User talk:Central

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. See the block log.

Contents 1 Please post concise, ontopic replies 2 IP_law_girl 3 Eschatology section 4 Comment 5 Improper block by NicholasTurnbull 6 HLC directives 7 Re: linking to copyright works 8 Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NicholasTurnbull 9 I have archived our discussion 10 re: editing posts of others on Mediation page 11 Call for a vote 12 Arbitration 13 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein 14 Hey, can we talk? 15 Image Tagging Image:Fireworksxyz.jpg 16 Final decision 17 Blocked for parole violation 18 Blocked for parole violation 19 NPOV, Jehovah's Witness related articles 20 Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses 21 Banned from Jehovah's Witness related pages 22 Blocked for violation of personal attack parole 23 Image Tagging for Image:Raymondfranz.gif

[edit] Please post concise, ontopic replies

Hi Central. Please try to limit the size of your replies on the JW page. If someone mentions something off-topic, don't respond to it rather than going into depth. It clogs up the talk page with unnecessary comments. Let's try to stick to the topic at hand. BTW, don't this is aimed just at you. You're just the first I asked! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Konrad, I agree with you. It's difficult keeping it simple when you are being bombarded by JWs with a thousand and one diversions, straw men arguments, and red-herrings to take the focus off the subject, and blur the meaning. It's a classic trick of the Governing Body of JWs, and one they follow with pride. Central 10:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on that, lest I lose the fragile semblance of semi-impartiality I'm trying to hold on to. ;) But thanks for being nice about it. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IP_law_girl

IP_law_girl is not connected to Retcon/Missionary. Nor is she connected to Netministrator or Steven Wingerter.

Why do you refuse to assume good faith? - CobaltBlueTony 21:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

CobaltBlueTony, I assume no good faith as I am not as naïve as you. Everything I have said has come to pass as correct, those names you have just listed are all one person as the IP check confirms. I will look forward to your humble apology. Central 10:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eschatology section

Hi Central. I noted your ideas about the eschatology section. Since these points are historical, I'm not sure if they should appear when discussing current JW beliefs. The history section is pretty superficial as is and I'm not sure these would fit there.

I thought it fit into the eschatology section since that section is historical and explains the major difference between Russell and Rutherford on Christ's Return:

Russell believed in 1874 Christ actually returned to the earth invisibly. So, Russell taught all the "dead in Christ" were resurrected as spirit beings in 1878 and were with Christ here on earth. For nearly 50 years the Watchtower Society taught that Paul, Peter, John, and all the others of the Bride of Christ were raised in 1878 as spirit beings to be here with Christ on earth (not in heaven.)

Rutherford (after about 1925) believed that Christ remained in heaven when he "returned" and did not actually come to the earth. ("Return" is understood metaphorically.) He first retained the 1874 date but changed that to 1914 around 1930 or so. So, that's why he (and JWs since then) believed the "dead in Christ" were raised to heavenly life in 1918.

I never really understood this until recently and it explained a lot of what I'd read from Russell and Rutherford's era.

Dtbrown 05:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Dtbrown, thank you for your comments and reply. That information definitely should be in there, it's just I was worried it might start to grow too big and distract from the main subject of eschatology dates/prophecies for Armageddon. As you said the history bit is a bit superficial, and could do with some more in it. The related stuff like salvation, which would included all the changing doctrines over the years related to what you have just spoken of might also be a place to add some more into. Thanks again for your input, it's appreciated. Central 15:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I think it would be best for all involved to give Missionary/Retcon (I will use Retcon because it is the oldest of the accounts) a chance to redeem himself, and for all parties to terminate the inquisition against him. Using a sockpuppet or changing to a different account to escape unwanted criticism is permitted at Wikipedia. If his actions had been limited to that, I would not have responded to Tommstein's request at all as an ill-founded request. However, what led me to respond were two factors: one, that Retcon had fraudulently attempted to mislead people into believing he and Missionary were different people, and two, that he created at least one impersonation account, impersonating a person who he was clearly at odds with.

