter. Cenarium (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I very loudly complained about your abuse of administrator authority to have earlier blocked me after - as you point out above - discussing content issues with me on the talk page. You may not have risen to the level of WMC but your conduct was no less cowardly and ethically challenged.99.142.8.221 (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No, we didn't discuss content issues prior to me reverting your BLP violations, that was our first interaction (that I know of, as you change of IP often, we may have had interactions prior to that, but I couldn't determine it, although that's true for any user..). Then and up to my block of your IP, our interactions were limited to this issue. Cenarium (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have anthologised your protected items page to Wikipedia:Cascade-protected_items, to do this job centrally rather than in disparate user pages - thanks for the work yo put into creating it. Unless there's a good reason your user page should be unprotected now I guess. Rich Farmbrough, 22:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for having centralized this. Cenarium (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I should probably draw your attention to User talk:Davidgothberg#Wikibreak 2 as no one else has yet. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Hello! Your submission of Legal information retrieval at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Peter cohen (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cenarium! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to review my recent article on Legal Information Retrieval, and even more so for nominating it to appear in the "Did You Know?" section. I appreciate the feedback, and your warm welcome. I hope my days will continue to be as fruitful. Thanks again for your support.Cyprusxr3 (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Legal information retrieval, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the page.174.3.111.148 (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Cenarium has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Cenarium's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Cenarium! Peace, Rlevse 00:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ! Cenarium (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cenarium. I've seen in the user rights log that you removed some of Chzz's rights, per the summary that he is no longer active. Did he say he is going to leave Wikipedia? I am just asking, because as far as I know he is only on a long Wikibreak. Kind regards, LouriePieterse 17:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know. I meant that he was not active, at present. Cenarium (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I then understood your action wrong. Never mind then. :) Nice have day! Kind regards, LouriePieterse 08:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you restored that. As you know, there's been much "energy" since Sept. 27 arrest to amp negative/"denature" positive in article (or remove information, e.g., I spent much talk trying to keep that Polanski went to film school/made first films under communism —for which I was accused of this.) NOTE: I am under a bit of a cloud for *the amount* of "counterbalancing" I was doing (and my "extraordinary" rhetorical methods), which is why I had refrained from doing what you just did (but I had saved the dif link). No reply necessary. Just FYI. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up re that contended edit (mentioned above)

• Your reversion has been reverted(with no edit summary)

I would revert this back (echoing your full edit summary), but am pondering if there is some better way to handle this "kind" of thing, than slow edit-contention. Of course the ethos of Wikipedia is not to characterize any particular editors actions as being of a certain kind. But I don't know how the kind of issues here are dealt with without acknowledgment of what is happening. Hard problem. Any thoughts/suggestions? (Ignore with impunity. Thinking aloud.) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Follow up: I have reverted the (no edit summary) reversion of your reversion. (Still pondering the broader issue of BLPs under contention.) Proofreader77 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If he does it again, I'll raise the issue on his talk page for a start. Making controversial edits and reverts to a stable lead without edit summary, presumably in the hope it won't be noticed, is extremely unproductive. Cenarium (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Read/thanks. (Note: It is not my habit to "run to an admin" about such things. I have done so in this case because of misperceptions [see "cloud" above] to be corrected in due course, but not this moment.) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Cenarium. You have new messages at ThaddeusB's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Cenarium! Would be interested to see what you think of a little structuring of introductions we have underway.. I have duplicated the structure below, and we hav two new introductions as listed.. Of note is that when coming to the editing tutorial, it could be assumed that the intros have been read - and some of the instructions reduced to a review ( with links back if reader missed them) - for example the talk pages section could concentrate more on what to use them for rather than how? Your thoughts would be appreciated - so here's the work in progress

• • Help:Help
    • Wikipedia:Help Project/Overview/Introductions
      • Wikipedia:Help Project/Introduction to talk pages
      • Wikipedia:Help Project/Introduction to policies guidelines

And current discussion is - > Wikipedia_talk:Help_Project#Introduction_to_talk_pages_ready_for_next_phase, cheers --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. In the Village Pump on Dec. 12, you mentioned "romeo edit notices". Those are the icons in the standard warning and tags? I do a fair amount of anti-vandalism, and my feel is that the icons are helpful, that is they catch attention where words might not. On a talk page, after a vandal reads three or four lengthy, vague, not necessarily transparently cogent paragraphs, the red stop sign icon is an alert that something potentially is about to happen.

I miss the image of a peacock in the tag for peacock words for slightly different reasons. They are a "picture is worth a thousand words" ... that some people are highly visual ... that the replacement is another vague hand-waving exclamation mark icon that doesn't impart much meaning in itself, and might just as well be any number of other icons, or omitted entirely.

What I'm unsure of is whether the national flag icons add anything. Scanning through a table, for example, it might be easier to just "pattern match" on words, rather than being confronted with flags that, in many cases are graphic noise to readers who couldn't identify them, standalone.

