Jump to content

User talk:AndroidCat/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Welcome!

WELCOME!! Hello, AndroidCat/Archive 1! I want to personally welcome you on behalf of the Wikipedia community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you haven't already, you can put yourself new user log and list of users so you can be properly introduced to everyone. Don't forget to be bold, and don't be afraid of hungry Wikipedians...there's a rule about not biting newcomers. Some other good links are the tutorial, how to edit a page, or if you're really stuck, see the help pages. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a ♪ at my talk page...and again, welcome!--ViolinGirl♪ 20:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

and another one is lured to their doom

How did I fail to see you getting sucked into the Wikipedia? Tch! Have fun ;-)

BTW, you or someone will have pages of your own filled with detailed Canadian info for List of Scientology organizations like I adapted from mine for Australian ones ... - David Gerard 09:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi AndroidCat thanks for the link to the Charity Commission report on the Scientology and the Legal System page. Which Wiki are you referring to? Really Spooky 17:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Scientology. There's also the short summary version, which makes interesting reading.

Request for Comments - Terryeo

I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Olberon and the 3RR

Just so you know, Olberon has been warned about the 3RR. Apparently he didn't really get it. -_- -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed referenced material without discussion

By the way, just as a reminder, it is generally frowned upon to remove verified, cited references from an article just because you don't like what it says. You removed: "Narconon's courses are secularized versions of Scientology religious texts, with terms such as like "Scientology" being replaced with "Narconon", and "Thetan" with "person". The courses, which have little or nothing to do with substance abuse, are exercises in concepts such as Suppressive Persons, PTS, Hubbard's ethics, and anti-psychiatry rhetoric. Scientology's Training Routine #8 (or TR 8) is also included as part of Narconon's "Communication and Perception" course. TR 8 instructs the subject to scream at an ashtray "in the loudest possible voice he can muster". Commands like "STAND UP!" and SIT DOWN!" are yelled directly at the ashtray, as it is lifted up and placed back down to aid the visualization. The subject is to acknowledge this each time by yelling "THANK YOU!" to the ashtray as loud as he possibly can. [1]" from the Narconon article without any discussion on the discussion page and with only a brief comment on your edit summary to say why you removed a good sized block of cited text.Terryeo 15:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you were paying attention rather than just frothing at the keyboard, you'd see that I restored text removed by someone else and then trimmed the parts that had been moved elsewhere. Do try to aquire a good source of clue Terryeo. AndroidCat 17:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Streamlight Problems

I have noticed that Streamlight lately has been engaging in counter-policy editing. What do you think should be the next step? --Fahrenheit451 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Wog: derivative definition =

I've reverted your removal of the section in question, and as per your request for references, please see the following:

I had a similar discussion with Hartley Patterson; please see our respective talk pages.

--SpecOp Macavity 19:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - I can't seem to figure out how to properly edit the "references" section on the Wog page - all I get when I hit the edit link is:

== References ==

<references />

Any tips?

--SpecOp Macavity 19:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

i think i know where it goes ill try and do it tomorrow i have the paragraph saved in notepad --stapuft 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry didnt know bout the 3rr thanks for telling me :) but i will continue to edit that page soz but thats the way it goes its an alternate deffination and needs to be published ittl just have to wait about 22 hours wait does the 3rr count 24 hours from the first edit or the last anyway in 24 hours i will edit again --stapuft 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

wog

You might want to revisit wog, where the crew that's trying to keep the "Derivative_definition" paragraph are still at work. I'm at my 3RR limit for the day. You might want to look at my Talk page and my reply to User_talk:SpecOp_Macavity. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 21:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


i'm new and im still figuring out what im doing - JohnKong

scientology

Hi. I'm just starting to learn about scientology. There are several thousand items in google scholar for "scientology". However, this is a subject area that I am not familiar with. I have no idea which journals with articles about scientology are serious, peer-reviewed journals. --JWSchmidt 18:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are not too keen on the scientology subject, maybe you should have read more about it before you retracted my entry about Ron Howard and L. Ron Hubbard. Its true but thanks for accusing me of vandalising. I mentioned it to my mom, who is a scientologist, and she told me she knewn about the mistaken identity thing for years. Sorry you are such "in the dark". I read some of your other entrys though. Good work!  :) Thejax 22:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pull the other one, it's got bells on. AndroidCat 14:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded, Image:Superpowerbldg.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

See also comments at Image talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg Francis Schonken 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Superpowerbldg.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Superpowerbldg.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Francis Schonken 08:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the possible-problem-tagging for this image has been changed. --Francis Schonken 08:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That loss of ":A" in my revert of the Scientology template was unintentional

Thanks for pointing it out. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Celebs

Hi

Would you pls revert again there to my last edit; wikipediatrix reverted me when I did not even remove the offending material, all I did was polish the other bit. I don't think she bothered to look. I would do it myself but I decided to seek some assistance rather than continue the war.

Thanks and good nite--Justanother 02:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no wish to follow you over the 3RR limit. Good night. AndroidCat 02:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not think you would. No prob, I will redo it.--Justanother 02:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientology controversy

Hello,

Just when you've got some time. Where do you see the following about the Religious Freedom Watch: "Domain registrations, letters by Joel Philips, statements on video.." I can't seam to see it anywhere. Jpierreg 15:10, 2 November 2006 (GMT)

The Internet whois information is easily available for the domains religiousfreedomwatch.org, religiousfreedomwatch.com, religiousfreedomwatch.net and the original parishioners.org. (All of these are the same site on the same server.) References to at least one letter sent by Joel Phillips as RFW and acknowledging on video that he runs it are available, but I don't have time to hunt them down right now. AndroidCat 12:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Digital Lightwave

Hi Android Cat....I'm interested in getting input from other editors about getting more info about Digital Lightwave assembled and represented on Wikipedia, since the subject is extremely Scientology-related, involving David Miscavige's sister Denise Licciardi, Doug Dohring, Norton S. Karno, Greta Van Susteren, and Scientology attorneys Michael Baum and George W. Murgatroyd. Since you were a recent editor of the Scientology and the legal system article, I thought I'd fly this by you. The Digital Lightwave story is such a convoluted labyrinth I'm hoping there are other editors who understand it better than I. wikipediatrix 17:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Brrrnnnggg

This is your wake-up call. --Justanother 04:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Space opera

Why do you keep talking about the book being withdrawn, and "Is there anything official from CoS saying that the book is no longer canon?" These have nothing to do with the issue. The problem here is that you and other editors are defining "doctrine" as being anything ever written by LRH or ever published by the CoS. That is misleading. This is doctrine, and it has nothing to do with the Obscene Dog Incident or the anonymous past life memories in HYLBTL. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Whole Track and past lives are certainly part of Scientology doctrine. The "anonymous past life memories" in HYLBTL were the ones selected by L. Ron Hubbard as examples and published in a book with his name on it. The Space Opera parts are just part of the Whole Track, even before Incident II in OT-III. AndroidCat 03:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientology and Celebrities

Oops! I see the citation now - but the way it is organized, it looks to be a confirmation of the Church wishing the couple well (which is not particularly controversial, or worthy of a citation) rather than on the issue of whether the marriage was staged. Is it possible we could shift it up a spot, to make it more clear? Thanks again. Tuviya 04:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's not clear that the cite is for the whole paragraph rather just the last (unimportant) sentence. The cite should probably be shifted or maybe the unimportant text dropped. AndroidCat 16:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

reverted endnotes

Hi,

Just noticed you reverted in Space Opera Scientology writing: "if converted to references, the links should remain usable".

I'am afraid I don't understand this. Can you explain? References look good as endotes and they look really bad as they were before I converted them. Don't you agree?

--Cesar Tort 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't check to see if Wiki would wrap a bare URL into a clickable link. When I saw that it did, I reverted my revert. AndroidCat 21:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Prince

Hey. It is not really germane to the discussion on the talk page but for point of interest, the judge was throwing out an affidavit from Prince that it was his informed opinion that DM authorized letting Lisa just die.[1] This was to name DM as an additional party in the civil suit.

I find there are no facts to support Prince’s opinion, and thus, the opinion cannot come in before the jury, unless facts are developed prior to the trial.

and

His extreme bias against the Church has been discussed by this court on numerous occasions. I find his credibility, based on his previous testimony, and the testimony before me at the Omnibus Hearing, to be suspect.

Stacy Brooks admitted she cooked that idea up and encouraged Prince to write the statement. I say "not germane" because, even though this is a no-brainer to those familiar with the scene such familiarity is not necessary to see that this is highly inflammatory and POV material from a single biased source and only presented on a single biased websites (though it may be copied elsewhere on other biased site.)

I might be silly but I am kinda hoping that you will come down on my side on this one. I really don't want this to be about battling where even your "opponent's" valid points are belittled. I would rather that it were about compromise where we acknowledge each other's valid points while still seeking to present the truth as we perceive it. --Justanother 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding yet. Not ignored, just juggling many priority streams. AndroidCat 07:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No prob. We have other fish to fry anyway. I got that book you recommended, the pulp mystery book with the Mañana Society, but have not had much chance to read it. --Justanother 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Done! What did you think of the book?

Reference striping

AndroidCat, what is "reference striping"? Tanaats 06:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mass removal of references, some definitely good, some not-so-good, with justification that all are bad. All without discussion. See Talk:Keith_Henson#Striping references and fact-bombing AndroidCat 06:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Tanaats 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject updates

  • I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)

I think this may interest you. Kind regards, Orsini 06:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I try to stay as far from that great nasty time-sink as possible, but I'll take a look. :) AndroidCat 21:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Xenu

The first three paras contain no sources and definite opinions. Why don't you delete those on the commented criteria you used to delete mine? Could it be that anything you don't agree with saying publicly is in fact POV by your definition? MarkThomas 12:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Human rights/Scientology pages vandalized

In case you haven't noticed, a new contributor to the "Youth for human rights international" and "International Foundation for Human Rights and Tolerance" pages made massive deletions, including, not surprisingly, the controversy subheads. Like.liberation 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going along with the consensus of Keep for the article Tim Bowles the Scientologist-attorney. Bearian 15:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Off-Wiki Scientology mapping project

(Let's see how many people keep an eye on my Talk page eh?) I've been playing around with Google's new MyMaps feature. It's a simple front-end to the Google Maps API that lets users create their own map lists with location pins annotated by text, images, links and even videos.Reuters While playing around, I created one of various Scientology-related locations, and added some images and links to the matching Wikipedia article. There seem to be some limitations when dealing with large numbers of locations, and the list order doesn't seem to be too flexible. I'm not sure yet how to build a link that would connect to a particular pin in the map list. (For example, to go from the Bridge Publications Wiki article to zoomed-in on the BPI pin on the map.)

Some thoughts of problems in using something like this in articles:

  • Single control of the map. MyMaps isn't designed for collaborative teamwork. Any map would be the work of one person, and outside of Wikipedia.
  • POV. Since the points included and how they are labeled are the work of one person, there will be POV issues. (The current map list wasn't done to be NPOV. I'm willing to make changes, but POV will still be a problem.)
  • External link or ref which is not RS. In general, MyMaps aren't inherently any more RS than Myspace pages, except for the actual maps.

