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

I have already explained this. Do not edit war. If you edit war, you will be prevented from doing so. —Centrx→talk • 00:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

As I explained on the discussion page teh LTTE is banned as a terrorsit organisation in 29 countries . However its supporters do not want it mentioned in the intro . This is surprising considering that every other terrorsit group has the owrd terrorsit in its into

See teh articles on IRA The organisation has been outlawed and classified as a terrorist group in the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom, the United States and many other countries.

Hezbollah Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands and Israel consider Hezbollah, or its external security arm, a terrorist organization.

Hamas Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia,[7] Canada,[8][9] the United Kingdom,[10] the European Union,[11] Israel, and the United States,[12] and is banned in Jordan.[13]

ETA Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or ETA (Basque for "Basque Homeland and Freedom"; IPA pronunciation: [ˈɛːta]) is a paramilitary Basque nationalist organization listed as a terrorist organization both by the European Union and the United States in their watchlists on the matter.

If i edit the intro and the LTTE sympathizers revert it , am I justified in re-editing or not. Dutugemunu 22:18, 3 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)

It is not your user page. It is a page which you are allowed to use to facilitate contributing to the encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 00:26, 3 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)

I didn't really know what I wanted it to say, though, and didn't have time to fix it that second. Since it's a Mediawiki message, and quite important to be clear on the multitude of pages it will appear on, I just reverted. You then wrote a better version, and everything is fine now. — Omegatron 14:45, 3 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)

If there is a problem with any one user, it can be blocked. That does not require preventing any and all other people from editing the page. —Centrx→talk • 22:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, see the protection policy. Also, if a user in an arbitration case is a problem, you can also take it up with the people dealing with that case who would be much more familiar with the situation than I. —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I already did that, point is that there are now 4 articles which rarely are edited and have false information which I can't restore.Rex 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you requested that an injunction be put on the parties to the case or that the disputed pages be protected, and the arbitrators did not see fit to do so, I am not going to protect them; that's not how Wikipedia works. —Centrx→talk • 00:23, 3 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)

Dealt with. —Centrx→talk • 00:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:203.144.160.246

Hey, there. I'm trying to look into this user's unblock request; I'm guessing there's a rangeblock in place, but if it is, I haven't found it, yet. Given the block summary, I was hoping you might be able to shed some light on this? Luna Santin 20:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The block is on 203.144.160.0/24 (See m:Range blocks). Someone was adding commercial links to a bunch of articles and had been doing so since August. —Centrx→talk • 00:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Gah. Could've sworn I checked the /24, first thing. Silly me. Luna Santin 05:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Day of the Dead

Hi there. I noticed that you listed Day of the Dead for semi-protection, but it appeared to never actually go through. Is this because the article was listed on the main page? -- Tim D 22:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I forgot to protect it. It was previously unprotected by another admin for being on the Main Page, which is generally vaguely discouraged because the Main Page is intended to be a portal to the common Wikipedia, which is not protected, but it is not required. Since the day is over and there hasn't been any vandalism for a while, it currently does not warrant protection. —Centrx→talk • 00:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Hanson-Young

Hi, you recently declined unprotect of Sarah Hanson-Young (deleted page) on grounds of crystal ball. But the recent media activity surrounding her clearly shows that she is a current notable figure, and as such, a bio article is not speculative. Zzymurgy 23:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

These sources are not sufficient for making an article on the person. Most of them are about the Green Party in general, or include a half-sentence quote, etc. Information that is important to the Australian Greens party can and should be added to that article, but that does not mean there should be a separate article. —Centrx→talk • 00:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

IPvandal 217.65.149.50 Abuse report

Hi, I just saw you delete my abuse report for the above mentioned IP without any more explanation. Could you please explain why? Bfg 00:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the IP (anonymous only so someone with an account can use it) until August 2007 (actually I accidentally blocked it until August 2006 but I have now corrected that). I don't think there is a need to contact the school (there are thousands of schools which have this sort of problem) as it is just common vandalism from kids joking around (rather than death threats or a long-term abuser or something like that), and often when a school is contacted the result is they simply ask us to block the IP. —Centrx→talk • 00:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Is this generally accepted policy? - If so, should your argument perhaps be repeated at the abuse project page in order to prevent people like me reporting it? All I could find was Make sure that the IP in question has been blocked at least five times in recent history. What I'm looking for is basically some guidelines on what an appropriate target for an abuse report is. Bfg 20:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation is the other place that deals with these sorts of problems. Regarding Abuse reports, it is hard to say what is common practice. Before I went through it a few weeks ago there was a large backlog and the page was largely inactive for a couple months. Before that, the page was created to and used for following up on abuse with the service provider and there was a lot of contact with schools, but this is not necessary for the very common case of common vandalism, and all manner of problematic IPs are usually blocked independently by administrators without any interaction with the Abuse reports page or contacting the service provider. —Centrx→talk • 22:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for two other talk pages to be semi-protected