(It didn't seem appropriate to redirect the Village Pump discussion that went in a direction.) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the Romeo editnotice is this (an editnotice), it has nothing to do with the vandalism warning icons (except it used to display one). Cenarium (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Cenarium. When I went to perform the deletions related to this discussion, I found that one of the categories had items in it that were populated by placing the category into templates, rather than by using {{Uncategorized template}}. So rather than deleting the categories, I have updated the instructions to eliminate any reference to the (now-deleted) template. The categories in question are:

• Category:Wikipedia uncategorized templates
• Category:Uncategorized navbox templates
• Category:Uncategorized infobox templates
• Category:Uncategorized userbox templates
• Category:Uncategorized redirect templates

I don't oppose deleting the categories, but I can't see my way to speedy deleting them based on the TFD when they aren't specifically dependent on the template. I'm letting you know in case you want to nominate them for deletion at categories for discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to inform you that the new "Book:" and "Book talk:" namespaces were added yesterday to the English Wikipedia and are now fully up and running.

For more on this see Wikipedia talk:Books#"Book" and "Book talk" space.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

twitter has turned into a rediculious way to text. All twitter is is a way to look at what celeberties text. Wikiman3241 (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You are recieving this notice as you have participated in the Admin Recall discussion pages.

A poll was held on fourteen proposals, and closed on 16th November 2009. Only one proposal gained majority support - community de-adminship - and this proposal is now being finessed into a draft RFC Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, which, if adopted, will create a new process.

After tolling up the votes within the revision proposals for CDA, it emerged that proposal 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Cenarium/Archive 3, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cenarium, I responded to your message here. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 04:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

you removed my abuse filter right, as I was no longer active; I am now active, so could you please reinstate it? Thanks,  Chzz  ►  00:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've restored your AFE rights. Cenarium (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!  Chzz  ►  16:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking 75.111.63.127. I was about to make a 3rr report until you blocked him for BLP violations. As a matter of interest this IP made 4 unexplained reverts: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Minimac (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cenarium/Archive 3! If there is any consensus at at all, it is that the entire discussion has become a tangled confusion, and as a result both proponents and opponents of the issues under discussion are abandoning ship. None of us want this. It is still not clear which way consensus will fall and your contributions to the discussion are invaluable. However, In an attempt to keep the policy discussion on an even track, some users have decided to start the ball rolling for clarity by creating a special workshop pages. The first of these is for the technical development of a template at WT:BLP PROD TPL in case policy is decided for it . The taskforce pages are designed keep irrelevant stuff off the policy discussion and talk page, and help a few of us to move this whole debate towards a decision of some kind or another. The pages will be linked in a way that watchers will still find their way to them. This move is not intended to influence any policy whatsoever; It is to keep the discussion pages focussed on the separate issues. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Beenie Man, as well as other performers such as Bounty Killer, Buju Banton, and Capleton, write and sing songs encouraging their listeners to murder people. This is not challenged; Beenie Man recently had a concert in Uganda covered by the Ugandan "Daily Monitor" as follows:

http://www.monitor.co.ug/LifeStyle/Entertainment/-/812796/818562/-/rocxwl/-/index.html

The King of Dancehall stuck a sword of words into gay people through singing and talking.“In my family, we don’t have any gay person but if you’re gay, my brother that’s not my fault,” he said as he performed his song Mi Nah Wallah, in which he says he would like to cut the throats of all gay men.

If you were doing a biography of an artist who called for the murder of all black people, it is inconceivable that you would not feel that their stand on murder merited highlighting at the top of the article. The same for Jewish people, white people, Armenians, etc... Would you seriously accept an article about a "white power" band that did not highlight their interest in killing blacks, but simply presented them as a musical act that had some controversy? Would you accept an article about Hitler that led with his leadership of Germany, and covered the Holocaust under "Controversy"?

