Content deleted Content added
WP:NPA warning |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
(179 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
== Welcome ==
Scientologist. Feel free to ask questions.
Line 75 ⟶ 76:
== Quentin Hubbard ==
It's widely sourced that Quentin is gay. As you are a Scientologist yourself, I can't help but see your motivations and would like to ask your from refraining in removing the LGBT people category from this article as it belongs there just as much as say, [[Rock Hudson]]'s article. It's fact, not allegation. ~[[User:Zythe|<b
:What has gay to do with me being a Scientologist? And as for "facts" in the article, I invite you to familiarize with WP:ATTRIB or WP:RS and have a look at WP:BIAS. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 21:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::I'm well aware of all those. And I'm not biased, I just think it's sourced very heavily. Also, your comment on my talk page was very rude, but nevermind.~[[User:Zythe|<b
== Removal of sources on [[Inside Scientology]] ==
Line 116 ⟶ 117:
== Catherine Bell ==
Hi! You removed the source for Catherine Bell's status in scientology. Your reasoning makes sense, but can you provide a reliable source for the date of her entry into Scientology and her status as a Clear? If you'd like to dicuss this further, please do so on the [[Talk:Catherine Bell|talk page]] for the Catherine Bell article. [[User:Enuja|Enuja]] 19:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
:: Ask for '''Source 139''' in your nearest org. You'll notice that she is indeed clear. "as far as I know" is not really a source - it is very likely that for whatever reason, she didn't contact you when she went clear to tell you these "good news". --[[User:Tilman|Tilman]] 18:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::: You might consider yourself a cynic, but that is not true. You are a just a poor joke. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I think I do not understand your argument there. My point is that her being clear is properly sourced, while "as far as I know she is not" isn't. --[[User:Tilman|Tilman]] 18:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
== Removals ==
Line 125 ⟶ 129:
This comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L._Ron_Hubbard&diff=121469050&oldid=121460721] in the edit summary: ''you must be on drugs or you did not read the book'' is uncalled for. Please respect [[WP:NPA]]. --[[User:Tilman|Tilman]] 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:In the US this is a pretty normal saying. Sorry, I forgot for a moment that you are coming from this country where the Nazis ruled not long ago. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 18:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::And ''that'' statement you just made is also a highly inappropriate personal attack. Comment on '''content''', ''not'' '''contributors'''. Thanks. [[User:Smee|Smee]] 18:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
:::Spreading hate sites is not debatable content. It falls back on the "contributor" and his motives. And yours as well. What agenda are you running here? [[User:COFS|COFS]] 18:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::::There is no hate site. As I explained to you, the site has compiled information from official scientology publications. --[[User:Tilman|Tilman]] 18:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
== Reported for 3RR Violations ==
*You have been reported for violating [[WP:3RR]]. Please see [[WP:AN/3RR]]. Thank you. [[User:Smee|Smee]] 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
: Thanks for watching. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 18:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::Checking the times, you actually gave a bit of an answer on the question above. Does your agenda relate to silencing those who try to uncover the anti-Scientology scam on Wikipedia? [[User:COFS|COFS]] 18:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I will not respond to violations of [[WP:NPA]]. [[User:Smee|Smee]] 18:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
::: There have not been any violations of [[WP:NPA]]. But you do respond in your own way, by reporting 3RR without warning, by smearing me on the Admin board. That it your way. I prefer direct and straight talk. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 18:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::::You should really take the time to read [[WP:NPA]]. Please do also observe the dialogue between other scientology critics and scientologists in other discussions. You will notice that it is often very civil, despite what the people may really be thinking about each other. It is certainly helpful to avoid these personal attacks in a "closed" environment like Wikipedia, where the "valuable final product" (to use a scientology expression) are excellent articles. --[[User:Tilman|Tilman]] 19:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
== [[WP:NPA]] warning (2) ==
This remark [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACOFS&diff=121473763&oldid=121473730] ''you are coming from this country where the Nazis ruled not long ago'' is uncalled for. Please respect [[WP:NPA]]. --[[User:Tilman|Tilman]] 18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:Why, is this not true? I tell you one last thing, Tilman: The way you treat Scientologists, your arrogant cynicism, in your personal article on Wikipedia (and backing website) and in your behavior in repeatedly violating [[WP:EL]], is absolutely uncalled for and violates any good manners you might have been trained in as a kid. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 18:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::I have been nice within wikipedia. My personal article in wikipedia is edited by others (I have understood months ago that it's not a small no-no, but a BIG NO-NO to edit there myself). I also believe that I have taken care not to violate [[WP:EL]]. --[[User:Tilman|Tilman]] 18:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::: Putting personal websites (back) in articles in a violation of [[WP:EL]]. Learn. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 18:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
== Blocked ==
<div style="padding:5px; border:1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#FEC;" class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left]] You have been [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:24 hours|a period of '''24 hours'''|a short time}} in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for violating the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]] {{{{{subst|}}}#if:[[Sterling Management Systems ]]|on [[:[[Sterling Management Systems ]]]]}}. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] rather than engaging in an [[WP:EW|edit war]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text <nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{signature|}}}|[[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
COFS, you might want to check out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Miscavige#Uncited_negative_information_about_a_living_person.3F this]. I am not a supporter of the cabal theories on Wikipedia, but this one might be worth a better look. [[User:CSI LA|CSI LA]] 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks. Looks like the whole copyright discussion is none. Clear legal status here. Thanks, [[User:DESiegel|DES]]. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 20:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks. My interest in that page was in correcting misinformation about copyright law (I subject I have soem knowledge of) and not particualrly in Scientology, for or against. It is pure coincidience that I was involved with both that page and your 3RR situation. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
==Please stop your vandalism==