Unfortunately, as User:JB196's usual targets get semi-protected to keep him from spamming templates on them, he finds new places to add them. Could you look at semi-protecting Talk: Death Valley Driver Video Review and User Talk: SirFozzie (I don't understand what he thinks he's getting out of putting notability and importance templates on a User's Talk Page, but, wow..) SirFozzie 00:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 00:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Gracias! SirFozzie 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Inflammatory user page and "jews did WTC"

Please explain how expressing a personal belief such as jewish involvement in the 9/11 attacks more inflammatory than say, an userbox that says "this user is a capitalist". I thought wikipedia was not censored. Nightmare X 01:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A template that says "this user is a capitalist" is a statement about oneself; that is divisive, but not inflammatory. Neither are ultimately acceptable on Wikipedia—your user page is to facilitate contributions to the encyclopedia—but a host of established, productive users enjoy them; the problems they cause are indirect, their use is discouraged and tended downward but not currently forbidden. Attacking statements on user pages, however, are. —Centrx→talk • 02:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it then be acceptable to reword the template to "This user believes in jewish involvement in the 9/11 attacks" or something akin to that?

Egypt

Hi! Could you fix Egypt? For some reason, when you applied page protection, the article no longer shows up on my watchlist? Thanks. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 02:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That shouldn't happen. It shows up on mine. It would be a bug that should be reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or on the MediaWiki bug server. —Centrx→talk • 02:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, now it's working again 8) — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 02:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi. Can you remove the guideline tag from WP:Reliable sources? I can't without violating WP:3RR, and you've protected it, so you should have been the one to do it. It's not a guideline until after consensus is reached; see Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Guideline_or_not.3F. — Omegatron 14:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not getting involved in this dispute. Discuss it on the talk page. You should not be edit warring. It is not a big deal if there is or is not erroneously a guideline tag on the page for a few days. Also, with sysops being involved in the dispute, it is especially important that there not be some divination as to m:The Wrong Version, which could instigate a wheel war. —Centrx→talk • 16:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Erect Penis

I'm going to put the erect penis everywhere on wikipedia. You are POWERLESS to stop me! A worthy cause 15:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a waste of time. —Centrx→talk • 16:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Swell (band) deletion query

I've noticed that you recently deleted the Swell (band) page at Wikipedia. I'd be grateful if you could explain the reason behind this, as Swell are/were a legitimate band, with a fanbase, signed to respected labels in the UK and US, and therefore warrant interest from both fans of the band and interested newcomers to their music.

I'd like to urge you to reverse this decision, as Swell (band) is a legitimate subject for a Wikipedia entry, as opposed to the plethora of flamebait/graffiti that plagues other pages.

Thanks

Karl

The article needs to reference reliable sources and include information that would attest to its warranting inclusion in the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (music). It may not warrant inclusion. If after perusing these guidelines you still think it can be included, I will restore it but note that it will be deleted again if it is not improved. —Centrx→talk • 17:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Kilz

Replaced comment with opposite: 1. selective blanking [5] (replaced with opposite)

I'm not willing to stand by any more while he makes more of his personal attacks against me or Jason:

• "I think I know how unethical he is, and know he will lie to win."[12] (about Swiftfox author)
• "That they are a hypocrate."[13]
• "Sorry but that knife in my back only showed me one thing. What kind of person you are."[14] Widefox 00:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Bobabobabo's ban

Could you please leave a note in Wikipedia:List of banned users about Bobabobabo's ban per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Bans and include a link to the discussion where Bobabobabo got community banned? I am unfamiliar wiith the case and cannot find the discussion where the community decided to ban Bobabobabo, but it is needed for CheckUser cases per code F at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Thanks. Jesse Viviano 03:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't find where the original discussion was, but the most recent discussion about it is [3], which also has Raul already doing checkusers on him. —Centrx→talk • 04:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Image needed

CentRx, could you please upload a photo "headshot" of yourself to Commons? The wiktionary entry for "terse" needs an image. Thanks for the fix :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

LTTE

Hi Centrx I have spent about 10 hours and hundreds of words justifying a change to this page but someone has reverted it. Can you tell me whether I can reinsert the change or whether I should accept the censorhip by LTTE supporters Dutugemunu 08:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of you have reasonable arguments. Reach a compromise. A better solution might be to describe the activities of the group in the introduction, that is fairly neutral and readers can make their own decisions about what is "terrorism". —Centrx→talk • 17:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Centrx, as I have pointed out I dont want to call the LTTE terrorist. Calling a group terrorsit is a contentious issue but I just want to mention the fact that it banned as a terrorist group in some countries. This is mentioned in every article about other groups which are banned as terrorsit groups in any country. We seem to have reached an impasse in the discussion where the other party wants to treat the LTTE differently from dozens of other similar articles. In this case i dont think you should protect the page in a version which conceals/ignores facts in the introduction. That blocks attempts to improve Wikipedia and leaves the article as highly POV.

Please see articles on Hamas, Hezbollah, FARC, Taliban, Al Quaeda, rtc:- Dutugemunu 03:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

At least for some, it probably should not be in the introduction. I don't think having a four sentence introduction with one sentence being the terrorist bit makes complete sense. It works in Hamas and Al-Qaeda for this reason. The introduction to LTTE looks like it should be expanded anyway, in proportion to the article. —Centrx→talk • 03:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, I recommend focusing on other parts of the article for a while. See also Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. —Centrx→talk • 03:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Centrx

The intro used to be a lot bigger just a few weeks ago. It has been reduced a lot by a group of users. Such a large article deserves a larger intro Dutugemunu 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Centrix, why is User:Winona Gone Shopping banned from wikipedia[4]? Just curious cause I knew him. Thanks.

This user was originally blocked for death threats, trolling, and other disruption and continues to do so with IPs, etc. —Centrx→talk • 17:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Kathy Kelly

Hi Centrx,

I'm pretty much a novice and infrequent user of Wikipedia, but I did follow a link and found that a person I've been reading up on today, peace activist Kathy Kelly, once had an article in Wikipedia and it has been deleted several times, most of them under your user name (if I'm interpreting the log correctly).

Just wondering why this was done. Can you tell me? Thanks, Linda.

The page was deleted because it was copied verbatim from another website. There needs to be explicit permission in order for it not to be a copyright infringement and, even if that explicit permission were given, because it was simply copied from that website it was not neutral or reliably sourced, which is necessary for a valid encyclopedia article. —Centrx→talk • 17:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Portmanteau

Please stop removing this word from articles. It is the correct term for combining two words and isn't an "abnormal" word, as your edit summaries suggest. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 23:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is mostly used incorrectly (read, for example, the original Carroll coinage and the OED definition). More importantly, it is used superfluously, unnecessarily linked, and in places where it clutters the introduction (a similar problem with pronunciations). It appears to have been added somewhat as a novelty. If it cannot stand alone without it being necessary to have a link in order for the reader to understand, a link which is irrelevant to the context of the article, then it is indeed a peculiarity. —Centrx→talk • 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Little chat...

The DRV consensus has determined that T1 does not apply to templates kept in userspace. While this is not technically binding, please think very long and hard before T1 deleting anything in userspace again. If you feel something is really pressing, take it to AN/I first. While I know you acted in good-faith with best intentions, your actions resulted in some disruption. The "Userbox Wars" do not need to be re-ignited. Personally, I think you're a good guy, so I hope you've gained understanding from this experience. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Userbox on DRV

Because you didn't describe it as an example. From everything I could tell, it was added to the discussion by mistake. It didn't seem to flow from any of the surrounding comments.

Even if it was intended as an example, we almost never clutter up DRV discussions with the full text of what is being considered for review. We provide links for the rest of the participants to follow. Since I know that you are an experienced participant of these discussions, that reinforced my conclusion that it was a mistake. I did try to figure out if you'd meant to include it as a link that got accidentally substituted but couldn't find where it came from in order to convert it from the substituted version back to a link.

Sorry if I messed up the discussion thread. I did try to explain all this in the edit summary, though... Rossami (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not an experienced participant of DRV. So, for deleted pages they get restored to a secondary location and then linked to? —Centrx→talk • 18:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it was deleted in all instances, we have the "content review" process mentioned at the top of the page. That generally results in a temporary undeletion either in place or on the requesting user's sub-page. Often, we then blank the page in order to prevent it coming up through the search engine while the discussion is taking place. (That last step is probably not so important in this case but can be very important on other DRV discussions and we would't want to break the precedent.) And, yes, we then provide a link to that sub-page.

Frequently, however, the content under discussion is not completely deleted - it can either be found on a user page (common for userboxes) or a mirror (more likely for articles). In either of those cases, the community prefers that we just provide a link to where the content can be reviewed. Again, sorry if I disrupted the discussion. It really did look like a mistake to me. Rossami (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Lukas Ridgeston

Could you paste the information from this article on User:Chidom/Testing; I have information that will assert his importance but don't know what else was in the article. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  21:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the restoration. Actually, the article as it stands meets WP:PORN BIO criteria as he is an award winner; that was the information I was going to add to the article, I assumed it wasn't there. Thanks again.—Chidom ^talk  21:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It still needs independent sources. —Centrx→talk • 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, it does not meet WP:BIO. —Centrx→talk • 21:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added sources; which parts of WP:BIO does it fail?—Chidom ^talk  05:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Newtownards.jpg

I see you took the liberty of deleting this image from the Newtownards article for the apparent reason of copyright reasons.

May I ask why?, as the image is in no way copyrighted. Infact it's GFDL free use for anything by anyone...

Technically speaking, if you really wished you could print it off and make a shrine devoted to newtownards, and/or throw darts at it.

--Dom0803 22:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This was in error. The several other images removed from that page were copyright infringements. —Centrx→talk • 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked users editing the user talk page

Really? Hmm...I didn't know that. None of the people I blocked indefinitely ever came back to vandalize their user talk page, so I just assumed they couldn't edit their user talk page when they were indefinitely blocked. Thanks for telling me, though. Nishkid64 02:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's so they can make an unblock request or otherwise appeal the block. —Centrx→talk • 02:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw your post on Jimbo's talkpage

It continues to amaze me how you manage to pick the most vile examples when you try to make your point. You still owe me the answer why "This user supports the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party." is divisive and inflammatory. And why you apply T1 to userspace. And what about this userbox is so vile and repugant to require speedy deletion. Did you ever read Jimbo on Userboxes? CharonX/talk 05:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A Saskatchewan New Democratic Party box is divisive. It is a badge declaring a political allegiance that is inimical to producing a neutral encyclopedia. I don't happen to find it inflammatory, but as with all cases like this it is a matter of whether the box espouses a dominant political perspective. The Nazis are well-known and classically hated by most, but I would not be surprised if someone who had come to your user page to discuss some encyclopedic collaboration became angry at seeing you support the proponents of the public health agenda and its labyrinthine inefficiencies and mediocrities to which they lost a relative. Regardless, you did not nominate a Saskatchewan New Democratic Party userbox for undeletion; you nominated a National Democratic Party of Germany userbox, and a Nazi one and a Stalinist one, and the reasoning that would allow a Saskatchewan New Democratic Party userbox would also allow those. You cannot decide to delete certain political userboxes but not others without making a political decision as to whether a certain party is "mainstream" or whether their political positions are acceptable to you or not. That means making Wikipedia a political battleground. —Centrx→talk • 06:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop twisting the facts. I while did nominate those boxes, they were amongst a by far larger batch of other boxes you deleted. You make it sound like I solely/primarily nominated those userboxes to get those undeleted. Furthermore, is it your aim to get rid of all userboxes? It begins to feel like it, because with the same reasoning you offer to delete "supports Green party" one could delete "supports renewable energy". Which warrants the deletion of "wants you to protect the environment" etc. etc. I guess you did not experience the "userbox wars", which caused MAJOR distruption here, but you may be assure that this time around users would be even more unhappy. I for one don't have a political userbox on my page, I merely have a few personal intrest ones and a few babel boxes, but I will fight tooth and nail to preserve the right for others to put one there. Even if its a Nazi one. And if the community wants a particular kind of userbox gone, they will decide so - with e.g. a MfD. CharonX/talk 12:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You nominated those boxes to be undeleted. Now they are undeleted because of your nomination. They were undeleted using the same reason by which other political boxes would be undeleted. "This user supports renewable energy" is a rather anodyne statement and does not entail that someone supports a particular partisan group or any of the specific people which are candidates for election. You should read the parts of Jimbo's statement that say userboxes of this sort are not appropriate for creating an encyclopedia and ought to be phased out. You should start contributing to the encyclopedia rather than fighting "tooth and nail" over something that is irrelevant to its creation. —Centrx→talk • 21:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, you have no "rights" over a user page, which is not yours. It is given to you to facilitate creating an encyclopedia, which you have not been involved in. The statement at the top of User:Mindspillage is accurate. —Centrx→talk • 21:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your opinion and you are entiteled to it. Meanwhile the vocal majority disagrees with you, as seen on the DRV. This discussion is moot and this will be the last thing I say to you about it. CharonX/talk 00:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If the "vocal majority" wants Wikipedia to be their free webhost, does that make it so? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the DRV was advertised at the Userbox migration page, so you are going to get a lot of userbox fans. That's the problem with polling or valuing a majority and the loudness of it. Very easily one could muster a vocal majority in favor of getting rid of userboxes, but that's not how Wikipedia works. —Centrx→talk • 02:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

About your removal of semi-protection from Italy

Hello there. On November 4, you unprotected the Italy article. Please, do check the history for that article; in the two days since you removed protection, there have been dozens of instances of vandalism, all from anonymous users. These represent a significant waste of time for Wikipedia editors who reverted these , who could have otherwise spent their time contributing to the encyclopaedia. Please, do reinstate semi-protection on the article. --Nehwyn 16:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 21:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed. =) --Nehwyn 05:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

German translation on article subject to vandalism

Hello,

Many thanks for taking the trouble to reply to my request for help as to whether I should proceed. I apologise for not replying earlier. I have taken your advice and have resumed work on the translation.CWO 18:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your MediaWiki revert

I've edited it per the discussion at WP:VPP. The concern is that new users don't know what "you have new messages" means. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have responded there. I couldn't find it on Village Pump technical, or I would have commented more fully on it before. —Centrx→talk • 02:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I got confused on it when I did the edit summary. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding IP block

Thank you for the kind sentiments. I was beginning to feel a tad paranoid. Byronik 03:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