In any case, Retcon has acknowledged and apologized for his inappropriate acts; Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy all but requires to accept his apology and move on. So let's please do so. I'd especially call on Tommstein and Central to lay off the rhetoric; it will not help defuse the situation. Personal attacks (such as Central calling Retcon a "compulsive liar") are neither helpful nor welcomed. There is bad blood on both sides of this issue, and frankly I'd like to see y'all work this out on your own with civility, rather than escalating the situation to the point that intervention by the Arbitration Committee is required. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Kelly, Calling someone a compulsive liar is technically correct if they have lied compulsively and habitually and we have clear evidence of. But, to keep the peace I will refrain from using such provocative language, but you must understand some here are very angry at the level of underhand sly deception used to try and win, manipulate and sabotage an argument, and all orchestrated by Retcon and his fantasy characters, and to add insult to injury we have had our intelligence insulted by his constant attempts to hide this clear reality. Thanks for your comment; I will not use that label anymore. Central 10:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improper block by NicholasTurnbull

As you may have noticed, NicholasTurnbull blocked me on New Year's Day for reasons that Konrad West and I hold to have been abusive. Should you agree that this was uncalled-for abuse, please address it on NicholasTurnbull's Talk page, and also my and Konrad West's Talk pages if you see fit. This is in line with WP:RFC policy dictating that at least two people must certify that there is a legitimate cause for complaint; Konrad West and I count as two, but the more the merrier.Tommstein 19:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. It was outrageous bias and a gross misuse of power in my opinion. I was going to post a comment under the one on your page, but it might have been "too controversial" LOL. Does Wikipedia have a private message function? I will have to give you my email somehow, maybe on another site, and let you know what I really think (the uncensored version). It looks like George Orwell was correct, and we entering a new age of Stalinism and "thought crimes". I do get the feeling there is more to this than meets the eye. I'm sure a certain someone has been furiously spamming the administrators with nasty malicious stuff, and you know whom I'm talking about, and this has led to this situation. I also get the distinct feeling that some personal bias involving JWs are involved as well, especially when some minor edit of yours about the publications was dragged up and falsely accused of being POV. I'm referring to this ("This edit was a reinsertion of an unsourced POV claim that non-JWs were widely considered to be beyond redemption. I warned him regarding NPOV issues.") Yes, there is more going on that has been said, I'm sure of it. I mean, how can someone get through all the mountain of posts on that topic, with all the number of direct quotes, and then come out with that kind of hopelessly uniformed opinion of what constitutes as POV? Enough said, I will talk to you some other way. Central 23:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Central, there is an Email User function you'll find on the left of the page under the search box. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that tip Konrad! :0) Central 15:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HLC directives

Hi Central. I just noticed that you added a link to David Gladden's PDF version of a letter about the HLC arrangement. I was wondering if you could clarify:

• The date of the PDF on David's site is 22 Dec 05, when the letter itself is date 3 Jan 06. Did David get a copy before it was released, or might this be a fake?
• What is the difference between the 1995 and 2006 versions, apart from more information?
• And just because I'm interested, why do you think they asked the elders to destroy the 95 one? Is there anything damaging contained in it?

Thanks. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Konrad, as far as I'm aware that letter is 100 percent genuine. It's usual practice to post date letters, well at least it is with the Watch Tower, so that bit is not something that would make it dubious. There are also several people (I'm not naming names) who know contacts in the New York Bethel, and regularly leak up coming information, letters etc. I know if false information were circulating, it would quickly be ousted and debunked, especially from more vigilant members who post on http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/default.ashx as some posters have contacts in Bethel.

As for your last question, about destroying older versions, well, it's anyone's guess. It might just be due to not wanting old views around that might be mistakenly given out if the files were still held. Might also be information changes that are felt best to hide, or discreetly erase their history. There might be stuff on it that is embarrassing, I don't know I haven't read it all, just skimmed it. There is an interesting story in Franz's book, Crisis of Conscience where Franz speaks about a print run of, I think it was hundreds of thousands of pages, of a commentary on James, but due to one part having a disputed minor phrase or something minor like that, they called for the entire print run to be destroyed. Looking at the way they persecuted and sued an ex-members over their past quotes, you can see they would be happier if they could erase all their history and make it inaccessible to all members, as this would save them a big headache later when the rank and file have done some research, and they start asking embarrassing questions. Central 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by David Gladden: I obtained an advance copy from an inside contact who works in the Watchtower Society. The authenticity of the letter can be verified by contacting the Watchtower Society’s Office of Public Information:

Office of Public Information 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, New York 11201-2483, Fax: (718) 560-5619 Questions from the media or researchers: (718) 560-5600 All other general requests for information should be directed to: (718) 560-5000

Regarding the differences between the letters. Below are links to both the 1995 and the 2006 letters so anyone can compare and contrast:

Jan 3, 2006 - http://www.davidgladden.com/jw/Docs/CCJW_HLC_letter.pdf

Jan 3, 1995 - http://www.davidgladden.com/jw/Docs/HLC_1995_01_03_1.pdf

Why do I think the elders were instructed to destroy the 1995 letter? I suspect the reason is purely administrative in nature... they wanted to prevent elders from accidentally referring to old policies. Anytime the Watchtower Society sends out instructions or directions that could be incriminating, they have a Circuit Overseer or District Overseer visit the elders and read a letter to them and then refuse to allow the elders to make any copies or audio recordings. Basically the incriminating instructions are giving verbally so there won't be any paper trail.

[edit] Re: linking to copyright works

Central, I appreciate your replies on the JW talk page. I had a response drawn up, then another user clarified the linked pages, so I did not post it. Suffice it to say that I do not agree with the position that my judgements defame others sites; it is my responsibility to judge my use of other sites, including linking to them. Nor do I agree that Wikipedia editors do not set Wikipedia policy. Good edits, SteveMc 03:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NicholasTurnbull

I have filed a Request for Comments regarding my (in)famous New Year's block at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NicholasTurnbull. You may wish to provide your two cents there. Since you addressed the issue with NicholasTurnbull on his Talk page, please do at least certify the dispute under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute".Tommstein 07:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have filed a view that is friendly to me, but also endorsed a view from Aranda56 that is the opposite (it calls the entire Request for Comments "a revenge or a bad faith RFC"). I don't propose to tell you what to do, I only wish to highlight what seems to be a contradictory stance on the page which you may or may not wish to correct.Tommstein 06:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom you are correct. I misread the post, and thought that Aranda56 was referring to NicholasTurnbull, not you. I have re-evaluated it and realise she|he is referring to you, I was mistaken, so I have removed my signature. Central 10:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have archived our discussion

The entirety of it can be found (Here). If you are interested in a continuance of the discussion please provide me with your e-mail address, or e-mail me using the available address on my user page. Duffer 10:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm archiving the other one that your devious JW friend deleted and hoped no one would notice. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cobaltbluetony/Discussion_with_Central&oldid=34361225 Central 00:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: editing posts of others on Mediation page

Cobaltbluetony and Central, I am trying to follow some of the suggestions on Wikipedia:Civility especially those under the subsection on Rephrasing disputants comments. My intent is to keep the tone civil and on topic on the Mediation page. The notes that remain in the Mediation text points the users to deleted text, so if they still want to read it, they can go to the history.

I do not favor, nor does the Mediation Cabal, admonitions, so I try to avoid those.

I am taking a little liberty here, since it is mediation, albeit informal. Your protest is so noted.

I do not have the authority, not do I want the authority, to "zap" history. It is all still there.

Thanks,

SteveMc 18:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, if you believe that your edits are "bastardized" please change them, but following the requested protocol. Thanks, SteveMc 19:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Central, FYI: I moved your protest off of the main Mediation page, to the talk page. Thanks, SteveMc 19:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for a vote

Please register your vote on the topic at Mediator is damaged? Thanks, SteveMc 19:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I have requested arbitration regarding Tommstein. I have mentioned your behavior as well. You will find the request here (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Tommstein). Duffer 11:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mackensen (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, can we talk?

