User talk:Centrx/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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". —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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 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 much for the Sprotect at Alcoholism; yer a good cob :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 00:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Alfred A. Tomatis


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

Cheers Runar Punar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Punar1 (talkcontribs) 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 15:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 05:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Helium protection

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

Done. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 00:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


"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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


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. —Centrxtalk • 00:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:

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 (See m:Range blocks). Someone was adding commercial links to a bunch of articles and had been doing so since August. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 00:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

IPvandal 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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?


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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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.



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. —Centrxtalk • 17:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


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. —Centrxtalk • 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)


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". —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 03:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, I recommend focusing on other parts of the article for a while. See also Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. —Centrxtalk • 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 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 17:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


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. —Centrxtalk • 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? —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, it does not meet WP:BIO. —Centrxtalk • 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)


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.

--Flag of the United Kingdom (3-5).svgDom0803 22:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This was in error. The several other images removed from that page were copyright infringements. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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


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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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)


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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 01:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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". —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 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)


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 (talkcontribs) 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. —Centrxtalk • 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. —Centrxtalk • 08:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


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)


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)
"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 have have 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)
Just as a note in passing, as DianaW brings it up. "I don't even know what Wikiviolations IS". I've had that impression too. Try reading "Examples of personal attacks" if you find the time some time. "Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to" [...] "Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks". That's the level for what Wikipeida considers to be a 'personal attack'.
For comparison, ""Examples that are not personal attacks" [...] "Stating 'Your statement is a personal attack...' is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user.". That is what is stated at the report page mentioned at the beginning regarding the long string of personal attacks and rude behaviour by PeteK from his first day here at Wikipedia towards bacically everyone who does not agree with him, followed by not regrets, but explicit rejections of the validity of warnings even by two administrators for a number of personal attacks he has made, the latest one ten days ago.
Then he uses the technique normally called "putting the blame on the victim", in this case, denying that his personal attacks and repeatedly rude behaviour against basically everyone who does not agree with constitutes bullying, after numerous people requested him to stop them and stay civil, and instead describing just DISAGREEMENTS with what he writes, and the NOTICING AND REPORTING of his attacks and rude behaviour by me "whining". resp "harassment", and includes two comments by Hgilbert as examples of my "harassment" of him.
Ten days ago, in a final warning that PeteK rejected the validity of, Centrx, after PeteK has received numerous requests to stop his aggressive behaviour and personal attacks, and stay civil, told him:
"... if you continue with personal attacks and disruptive editing you will be banned.".
The page documents that he not only has displayed a repeatedly aggressive attitude towards not only me, but a number of other editors since he came here. It also shows that he has continued making personal attacks and disruptive editing after Centrx gave him his final warning about it.
In between, PeteK is not repeatedly aggressive. Everybody is not agressive in between. Most people are not agressive most of the time. That's what Wikipedia expects and demands of editors. Does his good editing and charm towards administrators in between make his repeated personal attacks and rude comments on a number of other editors, with whom he does not agree, and his repeated disruptive edits acceptible, including not only not accepting an invitation to a Mediation, after a failed RfC and help from an admin (Longhair), after he has first put up a whole list of his own additional issues to be mediated, without accepting the invitation to the mediation.
Then he also completely deletes the original list of issues to be mediated and two articles listed as articles involved and replaces it with a list of his own, without even then accepting the invitation, seemingly just for some sort of fun, as he then in a comment to Hgilbert defends his action with that he considered the mediation to have failed anyhow at that time, after which it was accepted by Guanaco for the Mediation team the following day.
He does as he likes, at all times, and accepts criticism and warnings from noone, if he does not feel that it is a REAL threat to his actions here at Wikipedia.
He clearly feels the final warning by Centrx ten days ago isn't.
Thebee 01:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So, it's pretty clear you're not going to give it a rest. Are you ever going to get this all out of your system, or are you going to continue this onslaught forever? Time after time, I've said I'm going to ignore you - and the minute I do, you're on another administrator's page starting up the list of complaints again. Your own actions are provoking any perceived incivility you may be reading into my comments. Just leave me the hell alone and let me continue my work here. Why is it so difficult for you to do this? Instead, you need to follow me around, poke and prod me until I write something you can add to your list, and then run to the administrators. And when that doesn't work, you create entire web pages of your complaints to harass me further. I get that you don't like me - I don't like you either - but your behavior here is over the line. Please just leave me alone. Pete K 02:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"'I don't even know what Wikiviolations IS'. I've had that impression too." I'm afraid you missed the point.
The "I'm better than you" thing was quite strange. You made that one up. It literally appeared out of nowhere - you invented it yourself and inserted it in my text where you wanted it. I never said it, or anything close. I guess you read it on the "Wikiviolations" page that you pore over, liked the sound of it, and decided to attribute it to me. Don't you think this is getting a little weird? Have you noticed Centrx is ignoring us?DianaW 02:34, 11 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 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


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)

New user help

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,


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)

Restored. Please improve the article with reference to reliable sources and indicating the importance of this person. As far as I can tell, he was the member of the cast of a one-season television show that was cancelled, and is a member of the cast of a motion picture in which he is not even mentioned in the Ghost Rider (film). —Centrxtalk • 21:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are in doubt, I think you should try AfD. Rightly or wrongly, that sort of IMDB entry is likely to be taken as prima facie evidence of notability as an actor. Citing our own article on a film is not likely to be seen as conclusive, is it? Charles Matthews 23:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Why do you keep removing the infobox from Bernie Sanders' article? Every current member of Congress (it seems) has an infobox of the same sort as the kind you are removing. All of the information given in the box is verifiable and correct. Why do you want to make a special excpetion by removing Sanders' infobox? Andrew Levine 02:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is misleading to have an infobox that states some future position rather than his current position. Any other article on a Congressman should follow the same principle; this is not an exception, it just happens to be an article I have on my watchlist. You should also read the first sentence of Wikipedia:Vandalism before making wild accusations. —Centrxtalk • 02:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
As an administrator, I've read all the policy pages backwards and forwards. Before doing something like removing a longstanding infobox entirely, rather than simply adding/correcting missing information, think about what such an action might look like to outside observers. Andrew Levine 02:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As an administrator, I've read all the policy pages backwards and forwards,and my edits are not vandalism, nor are they "bordering" on vandalism, nor are they anything but the exact opposite of vandalism. —Centrxtalk • 02:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrator See also's

Please explain why you removed this section from Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. All the links are relevant, as they pertain to adminship. It appears that you reverted the edit without even looking at it first. I look forward to your reply.