James Kitching

As a relative newcomer to Wikipedia and its politics, I'm a bit taken aback by the threatening tone of "This needs to be made into an encyclopedia article or it will be deleted." Perhaps I've been under a misimpression for a while that Wikipedia was about information and not just a vehicle to display the editors' journalistic proficiency of styles. "Wikipedia invites you to amend an article if you're not quite happy with it. Please feel free to do so." Also perhaps you could point me at some articles that you have written which reflect the proper way of doing things, so that I can look and learn. Much obliged Paul venter 06:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The tone was because you removed the tags, which notify readers of problems and place the article in categories that summon people people to help, without improving the problems that the tags indicated. The article needs sources (where did you get all this information?), and statements like "widely regarded as the world’s greatest fossil finder" either do not belong or would need to be cited with highly authoritative sources. It could also use some more linking to highly related topics. Regarding citation, see Wikipedia:Citing sources; regarding general organizational issues, see Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Sorry for the threatening tone; it is a good article, but it needs improvement to be a proper Wikipedia article and removing notices about that without explanation or improvement does not resolve that. —Centrx→talk • 06:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've cleaned it up, improved the tone and added a pile of references - see whether you like it. Cheers Paul venter 14:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD closure appreciation

Thanks for recognizing all of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anaplerosis as spam. It seemed obvious when I posted it and was a bit surprised at the many suggestions to keep. JonHarder 16:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Jonadark

I believe Jonadark's intent was to have all the image files he had uploaded for the HoloVID article deleted, not the article itself. The issue was that he did not intend to release those images under the GFDL. (He had tagged them as such, but put "all rights reserved" in the captions on the article. I pointed out the discrepancy and he decided he wanted to reconsider his licensing options.)--Srleffler 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please undelete the article?--Srleffler 22:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. It looked from his statement that he wanted everything off "WIKI" that he wanted that deleted too. —Centrx→talk • 01:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Srleffler 03:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Re [5]

An administrator encouraged me to place these notices. Additionally, such notices appear to be necessary to consider the opinions of a larger number of contributors on this matter, as users who oppose this proposal have frequently insisted that the number of participants in the discussion concerning this proposal is inadequate. John254 01:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That person is mistaken, and made that statement when almost no one knew about the proposal; the people who saw it in your first round of spamming are the same people who would see it in your second round of spamming. Anyway, such notices are not necessary to summon opinions. It is sufficient to post, like all other policy proposals, on WP:RFC and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). The number of participants was inadequate when it was 4 people and was done after less than a week, and there was even present opposition on the page that was not addressed. It has been advertised quite enough. —Centrx→talk • 01:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hndis

Plase stop editing hndis, and discuss any proposed changes first. This is a widely-used template, and your edits affect a lot of pages. Your latest edit leaves those dab pages uncategorised. Now reverted, but please discuss changes on Template talk:hndis before making them. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sofixit. —Centrx→talk • 04:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

about my block

Cross posting from Wikipedia talk:Semi-protecting policy pages:

"Centrx blocked me for 20 minutes when I had reverted his removal. Totally not cool and unacceptable. He has given no explanation nor cited any policy or guideline to support his actions. Isn't this what they call censorship? I could understand that this might be seen as spamming, but to actually block me over this is.............. *deep breath* . It's totally disrespectful. If he had at least left something more than the small message on my talk page (that seemed to only indicate his preference), or even left a message here (I checked here before reverting the change, actually, since I figured he had a good reason, but he had given none) I would not have reverted his removal. There was no reason to block me whatsoever. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)"

Honestly man, I understood that you disagreed, but I did not think that this was something you were "enforcing" or even felt strongly about. There was no reason to actually block me, even if it was a short one. I'm a very reasonable person, and I'm confused that you would take it that far without first giving me some kind of better notice or message. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not about agreeing or disagreeing with whatever your position is on the proposal. This is about reverting in order to engage in internal spamming and then, rather than discussing or explaining it when the matter is brought up, replying with some alternatively nonsensical or flippant or insolent remark and continuing the reverts. The block was specifically short in order to simply stop the continued mass editing and prompt you to actually consider and discuss the issue. —Centrx→talk • 05:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant that you disagreed about how to request comments. I was not attempting to spam anything, in all honesty. To spam would suggest I am posting an unwanted message, rather than noting a discussion that would directly effect those pages. I looked for any comment from you before I started to revert. You then left me a message on my talk page while I was in the middle of the revert asking me to "stop spamming". No warning template, no indication you were even "mad" or that my actions were making you concerned. WP:SPAM doesn't even support your position on this. You got mad at me for not explaining my revert when you made no effort to explain yours? How is that even logical? I've used this same method of requesting comments in the past myself and never had anyone even complain to me about it. You know very well that I'm not some newbie or a troll. I totally didn't see that block coming, and am still confused at how you found the rational to make it. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought calling it "spamming" would pretty clearly characterize it as something not acceptable. You continued to revert after this message; I still don't know what your response "On a side note, I've really been sticking my neck out lately." means. Separately, where have you seen this done before? The only times I've seen it done before have ended with someone saying "stop, what the hell are you doing". —Centrx→talk • 05:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You did call it spamming, you called it spamming. This isn't the first time you and I haven't agreed on something, and I didn't think you were leaving that message as an administrator, but as an editor. In all honesty, I thought I had the right (and that it wasn't inappropriate) to disagree with you. Had I known you felt that this was actually an issue rather than just your opinion then I would not have kept reverting (even though I disagreed). I really didn't think this was any more than a minor dispute. I've read WP:SPAM before, I've reported other users for spamming, and I did not see myself in that position. I don't want to piss you off, and I don't want to be blocked.