I ask you to stop vandalizing the [[Free Zone (Scientology)]] article. You removed the freezoneamerica link and the Idenics link. Idenics is a freezone practice. --[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 22:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:First, look up WP:VANDAL. You have misunderstoods sitting there. Then, look at WP:EL, because the whole article has NO CONTENT but is a link list and should be nixed since a long time. Start providing information about this practice that would justify a link to more information. Start providing ANY CONTENT about your group. Otherwise you are susceptible to the accusation of commercial promotion. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There are no misunderstoods, COFS. You removed links without a discussion. That is what vandals do. You are clearly not a neutral editor here. There is no commercial promotion any more than a link to a cofs group is a commercial promotion.--[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 23:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:You have no say on this if your only contribution to this article is the addition of more promotional links instead of beefing up the article with some CONTENT. You are not neutral on this page nor on any other Scientology-related issue and I would not expect that (how should that work) but I am calling on you to at least SHARE YOUR INFORMATION in an encyclopedic article. I am not editing the article because I probably could not refrain from snide remarks and I have not enough information about you guys to structure a whole article. But you can and you are not doing it. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It appears to me that you do not understand what the word "content" means. Links are valid content as well. You cannot cite a wikipedia policy stating to the contrary because such a policy does not exist. Please be civil in your discussions.--[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:Itis not true, that "links are content": [[WP:NOT#DIR]]. Can't you write ANYTHING? Check it out, I just put some content in there. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 23:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Your citation does not refute that links are not content. If you are truly curious about my editing, I suggest you look at my user contributions.
In the meantime, I advise you to knock off your incivility.--[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:I am not curious about your editing. I just do not accept articles to be "Directories". If I'd agree to that I could add hundreds of links to the Scientology articles. [[WP:CIVIL]] Yes, Sir. Now, how about adding some content to the FZ article? [[User:COFS|COFS]] 00:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
To quote you, "Can't you write ANYTHING?" As you deny you are curious about my editing, I take your remark as incivility. Knock it off.
Also, I choose which articles I edit. Your agenda is for you.--[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 00:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:Over and out. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 00:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
== Smee's interpretations of NPA ==
*Please Stop. Take the time to read through [[Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks]]. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catherine_Bell&diff=121778012&oldid=121757328 DIFF] is highly inappropriate. [[User:Smee|Smee]] 02:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
**Huh? What are you talking about Smee. She is not attacking another editor. She is not even attacking Kristi which might be a [[WP:BLP]] vio but it is not as there is no attack. False accusation of [[WP:PA]] is serious business. Please be more circumspect and stop looking to get other editors that you do not like in trouble. --[[User:Justanother|Justanother]] 04:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:I am confused and could not find relief in re-reading WP:NPA. Are we looking at the same DIFF, i.e. :this one here:
<i>Tilman about KW's site: "It is not a personal site." That is interesting. So it is governmental? Educational? Commercial? Kristi Wachter's Scientologist Smearing Service Ltd.? She must spend a lot of time doing that and I always wondered who pays her - a non-Scientologist with a broke record label and no relation to Scientology at all - to do all the smear work. Quite interesting. Tilman, are you planning to come to the US in the next weeks? COFS 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)</i>
I do not know why you feel attacked by this statement (or any Wiki editor working on the Catherine Bell article). Kristi is known to smear Scientologists in her own cynic way (and that is easy to document, simply Google her or just by going on her sites). She runs several websites with the sole and [http://www.scientology-lies.com/kristi.html advertised purpose] to stop Scientology. She has every right to have her own opinion about Scientology and say it to whoever listens but normally people are not that hyperactive about such issues without untold motives, like a personal story or being paid. It does not matter much for Wikipedia since the motive and the fact that the website is personal does disqualify it as a reliable source. Why Tilman does not agree, well, I don't know. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 04:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
*''I always wondered who pays her - a non-Scientologist with a broke record label and no relation to Scientology at all - to do all the smear work. Quite interesting. Tilman, are you planning to come to the US in the next weeks? '' - If this is ''not'' a personal attack, what specifically were you implying and attempting to convey when you wrote this and clicked the save button??? [[User:Smee|Smee]] 07:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
**Kristi is not an acknowledged editor here so NPA does not apply to her. Do you mean asking Tilman about coming to the US? What in the world is wrong with that? His trip(s) to the US to picket Scientology churches is/are documented on his website. Please stop trying to get other editors in trouble and please stop trying to score points for future trouble, especially by misrepresentation and false accusation. --[[User:Justanother|Justanother]] 12:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
***This is a done deal. The commentary was obviously highly inappropriate, and was not about the content of the article, but about attacking individuals. Let's all just leave it at that. Thanks. [[User:Smee|Smee]] 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
****OK, you are wrong. This thread is done (laff). --[[User:Justanother|Justanother]] 21:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
*****Though I respect your opinion, it is you who are wrong. This thread is done. Thanks. [[User:Smee|Smee]] 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
******No, you are wrong. This thread is done (laff). Seriously, would you care to make any argument to support your claim or does just baldly stating something work for you? You might want to start by looking at [[WP:NPA]], which clearly states:<blockquote>''This page discusses personal attacks made against other editors. For attacks against living people who are the subjects of articles, see [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]].''</blockquote>How do you work that into your charge of [[WP:PA]] or does "this thread is done" mean that you do not have to? --[[User:Justanother|Justanother]] 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
*The user in question has been warned in the past. This further continuation of this thread is bull-baiting, and I will not be a party to it. Suffice it to say that there seems to be a pattern among certain editors of baiting and incivility, and discussion of contributors rather than content of articles. [[User:Smee|Smee]] 22:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
