To all reading this page please clearly read the definition of a cult "any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific." Scientology meets the definition of a cult and should be labeled as such, or at least not labeled as a recognized religion.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Danny Masterson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Equazcion •✗/ C • 09:44, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC) 09:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
FreeThoughts ( talk)They do not constitute vandalizing of the pages. Check your sources.
~~Show me a neutral source that does not say it is a cult.
All sources refer to it as a cult. xenu.net is more than reliable, watch any number of videos regarding it.
The guardian is not a neutral source on the matter, seeing as the UK does not view it as a religion.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Katie Holmes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 10:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours. You have violated our policy by edit warring and by consistently violating the requirement that articles maintain a neutral point of view. This edit in particular is clearly disruptive to the process of Wikipedia. Please take this time away from editing to reconsider your approach. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise and requires you to work with other editors to resolve disputes. Continual edit wars on articles is not the right approach to solving disputes. You might also like to refamiliarize yourself with WP:NPOV and WP:V, our core content policies.
If you believe this block is inappropriate, you can ask for it to be reviewed by adding {{unblock|reason}} to this talk page, replacing reason with your reason for requesting to be unblocked. Thanks, Gwernol 10:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
FreeThoughts ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am being blocked simply because of the point of view that the deliberate misinformation spread by these people that scientology is a religion. While I admit that my points on marking that the Church of Scientology is a cult on pages was to to help avoid confusion that it is not necessarily a religious church by the definition of religion. I see how that could be taken as not neutral POV, but editing a page saying that it should not be called a religion because that is also not neutral is hypocritical
Decline reason:
You have provided no reason to believe you would refrain from further edit wars regarding Scientology's status as a cult or a religion if you were unblocked. Indeed, your comments here indicate you have every intention of continuing, which will definitely result in an extended block. — Yamla ( talk) 15:20, 11 February 2008 (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.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.:!-FreeThought
Let me bring this a bit back down to earth. The article on Scientology itself already deals well with the notion that Scientology is a cult. There's a section on it ( Scientology#Hypnosis and Scientology as a cult) and there's also Scientology controversies. In any article where scientology's status as a religion or cult is part of the main topic, it's appropriate to present an all-around picture of the situation. In articles like Katie Holmes, though, this is not part of the topic and using that article to bash Scientology is inappropriate. If you continue this kind of editing when you return you will quickly be shown the door permanently. Contentious editing about Scientology has disrupted Wikipedia to such an extent that all articles related to Scientology are on Wikipedia:Article probation. As an uninvolved administrator, I am placing you on notice under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS - any further disruption from you related to Scientology will result in a 1-year topic ban. Mango juice talk 15:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you care to explain this edit? Equazcion •✗/ C • 02:57, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)
To all reading this page please clearly read the definition of a cult "any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific." Scientology meets the definition of a cult and should be labeled as such, or at least not labeled as a recognized religion.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Danny Masterson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Equazcion •✗/ C • 09:44, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC) 09:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
FreeThoughts ( talk)They do not constitute vandalizing of the pages. Check your sources.
~~Show me a neutral source that does not say it is a cult.
All sources refer to it as a cult. xenu.net is more than reliable, watch any number of videos regarding it.
The guardian is not a neutral source on the matter, seeing as the UK does not view it as a religion.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Katie Holmes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 10:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours. You have violated our policy by edit warring and by consistently violating the requirement that articles maintain a neutral point of view. This edit in particular is clearly disruptive to the process of Wikipedia. Please take this time away from editing to reconsider your approach. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise and requires you to work with other editors to resolve disputes. Continual edit wars on articles is not the right approach to solving disputes. You might also like to refamiliarize yourself with WP:NPOV and WP:V, our core content policies.
If you believe this block is inappropriate, you can ask for it to be reviewed by adding {{unblock|reason}} to this talk page, replacing reason with your reason for requesting to be unblocked. Thanks, Gwernol 10:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
FreeThoughts ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am being blocked simply because of the point of view that the deliberate misinformation spread by these people that scientology is a religion. While I admit that my points on marking that the Church of Scientology is a cult on pages was to to help avoid confusion that it is not necessarily a religious church by the definition of religion. I see how that could be taken as not neutral POV, but editing a page saying that it should not be called a religion because that is also not neutral is hypocritical
Decline reason:
You have provided no reason to believe you would refrain from further edit wars regarding Scientology's status as a cult or a religion if you were unblocked. Indeed, your comments here indicate you have every intention of continuing, which will definitely result in an extended block. — Yamla ( talk) 15:20, 11 February 2008 (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.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.:!-FreeThought
Let me bring this a bit back down to earth. The article on Scientology itself already deals well with the notion that Scientology is a cult. There's a section on it ( Scientology#Hypnosis and Scientology as a cult) and there's also Scientology controversies. In any article where scientology's status as a religion or cult is part of the main topic, it's appropriate to present an all-around picture of the situation. In articles like Katie Holmes, though, this is not part of the topic and using that article to bash Scientology is inappropriate. If you continue this kind of editing when you return you will quickly be shown the door permanently. Contentious editing about Scientology has disrupted Wikipedia to such an extent that all articles related to Scientology are on Wikipedia:Article probation. As an uninvolved administrator, I am placing you on notice under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS - any further disruption from you related to Scientology will result in a 1-year topic ban. Mango juice talk 15:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you care to explain this edit? Equazcion •✗/ C • 02:57, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)