The neck comment is about how many debates I seem to be getting involved with, heated or not. I didn't mean it as something.. in a disruptive context. Like I said, I felt safe to disagree with you on the matter because I thought it was a minor disagreement. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

*smacks head on desk* I just noticed you were not removing the template completely. I feel like the jackass of the year now. I thought you were completely removing the notice from all the talk pages. Granted I do think a few others should also have the notice, but I think I see your comments in a better context now. None the less, couldn't you have just told me that instead of blocking me? -- Ned Scott 06:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm actually using a notice like that now with {{WikiProject DIGI}}, and {{WikiProject LOE}} had a similar notice a while back. So I've literally used this method before without anyone getting mad about it. If seemed very effective and appropriate. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yea, this is the second wave, third actually. The first wave, several policies were semi-protected with a link to this proposal. That was enough in itself to get enough people's attention to have a legitimate discussion about it. Then this notice was added to two dozen policy pages. Adding it to a couple dozen more is not going to get any news voices and is really just clutter that someone is going to have to remove (that's several hundred users' watchlists were flooded; adding it to the top of Wikipedia talk:Office Actions is not going to get any users who didn't see it the first time when it was added to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, etc.; I will be pretty annoyed when I still see this notice at the top of a backwater guideline a month from now). The method with those project templates looks to be just appending something to the template, which is then automatically silently updated by the software. This may actually be a good method for having a bulletin board for policy pages. People don't post to or frequent Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies as much as they used to, this may be a better way. —Centrx→talk • 07:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting salted pages

I've been doing speedy-deletes today and I've come across two pages that were previously salted but that you later deleted, effectively unsalting them. I'm puzzled about why they weren't left salted. The two pages are Smegmer Kennington and The Haunting of a House (which I resalted due to recreation). — Saxifrage ✎ 07:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Predict?

Hi, Centrx. I'm not going to revert your change to "In the news", but I tend to think that once the incoming and outgoing Speakers of the House have confirmed/conceded that the control of the House has changed, it's reliable enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Then update the article with some reliable sources. The Speaker of the House confirming is much more reliable than news media predictions, though I don't suppose him doing that is irrevocable. I am having enough trouble fixing these article that state the person is the "Senator" rather than the "Senator elect", etc. IPs don't seem to realize that the person doesn't go into the office the day of the election. People have actually died before going into office, and they should stop adding this false information. —Centrx→talk • 07:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. It is more precise to not be definitive in the matter just yet. Though it does appear to be the unanimous opinion of all news agencies and even the White House, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Owen 08:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, neither news agencies or the White House are encyclopedias, and news agencies and the White House are in fact frequently wrong. —Centrx→talk • 08:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopiakuta

I'm just curious, what exactly was the cause for your blocking this user? He's inquiring right now with an unblock template, and your particular reason (Vandalism) isn't clear itself. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Jim Clark

Just a heads up, you never added the template to the article to indicate it was fully protected ;). --I c e d K o l a ^{(Contributions)} 03:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocks

Would you be so kind to write at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Kingjeff reported by User:Panarjedde (Result:) that you already provided to block me? It would be annoying to be blocked again.

Also, it would have been nice to tell me why you blocked me.

Best regards.--Panarjedde 10:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you look at this?

Hi Centrx,

Could you look at this documentation of a number of not only earlier, but also continued personal attacks (34 ..) and other violations by one user, after you gave him a (final) warning on 31 October, after he had received NPA-n, NPA-2, and NPA-3?

Yesterday, he got blocked again two more times, first for renewed Personal attacks after previous blocks and then another time for disruptive editing/3RR-violation.

When I requested a comment and decision at the PAIN board yesterday, Admin Shell Kinney suggested that I take the problem to the RfC instead. This has been tried before regarding this user, and has led nowhere, as documented by an accepted Request for Mediation regarding this user, that he has not accepted the invitation to, not even after he at one time (14 october) has completely replaced the Request with his own description, after nine of the eleven invited editors had accepted the invitation to it, leading to the withdrawal by two of them of their acceptance of the invitation.

