Scientologist. Feel free to ask questions.
|
Hi COFS , Welcome to WP! Jpierreg 03:30, 15 February 2007 (GMT)
Thanks! COFS 06:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
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. ~ Zythe Talk to me! 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I can't help but notice you removed "ref overkill" from this article. There is no wiki policy regarding "too many references", in fact, the feeling generally is "the more the merrier!". Furthermore, as you quite openly self-identify as a Scientologist, and given the fact that most of your edits revolve around the CoS in some way, the removal of such links could be easily interpreted as a conflict of interest.
I don't want to discourage you from working on these articles, but please keep Wiki policies like NPOV in mind.
Thanks!
Lankiveil 12:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Your mass removal of links to {{tl:ScientologySeries}} and to sites that you don't agree with must stop. You are misinterpreting policy on NPOV -- it doesn't mean "I get to remove whatever I disagree with". Cleduc 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Please stop going through articles deleting links while using plainly bogus edit summaries (e.g. "vandalism removed"). There may be an issue with whether the links are needed, but you should discuss this with other editors rather than going on a controversial link-deleting spree. -- ChrisO 18:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
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 page for the Catherine Bell article. Enuja 19:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see User talk:ChrisO#COFS removal of non-RS, POV, Scientologist "outing site" and my talk. -- Justanother 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This comment [1] in the edit summary: you must be on drugs or you did not read the book is uncalled for. Please respect WP:NPA. -- Tilman 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This remark [2] you are coming from this country where the Nazis ruled not long ago is uncalled for. Please respect WP:NPA. -- Tilman 18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
DES (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
COFS, you might want to check out this. I am not a supporter of the cabal theories on Wikipedia, but this one might be worth a better look. CSI LA 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Fahrenheit451 22:57, 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.-- Fahrenheit451 23:11, 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.-- Fahrenheit451 23:21, 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.-- Fahrenheit451 00:24, 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.-- Fahrenheit451 00:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
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 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 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. COFS 04:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
How do you work that into your charge of WP:PA or does "this thread is done" mean that you do not have to? -- Justanother 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)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.
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. -- Fahrenheit451 23:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Who would "toast" me, COFS? Who are you refering to? -- Fahrenheit451 01:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi F451. I moved your stuff over here. COFS 03:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
COFS, Stop blanking and moving discussions from their proper pages.-- Fahrenheit451 03:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No you just demonstrated disruptive editing.-- Fahrenheit451 03:35, 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.-- 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. 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. 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.-- Fahrenheit451 04:21, 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.-- Fahrenheit451 04:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Stop your false accusations, COFS. What is a.r.s.? Is that a new cofs term?-- Fahrenheit451 16:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I was never on that forum. How do I find it?-- Fahrenheit451 16:31, 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? -- Fahrenheit451 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
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. ( RookZERO 21:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC))
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 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? REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
COFS, chill! Thank you. Misou 04:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
yandman 16:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi COFS, I see you've been adding quite a few undersourced BLPs on the 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 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. AvB ÷ talk 07:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
COFS, you are warned to stop your incivility. You are violating wikipedia policy doing so.-- Fahrenheit451 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Shutterbug ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
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 reason:
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).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 22:23, 29 April 2007 (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.
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:
::Glad you could come by, CSI LA. Well, here we are, Anynobody, no offense taken. What now, brown cow? COFS 04:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
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. 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 CSI LA in the context of your checkuser request. That was worth the effort already. COFS 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
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). Anynobody 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
True enough that Wikipediatrix/Highfructosecornsyrop were the same, however 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, COFS wass blocked and CSI LA steps in to take up his argument as shown here, diff. That was the first time I encountered the userid. Anynobody 02:10, 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 diff.
What I get back for that honesty is really amazing.
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). Anynobody 03:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
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. Raeft 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
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 3RR (or other gaming), or over-representing consensus (read WP:SOCK for the details). For your convenience here are links to your block log, and the expiration of your current block. ·· coel acan 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
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 will expire, so this is just for future reference. ·· coel acan 06:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
... if it is against the Scientology directives? I am curious. Smee 05:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
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
Bravehartbear 07:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
PS Play by the rules ok.
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
Bravehartbear
15:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Stacy Meyer, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's 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:
Accounts used solely for blatant self-promotion may be blocked indefinitely without further warning.
For more details, please read the Conflict of Interest guideline. Thank you. Jehochman ( talk/ contrib) 18:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
Kirstie Alley. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Jehochman (
talk/
contrib)
02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to
Bennetta Slaughter, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Jehochman (
talk/
contrib)
02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to David Singer, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jehochman ( talk/ contrib) 02:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I issued a sequence of three warnings because I saw a pattern of POV pushing. [3] [4] [5] 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. Jehochman ( talk/ contrib) 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. COFS 02:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Scientologist. Feel free to ask questions.
|
Hi COFS , Welcome to WP! Jpierreg 03:30, 15 February 2007 (GMT)
Thanks! COFS 06:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
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. ~ Zythe Talk to me! 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I can't help but notice you removed "ref overkill" from this article. There is no wiki policy regarding "too many references", in fact, the feeling generally is "the more the merrier!". Furthermore, as you quite openly self-identify as a Scientologist, and given the fact that most of your edits revolve around the CoS in some way, the removal of such links could be easily interpreted as a conflict of interest.
I don't want to discourage you from working on these articles, but please keep Wiki policies like NPOV in mind.
Thanks!
Lankiveil 12:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Your mass removal of links to {{tl:ScientologySeries}} and to sites that you don't agree with must stop. You are misinterpreting policy on NPOV -- it doesn't mean "I get to remove whatever I disagree with". Cleduc 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Please stop going through articles deleting links while using plainly bogus edit summaries (e.g. "vandalism removed"). There may be an issue with whether the links are needed, but you should discuss this with other editors rather than going on a controversial link-deleting spree. -- ChrisO 18:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
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 page for the Catherine Bell article. Enuja 19:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see User talk:ChrisO#COFS removal of non-RS, POV, Scientologist "outing site" and my talk. -- Justanother 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This comment [1] in the edit summary: you must be on drugs or you did not read the book is uncalled for. Please respect WP:NPA. -- Tilman 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This remark [2] you are coming from this country where the Nazis ruled not long ago is uncalled for. Please respect WP:NPA. -- Tilman 18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
DES (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
COFS, you might want to check out this. I am not a supporter of the cabal theories on Wikipedia, but this one might be worth a better look. CSI LA 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Fahrenheit451 22:57, 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.-- Fahrenheit451 23:11, 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.-- Fahrenheit451 23:21, 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.-- Fahrenheit451 00:24, 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.-- Fahrenheit451 00:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
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 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 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. COFS 04:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
How do you work that into your charge of WP:PA or does "this thread is done" mean that you do not have to? -- Justanother 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)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.
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. -- Fahrenheit451 23:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Who would "toast" me, COFS? Who are you refering to? -- Fahrenheit451 01:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi F451. I moved your stuff over here. COFS 03:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
COFS, Stop blanking and moving discussions from their proper pages.-- Fahrenheit451 03:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No you just demonstrated disruptive editing.-- Fahrenheit451 03:35, 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.-- 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. 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. 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.-- Fahrenheit451 04:21, 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.-- Fahrenheit451 04:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Stop your false accusations, COFS. What is a.r.s.? Is that a new cofs term?-- Fahrenheit451 16:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I was never on that forum. How do I find it?-- Fahrenheit451 16:31, 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? -- Fahrenheit451 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
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. ( RookZERO 21:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC))
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 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? REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
COFS, chill! Thank you. Misou 04:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
yandman 16:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi COFS, I see you've been adding quite a few undersourced BLPs on the 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 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. AvB ÷ talk 07:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
COFS, you are warned to stop your incivility. You are violating wikipedia policy doing so.-- Fahrenheit451 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Shutterbug ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
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 reason:
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).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 22:23, 29 April 2007 (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.
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:
::Glad you could come by, CSI LA. Well, here we are, Anynobody, no offense taken. What now, brown cow? COFS 04:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
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. 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 CSI LA in the context of your checkuser request. That was worth the effort already. COFS 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
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). Anynobody 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
True enough that Wikipediatrix/Highfructosecornsyrop were the same, however 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, COFS wass blocked and CSI LA steps in to take up his argument as shown here, diff. That was the first time I encountered the userid. Anynobody 02:10, 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 diff.
What I get back for that honesty is really amazing.
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). Anynobody 03:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
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. Raeft 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
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 3RR (or other gaming), or over-representing consensus (read WP:SOCK for the details). For your convenience here are links to your block log, and the expiration of your current block. ·· coel acan 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
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 will expire, so this is just for future reference. ·· coel acan 06:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
... if it is against the Scientology directives? I am curious. Smee 05:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
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
Bravehartbear 07:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
PS Play by the rules ok.
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
Bravehartbear
15:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Stacy Meyer, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's 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:
Accounts used solely for blatant self-promotion may be blocked indefinitely without further warning.
For more details, please read the Conflict of Interest guideline. Thank you. Jehochman ( talk/ contrib) 18:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
Kirstie Alley. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Jehochman (
talk/
contrib)
02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to
Bennetta Slaughter, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Jehochman (
talk/
contrib)
02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to David Singer, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jehochman ( talk/ contrib) 02:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I issued a sequence of three warnings because I saw a pattern of POV pushing. [3] [4] [5] 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. Jehochman ( talk/ contrib) 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. COFS 02:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)