 The Transhumanist   02:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

For this one specifically, these links are appropriate, except for Wikipedia:Maintenance, which is rather defunct and one of many areas of maintenance that could be linked but shouldn't. Although, they are already linked to from the main page that leads to this Guide. It looked like you were, and you are continuing to do so, adding this list to all possible pages, which is inappropriate. Someone at Wikipedia:Administrators, for example, may not only be not particularly interested in being an administrator, but is likely to be the very sort of person who should not be an administrator and should not be directed into such areas of Wikipedia, as the people coming to this page are often people who have been warned for disruption, etc. It is trivially easy for anyone who wants to be an administrator to find the appropriate pages. —Centrxtalk • 02:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added them back in, but will remove Maintenance from that page. Thanks for the reply.  The Transhumanist   02:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the other ones for which advising the reader how to become an administrator is irrelevant? Also, another thing to consider is: the greater the number of links in a See also, the lesser the value of each one for finding further information. —Centrxtalk • 03:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Can you please help? Apocolocynthosis is adding unsourced, unverifed claims to the article Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. He claims he has a source but he doesn't cite it. He persisits despite multiple warnings. I (and a few other people) try to reason with him, but he then acts like a 10-year old and accuses us of censorship. It's really getting out of hand. Armanalp 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Question on new disruptive edit warring by user PeteK

Yesterday, I corrected a not properly set up internal Wikilink in an article to a section in another article, to which it referred, describing criticism by Steiner of the anti-Semitism of his time in a number of articles in a journal dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism.

Today, User PeteK has removed the specific link to the relevant section in the second article, and replaced it with only a general link to the page, describing his edit as a "Repaired link".

As the link at the original page refers to the specific section at the other page, I have restored it.

Four minutes later, PeteK again has replaced the link to the specific relevant section at the second page, to which the text at the first page refers, with just a general link to the page, and writes as "argument": "You don't need this propaganda in the link.".

What shall I do?

Thebee 23:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe I edited the description contained in the link, not the link itself. It is not my intention to remove the link to information - just the POV description supplied with it. Steiner was an antisemite, and the extent of his "criticism" of antisemitism was to endorse assimilation. If you can provide your link without the POV statement, I'm happy to leave it alone. If the link has to include the POV statement as part of the link itself, then that is what we should be discussing - on the DISCUSSION page of the article, not on the administrator's pages. This vendetta is just getting on my nerves Sune. The discussion pages are for discussing edits. Running to the administrators every time you don't like one of my edits is a ridiculous waste of energy for everyone. Just DISCUSS the problem. If you will look at the bottom of the discussion page here, you will see that's exactly what I tried to do. Instead of discussing it, you decided to make it another administrative issue. Insert a juicy insult from me here______. Pete K 16:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
"I believe I edited the description contained in the link, not the link itself."
What you write that you "believe" sounds like what you wrote 17:06, 31 October 2006, after you had received several requests for two months to stop your personal attacks and agressive attitude and stay civil, when you after Centrx 31 Oct. gave you a final warning after a NPA-n, NPA-2 and a NPA-3 request:
"if you continue with personal attacks and disruptive editing you will be banned"
first from your personal Talks page delete an earlier explicit warning by AYArktos/Golden Wattle for a personal attack as belonging to "irrelevant stuff", and two minutes later write, rejecting the warning by Centrx:
"For the record - I don't believe I have broken ANY Wikipedia rules with one exception - the 3RR rule a couple of months ago",
then also continuing three hours later to explicitly tell that you also do not think the explicit warning by Golden Wattle for a specified, described personal attack means that you have broken any Wipedia rules:
"I don't agree that this two-month-old comment suggests I have broken any rules. I am brash - that's my style."
Now, continuing to implement the "brashness" that you have told is your "style", after you consciously not only removed one word that you did not like from a link, "scathingly", you also the first time you disrupt the link in the article, change the link to the specific section at a second page, that describes Steiner's repeated criticism of the anti-Semitism of his time, and only leave a general link to the page, describing and "defending" these two actions with:
"Repaired link and removed sensationalism. He was, after all, anti-semitic himself".
After I restore the link to point to the specific section, to which it refers, you then again four minutes later change the link to the specific section the link refers to, and replace it with just a general link to the page again, this time not changing any link description at the original page, as there was nothing to you objectionable left of it, but just change the specific link to a general link again, 'motivating' this with:
"Steiner was an antisemitic assimilationist. You don't need this propaganda in the link."
Then, now, you write on these two removals of the specific internal Wikilink to a section at a second page, that it referred to, and replacement of it with just the general link to the page:
"I believe I edited the description contained in the link, not the link itself."
Do you think that stands out as credible, in perspective of your repeated harassment of me and others since you arrived here at Wikipedia and your similar denial a week ago, that you have violated any Wikipedia policy or warning, which then as now is obviously untrue?
And then also in passing making a personal attack on another editor, "Professor Marginalia", by making an unsubstantiated assumption about the editor's personal identity, and then using this to dismiss the validity of the user's edits:
"It's pretty clear where you are coming from and what your motives are - to discredit an organization that challenges Waldorf education. It's a classic smear-campaign. That you have chosen to do this through dishonest, rather than honest means - self-citing, unattributed claims, weasel-words, attempting to associate disassociated elements, selective citation of editorials, etc., demonstrates the extents to which you will apparently go to make this repulsive and untruthful claim stick."
Thebee 19:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is just goofy, friend. Read my words and assume good faith. Every edit you incorporate into the articles is suspicious to me - because you have proven time and time again that you have trouble producing a NPOV. Indeed, in the edit you made that we are discussing, you included with the link a POV description. That's what I removed then - and I have gone back and removed it again. I'm not the one harassing anyone here - YOU are. There is discussion on the discussion page on this very edit. Instead of participating in the process, you are here bugging Centrx about it - and again, trying to get me in trouble for doing what exactly? EDITING an article. That's all I'm trying to do - edit articles and part of my job here is to keep your extremely biased POV out of them whenever possible. Anyone looking at your defamatory website will notice you have trouble accepting the viewpoints of people who are experts in their field - when they conflict with your POV. Your edits have been dishonest and extremist (and I can prove this) and you are trying to use Wikipedia as a bully-pulpit for pushing your POV. And part of your agenda is getting me banned. I hope it backfires on you. Pete K 20:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"in the edit you made that we are discussing, you included with the link a POV description. That's what I removed then - and I have gone back and removed it again."
Try the history of the page you refer to. The first edit by me that you refer to is this. It does not add anything to the text link, and not to the edit summary. It just fixes the link to point to the section at the page that the text link refers to. Nothing else. The edit summary says: "Linkfix". After this, you remove the specificity of the link that makes it point to the proper section at the page it links to, and just leave the link as a link to the page in general. In your edit summary, you write, expressing as your personal POV: "Repaired link and removed sensationalism. He was, after all, anti-semitic himself.".
When I then fix the link again to point to the proper section at the linked to page, I answer you (after you've made another unfounded deletion at the page) by telling exactly what I do, and describe the linked to section: "Repairing disruptive link edit by PeteK, restoring direct link to relevant section at page. Steiner was, after all, a critic of the anti-Semitism of his time." It's just a correction of the link you disrupted, and does not add anything to the text link at the first page, as you write.
You then remove the specificity of the link a second time, describing this with: "Steiner was an antisemitic assimilationist. You don't need this propaganda in the link."
What you did not like in the text link the first time was something I had not written, and did not add back to the link. What you removed the second time also was not something I had written or added to the text link either, but again the specificity of the link, again making it unspecific, as you did not like it to be specific. That's disruptive editing, not big as such, but you insisted on making it and started an edit war. At that time, I asked Centrx for advice, as I did not want to enter your edit war. When I don't want to get into your edit war, and ask Centrx for advice instead, you call this a vendetta. What should I have done? Enter your edit war? Thebee 23:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The number of people you have bullied and harassed at different times point to that what you call your personality problem with me is not a personality problem with me, but with basically everyone who disagrees with you or criticizes edits you do, including rejecting the validity of criticism of experienced administrators for your personal attacks, when they point them out to you and require you to stop them. I leave to Centrx to judge if he or she finds what you write, now as after your last warning, defensible and credible or not. Editing is done by editing and arguing for the properness of your edits in accordance with and on the basis of Wikipedia policies and rules and thinking, not repeated personal attacks, insults, bullying and repeatedly disruptive edits based on your gut, continued by you, today as before. If you're banned, your behaviour and repeated violations of the policies here at Wikipedia after repeated warnings about them are what have gotten you banned, not me and everyone else who has pointed them out to you. Thebee 21:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If the edits I made didn't concern you - then why are you here complaining again? The whole point is that what was in the link description in the article was dishonest and POV. I really don't care AT ALL if you put it there or someone else did. I removed it because it was dishonest. Again, I direct you to the DISCUSSION pages for this issue. I really couldn't care less if you're fed up with my edits - every one is legitimate and fully discussed - UNLIKE yours. You are the one here who has been disruptive with all this nonsense you drag around from user page to user page and from discussion page to discussion page. Every article has pages and pages of your complaints about me. Again, I reiterate, you've started a web page on your website devoted to pointing out your complaints about me. It's not just me who feels harassed by you - EVERYBODY IS SICK OF YOUR COMPLAINING. Pete K 01:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Flanking maneuver"