Anyway, this is just tossed out as a "Hey, look at this!" for feedback rather than a serious proposal. If there's interest, then discussion could be moved to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology page. As well, the Google Maps API has been available for a couple years, so perhaps there have been other Wiki discussions about this sort of thing (like if it's even a good idea). AndroidCat 00:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, there is a rather complex Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates that I'll take a look at. AndroidCat 00:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Larry Gluck

Hi, here's one for you: User:Tataburundanga is continually reverting the Lawrence Jerrold Gluck‎ article, whitewashing it so there's no mention of Scientology whatsoever. I'm not sure whether to keep edit-warring on it or let someone else take a crack at it. Want to have a look? wikipediatrix 16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

cited you as example

Hello AndroidCat, to sum up recent events in a couple of links: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS and now there's: User talk:Coelacan#COFS and CSI LA where I cited as an example your discussion with COFS regarding the Sunday Times article on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard. Anynobody 06:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

When Scholars Know Sin

Damn, I was hoping I would not have to read that - that is really dense prose and that baby crap background . . . Thanks a lot! --Justanother 00:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

RVY book

I only removed that because I found it on Amazon [2] and he is not listed as an author. I could have put the ISBN but I was taking it out as I thought it was an error. I should have tagged it instead. --Justanother 18:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

RTC

Hi. You reverted my edit. Why do you need two indexes/templates on an article which is not even half a page long? COFS 21:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

4RR

Hi. You are 4RR on the XenuTV link. Pls. self-revert. Also you are going against the talk page discussion. This is not like you, AndroidCat. --Justanother 22:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Afraid not. Check again. As for going against the Talk page, you are going against an established RFC. AndroidCat 22:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The 24 hour time frame is not hard and fast, you are not supposed to game the 24 hours. It is moot now but I would wager that if I put it up now you would see a warning against edit-warring and 3RR. --Justanother 22:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I bow to your experience at gaming the rules, however I have no previous history of being close to the edge and have no intention of making a habit of it. Would you like a side-bet on the edit-warring warning if our records are compared..? AndroidCat 22:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I already checked your block log, that is why I said that you would get off with a warning. If I were the sort, I would put you up so you get the warning and next time the block but you don't deserve that treatment. --Justanother 22:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. AndroidCat 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What is it with the one-word "whatever" replies lately? Tilman did it just the other day, and it was also a favorite snappy comeback of Smee's. wikipediatrix 22:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
We all took the same TR-W course. AndroidCat 22:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Just because a few editors decided something among themselves awhile back doesn't mean the matter is permanently laid to rest forevermore. No one in the RfC bothered to note what I am noting, which is that the "but the credits say online permission is granted" argument was superceded by Brett's revocation of that permission. The xenutv link you're trying to push even acknowledges this. The film is easily obtainable all over the web to anyone who does a Google search anyway, so why is it so important to you that Wikipedia take part in xenutv's flouting of the law and of Brett's wishes? wikipediatrix 22:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Check again. This was discussed. AndroidCat 22:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm discussing it some more. wikipediatrix 22:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Of possible interest

You may want to look at this: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientology_Justice--Fahrenheit451 21:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Reeve

Was a Reeve a scientologist? Because a reference[2] from a list of former scientologists it appears you added him to, leads to an article saying he hates scientology. Also coincidentally the list's headline is a link to the category article for Former Scientologists, Reeve is not on that list. Any light you could share on the matter would be much appreciated, cheers. Ryan4314 20:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As a side note there is also no mention of Scientology on Reeve's article neither? Ryan4314 20:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you add one? AndroidCat 05:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
'cause he would be toasted and you know that. Reeves has never been a Scientologist but farted around in the media that he never wants to be one. From his description he never even read a basic Scientology or Dianetics book. Repeats what he "heard" or got told. He spent a visit or two and then got run over by the usual crap. Too bad, Scientology could have helped him. Misou 18:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
There are good references that he was taking courses and auditing. That means that he signed a services contract, which is about the only "proof of membership" short of joining IAS there is in Scientology. If CoS would produce a verifiable definition of "Scientologist" rather than Heber's BS about "people who taken a course or have read Dianetics", then this wouldn't be a problem. Of course, the claimed 10 million number would implode. Not that that's a bad thing. AndroidCat 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Misou's 3RR

Thanks for adding the additional reverts to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I felt uncomfortable having them under my name only, so i added your name to the heading. I hope you don't mind. Foobaz·o< 20:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have done that. AndroidCat 20:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

MedCab request involving you

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation
Dear AndroidCat/Archive 1: Hello, my name is Arknascar44; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-31 David Miscavige

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, Arky ¡Hablar! 21:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's cool down

Hi AndroidCat. We started this unlucky day with some useless back and forth on the Scientology article. Sorry if I went overboard on commenting your edits. How about stepping back a bit and give it another try? Shutterbug 06:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Finance Series

For obvious reasons here. Your Q on the LRH talk page: "The 12-point list is HCO Policy Letter of 9 March 1972 Issue I "Finance Series 11 - Income Flows and Pools - Principles of Money Management". ("Understand money flow lines not only in an org but org to org as customers flow upward.") Is there some kind of tag that separates the religious HCOPLs from the secular ones? AndroidCat 12:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC). Yes, the "Management Series" (abbreviated "MS", containing Computer Series, Finance Series, PR Series and some other, in three volumes) have secular content, as well as the OEC Series (though trimmed for use in Scientology organizations which the MS are not). Purely religious content is in the red and blue volumes and the Scientology books and lectures (currently part of the "The Basics", see bpi.goldenageofknowledge.net). Hubbard administrative technology does have some philosophical nuances but that is no different to other other management systems. The management tech is also used for the organization of Churches of Scientology which makes this "tech" part of the CoS' existence. If you are coming from a copyright angle, well, IANAL, so I actually don't know if there is a legal tag here. Organizationally though the above is the difference. Shutterbug 16:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, there is no clear distinction as it is all based on Hubbard's research into the human spirit and condition. Green on white is 3rd dynamic tech as red on white is 1st dynamic tech. There is overlap when you get into things like debug tech, FDS, ethics, etc. If by "secular" we mean "not related to the human spirit" then, IMO, there is little secular in the HCOPLs, how to run a mimeo machine would probably qualify as secular. That is my general idea, I am a bit unclear on what the specific issue is here and in the article. --Justanother 19:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
AndroidCat asks for some "handle" to use to distinguish religious from secular tech. Well, taking Secularity by definition the use of Admin tech (Green on White) is secular, even though it is used to achieve religious purposes. Making money is very much secular, setting up a finance system which prevents you from going broke is secular (worldly) for sure, no matter if that affects your private finances, a Church of Scientology or a company. Shutterbug 02:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
And my point is that I doubt that LRH made that artificial distinction; it was all of a whole. I mean what specific thing in the article were you addressing? I think that can be sorted out without trying to overcatagorize Scientology. --Justanother 02:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible deal

Hi AC. I just made an offer on Talk:Barbara Schwarz‎ which could take me out of Project Scientology. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Steve Dufour 07:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) I don't edit that article. (2) Your "offer" sounds like some sort of blackmail. (3) Does this mean that your edits of Project Scientology articles are done as bad faith trolling, a stick to get what you want in Barbara Schwarz‎? If so, I think that "taking you out of Project Scientology" can be accomplished by administrative channels. AndroidCat 08:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason I got involved in Scientology articles here was because Barbara asked me to get rid of her article, which she feels is attacking her. However the edits I have made to the other Scientology related articles has been in the interest of improving them. Even if you have no interest in Barbara, other Scientology critics do under the mistaken impression that somehow attacking her makes Scientology look bad (she is an ex-Cos member). I think the cause of anti-Scientology would be advanced if her article did not have the character of a personal attack. That is all I am asking for. Steve Dufour 08:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sterling Management Systems Mediation

User:Fahrenheit451 has requested mediation regarding the following:

Sterling Management Systems Dispute

and your participation has been requested by the parties. I will be the mediator of this dispute.

--Leonmon 06:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Frances Farmer

Hi, AndroidCat! I don't edit here much anymore (a long and twisted tale, LOL), but I saw your response to User:Parkwells statement about "Shedding Light" not being sourced. I agree with you completely--"Shedding" is exhaustively sourced, one of the few really sourced references you can find on Farmer. I posted to Parkwells' talk page that his/her last two edits to the Farmer article are incorrect. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, so I'll leave it to him/her to hopefully make corrections/reverts. However, I am happy to provide you with a couple of the citations you need for the article. Go here to read about Dr. Jones and his denial of the lobotomy: http://www.skagitriverjournal.com/NearbyS-W/NSH/NSH1-Intro.html (Look on the sidebar at the right--you'll of course see it's somewhat incestuous in that that site's owner also quotes "Shedding Light," but he evidently knew Jones personally). The Edith Farmer Elliot citation needed is from her self-published book "Look Back in Love." If you Google her name and the book title you can get the ISBN. And the Graeme Clifford quote comes from the most recent DVD release of "Frances," which is the only one with a commentary--maybe you can get the info on Amazon. 75.164.223.219 23:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth (film)

I added lots of {{fact}} tags, we need to parse through current sources and demarcate precisely which sources/cites are used at the end of which sentence. You seem to be more familiar with the referencing on this article, feel like helping out? Cirt (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DianeticsTEoAS.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DianeticsTEoAS.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienTOMogy

You're right, the link should stay there, if anything that "dead links" template is cool - because it gives a link to the Internet Archives history. Any chance you know of any references to ScienTOMogy in secondary sources not already present in the article? Cirt (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

I don't think so, but I'll dredge my news db for anything I've missed. AndroidCat (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Cirt (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

Sources for a potential new article...?

Hello AndroidCat (talk · contribs), you are usually pretty good at finding sources, I am thinking of writing a new article about the book Hollywood Undercover, by Ian Halperin. Think you could compile a list of sources w/ links somewhere for me? Cirt (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

It's not so much that I'm good at compiling links, it's just that I got tired of fishing for references through Google. So I sucked down a copy every news article I could find the original source, and turned a local search engine on all the fish in that one barrel. Then when I do catch something, I record it in a database, tagged so that I can find it again. What's in FrontCite (monster TiddlyWiki HTML) is mostly everything except my growing backlog (thank you Mr's Morton and Cruise!). Ah, one bite:
  • "Scientology No Road To Oz, Says "Gay Actor"". Queerty. 2008-01-17. Retrieved 2008-01-20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Tags: Hollywood Undercover, Ian Halperin, Jon Atack, Michael Pattinson, Quentin Hubbard, Robert Vaughn Young. AndroidCat (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks. I've already found a few other sources, so I will go ahead and create the article soon, though it will be a little while. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
    • Is this Queerty really a valid source for Wikipedia? Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
      • I haven't checked to see how established it is. Google News listed it, but that's not a ringing endorsement. I'm really not sure how well the sites it cites would be received by some editors. :) I hit another one while looking at something else:
  • I found a new database to search for sources, so I should be able to find lots more stuff, but thank you for this, I'll check out the above stuff as well. Probably will get on creating this new article w/in a coupla days. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it ...

The sources can still be cited w/out the actual hyperlinks, per a suggestion from MER-C (talk · contribs) on WP:ANI. It's a good temp fix for now. Cirt (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DianeticsTEoAS.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DianeticsTEoAS.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.   jj137 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Pyroto

If you have a second, please see: Talk:Pyroto Mountain Maury (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Foundation for Religious Freedom

"Gimme a break," replied Nancy O'Meara, a longtime Scientologist and treasurer of the Foundation for Religious Freedom, which seeks to counter the activities of the anti-cult movement. "That's like saying people are going to go see 'Gladiator' and then suddenly find themselves wanting to explore Christianity."

Scientology membership

Thanks for the correction. In re reading my addition it did appear misleading as to the source. I have redone the sentance, and believe it accuratly demonstrates what was said in the interview.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought the cite could be salvaged, but wasn't comfortable the previous wording. AndroidCat (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicky

Just a little nitpicky thing I noticed - when you format your cites you seem to put the name of press/media work in the "publisher" field, when it should go in the "work" field, so it will get italicized. Also leave an option for another editor to later come in and add more info to the cite. Cirt (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We've already had part of this discussion. While changing the mapping from my database to the template fields is trivial, it's not clear that that is the correct usage, and there are problems with some unusual cases.
Originally, I intended to use cite news as my one-fits-all template, but at the time there were problems with date formatting—now fixed. In discussions, it seems that for cite news, at least, publisher is intended to be the publication name, and the field name is a legacy from templates such as for books where the publishing company is important. (I do make an exception for some weeklies because they are part of large chain with minor local differences between editions.) I'll test with cite news and switch back if everything is now fine.
I'm not sure what you mean by leave an option for another editor. Each field on a separate line? AndroidCat (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I still think I prefer the layout for cite web. AndroidCat (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You see, in your examples you just gave above, St. Petersburg Times should be in the "work" field, not the "publisher" field, and it should be italicized. Cirt (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to take this up on the template pages. I'm unwilling to remove the name of a series which won a Pulitzer, but there doesn't seem to be a field that can be used for holding it. (A kludge like stuffing it in with the title would be an abomination.) As well, there's no place to include the name of a column, indicate that an article is an editorial or opinion piece, or that it is a reprint from another paper or wire service (sometimes with edit changes from the original). AndroidCat (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Eh, easy fix. Just add the page of the article's first appearance in the paper, with a colon, and then the name of the series. Cirt (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

spam?

I got the impression that Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/xenu.net, who mentions me because I originally posted that link in Scientology and psychiatry, meant per se a policy. But it seems I was mistaken. :) Cesar Tort 15:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like someone is unleashing yet another kludgy bot on Wiki without bothering to justify it through existing rules and processes. For instance, who decided (and where) that xenu.net was any kind of spam link? Who nominated it, was there any kind of discussion process and what is the appeal process? (And then they act surprised when a mob of wikipedians arrives on their doorstep with pitchforks and torches... Like the last time someone summarily removed a "spam link" from featured articles.) AndroidCat (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


stop messing with my page

I could have your account deleted from here with one phonecall you know. Just back off, trust me it is simply not worth it.David M RTC (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

One word and it's Long Cat battlegroups and troop transports on your head. AndroidCat (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing tags

Are you trying to send me a pointed message to leave notes on talk pages when I tag articles with obvious problems? If so, I got the message - when I tag articles in the future, I'll leave a note on the talk page, though in the last 2 cases I would have thought it was blatantly obvious. Cirt (talk) 10:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In the future, I would appreciate it if you could WP:AGF - especially if the article tagged cites zero sources. Cirt (talk) 10:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Citizens for Social Reform

An editor has nominated Citizens for Social Reform, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizens for Social Reform and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

New citation tool

Have you heard about this tool developed by Jehochman (talk · contribs) ? I think you'd really like it: http://wpcite.mozdev.org/ - There is also some info about it on his userpage. Cirt (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jason Beghe

Could you perchance let me know if you come across any other secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that aren't yet used in this article? Cirt (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth

To clarify: WP:NAMB#Two articles with the same title states that "When two articles share the same title, the unambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article." The unambiguated title would be Battlefield Earth, which links to a disambiguation page. Just64helpin (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry I forgot that there was a Battlefield Earth page in the mix as well. AndroidCat (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Canada

AndroidCat, re Scientology as a state-recognized religion, have you found anything further on the status in Canada, or do you expect to still find anything that adds to or contradicts the sources cited? Otherwise, I'd take the Disputed marker out again; the section is sourced, after all. But I can wait a few more days if you're still looking. Cheers, Jayen466 19:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

John Carmichael (Scientologist)

Got any good references to be used as sources in this article? I know that there must be lots of secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources out there to be used, just haven't dug in and done some searching yet. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. AndroidCat (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Cirt (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Dm0.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Dm0.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

(Note: Leaving this message for you rather than the uploader as you have recently expressed interest and the uploader is no longer active.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Carolyn Meinel, divorce to Keith Henson

Since this is a biography of a living person then I can somewhat agree that her daughter's views of Keith Henson are not a RS. After all he is a critic of the Church of Scientology, which his daughter is a member. It would not be the first time a church member made such "repressed" comments. I still somewhat believe that the source is clear (not that type of clear), and should be included, all be it cleaned up a little. Yet the rules are firm, an RS is an RS period, even someones daughter. 142.161.175.102 (talk)some.canadian.ip.address —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


Obnosis

Given the long-term failure to add encyclopedic content to the article, I'm considering taking this to AfD, but I'd like a second opinion given my heavy involvement in the article. When you get down to it, the article's basis seems to be "L. Ron Hubbard used this word once." What do you think? Movingboxes (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm... [10] Kill it with fire? AndroidCat (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Obnosis

An article that you have been involved in editing, Obnosis, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obnosis. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Movingboxes (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SRLastThumb.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SRLastThumb.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wizardman 13:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should I bother? None of the other fair use rationales I've added have ever been accepted by tinpot editors and bots, and were summarily deleted with a speedy without discussion. (Compare this to the AfD process.) Due to continually shifting hoop-jumping requirements, the insular little world with the divine mandate to remove all fair-use images regardless of the damage to articles, I've lost all interest in adding or defending images. AndroidCat (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Xenu -- please examine?

I believe that slakr (talk · contribs) acted too hastily and assumed that all changes by anon editors subsequent to the last edit by a registered editor must have been vandalism. I doubt that he would have made that judgment had he actually examined my edit, but the fact is that he reverted my edit along with all the vandalistic edits, and I cannot even alert him politely to this fact since another admin has semi-protected his talk page. Would you mind (assuming you think my edit suitable, of course) restoring my changes and politely requesting that slakr either check more carefully in the future or explain why he thought my edit unsuitable? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bob Minton

[11] - I'm sorry about that, I just thought it would be less ambiguous since apparently at least one person was confused about it. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone who "corrects" the spelling of cite to site isn't going to be unconfused by a wording change. ;) AndroidCat (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay good point, no worries. Cirt (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


Talk:COI AndroidCat has {Anti-}Scientologist Censorship Agenda

AndroidCat boasts on Alt.Religion.Scientology of his "work" here at Wikipedia. This is a clear Conflict of Interest, showing agenda based political intention for censorship! [12] AndroidCat also posts on the Dianetic Groups: [13] AndroidCat recently attacked over and over various Wiki pages called "obnosis" which included good references, until the page was deleted. He has also a history of attacking other Scientology pages and censorship agendas. --lisakachold 24.251.216.251 (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.216.251 (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to that thread. Is this you:

Well Andriod Cat was one of the Wiki editors instumental in removing

my Wikipedia Page for the word "obnosis" which has been my word and domain for a great long time, suffering from those of you can't handle

the truth.

— [email protected]
If so, then you were editing the Obnosis article with quite a massive COI by attempting to promote your own domain and a word that you claim ownership of. AndroidCat (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC) (Editor User:LisaKachold aka 24.251.216.251 appears to have multi-voted in the AfD for Obnosis AndroidCat (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
Hello AndroidCat. User:LisaKachold has filed a complaint about your editing at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. You are welcome to join that discussion and give your own opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LisaKachold. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Recommend an AfD

Hi --

I see that you have edited Jason Scott case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I cannot initiate an AfD for this article myself, but I believe the reasons are there for deletion:

  1. The article Jason Scott (Life Tabernacle Church) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) presumably covered the events of "the Jason Scott case" (since that was the only thing that made Jason Scott notable) but that article was deleted because of a lack of notability.
  2. The circumstances are certainly suggestive of a POV fork. Jayen466 encountered opposition at Rick Ross (consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) when he tried to introduce information about "the Jason Scott case" sourced to Anson Shupe, because Shupe was not a "third party" source as called for by WP:RS but a party involved in the case. After encountering this opposition Jayen466 created Jason Scott case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and cited Shupe no less than 37 times at last count.

So far, Cirt and Durova have declined to create the AfD, which I cannot create myself. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The Jason Scott fork, to avoid the long arm of BLP, is a two-edged can of worms. AndroidCat (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientology article and citation

Hello there! As you may have noticed, I've made some extensive changes on the Scientology page. The good news is that I've pruned down primary sources to a near-minimum (I was not as liberal as I could have been). The other end of the situation is that the page now contains 23 [citation needed]s. If you ever get a chance, now is as good a time as any to add some more cits. ←Spidern→ 15:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and sex and Homosexuality and Scientology

Can you work your magic and find some sources for these, and list them in separate lists either at the articles' two talk pages and/or in a Further reading subsection on the articles? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello AndroidCat, I saw you reverted my edit to the article Golden Era Productions. Actually that link violates the contributory copyright infringement clause of WP:COPYRIGHT. That's why I removed it. Feel free to discuss further if you have questions. Cirt (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Not needed" is vague. It would probably be a good idea to be specific as to the reason for removing each one. AndroidCat (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
More specifically, WP:COPYLINKS describes why linking to that page is not appropriate. Cirt (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Authors gave permission?

Regarding this - I do not doubt your assertion that the authors gave permission for the entirety of their works to be posted to the Internet, but can you verify that with their statements of permission somewhere? Also, would not the permission of the original publishers of the books also be preferable in these instances? Cirt (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Early on, predating xenu.net, there was seen a definite need for sources on Scientology outside CoS's big stick of copyright control, and there was organized effort to get permission for Internet reproduction rights of the major books of the time. (The authors/publishers were quite amiable to the idea.) Chris Owen would be the person to ask about that, although this has been covered before. I think the last rake fight over excuses to remove xenu.net links was a year or so ago. AndroidCat (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
If this cannot be verified then those links will most likely be removed. I will look into this further. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's a start. AndroidCat (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah okay, that certainly helps. Cirt (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

AE

[14] Jayen466 13:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop you a note here and suggest you read WP:WEIGHT. Certainly, Carmichael attended that conference. But how much weight should it carry in his BLP? Whenever negative information -- or information that could be perceived as negative -- goes into someone's BLP, it's important to really weigh how much impact it has on or in that person's life. I think you meant well with those video links, I really do. But they just don't carry sufficient weight, and they're of the type that's best avoided. --GoodDamon 18:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And if the summary in the removal had mentioned that, I would have let it pass without comment. However, I'm currently inclined to challenge any removals based on a site kill-list with a boilerplate excuse. AndroidCat (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
And I would have mentioned this on the Arb Enf page—if I'd been told about it (isn't that one of the requirements for that sort of thing? Especially since I wasn't one of the parties under the COFS arbitration except in the general probation for Scientology articles for all editors)—but it looks like everyone had fun without me: "drama mongering, soap boxing or attacking opponents", wheee! AndroidCat (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Hi AC. You might be interested in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Jin Moon. Redddogg (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination

Hi AndroidCat. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Scientology arbitration

Per the request of arbitrator Roger Davies (talk), this notice is to inform you of the current arbitration case concerning Scientology, which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. You are receiving this notification because you were one of the users listed in the new evidence presented by Jayen466.

For Roger Davies and the Arbitration Committee
Daniel (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientology arbitration

This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting bored yet?

Shutterbug (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope! :) Off to bed, changing the transmission oil in the morning and heading out yonder before the afternoon t-showers. It's all Somebody Else's Problem now. (BTW, I think the topic-ban includes the Talk pages, not to mention BLP/N, OR/N, etc.) AndroidCat (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice silver-arrow you got there! Have fun. I guess I'll spend some more time jumping up and down, blinking ;-) Shutterbug (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom missed one?

If missed by this RFAR, I thought S. M. Sullivan was covered previously during COFS. AndroidCat (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates

I noticed you've been putting in the coordinates for places in my area, I was wondering if you could also do Snowball, Ontario. Outback the koala (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it's on my list. I actually passed through Snowball today, but didn't have time to stop and snap a photo for the article. (I passed through Strange too, but there was nothing there! Spooky...) AndroidCat (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Ya, I think that Snowball is Wellington and Dufferin. Its for sure not the golf course though... :P Outback the koala (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Xenu space plane1A.jpg

File:Xenu space plane1A.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Xenu space plane1A.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Xenu space plane1A.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hockley Highlands Inn

The article Hockley Highlands Inn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to be a notable business.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Crossing the WikiWilds of Northern GTA with camera and scooter

Photo-ops

My random list of articles that could use a picture, for when I need random locations to ride to, in no particular priority, depending on random weather.