Hey Central. I was hoping we could chat a bit in email about the JW article and some ideas around size reduction. Please email me or leave me a note. joshbuddy [at] gmail [dot] com joshbuddy 07:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Fireworksxyz.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Fireworksxyz.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Sherool. The image of some fireworks was an already existing image on Wikipedia. I used it by linking to it to wish someone a happy birthday, and then someone deleted it. I reposted it, and that's about it. It's not my original picture, maybe you can track the history and see who originally posted it, as I don't know where the original came from, but I know it was on Wikipedia for some time. I think quite a lot other Wikipedia pages are linked to that image also. Obviously, it's up to you if you delete it, as I have no say, and it doesn't affect me. It might be better to track down the original user who posted it. Thanks for your reply. Central 11:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein case. Raul654 13:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for parole violation

Hello. I have blocked you for 24 hours for violation of your personal attack parole, as detailed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tommstein#Central_placed_on_personal_attack_parole, because of this edit. Please learn to respect and follow Wikipedia policies reagrding civility and personal attacks. Thank you.--Sean Black ^(talk) 03:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Sean Black for your clear bias in restricting free speech, and your lack of understanding of what is a 'personal attack'. The alleged "example" you give above is not one, but that doesn't seem to be important to you. And thank you for not bothering to tell me here on my page that you were putting me on some kind of thought crime "probation" based solely on a hate campaign by Jehovah's Witnesses, namely Matthew McGhee (Duffer1), who attends attends Jehovah's Witnesses Willamette Congregation, Eugene, Oregon, USA. Your bias has been noted, especially when one looks at the massive quantity of attacks from Matthew McGhee (Duffer1) and his fellow Jehovah's Witnesses posters with his multiple list of Personal Attacks, Civility Breaches, Good Faith Violations, etc. and yet none of them are on any kind of "probation". Do you think no one has noticed your open misuse of power and your clearly personal biased restrictions towards me?

I also find it fascinating that a you openly admit:

"I'm 15 years old. . . I'm a geek, interested mostly in geeky things, Doctor Who. MST3K, Star Trek, you name it. I'm an administrator here."

It's refreshing to see Wikipedia keeping the intellectual and administrative standards so very high:

"I like Doctor Who. it's my favorite television show by far, and well, it's awesome. . . In my spare time, I like to play with toys. Now, that sounds childish, and I don't really care. If I'm not a kid-at-heart, then I'm just a genuine kid, and I don't intend on changing anytime soon :). Specifically, I dig well done licensed action figures (say Marvel Legends), LEGO bricks, Transformers"

It's fascinating that when Wikipedia cannot find enough responsible balanced adults to it has chosen to give administrative powers to children who are still at the developmental stage of playing with Lego bricks and Transformers. I wonder if it will expect respect for this decision? I have to say I think Wikipedia is doomed if this state of affairs continues. Central 11:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Bravo!!! Central you speak the TRUTH!!! Robust Physique 01:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for parole violation

Hello. I have blocked you for 24 hours for violation of your personal attack parole, as detailed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tommstein#Central_placed_on_personal_attack_parole, because of this edit. Please learn to respect and follow Wikipedia policies reagrding civility and personal attacks. Thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV, Jehovah's Witness related articles

Dear Central: Firstly, I would like to thank you very much for you contributions to Wikipedia, and do hope that all has been well with you. I have recently been looking at your edits to Jehovah's Witness related pages, and thought that I should draw your attention to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; if you have not read this policy, you may find it useful to do so, as it will assist you in ensuring that your Wikipedia contributions are accepted by other editors and written to an encyclopaedic standard. There is also a tutorial, Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, which you may find of interest. The NPOV policy, summarised, basically states that the writer shouldn't have a point of view and writes from the perspective of a tertiary, neutrally-presented source on the factual subject, without containing editorial bias. To give you some examples of where you were going wrong, so that you can watch for the future: edit, reversion, link to non-neutral source. If you have any further questions or concerns relating to the NPOV policy, or anything else relating to Wikipedia, please do drop me a line. Once again, thank you for your Wikipedia contributions. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello NicholasTurnbull, thank you for your comments. I do find some of them objectionable and biased. The first example you give is cleaning up the "persecution" page, which is full of highly biased un-referenced edits from JWs, but seems to have completely passed you by with no comment at all, why is that may I ask? I attempted to clean it up, and make it more encyclopaedic and neutral, and you have a go at me. Secondly, the edit in the header of the main JW article that you give, is also a NPOV edit by me. Again, you missed, or ignored the fact that previous to that there was a large "Nazi persecution" propaganda sentence dropped in to bias the rest of the entire article in favour of JWs, and to give them subjective sympathy, this is as you know, highly POV and not remotely encyclopaedic. I added some balance and you then attack my edit, but completely ignore the biased JW propaganda primer planted at the head of the page. Thirdly, you complained about a "non-neutral source" for the United Nations controversy, but all the articles are critical that's why it's highly controversial, and they are external references only. If you have some references or links you claim are neutral then feel free to add them on. May I also remind you that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that edits should be based on solid evidence not the opinions of a group of Jehovah's witnesses ganging up on any non-Witness and persecuting them, harassing them, and vandalising their edits. Thank you for your contribution. Central 09:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel I must point out that the two most currently active editors, user:Joshbuddy and user:Dtbrown, are not Jehovah's Witnesses. Duffer 09:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Joshbuddy definitely is a JW, as are you, and many others. Central 10:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I assure you, he is not. We have spoken privately via e-mail on the subject. Duffer 10:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Central, your friend KonradWest seems to be okay with Josh. Why can't you be as well? - CobaltBlueTony 14:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a JW. I have no pro-Witness agenda (or any agenda aside from making the articles well written) joshbuddy^talk 17:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses

The issue here is not one of proof. Its about how awkward you've made the prose, and how far out of line it is with WP:NPOV. I would encourage you to use {{fact}} or {{POV-check}} instead, both far better mechanisms than mangaling the article. Thanks! joshbuddy^talk 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned from Jehovah's Witness related pages

Dear Central: Based on the above assumptions of poor faith that you hold on both my part and that of other editors, coupled with your persistent aggressive editing stance, continued characterisation of edits that you disagree with to be vandalism ([1], for example) and misleading insertion of links to critical POV sites into article text without marking these sources as such ([2]) I am hereby banning you from all Jehovah's Witness-related pages. It seems clear that polite discourse is not sufficient to prevent you from disruptive editing thus I am left with no choice. I am placing this ban from article editing as per the Arbitration Committee's probation ruling which states that administrators may ban you from pages that you are disrupting by inappropriate editing. You may, however, continue to post suggestions on the talk pages of Jehovah's Witness related articles, provided that they are in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Please also feel free to edit elsewhere other than on Jehovah's Witness articles. Should you require further assistance, please let me know. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for violation of personal attack parole

Central, please make an effort to keep a polite and civil tongue in your head. Making personal attacks on other editors isn't appropriate, even if you think they've done something incorrect. For [this edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I have blocked you for 24 hours in accordance with the terms of your personal attack parole. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well enjoy your cheap thrills and persecution fest while you can. Did it get you all excited blocking my account and abusing anther's basic free speech and Human Rights? Maybe you can fantasize what it would be like to blow someone's brains out for daring to question you or NicholasTurnbull, would you like that, does that kind power excite you? Remember—what goes around comes around, and you can go tell that to your Scientologist cult member/victim buddy, NicholasTurnbull, who freely admits he has severe mental heath problems on his own user page! He posted about himself there: "This user is currently experiencing mental health issues that may affect his or her ability to work on Wikipedia. Please bear in mind that these issues may temporarily affect this user's judgement, and the user may occasionally be unable to carry out their usual Wikipedia duties." And silly me thought having administrators who are 15-year-old self confessed geeks who love Lego and other infantile toys was bad enough, now we have a 17-year-old, self-confessed mentally ill Scientologist cult member as an administrator, and none of you say a single word about his judgments, but prefer to ban me for daring to question him as he acts like a supreme highness of Scientology. I guarantee he will have a lot more mental heath problems soon. Have a nice day! PS. You can abuse my rights some more now, as I know you are dying to get that power abuse thrill out of your system, maybe ask some friends to join in, it might appease your conscience doing it as a group act. Central 20:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when all you do is make personal attacks? joshbuddy^talk 21:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Central, WP:NOT an experiment in free speech. There is no right to free speech on Wikipedia. As for "Human Rights", your trite comparison of your treatment to abuse of human rights is shameful and disgusting, considering how there are people who's rights are being genuinely abused elsewhere in the world. I think is is clear that if either of us has mental problems, comparatively it appears to be you. As for referring to me as a "Scientologist cult member" - if you'd taken the time to read my user page, you'd notice that I stated that I had left the Church of Scientology, so such characterisations are frankly ridiculous. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Raymondfranz.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Raymondfranz.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 17:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)