The performers' management carefully monitor Wikipedia to try to suppress information about the artists' violent statements. That is no reason that the Wikipedia articles should not highlight the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.63.127 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cenarium/Archive 3 ! The template workshop is losing interest fast now that there is very little left to argue for or against. I have now split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that any policy on its implementation can be established while technical development of the template can continue in its own space. When the template functions are finalised, the policy bits can be merged into them. If you intend to continue to contribute your ideas to the development of the template or its policy of use, and I hope you will, please consider either adding your name to the list of workshop members, or joining in with the policy discussions on the new page. --Kudpung (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of the NSF material, but why did you remove mention of Stevenson's research from the intro? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me that it's given undue weight. Stevenson's work may have been noted in the US in recent decades, but on a historical and global perspective, it seems a minor aspect. I've checked the fr and de Wikipedias and they didn't mention him in the intro, and most articles on reincarnation in general reference works I've checked don't mention it or in passing. I think it's covered enough in the section on research, and the article on reincarnation research. Cenarium (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. Mitsube (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a few typos in this section that can't be fixed because it's protected. Please advise.Tcallahan 10:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You can edit the article Romania since you're autoconfirmed. Semi-protection prevents only IPs and users who are not autoconfirmed. I've removed the semi-protection in any case, it has been there for a while. Cenarium (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on that IP's talk page. To be honest, I think it had been too much reverting IP addresses that it looked like information was deleted. Sorry about that. (takes a break) --Tommy (msg) 19:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It can happen. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cenarium,You've created a link to a long discussion as a centralized RfC but you don't link to a section for comments. Are you just in the middle of something or am I missing something? I'd link we'd link to a specific section with a specific proposal. Hobit (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This is just to bring more input to the whole discussion. It's not as part of a RFC, it's to allow more people to participate in the discussions. I've reformulated, maybe it's clearer now. Cenarium (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind if I clean it up a bit and link to a specific section/proposal? Hobit (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see to which specific section one could link, the discussion is convoluted, although now that it has been archived it's clearer; the point is to seek input on the whole thing. Cenarium (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly that discussion is so huge, I don't think you can realistically hope to attract new participants--tl;dr will dominate. I was thinking of creating one at WP:DEL and discussing the policy there (though either place is okay). We've got specific language that has been proposed (and an edit war got the page locked, so discussion really need to happen...) Hobit (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Some progress has been made to centralize the discussion. If the points of contention could be summarized at the top of the talk page, it could help users to understand the issues and weigh in. Cenarium (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Humm, do you really think that's going to work? And shouldn't an RfC has some specific proposal to comment on? I'd like to run with the one at WP:DEL (which I'll put in a new section and ask what people think). I'm not sure what feedback you'd expect at that page with so many of the discussions closed and so many words on the page. I've gotten fairly (re-) familiar with the state of the debate but it took me more than an hour. Again, I think we need a specific proposal to discuss. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:CENT is not specifically for RFCs or proposals, it's to provide links to important discussions. Cenarium (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'd not realized that. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I didn't know about the superseded template. Not that I can spell that word anyway. Gigs (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to engage in discussion if I need to struggle to find my own comments, because someone else has moved them, etc.

This is not the first time User:SlimVirgin has done something like this to me.

And anything on her talk page has not helped.

I deserve to be able to find my comments where I wrote them. Maurreen (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've had experience of SV's way of expressing herself on my talk page too, and in spite of my polite help and encouragement, I have gleaned little improvement. I would suggest that it is she who is doing most to disrupt the threads by introducing off-topic criticisms of the work that has been done, and personal attacks that should be taken elsewhere. I also strongly feel that SV is not conducting her participation in discussions in a way in which a sysop should be setting an example.--Kudpung (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cenarium,

Could you please point me in right direction regarding an Image Question. I have a bunch of images on Wikimedia Commons. All or most of them from the BundesArchiv Donation. I wanted to make a collage of them similar to . The question is, when I upload the final image, would it be acceptable from WP Policy point of view ? I always put all my work in PD anyways. But didn't know if WP policies allow such work ? Can you let me know who I could contact for this question ? Thanks '  Perseus 71 ^talk 20:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not really knowledgeable in the area and don't know where you could get answers except maybe from WP:FP regulars, the image use policy has some text on it though, here. Cenarium (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. '  Perseus 71 ^talk 01:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Cenarium. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Database reports.
Message added 02:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I did your request. Tim1357 (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I removed the Expo 2010 article from ITN; it has not been updated yet. -- tariqabjotu 15:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I've updated the article, I think this is OK now. Cenarium (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. -- tariqabjotu 18:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