I just noticed that the article I created, Flanking maneuver, was deleted. Could you tell me what exact "sourcing problems" there were, and is there a chance it could be corrected? Sorry if it caused any inconvenience, Thanks. Aran|heru|nar 08:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The "sources" in the article were personal websites about using flanking in Nerf games, a website about an online game, a forum post, etc. —Centrxtalk • 08:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC) the article was only explanatory, is there a chance it could be restored without any sources? I took a look at Pincer movement and it was fine without any sources. The article has been used by DYK and it did not meet any opposition. I do not see why it had to be deleted. Aran|heru|nar 08:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have restored it, please verify that its contents is accurate in more reliable sources. That those sorts of sources were scattered throughout the article raises questions as to the accuracy of the whole thing, as the information came from them. Pincer movement is a much shorter and more basic. Flanking maneuver could be reduced to that; the specific statements about battles in the article may be utterly false or misleading, for example. —Centrxtalk • 09:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Views and controversies regarding Juan Cole

Please restore the content which you have unilaterally removed, without participating in the lengthy debates that preceded the pages creation. The noticed you have placed on that page is unwarranted. Isarig 15:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In my view, Centrx's actions were completely warranted under the circumstances. The page had become an illegitimate POV fork of a WP:BLP, which you claimed was created for "precisely" the reason of avoiding WP:BLP policies. The page was created after editors unsuccessfully tried to turn the Juan Cole bio into a character assassination; after months of edit wars over minor points, it's clear that the experiment was not a success.--csloat 19:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A revert war on Falun gong page

hi Centrx, there is a revert war on one of the Falun Gong pages here now. Can you stop it? I am not sure it is a good idea to unprotect the pages since there have not been much discussion between two sides. I hope you can help to prevent/ stop edit wars. --Samuel Luo 23:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just learned that you have blocked Tomananda. This block violates Wiki policy since he has not violated the 3RR rule. He exhausted his 3 reverts that was all. I hope you unblock him ASAP. All he did was trying to stop members of this cult which has a number advantage from concealing the truth to the public. thanks, --Yueyuen 07:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR is not an entitlement to 3 reverts. Edit warring is prohibited. Also, the threshhold for information on Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability; Wikipedia is not the place to reveal "the truth" except through reliable sources. Please also read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. —Centrxtalk • 07:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your help to try to stop revert wars, however your blocking Tomananda is unfair. He did not violate the 3RR rule which states that “an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia page within a 24 hour period.” [13] Another words Tomananda is entitled to 3 reverts. What makes it even more unfair is that you did not block Olaf Stephanos who had just as many reverts. Please kindly unblock Tomananda ASAP.

When I said truth I was revering to verifiable material, if you check the dispute on Falun Gong pages you will find that pro-Falun Gong editors have routinely removed such material. --Yueyuen 19:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, he is not entitled to three reverts. He is entitled only to contribute productively to improving an encyclopedia article. You may be interested in actually reading the WP:3RR page; it even says specifically "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement". —Centrxtalk • 21:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You are assuming that he is not contributing productively to improve the article. Do you have any evidences to back that assertion? You are the only admin that I know who blocked a user before issuing a warning and before the user violates the 3RR rule. In any case why didn’t you also block Olaf? You are not fair because you do not apply your standard evenly. --Yueyuen 22:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This was based on the fact that he was doing the same thing just 2 days earlier and was doing wholesale reverts of several distinct changes with little clear explanation. Edit warring is not productive, whatever other productive contributions a person makes. —Centrxtalk • 22:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You still have not responded to the question, why you blocked him but not Olaf. --Yueyuen 22:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The answer is there. Olaf had not engaged in edit warring 2 days earlier, and his reverts, rather than being wholesale, sought to improve the changes based on the discussion page. —Centrxtalk • 22:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Disagree, Tomananda did two reverts on the 9th and one on the 10th. That is hardly edit warring. Olaf had the same number of reverts Tomanada had on the 12th; you blocking Tomanada alone while he did not violate 3RR was unjustified. --Yueyuen 23:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Centrx has not stated his block of Tomananda was because of a violation of 3RR, so he's faultless in that department. However, Centrix, you failed to warn or even notify him prior to your block, which is standard practice, not to mention common courtesy. Furthermore, you left a great many edit summaries saying "Note: Any edit warring will result in the offending editors being blocked from editing." (emphasis mine). I don't think you carried out that impartially. -- Миборовский 23:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He did not state that tomananda was blocked for violating the 3RR because Tomananda did not violate it which is why this block was itself a violation. --Yueyuen 23:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It could be due to some difference in editing styles or language difficulties with regard to User:Tomananda, but I do not really know who is on which side of what appears to be some sort of religious dispute, so there was no bias based on opinions over the content in choosing who to block. Blocking one and not the other was because I was more confident of that one being a tendentious edit warrior for the above reasons, but User:Olaf Stephanos may very well be a similarly problematic editor. —Centrxtalk • 23:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
As I have requested earlier you should unblock Tomanada. --Yueyuen 23:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't take it the wrong way, but when you say you will block any editor who editwars, you better do that. -- Миборовский 23:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Centrx I feel it is unfortunate that you locked the page on the latest version reverted by Yueyen - the whole dispute was about legitimate changes being made to the pages, being resisted by simple reverts with no explanation. If you have a little time I would urge you to check out the edits and the discussion, to know for yourself. It has been quite difficult to make any positive progress on these articles because of these situations. Take a look at it, I think you will see that the vast majority of Yueyen's contributions, at least to this page, have been obstinate reverting with misleading edit summarys and specious explanations on the discussion page. I also do not think that Tomamanda has any genuinely ill intentions to engage in edit wars, and has generally demonstrated a much greater willingness to cooperate and engage in discussion. --Asdfg12345 00:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

List of female porn stars on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of female porn stars. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Sam Blanning(talk) 02:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

You could have just asked me. —Centrxtalk • 03:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Block on USer:Isarig