I'm open to suggestions, but I make no promises. I might do some touring/camping this summer, so further targets could be considered (if it's a nice trip). AndroidCat (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like camping is closing off this weekend. No rain, finally, but chance of frost. What rotten weather! AndroidCat (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Germany

Hi Androidcat, thanks for the links (and I found the a.r.s. post with the now-archived article ;) ). I thought that yesterday or the day before, I read a similar article where German officials were quoted saying much the same things about Clinton, but were being quoted directly by some reporter, as raising these points in response to US criticism. The SPT article only quotes them in this indirect way ("It's no surprise, then, that German officials might be unhappy when ...") which won't stand up as a source for a statement actually made. For the life of me, I can't find the article any more. Do you happen to know which article it might have been? Thanks for your help. JN466 19:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Posting Issue: A. Edward Moch

I can assue you and "Wiki" that the material presented on "A. Edward Moch" and "Remote Viewing" is not original and can be "Legally" backed up by various members of The Psychical and intelligence Community, and at other sources. You have permission to seek from me within scope to do a FOIA request if need be to resolve any possible-additional misunderstandings. My attept to resolution this posting issue, but not dismiss "Possible Legal Direction" if need be. Please allow me the courtesy to postAedwardmoch (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

re Reprinted Boston Herald articles at Apologetics Index

Not the best website to linkback to, [15]. -- Cirt (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is an alternate site that could be used instead. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Crossing the WikiWilds of Northern GTA with camera and scooter

Photo-ops

My random list of articles for the 2010 season that could use a picture, for when I need random locations to ride to, in no particular priority, depending on random weather. (I must say that having Google View covering everything first takes a certain amount of the fun out it.)

I'm open to suggestions, but I make no promises. AndroidCat (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange is just a collection of about five houses now; most of the historical buildings are long gone, though there's likely some info and pics at the King Township Museum or the King Township Public Library (in the Archives). You may have trouble getting a pic of the radar, as the entrance on Jane Street has a gate, and the radar is set deep in the property. (Then again, I haven't been there for some time.) Mindmatrix 01:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Other suggestions nearby to the places listed above: Holland Marsh; schools, churches etc. in King City, Nobleton, Schomberg and Kettleby (whichever happen to be on your path), Crawford Wells in King City (should be across Keele street from Hogan's), King City Trail, Seneca College (Eaton Hall and the lakes too). Mindmatrix 01:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

something I noticed

Heh heh. Mindmatrix 01:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Scientology topic ban

If you can't comment, due to an ArbCom topic ban I presume, then making this sort of edit is pointless. I have removed it. NW (Talk) 22:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for topic ban violations

I am blocking you for 48 hours for violations of your topic ban on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology.

The this edit might be overlooked, although I'd call it trolling. However, taken with this edit which inserted two superfluous links to Scientology related articles - and you are clearly in violation.

I strongly recommend that you unwatch all related articles and resist the temptation to push the envelope. The next block will be longer.--Scott Mac 22:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The links are hardly superfluous and direct address the company TradeNet. AndroidCat (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
BTW, you do realize that Laundry ball is no longer a related article? So I presume that I'm banned from using relevant WP:RS references that use the S-word in the title in any article? (The articles which use the S-word in the title, conclude in the body that the company in not part of Church of S-word, and then go on to discuss TradeNet in some detail.) AndroidCat (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
It is no longer a related article because I removed the coatrack. Look, a topic ban means you get a new topic and stay well away from the old one. It doesn't mean you pick a company that until a few days ago was marked as "Scientology related" and add some links to Scientology related articles on the premise that they also discuss other stuff. Nor does it mean you troll a Scientology related AFD. Take these articles off your watchlist and do something completely and utterly unrelated to Scientology.--Scott Mac 17:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I have read the full articles. Have you? It's unfortunate that SPT shifted their full articles to pay-only, but there are summaries still available. You might find this ref usable as it doesn't use the S-word: Troubled firm's building for sale As for my watchlist, since I normally only login once a month or two, it doesn't really matter what's on it. (Nor is there a restriction on the contents of my watchlist.) However, it does raise a question: do admins have the capability of arbitrarily dumping watchlists? That sounds far more privacy intrusive than mass checkusers. AndroidCat (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
BTW: Two problematic BLPs for you: Aziz al-Abub and especially Justin Tanner Petersen (many of the refs appear to be bogus). AndroidCat (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:ARBSCI Topic ban violation

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The incident in Question has been Directed to WP:AE#AndroidCat The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I have closed the above AE request in accordance with the consensus of the uninvolved administrators who commented there. The consensus among those admins is that the edits in question could legitimately be seen as a violation of your topic ban. However, the consensus is also in agreement with your assertion that you were upholding WP:BLP and that the topic ban should not take precedence over BLP. More than one comment suggested that you were unwise to make the edits in question, so I would strongly recommend that you seek assistance in any such future cases by posting on a relevant noticeboard or the talk page of an uninvolved admin rather than act yourself. It seems prudent to remind you that your topic ban is still in effect and that you may face a lengthy block if any of your future edits are deemed to be a violation of the ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow. A discussion opened, debated, decided, closed and scrolled off within a day. Under the Arbcom restriction, I wouldn't even have been allowed to comment on it. I respectfully suggest that some people get a life. AndroidCat (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting that my topic block seems to have been unofficially expanded to "Anything Cultic". Does that include Ching Hai or various pseudo-woo treatments? Let's see who complains about this long term rubbish: [16]. If you un-PROD, please add sources or I'll see you in AfD. (Jossi is gone, right?) AndroidCat (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No it Remains: "Discussions and Articles involving Scientology broadly defined." The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Including CESNUR, Dick Anthony, J. Gordon Melton, Louis Jolyon West and Anti-psychiatry seems very broad indeed. AndroidCat (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
And in future, I suggest you address your complaints to the content of my edits, rather than a tediously vague IDONTLIKEITOMGBBQ. AndroidCat (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As a courtesy, please: open identities

Since I have used the same Wikipedia identity for the last six years, which connects to my ultra-Wiki identity, even my True Name, I politely request that anyone commenting here fill in the details if you've changed names in the last few years. Might as well fill in your wikipediareview id too, 'cause I'll look for that and your comment history. AndroidCat (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This is your only WP:ARBSCI Topic Ban Violation Warning

Please Watch it or its back to WP:AE, Edits like this are ok because its not Scientology Related edits like this this and this are under WP:ARBSCI. Do your best to avoid any scholar, activist, affiliated movements, persons, who has a significant tie to Scientology. This is my only warning or its back to WP:AE The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of your opinion on how wide reaching you feel that WP:ARBSCI covers, and you're probably aware of my opinion of that opinion. I see that you've knee-jerk reinstated the fluff. AndroidCat (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Feb 2010 topic ban violation

^^ It's 2011 AndroidCat (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked you for a week for violating your topic ban on James R. Lewis (scholar), as well as for editing while logged out to continue to edit war. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I edited James R. Lewis (scholar) once, which I question is within my topic ban. I don't edit while logged out, and I certainly don't use proxies to make it look like I'm coming from Australia rather than Canada. I suggest you recheck that, because if it was a sock puppet, it wasn't mine. AndroidCat (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I assume that you know my current actual IP address since you blocked it. (173.206.66.113 dsl-173-206-66-113.tor.primus.ca) How do you reconcile that with 118.208.147.244, which geo-locates to Canberra, on the other side of the planet? Also, since you know that I've never used that IP, did you check to see if anyone else has used it? (I would check that whole address range to see who uses that ISP, but that's probably beyond CheckUser's mandate.)
I'm trying to Assume Good Faith here, but I feel that you're being gamed by ResidentAnthropologist, who seems to suffer from a very bad case of OWN on those articles, and seems willing to resort to any means possible to insure that. His/her claim that I am topic-blocked from articles on religious scholars because they have some connection to Scientology is spurious. He/she raised that during a WP:ARBSCI that he/she submitted, and it was dismissed, closed, and scrolled off before I could even comment on it. ResidentAnthropologist was stretching the truth somewhat to claim that as if it was decided fact. If ARBSCI ever actually decides such a thing, I assume that I would be likewise blocked from editing Supreme Court of the United States in any way since they have tried many cases involving Scientology.
Since those articles come under the strict editing rules of WP:BLP, I do wonder why ResidentAnthropologist feels the need to use a hammer when discussion has never been tried. (And I wouldn't be human if I didn't think those Australian edits smell a lot like a set up.) I also wonder why ResidentAnthropologist makes no objection to Jayen466 editing a number of those scholar articles when he/she would also be blocked on the same grounds? (I can't raise this with ARBSCI because that does fall within my topic block.)
I will abide to the block. As a gesture of good faith, I point out that my IP address is dynamic and it would be the work of minutes to pop up from somewhere else within Primus' sprawling IP blocks. (To paraphrase Scotty: "Another IP address is easy. A different continent, now that's hard!") I am a little (more) insulted that anyone would think that I'd do anything so crude if I ever went over to the Dark Side. AndroidCat (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
By the way, why does the CheckUser page have a section for "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims" when I was never informed until it was all over and closed? Kafka would die with envy! AndroidCat (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I see that Resident Anthropologist, on receiving the negative results, said he/she was going to take up with ARBCOM but never did, and deleted that entry. Very poorly done, old chap. AndroidCat (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AndroidCat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

ResidentAnthropologist used a false claim that I am blocked from editing religious scholar pages during a checkuser request, which returned no positive match Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndroidCat, and then there's the matter of an IP on the other side of the planet.

See here for further comment: User_talk:AndroidCat#Feb_2010_topic_ban_violation

Decline reason:

Per clarification below. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment The CheckUser Clerked declined the request and did not run it. You are allowed to edit religious scholar articles except ones who have done significant works on Scientology as your topic banned is broadly defined. James R. Lewis and J. Gordon Melton are definitely well within the topic area as both have done significant works on Scientology. HelloAnnonging blocked you before any WP:AE request could be filed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you saying that the clerk never even bothered to run the CheckUser, or what? Never bothered to actually check the IP addresses, logs, possibly the browser strings, the geo locations, side of the planet, certainly never bothered asking for Accused parties comments? What kind of dying popsicle stand operation is this? (Admins are leaving faster than they are being created, what does that suggest about the number of editors?)

Well, be advised that Jayen466 is also broadly blocked from any scholar who has ever commented on Rick Ross. I expect you to enforce that ARBCOM topic ban likewise. AndroidCat (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Clerk declined - CU won't connect an IP to an account." looks like a CU done, but negative results to me, in other words, you seem to be lying. How do you hold a moral position that requires acts like that? AndroidCat (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:ClamBake.gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ClamBake.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Do everyone a favor and read the discussion of all the previous times this tempest in a toilet erupted. Meanwhile, I am broadly blocked from commenting at the discussion. Have a nice day. AndroidCat (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Epiphany

Since I have been declared by the ARBCOM to be a single-purpose editor on the subject of Scientology, I can't be declared in violation of that essay on any other topic. (Barring a convoluted rationale connecting it back to Scientology in a Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon fashion.) AndroidCat (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AndroidCat. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Narconon "papers"

That's good to know, I'll check the Narconon article and eliminate the fake front references as I find them. It shows that one must be careful about the references and citations that manage to make it in to an article which the Scientology corporation has tried to remove, it seems they double-down the effort to vandalize such articles with illegitimate sources when they can't replace facts with advertising. Damotclese (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, AndroidCat. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AndroidCat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AndroidCat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

CENSUR editwarring

CENSUR was removed after you alerted it is not considered RS. Original user has re-added it to three articles. [17][18][19] Feoffer (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:SRLastThumb.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:SRLastThumb.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Is AUM investigation OR/SYNTH

Since you're up to speed on the CESNUR discussion, would you advise us over at Talk:CESNUR#Is_Aum_Investigation_WP:OR/SYNTH? Feoffer (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hubbard, Narconon Communication & Perception Course Book 4a, 2004 edition. (pg. 447-482)
  2. ^ http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/australia/age02-052003.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndroidCat/Archive_1&oldid=1139095783"