He has been requested a number of times to stop his personal attacks and stay civil, without success 1 Sept., 11 Sep. (leading to a follow up condescending comment on the request 15 Sept.), 6 Sept., 14 Sept., 5 Oct., another one the same day, 5 Oct., 23 Oct., 26 Oct., 29 Oct. and 31 Oct. ), and has continued his personal attacks also after you gave him a final warning on 31 October, after which he first questioned the validity of your warning, then deleted a documented earlier warning by another admin for a personal attack from his Talks page as belonging to "irrelevant stuff", two minutes later rejecting your warning as invalid, writing "For the record - I don't believe I have broken ANY Wikipedia rules with one exception - the 3RR rule a couple of months ago.", and then again, three hour later, denying the validity also of an earlier warning for a personal attack that he got by another admin, defending all his personal attacks, and telling "I don't agree that this two-month-old comment suggests I have broken any rules. I am brash - that's my style", and that people need to get to get used to it.

What he has written and done so far indicates that little will change with regard to the mentioned user. Where do you draw the line for acceptable behaviour by editors?

Thanks, Thebee 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

if i can just snip in here: i would recommend caution here, since thebee seems so keen to get petek blocked for good. from my point of view they are both strongly pushing their point of view. petek might be more 'brash' and insults people quite a bit, but they both have a confrontational style of editing in the articles they are interested in (almost all steiner related). editwaring here went both ways.trueblood 19:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, this has been an on-going personality conflict that started long before Wikipedia was even created. TheBee has, in my view, been quite busy harassing me, following me around and starting discussions on most of the article talk pages and several user talk pages, including my own, for the sole purpose of chastising me. Here are some examples of his harassment tactics:

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

He has brought this same discussion to many administrators, using the same diffs - trying to get me banned from Wikipedia. Pete K 19:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Incivility is simply not acceptable, Pete. Continuous and high levels of aggressive incivility especially not. Hgilbert 01:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The bee wrote: " . . . documented by an accepted Request for Mediation regarding this user, that he has not accepted the invitation to, not even after he at one time (14 october) has completely replaced the Request with his own description, after nine of the eleven invited editors had accepted the invitation to it, leading to the withdrawal by two of them of their acceptance of the invitation.:" I just want to point out this is a misrepresentation of what happened. He didn't just randomly "completely replace the request with his own description." This followed many days of discussion of the points to be mediated, and took place at least a week after at least two editors had noted that we were not going to agree to the original list, and made numerous suggestions for amending it. This makes it sound like everything was going along nicely and Pete just sabotaged a beautiful thing at the last minute! not exactly how it was.DianaW 02:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It must be evident that thebee is on a mission. It's true Pete can snap at people and there is the occasional four-letter word. But thebee has one goal in mind when he sees Pete coming, and that's to goad him and game the system any way he can to effect Pete's removal. It takes two to play this game. The pages and pages and long lists of stuff he collects to show "Pete is bad" is itself freaky behavior if you ask me. He's got "lists" on me, too, or he did for awhile. I've told him I want these "lists" of my supposed sins removed from wikipedia. (They're for saying things like, "Oh, come on" and "Are you for real"?) I used the phrase "cried uncle," meaning "gave in" once, and he accused me of calling somebody "Uncle" as if it were a slur. I told him if he persisted in posting certain material, I would continue to post material that counters it. He replied, "Are you threatening me?" and added this to my list. He's collected *everything* some people have said for his own purposes. I get a little weirded out seeing someone's keeping lists on me. So yes, he's collected a few insults from Pete, but this is turning into quite a bizarre scenario.DianaW 02:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

DianaW:

"He's got "lists" on me, too, or he did for awhile. [...] He replied, "Are you threatening me?" and added this to my list. He's collected *everything* some people have said for his own purposes. I get a little weirded out seeing someone's keeping lists on me."

What you write about me somewhere having made a "list" of attacks by you is a fantasy, that you seem to like for some reason. The only "list" I've put up as a sub page of my Talks page is this. It lists a number of personal attacks on me and other violations of Wikipedia policies by PeteK, just after he arrived here. I put it up because I got tired of all the personal attacks to keep track of them, made a complaint to an admin, who gave him a warning for them. That's all. As for you, I complained to an admin at one time about a personal attack you made and he gave you a warning for it. Don't remember having made another complaint to an admin about you. Should I? Thebee 10:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You will notice, the first link in TheBee's complaint is to a page ON HIS OWN WEBSITE devoted to pointing out all the horrible things I'VE SAID TO HIM ON WIKIPEDIA - again it is complete with distorted explanations of what he claims happend. Is it OK with Wikipedia that an editor can be attacked on someone's personal website using dozens of links to Wikipedia's pages? That someone can have such a vendetta against a particular editor that they devote a webpage to disparaging that editor's participation at Wikipedia? If this is OK - what does this say to ALL editors here? Should people be expected to participate in an environment where this behavior is allowed? TheBee has, again, gone too far. This is like vandalizm to my Talk page - only this malicious activity is done safely on TheBee's website. Doesn't his activity take incivility to a new level? Why isn't HIS incivility at question here? Pete K 02:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That is stunning. The *existence* of that page is stunning. It must have taken him hours.DianaW 03:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems obsessive - certainly Wikipedia must frown on this type of harassment of editors. Pete K 06:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thebee wrote: "When I requested a comment and decision at the PAIN board yesterday, Admin Shell Kinney suggested that I take the problem to the RfC instead. This has been tried before regarding this user, and has led nowhere," Perhaps this should give you the message, they are telling you to argue the issues and stop whining about people hurting your feelings. The problem here is obviously *content* and acting like you're 12 years old and got freaked out because somebody said "Shove it" or whatever is goofy. The admins aren't stupid, they can see you just want to see people who are challenging your edits removed from wikipedia. "Pain," my eye.DianaW 14:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That a RfC had been made by someone is something I only became aware of when I saw it mentioned at the Request for Mediation page. I don't know who made rhe RfC or when, maybe someone else can tell(?), but have a hunch maybe the comment by DogNewTricks on 5 October 2006 may have been a result of the Request for Comment from an outsider. Thebee 16:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

On DianaW: "The problem here is obviously *content* and acting like you're 12 years old and got freaked out because somebody said "Shove it" or whatever is goofy.".

That would be yet another personal attack, in addition based on an erroneous assumption about an involvement by me in the mentioned RfC, similar to your fantasy about a 'list' by me on Wikiviolations by you. Thebee 16:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the problem. How petty is this? That was a "personal attack"? Look, here's the difference: I don't even know what Wikiviolations IS or how to put a list on it - I try to spend my time on the articles rather than on figuring out how to remove people who don't agree with me.DianaW 21:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's all TheBee is looking for - a fresh administrator to issue a fresh block against me based on TheBee's out-of-context and badly mischaracterized list of my comments - and not on the actual history of the discussions. After a few blocks have been issued, he can point to them and say I'm the troublemaker. This worked for him in the beginning but he can no longer bother the administrators who have become wise to his plan - they won't listen to this nonsense any more. So he just works down the list of administrators hoping. Now he has posted his complaints about me on a public website which, if it doesn't, should break Wikipedia policy. The issue here is his harassment of me, not the other way around. Pete K 15:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I REALLY dislike getting drawn into endless discussions with you and DianaW, but we clearly have different understanding of the meaning of 'harassment', and your view of the meaning of Wikipedia policies regarding civility clearly also seems to differ from those of all administrators, who have commented on them to you and requested you to stay civil, also seen by your explicit rejection of the validity of two warnings to you from different administrators for personal attacks you have made and their requests that you stop them and stay civil. Thebee 16:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"I REALLY dislike getting drawn into endless discussions with you and DianaW" - Um... YOU started the topic. What do you expect me to do? Sit here quietly while you manufacture list upon list of childish complaints and post these lists on the web. Frankly, I hope this action gets you banned permanently. By all rights - it should. Pete K 17:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"I REALLY dislike getting drawn into endless discussions with you and DianaW," Oh, be serious. Stop starting these discussions, then. Have you noticed us complaining about YOU? Your behavior is completely absurd and unproductive, but we don't hassle you about it, we just keep trying to edit the articles.DianaW 21:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Consolidating archives

It looks to me like you reorganized the archives of Wikipedia talk:Categorization not to long ago. I think you may have created more problems than you solved. If you move a page and then delete the redirect, you destroy all the links to the page. I, for one, create many links to old discussions whenever I see new discussions about the same topic. Many of these links now either point to the wrong page or non-existent pages. So please, don't take on a task like this unless you a willing to make certain that all the links to the archives will be correct when you are done. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 17:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tannim

Tannim has returned and is making the same edit to the Cindy Sheehan article he was making before [11], though I am not sure how serious that is. At least he only made it once so far! Just an FYI. --Habap 21:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Multiple-page move

Hi,

There seems to be a consensus to call Indigenous Australians "Indigenous Australians", as opposed to "Aboriginal Australians". The corresponding adjective would be "Indigenous Australian". I've tried moving some of the articles using the adjective "Aboriginal" but there seem to be too many of them. A list of articles that need to be moved can be found here.Is there a quick way to setup a poll to move these pages? Is a poll even necessary? (It appears a good majority would support the move.) Any help would be appreciated. Zarbat 11:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Centrx,

I am new to wikipedia, and I wish to contribute to the collective works of the orginization. I would like to ask for your assistance in editing the table on the page "Clearfield High School", as well as the image management of "The Iron Crown of Italy" which I uploaded for use on a page. If you can provide me with any assistance, I would be most grateful.

Thank you for your time,

Brogman

Matt Long

You speedied Matt Long with the mere comment 'A7'. Would you like to reconsider that, in the light of the IMDB page (which was linked to) [12], showing him as starring in several films? Charles Matthews 16:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)