Your block is only for 24 hours for his libelous remarks. At the minimum it should be 1 week; A permanent ban should be proposed. --CSTAR 18:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If he continues, that will be the end result. He has the opportunity to contribute civilly and productively. —Centrxtalk • 21:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

steiner afd

[14]goethean 23:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Centrx - I didn't mean to remove that part. Pete K 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A Lazarus Taxon

what's the "copyright issue" with the image? W guice 00:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The copyright holder contacted Wikimedia Public Relations asking the image to be removed from Wikipedia. Given that this is a fair use image, this is done. Also, for this specific case, the article states that permission was granted to the band to use its images by a third party, so it is even more tenuous regarding fair use justification. —Centrxtalk • 00:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
i see... goodness. well, thanks for the 411 W guice 00:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hellmouth (Buffy episode) on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Welcome to the Hellmouth (Buffy episode). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --Nalvage 03:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I stated in the deletion summary why it was deleted. If you have any questions, concerns, or mitigating evidence about it, you can ask me rather than going to a totally unnecessary deletion review. —Centrxtalk • 03:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hiya, I do have a few concerns actually because. I left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffyverse# Episode Guide Copyright about the Buffy issue, ni full it says:
I'm extremely puzzled and disappointed by this whole situation. I contacted BuffyGuide through to ask whether they were interested in sharing the short summaries on Wikipedia. I offered to create a ghost account called '' which would represent the site and respect its work (since this was not allowed I created 'BuffyGuide'). I did this with premission and agreement because I told the web master that I did not deserve credit for adding these summaries to Wikipdeia when the much harder work was their creation. My workplace blocks access to email right now, but I'm sure I will still have those emails detailing our correspondence over this issue. I have explained the situation to the user, Actual BuffyGuide here, hopefully this whole situation will be cleared up, because to be honest I am very confused as to why I was told that using the summaries was fine after contacting the site through, and now the user Actual BuffyGuide is stating that material has been used without permission? I will find those emails later when I have access to my email, and also email the web master again to find out what is going on? - Paxomen 11:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
There has now been a huge loss of work that has taken place but only one paragraph on these episode articles was claimed as a copyvio (the 'Summary' section of each). I will get into contact with the BuffyGuide web master today, and let you know what happens over these summaries because I was given permission to use these short summaries under an account representing the site. - Paxomen 11:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
In the future, permission of this kind needs to be sent by the site operator to permissions at wikimedia dot org. Otherwise, it's just your word against his. —Centrxtalk • 16:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible for the pages to be restored minus that content which is in copyright violation. There is a large body of work involved there and at least having the pre-March 2006 copies would be better than having to redo the articles from the beginning. Gatorsong 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I have done just that with several, though it is tedious. I will finish it now. —Centrxtalk • 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ugo Ihemelu

You recently deleted the page for this athlete, an established and current member of a professional team. The cached version accessible by google contains nothing more than the words "SOCCER SUCKS!!!" - but there's a version from wikipedia available on that is much more complete: [15]. What's going on here? If that original page requires deletion, there are a LOT more that you need to be deleting (not that you should). Bill Oaf 03:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the article in order to allow its improvement. Please provide some secondary sources for the information included in the article. Wikipedia is not a biographical directory. —Centrxtalk • 04:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring. I added two sources for the basic infobox contents in an External Links section, plus an interview with the guy. His article is pretty standard for US-based footballers, I'd say. Bill Oaf 04:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong

You have protected the article. I feel really sorry for this. If you would have followed the discussion on the talk page, you could've noticed that all additions were thoroughly explained without ambivalence, while the other party has now reached their goal: they didn't have to provide any sourced material or arguments to back up their claims. Yueyuen has received warnings about vandalism before. Also, there is already a mediator assigned to handle these issues, and if he cannot see what the disputes are about, there's no way we can proceed with the case. Therefore, I kindly request you to unprotect the article in question. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Blogs on Publications websites

Hi, regarding your comment: Those may be appropriate, but beware that it is the New Republic magazine and not a blog on the New Republic website. In the case of the Karsh article it was published in the "dead-wood" version, however it doesn't seem to me to be an issue. If a publication pays someone to "blog" and lends their name to the endeavor, how is that any different from any other published commentary they run? I can't remember who offhand, but a blogger for a magazine recently got fired for adding sockpuppet comments to his posts. These sorts of blogs therefore aren't actually self-published in sense of a normal blog. Comment? Armon 12:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe it was Lee Siegel at the New Republic -well, they posted an apology and shut down the blog. Armon 12:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The reason is the amount of process given to examining the content; a blog post may just be added by the author with no oversight and after being written in an hour. A piece in the published magazine had a lot more time spent on it, and had a lot more people at the magazine looking at it and verifying it. —Centrxtalk • 16:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a party to this dialogue, but am a professional editor, and just wanted to comment that the notion that a piece in a published magazine has all these many people spending time looking at it and verifying it is very funny! I'm not arguing with you, I understand the guidelines and agree with them, but to people who do this for a living it's deeply funny to realize that the public believes articles in magazines are closely scrutinized by smart people who proceed thoughtfully and verify everything, or that a whole bunch of people read it before it is published. Um not exactly! These days, a blog piece may quite well have had greater scrutiny and greater care taken for accuracy and a wider variety of people examining it before it is published. Just food for thought.DianaW 17:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Some magazines aren't up this standard and as sources they are less reliable, but there are magazines that are fact-checked and analyzed in this manner. Also, a second part of this that is specifically relevant to this case is that someone did decide that it was important enough to be included in a magazine with limited space, and someone did decide it was not defamatory. —Centrxtalk • 17:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Very true - and that 'someone' was often a lawyer. It's a pretty safe criterion at least in regards to legal liability.DianaW 18:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearfield High School

Dear Centrx,

I was hoping you could help me edit my Clearfield High School page...the table I created will not display some of the information regarding Assistant Priciples. If you could either make the changes and tell me how, or simply the latter of the two, I would greatly appreciate it.

Also, I want to create a page listing the Clearfield High School Student Government Officers as part of the history of clearfield High school, how can I do this without it being deleted?

Thanks for the time, Brogman

See Template:UtahSchool. The template can only use the specific keywords (such as "principal"). Creating your own "Assistant Principals" doesn't work. To use this particular template, it has to be "viceprincipal1", "viceprincipal2", and "viceprincipal3". Regarding the student government officers, information on Wikipedia must be verifiable in secondary reliable sources, such as newspapers and books. You cannot use the school webpage. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrxtalk • 17:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Buffy episodes

It looks like you deleted some Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes because they were copyvios. I'd like to bring them back and write them without copy vios, it will be easier than making them from scratch. Can you help me do this? Thanks, Peregrinefisher 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Alphington, Devon

Hi Centrx,

Could you please reinstate the article on Alphington, Devon, and I will assign references to anything I have sources and rewrite anything I cannot. Much of the article was my own writing and I'd appreciate being able to preserve that even if some of the offending material is removed.

Thank you

Jeff Steer

JeffreySteer 00:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have put it at User:JeffreySteer/Alphington, Devon. Please be more careful this time. —Centrxtalk • 00:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Autoblocks from a range

Could you perhaps explain this and this? You are the blocker, but I have no knowledge of why the range was blocked for a week.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

They're blocked because of a madman. Unfortunately it's also an ISP; I've unblocked it. —Centrxtalk • 05:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Madman?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Yes some will be dynamic and will change tomorrow, others not, The same will be true of open proxies generally. I think most are being blocked anon only, no account creation, which should limit the problems (I would guess though that with the IP addresses being available it will be a small fraction which have ever been used to edit wikipedia, let alone as tor nodes, the chances of someone coincidentally getting an IP blocked as tor is probably quite limited, also dynamic tends to mean within a limited range, so the tornode itself will likely be a future recipient of the same IP address - we might be doing range blocks the hard way). This comes back to some of the comments I made on the TawkerBotTorA RFA, this would actually be far better done in MediaWiki where the list could be bulk refershed on an hour to hour basis (or whatever). I need to get back to my Torbot proposal and keep a backend database of all those blocked, if they then don't appear as a tornode for (say) a week flag those up for unblock, though if I'm going to do that work I guess I should look at doing a suitable MediaWiki extension. --pgk 07:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You may have a good point though, I can't see any great evidence to suggest this is a major problem. As I've already mentioned the number of IPs impacted in the scheme of things is small. The point about current policy being erroneous (or being applied erroneously) is really arguing semantics, their isn't a "block proxy" button, we "uniquely" identify a proxy by it's IP.
The large number of proxies out there which stay proxies means it's just as much grief to go out every month and reblock all those which are still proxies (not to mention the large amount of effort in establishing if they are/aren't proxies, particularly given just because it checks out now doesn't mean it stop being a proxy, it may just be overloaded/offline at present (the latter being a problem with people running personal tor nodes or with misconfigured boxes)).
i.e. We seem to be setting ourselves up for a large amount of work either way, either rechecking every proxy on a rolling basis to reblock or rechecking every proxy on a rolling basis to unblock. Unless there is some evidence that this is a significant issue, it would appear to me that the cost of this outweighs the benefit. --pgk 10:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Swell (the band)

I was using wiki like I always do as a great resource. I wanted to look up something that I had seen previously on Swell, but now it's gone. Seems to seriously undermine wiki as a resource that someone can just delete an entry. Please consider putting this page back up so that people can use it.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; as such, articles must be neutral and verifiable in independent reliable sources. This article was a glowing, aggrandizing account without sources, and remained like that since its creation almost a year ago. —Centrxtalk • 21:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit protection on Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

I've unprotected this article, which was protected by you eleven days ago (and which only had the semi-protected article template at the top). If you really feel unprotection was in error, feel free to reprotect.  OzLawyer / talk  18:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the normal course of things. Please help out by unprotecting old protected pages at Wikipedia:List of protected pages, and it is good practice to watch pages unprotected as edit wars and/or vandalism often flare up again. —Centrxtalk • 22:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Heads up

I just received a very odd e-mail from an account with the name "Bobabobabo", asking to be unblocked. I was a bit confused, because I had never heard of this person's name, nor did the IP address they requested the unblock for match anything I could recall.

I mentioned this, and the user wrote back with another name (deleted as it might be real) claiming that the IP in question was a school IP and had been blocked by you. I took 30 seconds to look over your contribs, but the IP in question didn't appear there either.

Does any of this ring a bell? I'm wondering if you had any background you could provide me before simply plonking this guy in my spam filter.

Maury 21:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't bother looking for the NAME rather than the IP. I see he is apparently spamming everyone on the admin list. *sigh* Maury 21:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jordan

Can you not semi-protect this article - the last revert to restore material that is not a neutral presentation of the issue in violation of WP:BLP shows that established editors can't get it right either. Also - there is no notice RE it's protection status at the top. 22:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected it. It may end up protected again because it is a magnet for vandalism. —Centrxtalk • 22:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Tony Romo

Hi. Just to let you know I've unprotected this article, but will keep an eye on it. -- No Guru 23:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Kathy Kelly

I would like to try to recreate the Kathy Kelly article next Monday following her lecture. I should have a bead on some source material by then to put together a short biography that is not a copyvio. --Vees 03:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Keep in mind the content policies I mentioned above, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability (in reliable secondary sources); they can still be a problem even without copyvio issues. I have unprotected the page. —Centrxtalk • 18:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

List of people by name, etc.

Not a new idea, and not a chance. The Cats are important, but can't do the same job. Their real relationship is that descendants of Cat People are bringing the list finally into its own by offering the prospect of getting LoPbN close to complete. Check out the previous deletion discussions via the LoPbN pages.
--Jerzyt 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


See discuss in the Moonspell talk page about the notability tag you added on the article. Tell what are your reasons exactly. Cheers --Serte * Talk * Contribs 14:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Ok maybe not vandalism but definitely blanking; Dilip is not trying to dispute the content he initiates no discussion anywhere. All he did was removing sourced material that he does not approve. He then lies about it in the edit summary. --Yueyuen 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Chessmaster8x

I believe your indefinite block of Chessmaster8x is completely unjustified. While he may have been rather overzealous in attempting to censor the Wikipedia (and I completely disagree with his attempts), we should be assuming good faith, not vandalism. I can't see a single instance of blatant vandalism in his contributions - only the misguided good intentions of a new user. Blocking policy states that "caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith," and I don't think you did so in this case. There was no reason to block him at all, let alone indefinitely. If you were going to block the user, certainly a block with a duration measured in hours would have sufficed. Furthermore, not only did you deliver an overly heavy-handed block, you didn't even bother to issue a single warning to the user first. Can you illuminate me as to the reason for your actions, please? PMC 23:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a person previously blocked for other disruption, who created a new account. Also, these were not good-faith attempts to warn about vulgarity. One of the templates was "THIS PAGE HAS BEEN RED FLAGGED BY THE WEIKPEDIAN COMMUNITY AS A INAPROPRATE ARTICLE. THE AUTHOR IS ASKED TO REVISE THIS ARTICLE TO MAKE IT MORE ARPROPRITE." —Centrxtalk • 23:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, if it's a previously blocked user, I understand where you're coming from. Next time, could you please mention that in the block summary, as well as indicating the name of the user's old account? That would make your reasoning clearer and would help to prevent this sort of confusion in the future. PMC 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Wel, llongyfarchiadiau iti am dy fod di'n deall Lladin, ond basai hi'n well gyda rhan fwyaf y defnyddwyr ddarllen yr iaith Saesneg yma. Diolch. Arbitrary username 23:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is Celtic or Frisian or what, but it is more detached from English and not directly trivial to determine the meaning of the words. —Centrxtalk • 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:BEANS and George W. Bush

Before assuming those types of comments won't work, I encourage you to read (or at least the very end). Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason why that message worked is because it was clever and said "what you are doing is not unique"; the shining forever bit is also good. The George W. Bush part just says "Don't vandalize, it will be removed quickly", which isn't nearly as deterrent, is unlikely to be as effective with such a vandalism magnet as George W. Bush, and could be done by a MediaWiki page that goes on all pages—if it weren't a beans problem that also exposes the ugly underside of Wikipedia. —Centrxtalk • 03:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Scrubbing Roger Needham

First of all, thanks for cleaning out the vandal edits from the history of Roger Needham. I've got the tools to do that myself, but frankly it's such a pain and is so complicated that I'm afraid I'd make a mistake. So kudos to you for doing it.

That said, it turns out that you did remove one legitimate edit, an infobox I had put in (based on someone's request on the talk page). It's been noted and discussed at WP:AN/I#Deletion of revisions from Roger Needham. I don't think it's a big deal, but I figured you ought to be made aware. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 04:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


In this edit you called Adam Nicholson a sock account. Looking over his contributions I'm not seeing any particular reason why you would suspect this. I'm not faulting your removal of the horribly out of process poll, but why are you refering to him as a sock? --tjstrf talk 05:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

New users normally don't ask random Wikipedians to add entries to Wikipedia:List of banned users. There are a few other odd ones also. —Centrxtalk • 05:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
True... taken in conjunction with his "famous troll" questions on the reference desk, he's either a sock or else he really did spend way too much time trying to search out some trolls. I asked because his policy-breaching edits struck me as the "newbie who doesn't get it" type more than the "guy pretending to be a newbie" type. I see you're right now, after looking at Maorider's habit of asking really dumb questions at the reference desk, but it wasn't that apparent from a cursory scan. Not a problem then, thanks. --tjstrf talk 05:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Triga Films

Hey - only just noticed (shows how many times I check my watchlist, heh), that Triga Films has been deleted. I did not know this article had been up for deletion or prodding. I know it's a while ago now, but why was it deleted? I am not looking for a fight, I would just like to know, that's all =)

Cheers doktorb wordsdeeds 09:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Have a look over Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The issue is: why does this company warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia and are there reliable, secondary sources that we can use to make a proper article? If you think so, I can restore the article so you can work on it. —Centrxtalk • 09:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mayfair High School on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mayfair High School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --W.marsh 13:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Awiseman

Hey -- you blocked this guy for edit warring on the Mustafa Kemal Ataturk article. It might be helpful if you could leave a comment on his page about the block, since he was never informed about it (I declined his unblock request, as he was clearly edit warring). But I do have a question: should we not also block User:A.Garnet for the same edit war? He seems just as deeply involved, and did lots and lots of reverts. Mangojuicetalk 17:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Awiseman reverted more and was the one to technically violate 3RR; I didn't want to block everyone, and it was his odd text he was trying to insert. At least it's not part of the conspiracy. —Centrxtalk • 19:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

...User:BhaiSaab is edit-warring

...on Indian caste system again. [16] [17] [18]Hkelkar 18:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Takes two to tango. Perhaps you can look over our discussion on the talk page. BhaiSaab talk 19:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Automatic edit summaries

1. While preferable to the defaults, I don't agree that your wordings make it clear that the summaries weren't typed by the editors.
2. I've been paying careful attention to the recent changes, and your concern about "cluttering and using up the limited space available in the summary" is unwarranted. The linked text actually helps to draw attention to the edits, and it leaves enough space for MediaWiki:Autosumm-replace to display an ample amount of page text. In most instances, the limit isn't reached. When it is, here's an example of what's displayed:

Automatic summary: Replaced page with 'Chelsea Is the MOST AWESOME person ever..and justin worships her. So does Candace. And the rest of the world. She is ...'
(the edit in question)

Do you honestly feel that this is an insufficient indication of the edit's nature?
Meanwhile, the MediaWiki:Autosumm-blank‎ message is non-variable (Automatic summary: Blanked page). —David Levy 22:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have with it is more adding a long message that is just going to be repeated over and over again, and with a link to a Wikipedia page. The "Replacing page with" part is already going to be repeated endlessly, this just adds more; so, it is clutter, though using up the space may not be a big problem. How about "User blanked page" or "Editor blanked page"? These are neutral, non-self-references. —Centrxtalk • 22:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
1. I don't see why the repetition is a problem. These edit summaries are supposed to stand out. The link creates a single, easily identifiable phrase that people can watch for. (Otherwise, they have to seek two separate messages that blend in with ordinary edits because they lack the link at the beginning).
2. The Wikipedia:Automatic edit summaries page provides helpful information, and Van helsing, Schutz and I just improved it. —David Levy 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
How about just "Auto:" along the lines of "Robot:", but the problem there is it could be mis-interpreted as a bot or bot-like edit. In addition to being longer repetition, it is not in fact a summary of the edit. I can see adding it temporarily as this is a newly introduced feature, but in general this sort of meta-information by the software should not be in edit summaries. A passive past tense "Page was blanked" or a specifying the summary as by a third person ("User blanked page") is sufficient to indicate that the editor did not type in that edit summary (Though there was the editor who started referring to himself in the third person because I told him only to discuss content, not other editors). —Centrxtalk • 22:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Or another temporary possibility could be the link to the Wikipedia page, but without the extra visible verbiage. —Centrxtalk • 22:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
For some reason, Freakofnurture (who already had begun ignoring my messages on his talk page) just decided to revert back to the default wordings, falsely claiming that "summaries are usually written in the present tense, if it all." In fact, edit summaries frequently are written in the past tense, and that's how the long-standing administrative rollback message appears: Reverted edits by Last editor (talk) to last version by Previous editor
I sincerely appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter in good faith and arrive at a viable compromise, and I'm going to attempt to implement one of your ideas. —David Levy 00:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead of the Prem Rawat article

Is this better [19]? I am afraid that my edits will get reverted very soon. I oppose reverts justified by lack of consensus regardless of the quality of the edits. Andries 16:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


I am a friend of chessmaster8x sience he has been blcoked he wants me to tell you what he says:

"What is the article you claim I vandilized" Mwx10 17:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC) P.S.

 Please respond on my page. Thanks! Mwx10 17:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


You placed Notability tags on the following pages: Diabolique (band), Tiamat (band). You contributed no explanation on the talk pages as to the reason, and the articles are fairly cut and dry as to why they would meet notability guidelines per WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND. Also, what happened to the 'band page' for Crematory? Why did you redirect it to a non-related article? It appears you have done this with a few other (notable) band articles as well.--Danteferno 01:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence in the articles that these meet these guidelines. In addition, there are no reliable sources. These articles need sources independent of the band; they cannot just be information from the band website, from fan websites, or from commercial websites that use the blurb provided to them. —Centrxtalk • 01:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Each article has either an official website and/or record label website, and in addition, each band is distributed through a record label (a record label with a Wikipage) which has plenty of notability per Wikipedia guidelines. You still have not been specific/answered my questions. Also, why did you unprotect the pages? A banned, extremely abusive vandal (User:Leyasu) has been hitting them with a frequency of IP's and having these IP's blocked by Admin notice board reports has done relately little to stop him. --Danteferno 15:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
To note. Danteferno is banned from reverting more than once every 3 days. Also, he is the only person who calls Leyasu a vandal, and also calls everyone who disagrees with him a sockpuppet. Also, most of the Ip's and Users, have not been Leyasu. Ironically, their is major consensus against the majority of Danteferno's edits.
So feel free to keep editing Wikipedia. For information on Notablity however, please read this article for more information on Wikipedia Notablity guidelines. Happy editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 16:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)</small

Lebanese Australians


I thank you for removing the block on the 'Lebanese Australia' page. As you are aware many people have disputed the inlusion of a large list of criminals (many of them unheard of) in the list of Notable Lebanese Australians. Instead of deleting them again and starting another wiki debate etc, I would like to try to come up with resolution that will make all people happy. I think only the very major criminals names should be left on and the others be removed (though in reality I would prefer all be removed).

Please advise of a way forward.


Question about blocking me

Hello, I see you blocked me for edit warring at Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. I was editing in good faith and didn't think I was breaking the 3RR rule, but I'm not debating the block. My question is whether there is a policy about warning people before blocking them, and if there is some template or something that should be placed on their page to let them know they are blocked. I didn't receive a warning about it before being blocked, and I didn't receive a notice that I was blocked, I tried to edit something else and couldn't. If I had been warned about my edits at that page I would have stopped. I think a warning and notice would be good for future offenders. After all, people are warned about vandalism and such, right? Thanks for your time. --AW 03:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There are warnings that can be given, but it is evident you knew that this was not allowed, and it should be clear that it is not productive. Sometimes vandalism warnings are given, but for blatant bad-faith vandalism the person is often simply blocked. The problem with some responses to vandalism is the same here. Someone continues despite getting 4 warnings because he thinks he can get away with it, and then games the system with numerical technicalities in the three-revert rule. —Centrxtalk • 03:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I knew the basics of the 3RR rule, no more than 3 in a 24 hour period, and I thought I was following it - I realize now after talking with Mangojuice that I wasn't. But like I said, I would have stopped if I had been warned I was going to be blocked, and I think a warning would be good in most cases before a block. --AW 03:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Saw your save on the Rakion page. You play, or are you just a recent change patroller?

I only happened to come across it. (Or was I was searching for "breastman"...) —Centrxtalk • 18:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

Re [20] - you may well be right; I only put the tag up there because the page had been in Category:Wikipedia essays for a long time (and it still is there). (Radiant) 14:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


I've lost count of how many 'thank you' notes I've droppped on your page. This one is "Thank you for Protecting Christmas!" Your dedicated use of the mop-and-bucket are greatly appreciated. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Given nature of large block, wouldn't account creation allowed be better? Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the nature of the vandalism was exactly creating numerous accounts, which is facilitated by the structure of the AOL network so the usual limits on account-creation from an IP don't work. —Centrxtalk • 04:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiki should create another type of block: account creation disabled, but autoblock disabled as well. that way registered users won't get autoblocked. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 05:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, autoblocks only block if the IP was recently used by an account, not just if the IP was blocked. There is a feature to disable autoblocks, but it is largely useless. This block is anonymous only, so that users who already have accounts can still edit. —Centrxtalk • 05:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to the Burlington page

I'm curious... have you ever been to this location? Everything I said was quite true...

Even if I had been the one who put the rats in the Home Depot in the first place, reliable published sources would be needed to back up these statements. The threshhold for including information on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. —Centrxtalk • 08:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Warnings

This guy is a LONG LONG term advert spammer. He uses multiple IPs and whole proxy's have been blocked because of him. I also revert 8 incidences of spam. I'm not going to go and add the warning after each revert. Lots of reverts, then lots of usertalk warnings. It just keeps everyone sane (#wikipedia-spam) JoeSmack Talk 08:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I like the person to see that each action carries with it a response. Preference really. Also, I should have given him Template:spam4im from the very beginning because of his pernicious vandalism streak over the last week. JoeSmack Talk 08:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The correct title of this article is...

Just a thankyou for adding the lowercase template to the ionCube entry. Having discovered the existance of the template and surrounding discussion by chance this morning, I was about to add it myself and it was a surprise and slightly freaky for a moment to see that it was already added :) Moggie2002 09:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Capital punishment

Thanks for dong that, however, i notice you haven't added a template to the article to indicate it's status - is this now deprecated or was it simply an oversight? David Underdown 12:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Tommaso Onofri on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of the Tommaso Onofri AfD. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. ~ trialsanderrors 22:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

PLANS protection

Hi. I was just going through WP:PP#Full protection and one of the oldest is PLANS. Your comment there refers people to Talk:PLANS but there's been no activity there in 10 days. Thought you might like to know... —Wknight94 (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Swell (band)

Following on from our previous contact, I can confirm that Swell have been signed to the well-established Beggars Banquet label in the UK and American Recordings labels in the US, and undertaken numerous international tours. They have also received many reviews from notable music magazines and websites. As such this complies with three parts of the 'notability' requirement for entries.

If the band's entry is reinstated I would be happy to expand the band biography to include provable third-party links to album reviews etc.

Thanks for your time.

Karlcremin 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)



Hi Centrx,

I have read with interest many of your comments on notability and recently went through a rough exchange on a topic that I am convinced is notable but where I was outvoted by Wikipedians. In your opinion, can a company be considered notable when press mentions are few, but:

1. It offers services (or a combination of services) that have not previously been offered, and 2. Widespread adoption can be demonstrated?

Second question: When credible sources can be cited but are not available as links (e.g., textbooks or mentions in books that are not available online), does that lessen their credibility?

Lastly: If an authority in a field, or someone with extensive experience in a discipline, offers an opinion that something is notable, should that be considered evidence of notability?

I understand you are busy but hope you will share your thoughts, either here or wherever else you think would be an appropriate venue.Dgray xplane 22:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have taken these questions to Wikipedia talk:Notability as it is probably a better venue.Dgray xplane 15:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Consistently recreating banned pages

Hello, our good friend User:Fluence is consistently recreating A Bad Dream, an article deleted after a unanimous AFD nomination. He is using sock puppet accounts, friends and finally just resorting to B-movie villian style insanity ("I told you stubborn: A Bad Dream. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!") to recreate the article. Something really needs to be done about this user in general, and it's certainly beyond my power to do it (watching him takes up all of my Wikipedia time). Could you help? The Mekon 03:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

XPLANE deletion review

Hi Centrx, Would you mind weighing in on a deletion review for XPLANE? I would appreciate your opinion on the matter. Dgray xplane 15:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have been told this kind of request may be considered spam. Please forgive any rudeness, it was unintentional. I have read your comments on notability with interest.Dgray xplane 17:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In reading your talk page it is pretty evident you have bigger fish to fry :) Dgray xplane 08:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been away for a few days and did not follow up on my talk page correspondence. It looks like it will be undeleted and relisted at AfD. —Centrxtalk • 08:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

References for Francisco Antonio Doria

Tomorrow I'll add several references for my biography. Not now - it's 10:30 p.m. and I'm going to bed. Please take a look at the article on Newton da Costa and see if you want me to add some new references.


Francisco Antonio Doria


As you are already familiar with the issues on the Juan Cole page, would you be interested in mediating so that we can at least get agreement on what subjects are and aren't to be included. << armon >> 06:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not currently have the time to do this. —Centrxtalk • 06:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you suggest anyone else, or do you think it would be better to go to the Mediation Committee? << armon >> 06:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal is also another possibility. —Centrxtalk • 08:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare sprotect

Hi Centrx, thanks for agreeing to semi-protect William Shakespeare, noticed though that it has not been done, excuse the interruption if it isn't you who needs to do it, should I be raising that elsewhere? Thanks for any help. MarkThomas 11:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected. I just didn't put the tag on it because it is just unnecessary clutter. —Centrxtalk • 21:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have readded Mayfair cigarettes

Please dont remove perfectly good information from Wikipedia. 1B6 11:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Protectors of the Plot Continuum

20:49, 8 October 2006 Centrx deleted "Protectors of the Plot Continuum" (Old deleted-protected page)

I was wondering if you could explain this deletion to me. I'm not terribly familiar with Wikipedia policy and I know there had been a bit of warring edits going on, but I'm not sure why the article was deleted altogether. Do yo mind explaining? 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)A. Gallowglass

The page was originally deleted because it does not meet standards of notability required for an article to have reliable published sources, which are necessary. I only deleted the {{deletedpage}} template which had been placed because people had repeatedly re-created the page, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. —Centrxtalk • 21:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks fellow wikipedian, my thoughts were the same. --Eplack 00:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Another useless user page

Centrx: I found this user with nonsensical bibliography and no contributions to the encycleaopedia. The only link is to the user's myspace page. The vandal most likely created this profile for vanity purposes. I warned the user about their contributions at the lowest warning levels two times. --Eplack 00:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the page and blocked the IP for 48 hours. It is possible that the IP is no longer the same person, it will be transferred to someone else eventually. —Centrxtalk • 00:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Slugslinger copyvio?

You deleted Slugslinger as a CSD-G12 copyvio. Do you know what specific URL it seemed to be a copyvio of? I may not have the full picture, but the article appeared on Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations as a possible copyvio of, though that site is clearly a mirror of wikipedia. And the article has a history going back to November 9, 2005.

Anyway, the article has since been recreated from a copy of the earlier version... if it's not a copyvio, it would be good to restore its prior history. If it's still likely a copyvio, it needs to be deleted again. --Interiot 08:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is due to User:Mathewignash who was copying a lot of things from Transformer advertisements/product descriptions. It is difficult to detect these, though, and he at least hides them well now. So, I gave up, in lieu of getting the Transformer handbook or blocking someone who may very well not be copying them anymore. —Centrxtalk • 15:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


You removed the 'Criticism' section in the 'Think' article. I agree that the article needs more work. Which part you don't agree with? Intead of removeing it, it would be worth to discuss it. Ervinn 20:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not about agreement or disagreement with the information or criticism there, it is about having negative information in the article that is not well-sourced. Blogs and personal websites are the weakest kind of sources. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which pertains not simply to a main biography of a person, but to articles that involve living persons. —Centrxtalk • 20:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that negative information should be minimized, but I think the articale should be rewritten rather than deleted. The negative tone was probably over-used because the book did spoke negativelly without 'well-sourced' about an other work. Ervinn 22:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but until such time it should not be included. —Centrxtalk • 22:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OR about Jesus

Hello. Just my sense of humour. I understand full well the zero sum game nature of vandalism warnings (and 3RR for that matter). I just refuse to play it sometimes. I have seen 'recent changes patrollers' crap each other out about not giving the maximum warning, or giving a second-level warning after the vandal received a third-level warning. I think that's pathetic and refuse to play that game, but if I see an obviously unacceptable edit, I will revert it.

I reverted the fool's edit to the article, anyway, and then VandalBot got him. The Crying Orc 20:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:OTRS e-mails

There was a reason in this particular case: I'd asked one parent and received images from the other. I felt I needed to make the clarification. Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


thanks for your help - Hyperman 42 01:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Uchu no Kishi Tekkaman Blade II - Never Say, Never Again

deletion discussion said keep. why was the article deleted?--D-Boy 04:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is from over a year ago. Since that time, the article has been tagged as requiring cleanup, has had no content aside from the track listing and technical specifications, and has had no reliable published sources independent of the subject of the article. If you would like to improve this article by including non-trivial content about the album and its importance to the history of music or to the history of anime, and conform it to Wikipedia content policies by citing reliable published sources, I would be happy to restore it. —Centrxtalk • 04:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to improve it.--D-Boy 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Radio Mindanao Network

If it's possible, can you undelete Radio Mindanao Network? I've created a substub at the talk page. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 08:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrxtalk • 08:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. --Howard the Duck 08:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it

What would be the point of this "reversion" of your edit alleging to undiscussed deletions? (Radiant) 12:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yea, there's no deletion of anything there. Generally, he seems pretty angry and paranoid, and perhaps not quite sane, but he might merely be mistaken here. We will proceed with our vast deletionist conspiracy as planned. —Centrxtalk • 19:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Please restore the template. We have WP:TfD for a reason. This is not the way to go about it. I would hate to see a bunch of admins edit warring over this, it is no good for anyone. I would ask that you please restore it before I make further requests elsewhere. -- Stbalbach 21:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a deletion, either technically or effectively. Discussion about changes to templates occurs on the template talk page. There is discussion on the talk page on this matter, and agreement to make this change. I can revert it, but doing so would only be temporary and wasteful if you do not have any major reasons why this change is bad that would countervail the other discussion and the many people who agreed on the change. —Centrxtalk • 21:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Look, I'm sorry that's BS. Either restore it or I'm gonna start complaining loudly across boards and mailing lists about your personally. Your behavior here is borderline at best, your not following proper procedures, your trying to avoid the TfD process. Restore the template and put it up for TfD. -- Stbalbach 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Threats and insults are not appropriate, and my actions are not going to be a consequence of them. Since you think this matter warrants other administrative attention, I have brought it up here. With regard to the template, as I said, I can revert it but without reasons why the change is inappropriate with regard to the encyclopedia and the previous discussion, the revert is meaningless. —Centrxtalk • 22:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi, can you please take a look at this article? It has only one source. 22:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This article does need reliable sources and it will ultimately be deleted if they are not added. Edit warring, however, does not help. —Centrxtalk • 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you entirely as far as edit warring goes, I apologize that it was occurring on said page, thus I went to you. 00:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Block Length

I shortened the block length to fifty hours, per your comment on WP:AN. -- tariqabjotu 23:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


I was just asking another admin if he could do it and you protected it. I don't know if that was by chance or not, but thanks :) semper fiMoe 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources

Hi, these are some articles which may fall under the same category of 411mania:

Wrestling Spirit, Extreme Warfare, Adam Ryland, Scott Keith 00:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

your user page formatting

Hello. No need to reply; just FYI. On my monitor & using firefox, the tocright on your userpage means that your "useful links" list overlaps the toc, and looks quite yukky. :-) --Ling.Nut 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC

Thanks for adding the refs

But could you please use the cite book template so all of them are formatted consistently? Just dumping the information is as you have done is only half of the job of putting a reference in. Honestly, you've been around long enough that you should know this. pschemp | talk 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This template does not appear to be able to accommodate the bibliographic information for these source, specifically: the s.v. standardly used to indicate the particular entry in a dictionary or encyclopedia from which the information was retrieved; the secondary nature of the sources, that the information was obtained from the Oxford English Dictionary and not directly from the original source; and that the bibliographic information (which is not from the unchanging Second edition) was retrieved on some date from some URL. —Centrxtalk • 21:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
then perhaps you should use the cite web template instead. If you are retrieving this from a web site, it includes a retrival date.

Moved comment to talk page of artilce, its long so I don't want to clutter your page up with redundancy. pschemp | talk 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The cite web template has similar problems. Unfortunately, sometimes every little bit cannot be pristinely uniform, but the information is as important as the publishing information for establishing the link from the text to the original source. —Centrxtalk • 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)