Why would it not be labeled by the proper article name of Operation Clambake? - Denny 22:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Didn't know you were part of my cabal didcha? -- Justanother 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Why, exactly, would I wish to e-mail you, as you suggest in the edit summary where you left false accusations of vandalism on my user page? They were indeed false, as you might learn if you read Wikipedia:Vandalism and learned what kind of edits the term "vandalism" does not include. Edits to remove original research and poorly sourced information in order to comply with WP:BLP are most definitely not vandalism. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Posting what you believe to be another editor's personal information is a violation of WP:HARASS, even if your beliefs are incorrect. You included what Barbara Schwarz asserts to be the real name of another editor in an edit summary. You are being warned now. The next time you do this or anything like it I will request an administrator not only remove your edit but block you for your knowing harassment. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You falsely claim that you removed an WP:AGF violation from this page, referring to my post in which I warned you about circumstances in which proposed deletion was explicitly prohibited by policy. That is a false accusation on your part, one which I will thank you not to repeat. Here is the first sentence of the post which you removed under a false and insulting edit summary: "I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that when you added the proposed deletion tag to Tilman Hausherr you either a) were unaware of some very basic facts about the proposed deletion process, b) failed to check some key facts, or c) both." I did what I was required to do by WP:AGF -- even though your action was explicitly prohibited by policy, I gave you of the benefit of the doubt that it was an unknowing mistake and not a deliberate violation. I would appreciate an apology for your false accusations. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
re your editing note
"Promotional entries and link list removed (and left the article in place, for now)"
I take your point about the links list, it has got overlong and some pruning might be in order. Someone does appear to be keeping it up to date.
However there are IMO special circumstances in that there are presently no other sources of information about the Freezone, unlike Scientology or the Church of Scientology which are if anything over documented. The media and academia are with a few exceptions in denial about the Freezone's existence ("cults cannot have heretics"). We have to have some references the article, which already has a missing references warning attached to it. Discuss this on the Talk page?
Was your threat to remove the article a joke? :-)
--
Hartley Patterson
12:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Misou. Please provide a reason or your "vote" will carry no weight. Thanks -- Justanother 22:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Misou. There seem to be a lot of Scientology related articles that could be deleted. My comment of the Village pump message page that there were 240 (now 242 or 243) Scientology articles was picked up by at least one blogger outside of WP. As for Tilman and Barbara, they are of course not notable but nobody in their right mind would be interested in reading their articles so no harm is done by them. Cheers. -- Steve Dufour 22:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC) aka "The man who tried to delete Xenu from Wikipedia" :-)
The "networked propaganda in the best German tradition" is definitely your opinion. But no more than that. The freezone groups are quite active and in some areas larger than the cofs. I suggest you do some fact finding before coming to conclusions.-- Fahrenheit451 22:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't bother me. I forget to sign, even w/ constant reminder. Who IS it a big deal for, and why?
Tritely; Thaddeus Slamp 03:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, it is accidental. I try, but I forget sometimes Thaddeus Slamp 18:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid inflammatory language like
this is not helpful in an environment where we have to work together. -- Tilman 16:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
One of the tactics used by POV pushers is to continually harss you with the rules and by walking a line and dancing around the rules, until you lose your cool. Then they have the proof they wanted that you are the bad-guy (even if they did create the result as a direct consequence of their actions). Keep a level head and spend some time searching for related issues that 'they' have had with other contributors. They are able to thrive by skirting around the rules, settling disputes just before their wiki presence is threatened, playing nice and promising to get along ... and then they move on to harass another article or contributor and insert their pov and begin the process again. Don't allow them to make it personal for you. Stick to facts and avoid name calling. The longer I watch and look around, the more I find that the same offenders are involved in numerous edit warring and pov pushing. Hopefully the editors will eventually catch on and stop it. Lsi john 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Misou, I don't know you, but these comments are uncivil:"(Undid revision 121272944 by Fahrenheit451 No. Discuss this first and get consensus. As you know, totalitarian behavior cannot be admitted here.)" and "(Undid revision 121336869 True on the unobstructive, but it links to a stub with 90% hubbard text. This is not Fahrenheit451's personal promotion box.)". I was unaware a consensus had to be reached and nothing "totalitarian" was said or done there. The template never was a "personal promotion box" for me. Please stop your incivility.-- Fahrenheit451 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
And your reply to me was uncivil and does not assume good faith. I am asking you again to knock off your incivility and assume good faith with other users. -- Fahrenheit451 21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, right. All you are doing is setting up people and attack them for whatever. Are you here to edit, too? Misou 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you are speaking about yourself.-- Fahrenheit451 03:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments like these
are possibly not according to the spirit of WP:CIVIL. And they're not very helpful either. -- Tilman 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Please check out Scientology Finance. Steve Dufour 05:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
see my comment on the discussion page of the article. ( RookZERO 02:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC))