-- tariqabjotu 18:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cenarium! Thanks for your tireless effort on Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions! I responded to your note on the talk page there from a few days ago. I'm going to be pretty busy at the WMF offices today and tomorrow, but I'm planning to spend some quality time with these pages when I get back to working from home in Seattle. I'd love to work with you (and of course everyone else who is interested) on getting everything updated and getting everything nailed down for the launch. If you're not on Wikien-l, make sure you read my note there. -- RobLa (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. There are a few things I'd like to see considered before launch, I'll send an email to the team. Cenarium (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you created the category Requests to move a userspace draft. I notice it is backlogged, and I will try to work on the backlog, but I had never heard of this category before, so wondering what efforts were made to encourage editors to monitor the category.--SPhilbrickT 19:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I just found Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#User_space_--.3E_mainspace_moves so I know the genesis of the template and the category. I'm mulling over how we should respond, as I note items in the category from December which are still there. I've started cleaning some out, but we need to come up with a better process for making editors aware of this category.--SPhilbrickT 00:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for working on the backlog ! Yes, something needs to be done about that. I created the template because many users didn't request a move of their draft at RM, presumably being too complicated; and this looks like a simple way for editors to request a move. It's clear we need more people reviewing them and to create some handy templates to decline. Also, feel free to start a discussion about that at WP:VPD. Cenarium (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here, planning to post at VPD, but wanted to get it in better shape first.--SPhilbrickT 17:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Cenarium, you sound like you know what you're doing--I don't. I just wrote a few articles (well, one was a redirect) which were requested: Zared, Mont Shefford, and André Nelis. Do I need to remove them from the "full" list (I have no idea how to do this) or does some magic bot take care of that? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, no you don't have to update that. Admins update from time to time Template:Recent changes article requests/list which is a sample of requested articles in display for recent changes, the full list exists for technical reasons. The whole list of requested articles is at WP:RA. Thanks for writing those articles! Cenarium (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xeno^talk 14:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium, please view the discussion here and reconsider your comments at AE. As far as I can see, WMC (and another editor) are arguing for an unsourced statement to remain in the lead of the Fred Singer BLP that is contradicted by every single reliable source available in google news, google scholar and google books. I have never seen a more obstinate refusal to comply with WP:BLP. The case is hopeless. --JN466 18:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's a BLP issue, I don't think it's a BLP violation since there are reliable sources to support the claim. Overall, I agree with the reasons brought forward for removing it, but in the same time, that a clarification of his status in the lead is probably needed. Thus I consider this an editorial question. This doesn't change my opinion wrt to the severity of the sanctions to take. Cenarium (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the close. Don't forget to notify Mark and to add it to the log, if you haven't already. ++Lar: t/c 20:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I was about to do that when I found out that The Wordmisth had already done that without mentioning it. Cenarium (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You could still log it if you wanted to, I think that didn't happen yet. There seems to be some confusion about the best order to do these things in. Whichever order you choose seems to result in some confusion for someone so ... :) ++Lar: t/c 21:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been logged, together with the sanction against WMC. Cenarium (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I draw your attention to [7]. I don't think that reflects your opinion, or the balance of opinion on the RFE page. I invite your opinion. You might also find User_talk:NuclearWarfare#Request_for_opinion relevant William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have commented at RFE. Cenarium (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems very clear William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In the discussion over the tagging, would you please directly address the question of why you feel A Nobody's socking is more forgivable than the numerous other users that get indefinitely blocked every day? You've asserted that you feel the block evasion can be ignored, but have never explained, given the context of repeated abuse, precisely why you feel that way. It makes debating with you frustrating, because you never enter into the meat of the issue.—Kww(talk) 23:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't assert that the block evasion could be ignored, but that it was not sufficient to warrant tagging as sockpuppeter in my opinion. Also, the community accepted A Nobody back, and then the arbitrators decided not to ban A Nobody in a permanent manner, but provisionally until he accepts participating in a case. If I don't enter the meat of the issue it's because the community and arbcom has already done so, and made their decisions. If you feel that the ArbCom should have banned A Nobody in a permanent manner, or that the community should do so now, then propose it, but he's not in the current situation. Cenarium (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely why I used {{sockpuppeteer|checked=yes}}, not {{sockpuppeteer|checked=yes|blocked}}, to indicate that the account had not been permanently blocked as a result of sockpuppeting. I see these issues as completely separate: arbcom does what it will, and I have no influence over that. The socking may or may not be considered by Arbcom, and A Nobody may or may not eventually be blocked for sockpuppeteering, but the two aren't inextricably linked.—Kww(talk) 00:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That was fair enough. I replied over there. Cenarium (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this likely to be resurrected, or can it be marked as failed?Oops, I forgot to sign! Fences&Windows 15:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've marked it dormant. Cenarium (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I had forgotten about that template. Fences&Windows 21:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I was reading the edits under Metric for Choosing Drawings for Inclusion. It looks like there won't be a compromise, so should it be sent to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee? --Claimingawatch (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, see WP:Dispute resolution. ArbCom is the last step to resolve major disputes, this one is a minor content dispute. Cenarium (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium, just wanted to give you a heads up as the creator of {{Move draft}}.You may know that I've been working to find ways of addressing the backlog, both in the short term and the long term. When I found the category, it had 242 pages. I processed about 190 over the last three weeks (there were some additions) and wrote User:Sphilbrick/Feedback Patrol to discuss ways of handling in the future. Several editors have discussed ideas. The latest idea is to move the remaining pages to WP:AFC, where the editors at that project are best equipped to help turn a draft into a real article, if there is potential merit.

I wanted to let you know what we were doing. (Chzz, Earwig and fetch-comms are also involved).

The first step is moving the stale requests to AFC. That may be completed soon. The next step is to deprecate {{Move draft}} and replace it with a process to handle future requests directly at WP:AFC. The details of that step haven't been fully worked out.--SPhilbrickT 22:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)