**So let me see if I have this straight. You falsely accuse another editor of [[WP:PA]] and when asked to justify the accusation you bring up their past history and spout generalities and try to end the conversation. Gotcha. We can be done now if you like. Just so we are straight. --[[User:Justanother|Justanother]] 23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
::: Ahem... thank you very much for the attention. The curtain is down now and the audience has left. Good Night! [[User:COFS|COFS]] 23:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
*Just so we are all straight, the user was engaging in baiting, using highly inappropriate language, and discussing the '''contributor''' when the user should have instead been disucssing '''content''', as per the verbatim text with emphasis in the original at [[Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks]]. Just so we are straight. Thanks. [[User:Smee|Smee]] 23:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
**The only comment on a contributer was asking Tilman if he was coming to the US in the next weeks. What is wrong with that? What am I missing here? --[[User:Justanother|Justanother]] 23:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
::: Smee, please go home. The party was nice but I would really like to have my talk page back. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Okay, I will respect that request. [[User:Smee|Smee]] 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
==Warning about Legal Threats==
COFS, you are warned to knock off your legal threats [[Wikipedia:No legal threats]]. Here is the discussion [[Template_talk:ScientologySeries#Added_.5B.5BDead_File.5D.5D_to_template]]. --[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 23:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:Ok, harm yourself, get toasted. It's your right, who cares. You seem to have the wrong concept here that I would be the one doing legal action. I am not. Got no money, time and desire to nurture attorneys. You are not free however to intentionally misinterpret [[WP:NLT]] just to be able to attack me. This is rude and anti-community. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 01:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Who would "toast" me, COFS? Who are you refering to? --[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 01:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:There is your problem. You seem to identify me with something or someone else. I am not "toasting" anyone. I am editing articles. And if you are about to get yourself in trouble, I drop you a note to let you know. But not anymore, since you very obviously do not appreciate that. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 01:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
*COFS, please see comments by other editors way before you made your veiled threats, at: [[Wikipedia talk:No legal threats]]. See where the 2 editors discuss "veiled legal threats" and where one says: "veiled threats are, nevertheless, threats". You are on shaky ground. Stop now. Thanks. [[User:Smee|Smee]] 01:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
:Thanks for the link. Shows you in action again. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 01:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
== F451 ==
Hi F451. I moved your stuff over [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:ScientologySeries here]. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 03:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
== Stop vandalizing discussion ==
COFS, Stop blanking and moving discussions from their proper pages.--[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 03:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:I merged two games you want to play with me as they were almost identical. Did I screw up the processing composition or whatever you guys call that? [[User:COFS|COFS]] 03:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:PS, I saw you deleted it now on the other page. So YOU are the one having blanketed a whole discussion. Are you PTS or what? [[User:COFS|COFS]] 03:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No you just demonstrated disruptive editing.--[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 03:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:You are so boring. I am going now back to editing articles. Over and out. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 03:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Glad to hear you are going back to editing. I moved the discussion you blanked to [[User:Fahrenheit451]]. When you are ready to answer the questions in that discussion, please let me know.--[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 03:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. You didn't accept the missing part on there and Smee blanketed my data from your page, so I left whatever there was on your talk page. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 04:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I just saw that you claim your user page as vandalized when I tried to put the discussion on there (which you started and removed from the template page). This is so kindergarten level, unbelievable. But good to know what you are up to. That's it then. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 04:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I am here to edit. You have indicated that you have some other agenda here. That is not lasting.--[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 04:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:I wish you were here to edit and I wish I had some other agenda than to improve articles. Would make me less pissed off every time somebody comes along and tries to inject BIAS in an article. By the way. Stop violating [[WP:NPA]], this is my last warning. Thank you. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 04:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I am warning YOU to not edit my user page. I am warning you to not disruptively edit article or template discussion pages by selectively removing materials or adding irrelevant material from another discussion. You do that and there is greater possibility that we get along.--[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 04:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:You are doing this after the fact that you smeered me allover of the Admin notice board, after the fact that you attacked me several times very personally and after the fact that you tricked me using your user page to answer questions which you promptly re-defined as vandalism. Your behavior is not appropriate. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 04:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
::I reported your policy violations on the Admin notice board and you are fantasizing or lying about my attacking you. That's a good one, COFS, you blame me for your vandalizing my user page. That is a rather irresponsible attitude. Both you and I know that you may comment on my talk page, but user pages are off-limits to other users. Who is your osa handler?--[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 15:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Stop your [[WP:NPA]] violations and go on editing. This is not a.r.s. here. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 16:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Stop your false accusations, COFS. What is a.r.s.? Is that a new cofs term?--[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 16:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:Come! On! That is the forum where you got ridiculed by our common opponents last year. Bye. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I was never on that forum. How do I find it?--[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:This is outside Wikipedia. I cancel my above statement that this would "not be a.r.s.". It is not important as it is not part of the Wikipedia system. This page is not a forum so any discussion here covering only you and me and what the other is doing wrong etc is actually a waste of time and energy. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I googled and found it. Looks like a spam and slugfest chatroom. Looks to me like the kind of folks who participate are those who want to fight.
So, have you been one of the combatants on A.R.S? --[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:No, I never posted on a.r.s.. Here, you might want to participate in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFree_Zone_%28Scientology%29&diff=122523251&oldid=122502617 this] more creative discussion. [[User:COFS|COFS]]
==[[scientology]]==
I don't believe my revert of the article is accurately characterized as vandalism, especially since I retained edits that seem NPOV compliant. If there is information in the scientology article which you feel is innaccurate, you should provide a sourced rebuttal or reply rather than simply deleting the content or changing its meaning. ([[User:RookZERO|RookZERO]] 21:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC))
:I don't care what you believe. I do care what you can source and prove and I haven't seen you active doing that nor can I see that you spent a second actually looking at the source material to see where the article text comes from. Otherwise you would not have missed why the corrections were necessary. You vandalized the page in at least 8 counts and that is only what I had to revert. You might want to take up your strange and destructive POV with an Admin or - for starters - contribute on the talk page. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
== Image ==
Sadly, no. There are three flaws with the image.
First, screenshots need to be used only for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents. Since this is being used to illustrate an article about the subject of the picture, it isn't [[WP:FUC|fair use]] as we understand the definition. If it was about the TV channel or its news programme, then yes; but for Ms Slaughter, no.
Second, as I read from the article, Ms Slaughter is living. This means it is notionally possible to locate or take a free-use image. This invalidates a claim of fair-use.
Third, and more technically, the image has been given an incorrect source. The source should be whichever station that broadcast the footage from which the screen capture was taken. An image found on another website - and not sourced there - is very completely unsourced, especially with the source link being to the image directly and not to a page of the website (the site owner may consider this out-and-out theft, leaving aside their own claims of fair-use; also, Wikipedia can't judge the copyright status of the image as it is used on the other website - we're not the web police - so if they other website gets in trouble, their trouble would be our trouble).
I'll arrange for the image to go through our ponderous removal process - perhaps you can obtain a free-use alternative via your church? <small>'''[[User:Redvers| REDVERS ]]'''↔[[User talk:Redvers| SЯEVDEЯ ]]</small> 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
:I guess Benetta Slaughter herself could provide one, but the tune of the article is not in a way she would support (I guess). [[User:COFS|COFS]] 18:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
::Well, it's worth a try - people are often flattered to find that there is a need for a free image of them. [[Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission|This page]] has some useful advice on how to go about asking for a free-use image that might be of help.
::Also, if the article is ''unfair'' on the subject in question (in other words, if it has assertions about the subject that cannot be sourced to [[WP:RS|reliable third party sources]]) then you have the [[WP:BLP|right to remove those passages]] and ask for assistance if you are reverted (don't edit war, just head to [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:DR]] and be sure to mention "BLP"). However, if the subject has just had some unflattering press from reliable sources... well, it's not our job to protect her from herself :o).
::Hope this helps and happy editing! <small>'''[[User:Redvers| REDVERS ]]'''↔[[User talk:Redvers| SЯEVDEЯ ]]</small> 19:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
== CHILL! ==
[[User:COFS|COFS]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L._Ron_Hubbard&diff=125071866&oldid=125071292 chill]! Thank you. [[User:Misou|Misou]] 04:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
== [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:COFS_reported_by_User:Antaeus_Feldspar_.28Result:48h.29 This report] ==
<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Octagon-warning.svg|left|30px| ]]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.</div><!-- Template:3RR5 --> [[User_talk:Yandman|<span style="color:red;">'''yandman'''</span>]] 16:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
== A note regarding BLP/OR ==
Hi COFS, I see you've been adding quite a few undersourced BLPs on the [[WP:BLPN|BLP noticeboard]]. I understand where you're coming from. However, the noticeboard is not the place to report (possible) original research whose removal has no urgency per [[WP:BLP]]. As I've remarked in your BLPNB report regarding [[Karin Spaink]], [[WP:BLP]] and the noticeboard are mainly intended to either remove or source contentious unsourced material ''that may lead to problems'' (loss of job/income, damaged reputation, complaints, legal threats, lawsuits, etc.) In most cases the subject is expected to request deletion of the material if (made) aware of its presence in Wikipedia. BLP also aims to remove [[Hagiography|overly positive]] and other problematic material. However, material that in all probability will be sourcable (common sense issues, e.g. something we expect the subject to confirm, like the Xenu doll caption, or material added or requested by the subject) does not fall under the extra protection of [[WP:BLP]]. You're quite right that such material falls under [[WP:OR]] of course, and it should be sourced sooner or later; however, it is not necessary to source or delete it straight away and normal consensus-building per content policies, [[WP:consensus]] and [[WP:DR]] should be quite sufficient to resolve any content disputes of this type. I hope this helps a bit. [[User:Avb|AvB]] ÷ [[User_talk:Avb|<small>talk</small>]] 07:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks, noted. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 16:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
==Incivility==
COFS, you are warned to stop your incivility. You are violating wikipedia policy doing so.--[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
==sock block==
<div style="padding:5px; border:1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#FEC;" class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''indefinitely blocked''' from editing in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:confirmed block evasion using sockpuppets (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS]])|confirmed block evasion using sockpuppets (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS]])|repeated [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|abuse of editing privileges]]}}. If you believe this block is unjustified you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:1|··[[ user: coelacan |coe<span style=" font-variant: small-caps" >l</span>]][[ user talk:coelacan |acan]] 21:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3}} -->
{{unblock reviewed|1=Just got called on this. This seems arbitrary or lack of information. I want this procedure re-done with all data revealed in the open.|decline=Please contact the individual with Checkuser status as he is the only one who can review any evidence (also, actual data from Checkuser checks are never done in the open).—[[User:Ryulong|<span style="color:blue;">Ryūlóng</span>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<span style="color:gold;">竜龍</span>]]) 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)}}
==== To answer your question ====
You asked when you tried to talk me out of going through with the checkuser request, if you really want to know here is what I took to be an attempt to get me to reconsider: <blockquote style="border: 1px solid blue; padding: 2em;">
'''::Glad you could come by,[[User:CSI LA|CSI LA]]. Well, here we are, [[User:Anynobody|Anynobody]], no offense taken. What now, brown cow? [[User:COFS|COFS]] 04:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)'''<br />
<br />
I'm still waiting for the request to be processed, again no offense meant but as I said on the project page the circumstances seem odd. Also, it seems weird that you'd try to talk me out of going forward with the request by assuring me you aren't socks because if I were in a similar situation I wouldn't mind having checkuser run on me to assuage another editors concerns. Actually now that I think of it, I even offered the option to an editor who thought I was a sock, I'll dig through my history and see if I can find it to post here. [[User:Anynobody|Anynobody]] 04:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:Well, I guess I will hear back from the results. BTW, where did I "try to talk [you] out of going forward with the request"? That seems to me like a strange allegation in contrast to your proclaimed good faith. In any case, it is rather funny, especially in the light that I got to know about the person [[User:CSI LA|CSI LA]] in the context of your checkuser request. That was worth the effort already. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
</blockquote>Both accounts I suspect of sockpuppetry try to assure me on the talk page of a checkuser request I opened that they are not the same editor. Then ask what's next? I assumed you meant was I going to take down the request, and that's what my answer above addressed. You then responded like I was giving you an answer to your question:''Well, I guess I will hear back from the results.'' It's like I said, if someone wanted to run a checkuser on me, I wouldn't care (probably wouldn't comment on the request). [[User:Anynobody|Anynobody]] 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:Understood. For me that requires a bit of around-the-corner think to follow your logic but I think I got it. The difference between you and me seems to be that I like to continue talking even though my talk partner turns hostile (like you did, in a way) and that I will keep on communicating whatever happens. Anyway, the outcome of the checkuser request is not acceptable on several counts. First of all the block is unjustified as I am not CSI LA, second that both of us have been blocked would even be unjustified if I would be CSI LA (see Wikipediatrix/Highfructosecornsyrop, she was cheating for real and kept one of her IDs), third the procedure applied must have been faulty (hence the outcome) and fourth the block seems to extent over a whole IP range with the only purpose to block Scientologists. The latter smells like it could turn into trouble in real life as well. I requested a new check and to see the reasoning. This is going to be a test of whether Wikipedia is what it says it is. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::COFS, please explain how a block extended over an IP range can only block scientologists. Also, your remark "The latter smells like it could turn into trouble in real life as well." is clearly a threat. Will there be retaliation with murder, violence, or a lawsuit?--[[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]] 14:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
True enough that Wikipediatrix/Highfructosecornsyrop were the same, however [[User:Wikipediatrix|Wikipediatrix]] was proving a point by arguing the other side of her views. You were using the other account to advance your opinion outside community rules, [[User:COFS|COFS]] wass blocked and [[User:CSI LA|CSI LA]] steps in to take up his argument as shown here, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard&diff=prev&oldid=121540271 diff]. That was the first time I encountered the userid. [[User:Anynobody|Anynobody]] 02:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
: More to the point, my two accounts never had conversations with each other, as CSI LA and COFS did. My two accounts never backed each other up regarding any edit - in fact, I had stopped editing as Wikipediatrix during that time entirely. I never operated two accounts simultaneously. COFS/CSI LA, by contrast, ''made every effort to portray themselves as two different persons'', talked to each other, and used the identities to bolster one user's opinion with two user's voices. [[User:Wikipediatrix|wikipediatrix]] 18:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:CSI LA has been editing outside the noise on talk pages and got more active a while ago when he saw hostile arguments blowing over the top. I understand why he does not spent as much time in Wikipedia as we do but that is none of your business. I at least was happy that someone was continuing the discussion when I was not able to participate. Your "suspicion" was - as you wrote earlier - mainly based on the fact that I wrote on my user page that I forgot my previous user name. I had that one some time back in 2004 and was open about it. What I get back for that honesty is really amazing. I am not sure why you are doing that but I will find out. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 02:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as I said in the request, the statement about forgetting your previous username and password was more of the last straw than it was what caused my original suspicion. If you look at it again [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS]], you'll notice I laid out the diffs first and then said it is also suspicious you had that message considering the circumstances.
As to the forgotten userid, there are ways to find these things out. You could have e-mailed Wikipedia, or looked at the history of a page you edited back in 2004. I'm sure you probably edited [[L. Ron Hubbard]] or some other [[Scientologist]] topics, and as an example you can find out who edited Hubbard going all the way back to [[2001]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L._Ron_Hubbard&diff=263871&oldid=263870 diff].<blockquote>''What I get back for that honesty is really amazing.''
</blockquote> I guess we know how each other feels then, I find it amazing you are questioning why I set up the checkuser case. (It's because using another account to evade a community imposed block is against the rules). [[User:Anynobody|Anynobody]] 03:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
;Confused...
*I am confused, and am having a real problem with the comments made by COFS in this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:COFS&diff=127011412&oldid=126998435 DIFF] : -- ''"...and fourth the block seems to extent over a whole IP range with the only purpose to block Scientologists."''
*My question is thus: How would this user '''''know''''' that a block extends "over a whole IP range with the only purpose to block Scientologists" ????? This seems very strange, and a very strange thing to say... Any other comments on this??? [[User:Smee|Smee]] 14:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
:The more I think about it, the more it sounds like the same accusations we've-(we being those who disagree with any part of [[Scientology]])- been getting all along. (Agendas, bias, etc.) [[User:Anynobody|Anynobody]] 21:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::There's an obvious explanation, Smee: (s)he's editing from a network used exclusively by Scientologists. I'm guessing COFS is a staff member posting from a Scientology-owned computer somewhere (CSI LA?). -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:Do you suppose it's something like the [[User:Fahrenheit451#A Short Guide to Office of Special Affairs Tactics on Wikipedia|OSA?]] [[User:Anynobody|Anynobody]] 22:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:: Now I'm getting into conspiracy/uninventive acronym territory, but has anyone besides me thought: "'''COFS'''" = "'''C'''hurch '''OF''' '''S'''cientology" and "'''CSI LA'''" = "'''C'''hurch of '''S'''cientology '''I'''n '''LA'''"
It's true they'd be nonstandard capitalizations as far as conventional acronyms go, though. I've also kinda followed this checkuser and banning with interest. I mean, if COFS and CSI LA turn out NOT to be the same person, wouldn't that mean they'd be two users with almost the same interests editing from the same IP? Ah well. Checkusers aren't public, and with good privacy reasons, so I'd think that this one will stay where it is. But that's just my cynical prediction. [[User:Raeft|Raeft]] 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:I too assumed CofS to be the same abrev [[User:COFS|COFS]]. [[User:CSI LA|CSI LA]] I figured was '''C'''hurch of '''S'''cientology '''I'''nternational '''L'''os '''A'''ngeles. (You're right it would be quite a coincidence) [[User:Anynobody|Anynobody]] 23:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::Using an abbreviation meaning Church of Scientology International Los Angeles is as "covered" as an LA cop pretending to be LAPD. Scientologists editing about Scientology shows same interest, too. I've never made a secret of my Scientology membership and neither did CSI LA. You are sure not trying to make the obvious into a mystery, are you? [[User:COFS|COFS]] 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::: Oh, no, not that. And there's nothing inherently wrong with editing Scientology articles while a member of the church, other than the usual stuff about conflict of interest, which presumably would not be too serious if you could keep a level and neutral head about it. Nonetheless, it IS a coincidence if two people with acronymic naming conventions along that line were editing from the same IP address, or, as suggested by above comments, an amalgam of the SAME IP addresses, interconnectedly, with the same interests and such aberrant editing patterns as have been displayed (COFS blocked, CSI LA edits, COFS unblocks, CSI LA stops editing). If it is a coincidence, without outside intelligent intervention to make it so, or some other explanation why the checkuser showed a sock (which has not been forthcoming) or at least an explanation of your above comments about it "turning into real world trouble", it's a quite unlikely coincidence indeed. [[User:Raeft|Raeft]] 13:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Now what is it that actually want to say here? I don't know much about IPs and so on. As far as I understand the network me and some 999 more people are using has one IP address. It is a slime/hate/nausea filter or something like that, quite handy usually. On Wikipedia it sometimes fails for the lack of straight talk. Don't you think Wikipedia should have a filter function so that user comments from black listed users can be automatically ignored? I think we all would save A LOT of time. Or at least "could have saved" a lot of time (being exiled right now). [[User:COFS|COFS]] 17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::::"... there's nothing inherently wrong with editing Scientology articles while a member of the church, other than the usual stuff about conflict of interest, which presumably would not be too serious if you could keep a level and neutral head about it." In this case, of course, it would be [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard&diff=prev&oldid=126252235 nauseating hypocrisy]. -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 14:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::: I shall let my stunned emote-faces do the talking for me: O_0 O_o o_O
::::: This said, I do feel it necessary to add that, yes, a Scientologist editor editing Scientology articles has less right and oomph to accuse a non-Scientologist editor of a conflict of interest when editing the SAME topics. And it's indeed verging if not utterly into the territory of the hipocrite to do so. [[User:142.227.73.25|142.227.73.25]] 15:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::What you say could be rather funny. How about Free Zoners and Ron's Orgers? How about making it necessary to register your religious affiliation when you start editing in Wikipedia? A little checklist maybe. Why not including some other characteristics. "Are you gay?" (for exclusion from gay articles), "Are you black?" (for exclusion or at least less rights when editing Civil War articles), "Are you against abortion?" (for exclusion from feminist articles), "Are you on drugs when editing Wikipedia?" (for super-user rights in Scientology articles). And anyone found to lie about his personal information get his/her own article, instantly, and awarded the Golden Stake lit by The Holy Wikipedian. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 18:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::I'm a little confused, COFS. Are you trying to emulate outrage, or are you actually advocating that we ''should'' adopt these exclusionary procedures? It's hard to tell, since you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard&diff=prev&oldid=126252235 have been the one most vigorously looking for perceived conflicts of interest]. -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 20:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry to confuse you. I forgot that you might have no sense for exaggerations as a means of protest. To put it bluntly<nowiki>:</nowiki> Our anon up there basically advocates that Wikipedia editors have to be classified by their membership in certain organizations or groups and based on that have more or less rights. So I was playing through what could happen if we did that. From your response I figure that you are not supporting those exclusionary procedures. That means we are thinking alike. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 16:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
==block reduced==
I have reduced your block, as you have not yet shown a sustained pattern of abuse. Since you are known to be editing alongside other editors, you must not use these accounts for vote-stacking, circumventing [[WP:3RR|3RR]] (or other [[WP:GAME|gaming]]), or over-representing consensus (read [[WP:SOCK]] for the details). For your convenience here are links to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:COFS your block log,] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&ip=COFS expiration of your current block.] ··[[ user: coelacan |coe<span style=" font-variant: small-caps" >l</span>]][[ user talk:coelacan |acan]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
==email==
<div class="messagebox">
From: COFS
To: Coelacan
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 02:10:48 GMT
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
Hi, something is very wrong with this block. I did not turn schizophrenic and I am very sure that I am not another person as well. Please let me know what happened here. CSI LA is somebody I did not even know before this checkuser request started by one editor who just lost an argument with me. CSI LA and myself have only in common that we are both from Los Angeles and members of the Church of Scientology.
What's next?
</div>
Hi COFS. Sorry I guess I don't check my email often enough. I'm posting your email here so that other users can understand your side of the story regarding the Church of Scientology proxy. As noted, your block is already reduced and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&ip=COFS will expire,] so this is just for future reference. ··[[ user: coelacan |coe<span style=" font-variant: small-caps" >l</span>]][[ user talk:coelacan |acan]] 06:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
:Hi coelacan. I had studiously avoided commenting up until now but I want to be sure that I understand the issue and the constraints on COFS and CSI LA. <s>From what I understand from your conversation with Anynobody, you discovered that a number of editors are editing from a block of IPs assigned to the Church of Scientology. Let me clearly state that, to the best of my knowledge, only an employee of the Church or someone with access to an employee's computer would be able to edit from such an IP. Please confirm for me that we are talking here about such a range and not about, say, a range of Earthlink IPs for a certain area of LA; that we are talking about a range of IPs assigned by ARIN to the CoS.</s> I understand the issue now and will address it further very soon. --[[User:Justanother|Justanother]] 19:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
:Assuming that to be the case then I imagine that the constraints would be identical to the constraints that would be placed on any set of employees editing from their firm's computers on subjects directly related to their firm. I do not think that we need to use insulting terms such as "meatpuppet"; if two otherwise unrelated Microsoft employees were editing Microsoft articles and both were concerned about a certain critical (mis)representation and both were attempting to address it and they were (naturally) supporting one another edits, what would be the constraints there?
:coelacan, the bias against and misrepresentation of Scientology in these pages is obvious and painful to any Scientologist that happens across a Scientology-series article. If you look at my first edits here you see how it goes. Scientologist sees something odd, something misrepresented; fixes it (that should be easy, right?); Scientologist reverted, disrespected, and soon discovers that the series was largely written by and is largely controlled by a small group of off-wiki Scientology critics and their on-wiki supporters. Fair enough, we will deal with it. My point is that we all seem to have the same agenda because there is only one agenda; remove the "taint" (my latest term for it thanks to another editor) from these tainted articles. I invite neutral editors and fair-minded critics to help and some are helping. But until we break the hold that a small agenda-pushing group has on these articles I think that all Scientology editors may well "look the same" to you; please do not hold that against us. I look forward to your reply. --[[User:Justanother|Justanother]] 11:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
::coelacan, it is actually jpgordon that was talking more to Anynobody about the details of the case over at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser#Can a confirmed case be re-listed?]] I will ask this question over there too. Thanks. --[[User:Justanother|Justanother]] 15:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
== Why are you editing Wikipedia... ==
... if it is against the Scientology directives? I am curious. [[User:Smee|Smee]] 05:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
:Hi. Scientology directives and me editing in Wikipedia have no relation to each other. What are you talking about? [[User:COFS|COFS]] 05:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions&diff=129939173&oldid=129933702 Diff]. Scientology staff members are apparently not supposed to surf the internet and edit Wikipedia while at work. [[User:Smee|Smee]] 05:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
:::So what? [[User:COFS|COFS]] 05:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
::::So, therefore you are not supposed to be editing Wikipedia, per directives, unless all edits are reported to your superiors, I suppose??? [[User:Smee|Smee]] 05:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
:::::Awesome logic, but totally false. Why don't you wake up to the fact that Scientologists are individuals with their own ideas and actions? Is that so inconvenient, because then we have to be dealt with individually? I got no superiors, I am not at work and I do not have directives on editing in Wikipedia or anywhere else. The only thing that's true is that I am editing in Wikipedia. Get real. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 05:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
*Yes or no answer, of course, you don't have to edit if you do not wish to I guess. Are you editing Wikipedia on behalf of employed staff members and or volunteers for the Church of Scientology? [[User:Smee|Smee]] 05:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
**Both your AIV reports have been removed. This is not vandalism. If you have issues, try [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. Regards, – [[User:Riana|Riana]]<sub>[[User talk:Riana|<span style="color:seagreen;">''ऋ''</span>]]</sub> 05:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
***It is clear vandalism to remove cited material, as such material in this case was cited to the specific source. However, your advice is astute, others have already recommended seeking other avenues for this and I will seek out more advice on the matter. [[User:Smee|Smee]] 05:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
==Welcome back==
<s>Ok try not get banned again ok, is lonely here for me with no Scientology support. Why Smee says that you work for Scientology? Are you a staff member? Don't pay attention to the SPs. Concentrate on the positive ok. Don't get PTS I know I did. I even got sick for arguing with the SPs here. Never again.
I want to write a section about the volunter ministers in the main scientology page. Also the drug free marshals. ARC [[User:Bravehartbear|Bravehartbear]] 07:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
PS Play by the rules ok. [[User:Bravehartbear|Bravehartbear]] 07:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to ask you to totally ignore the SPs. Arguing doesn't help. Just concentrate on writing positive things. Have you done the PTS/SP course? I would be suicidal to be here with out that. ARC [[User:Bravehartbear|Bravehartbear]] 15:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)</s>
==[[WP:COI|Conflict of interest]] warning==
{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] }}}If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about {{#if:Stacy Meyer|in the article [[Stacy Meyer]]|on Wikipedia}}, you may have a [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest]]. In keeping with Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should '''avoid''' or '''exercise great caution''' when:
#'''editing''' articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
#'''participating''' in [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion_processes|deletion discussions]] about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
# '''linking''' to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see [[Wikipedia:Spam]]);
#:and you must always:
# '''avoid breaching''' relevant policies and guidelines, especially [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]], and [[Wikipedia:Autobiography|autobiography]].
Accounts used solely for blatant self-promotion may be blocked indefinitely without further warning.
For more details, please read the [[Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest|Conflict of Interest]] guideline. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-coi --> [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 18:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
<s>{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] }}}Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Kirstie Alley|, as you did to [[:Kirstie Alley]]}}. Doing so violates Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view policy]] and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-npov2 --> [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
{{{icon|[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] }}}Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view policy]] by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Bennetta Slaughter|, as you did to [[:Bennetta Slaughter]]}}, you '''will''' be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-npov3 --> [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)</s>
{{{icon|[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] }}}This is your '''last warning'''. The next time you violate Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view policy]] by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article{{{{{subst|}}}#if:David Singer|, as you did to [[:David Singer]]}}, you ''will'' be blocked from editing Wikipedia. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-npov4 --> [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 02:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
:[[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]], this is utterly inappropriate. This editor has not edited since 05:26, 12 May 2007 and ALL your warnings were after that. You have issued one warning, please. And on a COI case that was incomplete and not even decided. What are you up to here? Please remove all except your first warning. Thank you. --[[User:Justanother|Justanother]] 02:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
; Note to Administrators considering a block of this user
I issued a sequence of three warnings because I saw a pattern of POV pushing. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirstie_Alley&diff=prev&oldid=130263424] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennetta_Slaughter&diff=prev&oldid=130263200]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Singer&diff=prev&oldid=130264545] Because of the strong COI, and past blocking for abusive sock puppets, I think that a single level 4 warning would have been appropriate. [[User:Justanother]] suggested this, and I agree. Note that abusive COI/SPA accounts can be blocked after a single warning. The level 4 warning may be superfluous. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 15:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Good Day. I see that I did a lot of wrong things on Wikipedia while not being on Wikipedia. Wow, smells prejudice to me or lack of information. Jehochman, please read the whole "blocking" discussion before you are pushing out one warning after the other. This whole sockpuppet nonsense has been settled. It has not been true, was not true, is not true and will not be true, no matter how often some editors here push it for the sole purpose to smear me. [[User:COFS|COFS]] 02:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
|