Why would it not be labeled by the proper article name of Operation Clambake? - Denny 22:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Didn't know you were part of my cabal didcha? -- Justanother 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Why, exactly, would I wish to e-mail you, as you suggest in the edit summary where you left false accusations of vandalism on my user page? They were indeed false, as you might learn if you read Wikipedia:Vandalism and learned what kind of edits the term "vandalism" does not include. Edits to remove original research and poorly sourced information in order to comply with WP:BLP are most definitely not vandalism. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Posting what you believe to be another editor's personal information is a violation of WP:HARASS, even if your beliefs are incorrect. You included what Barbara Schwarz asserts to be the real name of another editor in an edit summary. You are being warned now. The next time you do this or anything like it I will request an administrator not only remove your edit but block you for your knowing harassment. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You falsely claim that you removed an WP:AGF violation from this page, referring to my post in which I warned you about circumstances in which proposed deletion was explicitly prohibited by policy. That is a false accusation on your part, one which I will thank you not to repeat. Here is the first sentence of the post which you removed under a false and insulting edit summary: "I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that when you added the proposed deletion tag to Tilman Hausherr you either a) were unaware of some very basic facts about the proposed deletion process, b) failed to check some key facts, or c) both." I did what I was required to do by WP:AGF -- even though your action was explicitly prohibited by policy, I gave you of the benefit of the doubt that it was an unknowing mistake and not a deliberate violation. I would appreciate an apology for your false accusations. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
re your editing note
"Promotional entries and link list removed (and left the article in place, for now)"
I take your point about the links list, it has got overlong and some pruning might be in order. Someone does appear to be keeping it up to date.
However there are IMO special circumstances in that there are presently no other sources of information about the Freezone, unlike Scientology or the Church of Scientology which are if anything over documented. The media and academia are with a few exceptions in denial about the Freezone's existence ("cults cannot have heretics"). We have to have some references the article, which already has a missing references warning attached to it. Discuss this on the Talk page?
Was your threat to remove the article a joke? :-)
--
Hartley Patterson
12:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Misou. Please provide a reason or your "vote" will carry no weight. Thanks -- Justanother 22:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Misou. There seem to be a lot of Scientology related articles that could be deleted. My comment of the Village pump message page that there were 240 (now 242 or 243) Scientology articles was picked up by at least one blogger outside of WP. As for Tilman and Barbara, they are of course not notable but nobody in their right mind would be interested in reading their articles so no harm is done by them. Cheers. -- Steve Dufour 22:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC) aka "The man who tried to delete Xenu from Wikipedia" :-)
The "networked propaganda in the best German tradition" is definitely your opinion. But no more than that. The freezone groups are quite active and in some areas larger than the cofs. I suggest you do some fact finding before coming to conclusions.-- Fahrenheit451 22:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't bother me. I forget to sign, even w/ constant reminder. Who IS it a big deal for, and why?
Tritely; Thaddeus Slamp 03:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, it is accidental. I try, but I forget sometimes Thaddeus Slamp 18:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid inflammatory language like
this is not helpful in an environment where we have to work together. -- Tilman 16:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
One of the tactics used by POV pushers is to continually harss you with the rules and by walking a line and dancing around the rules, until you lose your cool. Then they have the proof they wanted that you are the bad-guy (even if they did create the result as a direct consequence of their actions). Keep a level head and spend some time searching for related issues that 'they' have had with other contributors. They are able to thrive by skirting around the rules, settling disputes just before their wiki presence is threatened, playing nice and promising to get along ... and then they move on to harass another article or contributor and insert their pov and begin the process again. Don't allow them to make it personal for you. Stick to facts and avoid name calling. The longer I watch and look around, the more I find that the same offenders are involved in numerous edit warring and pov pushing. Hopefully the editors will eventually catch on and stop it. Lsi john 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Misou, I don't know you, but these comments are uncivil:"(Undid revision 121272944 by Fahrenheit451 No. Discuss this first and get consensus. As you know, totalitarian behavior cannot be admitted here.)" and "(Undid revision 121336869 True on the unobstructive, but it links to a stub with 90% hubbard text. This is not Fahrenheit451's personal promotion box.)". I was unaware a consensus had to be reached and nothing "totalitarian" was said or done there. The template never was a "personal promotion box" for me. Please stop your incivility.-- Fahrenheit451 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
And your reply to me was uncivil and does not assume good faith. I am asking you again to knock off your incivility and assume good faith with other users. -- Fahrenheit451 21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, right. All you are doing is setting up people and attack them for whatever. Are you here to edit, too? Misou 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you are speaking about yourself.-- Fahrenheit451 03:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments like these
are possibly not according to the spirit of WP:CIVIL. And they're not very helpful either. -- Tilman 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Please check out Scientology Finance. Steve Dufour 05:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
see my comment on the discussion page of the article. ( RookZERO 02:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC))