User talk:Centrx

This is a Wikipedia user talk page, not an encyclopedic article. Click here to leave me a message If you leave me a message, I will generally reply here unless you ask otherwise. If I leave you a message, you may reply there unless it was not recent. Please sign your messages with ~~~~.

Archives

2004 – May 2006

Jun–Jul 2006

Aug 2006

Sep 2006

Oct 2006

On Userboxes in userspace

First of all, I apologize if my previous comments had any sharp tones to it, but I tend to react allergic to Userbox deletions after I witnessed the userbox wars. Also I fully support your deletion of the blatant attack userbox User:Nightmare X/Userbox/JEWSDIDWTC under (I assume) CSD:G10. As to whether User:The Ministry of Truth was a sockpuppet or not, I do not know, if (s)he was an abusive sock I cannot hold against your decision, though I must admit I view your decision to delete all the userboxes (s)he created in userspace as not that well - if the boxes themselves were permissable (no blatant advertising, personal attacks etc.) it might have been a better move to allow other users to adopt them - this is userspace after all. Finally your deletion of the other userboxes, e.g. User:Winhunter/Userboxes/CCP as divisive (T1) is, honestly said, worrysome to me. Many templates in templatespace (amongst them templates that declared the user to be a Furry or a Atheist or Straight) were deleted citing CSD:T1 during the userbox wars (which, I hope explains my strong reaction to the deletions). I would like to invite you over to WP:UBM which covers the compromise we found to solve the userbox issue to join the discussion. CharonX/talk 01:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The ones I deleted were all supporting one political party or another. —Centrx→talk • 02:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You would make a great politician because you've so far ignored every single question that's been asked of you. Great political two-step. 1. T1 doesn't apply to userspace. 2. Supporting a political party is not a)a crime or b)a speedy deletion criterion. 3. There has been mention of some discussion on ANI, but no link/evidence that it exists. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

T1 applies to templates; these are templates. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its user pages are to that end; Wikipedia is not a platform for political advertisement or declaring oneself a partisan adherent. I have mentioned nothing about ANI. I don't know if you intend to be insulting or flippant, but you should stop. —Centrx→talk • 04:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, hi. I tend to agree with you about userboxes. A template is a template, no matter where it's located, and userboxes supporting political parties are basically inappropriate in a project like this. I have to ask though, do you disagree with Jimbo's suggestion that we let people basically do what they want in userspace and simply keep POV userboxes out of templatespace, while trying to use reason and dialogue to persuade people not to use Wikipedia for politics? I ask because your recent deletions seem to go directly against this suggestion, and I haven't been able to find a link to the discussion where you're explained why Jimbo is wrong, and why deleting political userboxes from userspace where they were moved by compromise is worth the trouble it seems to stir up. Can you help me understand your position here? In particular, are you coming out against Jimbo's suggestion, and have you discussed why you disagree with the approach he advised? Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted them in the process of doing something else and now that they are deleted I see no reason to restore them. Separately, I am responding to some incorrect arguments and a few utterly bogus statements. —Centrx→talk • 05:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really clearer on your position now. I mean, I would agree with you, except that I think drama-avoidance is more important than keeping the Wiki free of userboxes in this particular case, and I think of this issue as a potential drama-storm, which can be rather destructive. You didn't answer the direct question I asked you; that's a little bit frustrating. :/ I've put a fair amount of work into the "German solution", and I'm sort of keen that it not be undermined after Jimbo and so many others have been supporting it. Which part of what I'm saying do you disagree with, or can I clarify anything for you, as to why I see this deletion as a bad idea that should be reversed? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So undelete them. The Ministry of Truth ones were deleted for a different reason though and should not be restored. Anyway, how long is this "convincing" supposed to take? Despite Jimbo's statements that it is not "normal and accepted" and not "endorsed", I don't see it becoming any more discouraged, I see it becoming more entrenched and 'normal', and there are an absurd number of {{helpme}} requests from brand-new users with no encyclopedia contributions whose first question is not "How do I add links to an article" but "How do I create a userbox". —Centrx→talk • 06:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, I'm not going to just step in and undelete something you deleted. I'll let DRV do its work. As for how long the "convincing" is supposed to take, it won't get done if nobody's working on it. I would hope that those of us opposed to political userboxes are engaging others in conversations about it. Otherwise, we've dropped the ball, and aren't in a very good position to complain. That's the trouble with reason and dialogue - it doesn't happen on its own. If we haven't got the energy for that dialogue, and want to give up and go back to mass deletions, with all the joys they entail, then we should at least say so. That's how I see it, anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The deletion was only mass with respect to the empty account, which is a separate matter. —Centrx→talk • 06:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

PLANS, etc.

Thank you for hearing me out. I do have a new concern about that article. I believe that editors Pete K and DianaW have some kind of relationship to PLANS, which is the subject of the article. Pete K claims to be in contact with one of its officers, and after promising to do so for some time, today brings to the article talk pages statements purportedly made by the PLANS officer. 1 2 3 4. Today DianaW (who admitted she is a former officer of PLANS) is obviously trying to intimidate me for contributing some of the 'oppositional' views of PLANS. When PeteK asked for fact checks, I provided some quotes from the source materials used in what I wrote for the article, and also found a verification of some statement he challenged which was contributed by another editor. DianaK has reacted as if the statements were attacks directly made by me instead of these different sources, and has come after me personally with teeth bared. It feels like this is more than just an instance of editor temper tantrums. Their connection to PLANS makes me concerned there's more to it. a b c d Professor marginalia 01:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated many times, I am not connected to or affiliated with PLANS - and I will further add - or any persons who are affiliated with PLANS. I participate on a discussion list sponsored by PLANS. I have one Waldorf graduate and two children currently in Waldorf. PLANS is an organization critical of Waldorf education and specifically concerned with questioning the separation of church and state with regard to Waldorf public schools (charter schools). This would make anyone affiliated with Waldorf biased against PLANS. Shouldn't we ask the affiliation of each editor to determine if they are connected to or affiliated with Waldorf education? Unlike some people who edit here - I use my name, and so does Diana - I am Pete Karaiskos, and Diana is Diana Winters. Our affiliations can be checked and verified and we sign our names to what we have written here. People who use aliases, however, are free from this type of scrutiny and accountability as Professor marginalia is. Pete K 03:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing - because I participate on a list sponsored by PLANS, I am able to contact people from PLANS - just like anyone else can - even Professor marginalia. Because I also am involved in Waldorf, I am able to contact people involved in Waldorf - like Eugene Schwartz, master Waldorf teacher. My ability to contact people mentioned in this article for comment about the validity of what is being said about them should not, in any way, hinder my credibility - in fact it should enhance it. That I can communicate directly with the people involved in these activities and that I am willing to do so to get to the facts is a great opportunity to get at the truth - if indeed, anyone is interested in the truth. Pete K 04:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Diana weighing in. This is why I use my real name. There is no secret about who I am or what I do or why. I am not affiliated with PLANS in any official way though I was at one time, and I have participated in their mailing list for years. All of my contributions are public and posted in my name, it is Diana Winters. Being affiliated with PLANS, however, is not a suspicious or strange thing. (They are an organization that is suing two school districts for running Waldorf-methods schools, claiming Waldorf is religious and doesn't belong in public schools for constitutional reasons.) What is "professor marginalia's" name and what are her organizational affiliations? There is no sense in which I "admit" to being affiliated with PLANS as if this were something I would be ashamed of. I state my views, and I state who I am wherever I go. There is absolutely no chance she can make a case that I should not be contributing to that article. IMO, trying to edit the article without revealing organizational affiliations would be less than ethically impressive - but you don't find me suggesting she herself doesn't have a right. There is a marked history of Waldorf supporters and anthroposophists attempting just what she is attempting here - to have critics removed from Internet forums for the sole reason that they would prefer that people were not able to hear what we have to say. There is nothing I have written, there or anywhere else, ever, that will appear as "intimidation." There are no bared teeth. The reverse is true as this process occurring right here makes clear. I do not run to administrators and attempt to have someone removed online because they are writing things I disagree with. This is what is aggressive - not disagreement on talk pages. It always kills me that these people think to run to administrators long before it occurs to me!

Of course Pete K. is "in contact with" PLANS officers. This is public. PLANS is a public entity. Follow the discussion at www.waldorfcritics.org. I am also in daily contact with these people (at least as often as PLANS-affiliated people post to their mailing list). This is no secret and not disqualifying for editing the article at wikipedia.

And finally, just to back up Pete, yes, anyone can contact the officers of PLANS. All this information is available on their web site. Their mailing list is public and can be read by anyone even without subscribing. Being in contact with members of PLANS is not suspicious behavior. Thank you.DianaW 05:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

None of my comments to Professor Marginalia there can be described as "teeth bared." I suggest the admin review them. They are substantive. They raise questions about sources, and about criteria for determining what the official position might be from PLANS, from various sources. She has responded to none of these issues - no wonder, she decided to come over here and complain instead. Her note to you is disingenuous, claiming to have "concerns" about who Pete and I might be - we make no secret of who we are and she fully knows who we are.DianaW 05:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me also add, through years of these types of discussions on various forums and lists, we know who she is as well - and that her affiliations, if revealed, would throw a completely different light on this topic. Pete K 14:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Some editors on the PLANS article are signing their names to their contributions and opinions, making any and all affiliations, inclinations, or biases instantly known to anyone familiar with the controversy. Others are anonymous. What does that tell you? At least one other editor of the PLANS page - "thebee" - is a founding member of an organization founded primarily to antagonize PLANS - and yet never explained this on the talk pages or in edit summaries. Critics deliberately leave ourselves open to this endless "Aha! You're with PLANS!", with all the guilt-by-association that comes from their constant demonizing of PLANS. I could just as well have started to edit the PLANS article calling myself Elvis Presley but I think the integrity of the discussion matters, so I say who I am, and everyone who deals with me knows where I'm coming from.DianaW

So here, in Professor marginalia and TheBee we have two of the five people who call themselves "Americans for Waldorf Education" - who feel it is appropriate to smear the organization PLANS by calling it a "hate group" - heavily editing the PLANS article. Here's one of many examples of them adding this inflamatory and defamatory language [1]. It is a smear campaign and nothing more - and a quick peek at what they have been doing to the article in the last couple of days will give you an idea of their agenda. Nothing more really needs to be said here - their signature, though disguised in aliases, is unmistakenly evident in their work. Pete K 21:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting how the original complaint has now disappeared. Just gone. Altering the record later is typical. Pete and Diana ranting about nothing again LOL.DianaW 14:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Diana - I put the original complaint back for clarity. I think Centrx moved this section down and perhaps forgot to bring the original remarks. Pete K 14:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks much for the Sprotect at Alcoholism; yer a good cob :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

Please unblock me: Tannim

I did not do the 3RR others did, notably KittenKlub.

Edit warring is not acceptable whether you pass the electric fence of 3RR or not. You have engaged in edit warring across all or nearly all articles in which you have been involved, merely staying within the limit of 3RR. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, not a war game to push your point of view. —Centrx→talk • 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling Hezbollah a terrorist group is not neutral?

You should be well aware that is not the only assertion you have added, and even were I to suppose that every one of your additions were neutral and verifiable in reliable sources, edit warring is regardless unacceptable. Simply, do not revert at all. Discuss your changes on on the relevant talk page. You should never be doing a complete revert more than once, and only then if it is a new, previously undiscussed change, and the revert should be with a full edit summary that would reasonably convince other editors that the edit was incorrect. Except in such special case, do not make any reverts in a content dispute. You should realize that aside from being blocked, it is simply not productive. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by reverting. You must convince other editors. —Centrx→talk • 16:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight because KittenKlub and Count Iblis both started reverting me I am at fault? I used Rueters,AP and Fox News 3 well recognized sources. You have two Chavez followers complain about those edits. You also never tried to comminicate with me. And I have yet to see you or any other administrator block the P.C police KittenKlub and Iblis

Alfred A. Tomatis

Hi.

Why was the article on Alfred A. Tomatis deleted the 27th of October?

