User talk:Cenarium

[edit] Hmm...?

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)

[edit] Performance

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

[edit] Since you are an admin, request for edit on Jackson

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)

[edit] Full Protection on Michael Jackson

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)

[edit] Template:Linked on Google News

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)

[edit] Abuse filter 65

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)

[edit] Contents protection

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)