Cheers Runar Punar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Punar1 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This article had no reliable sources, was not written in the neutral form of an encyclopedia article, and did not establish the notability of its subject. Importantly, these problems have gone unfixed since the creation of the article in March 2006. If you would like to fix the article, I would be happy to restore it, but see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources first. —Centrx→talk • 15:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Any search for Tomatis on Google will show that the method he developed is still widely used. I could mention this in the article. I also had links there to two sites which again had references to their sources (one was to Quackwatch, the other one, I can't remember unfortunately, and finding it on the internet again is like looking for a needle in a stack of salespersons). punar 12:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have restored it. Please improve the article. —Centrx→talk • 15:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Marsiliano

You were right about this editor. In the space of less than an hour I've extended the 48 hour block to one week and then one month. Looks like he switches to a variable IP range - could you check the range paramaters and perform the block there? Durova 00:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I changed the block to indefinite also. —Centrx→talk • 00:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

PeteK revert at PLANS

He just won't stop it. I'm demanded to identify every source to the nth degree, so I do. The source is completely legit. So then he removes both statement and footnote with it, without discussion. diff. My response on PLANS talk page: diff2 Professor marginalia 02:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. He put it back after reading my response calling him on it. Professor marginalia 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down. It was a mistake. I said so immediately and tried to put it back. The article is protected now. Pete K 02:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Shoot on Sight

If this request doesn't violate procedure, would you take a look at Cartooncartoon? I just happened to notice you Deleting something, so I thought I'd ask. Thanks! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 05:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you are fast. Thanks CentRx, I'll try not to become a thorn in your side (or a lost-puppy-dog underfoot), but you've been immensely helpful recently and I really appreciate it. Thanks again, Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. —Centrx→talk • 05:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Helium protection

See [2]. Femto 14:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 15:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

LTTE page

Hi, you had blocked me for reverting deletions on the LTTE page. Some of the other users are engaged in censoring the article to give a pro-LTTE stance. They have deleted material which has been there for several months

Since I dont want to be blocked again, can you advise me on how to handle censorship on the LTTE page Dutugemunu 14:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the block, you were blocked for edit warring. Simply, do not revert unless it is with an explanation that will actually convince others why they are incorrect. Reverting is not going to cause the revision you want to be implemented. Regarding content disputes, please thoroughly read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. —Centrx→talk • 15:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you decline my request for unprotection?

There are several people who would like to post on the site and I don't really see any reason that it should be protected, to be honest. I'd like to know your reasoning for continuing to protect the page, since I think it is in the article's best interest to allow the public access to it.Boogafish 17:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any. It will be unprotected in due time. Do not edit war, do not circumvent blocks, do not remove warnings from your talk page. If you continue in this manner, you will be banned. —Centrx→talk • 17:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you haven't seen them, but I assure you there are. I have a couple of friends who are new to wikipedia and I told them to post and they say that there's no way to edit it at all.

And it seems to me by your previous post that you're not acting in wikipedia's best interests simply because of my behavior on my own user page. I certainly hope that's not the case here, but that's how it looks.

Furthermore, I was unaware that I'm not allowed to edit the content on my own user page. The reason I've blanked my content on there is because Trueblood keeps asking me questions and is really pissing me off, and instead of giving him a personal attack, I've chosen to ignore him. Instead he is reverting my page. Well, now I know I'm not allowed to change the content on my page, but I figure you might want to warn him not to revert everything I do simply because he doesn't agree with it. Because his harassment and his following me around and reverting me is really beginning to piss me off. Boogafish 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Longpagewarning

"Okay. Don't do a wholesale revert though, there were clearly other changes which are unrelated to your objection. Productive or collaborative editing does not work with full reverts."

Looks like it worked to me. The page is now written in a way we both like. — Omegatron 17:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I could only guess at what you meant though. It seemed perfectly clear and didn't use any Wikipedia jargon (such as "subpage"); it's quite clear what "archive" means and it directs the reader to the page with instruction about it. You know what you meant, so you should have changed it yourself in the way you meant. The only reason it "worked" is because I did not do a full revert, I replaced the changes I made and kept what I think you were objecting to. —Centrx→talk • 17:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me.

Hi there, you recently decline my requests for page protection and the reason quite surprised me. " Just don't make contested changes and just don't revert". No offence but when we're both involved in an arbcom case and have 1 Revert paroles, and he implements his contested (so contested that the pages were reverted, protected and he was blocked) version (once more) which I revert (1 revert) and he reverts (1 revert) his flawed version stands. He refuses to participate in dispute resolution and barely discusses his edits. Why are you , as an admin, letting this behaviour pass?Rex 19:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Shoedeals4u

I just noticed this user page User:Shoedeals4u and it seems to be nothing but spam. Should it be marked as such or some action taken on it? -WarthogDemon 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)