Hello. I haven't logged into my Wikipedia account in quite a while, so I was not aware that I had been dragged into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology until a friend told me today that I'd been topic banned. I wish to protest this ban as unjustified.
A look at my
edit history shows that I have not edited any Scientology-related article since 2007. (Been busy doing other things.) I contributed a few typo/grammar fixes in 2008, but none of those articles were about Scientology. It is unreasonable to topic ban me in 2009 when I've never received any kind of reprimand or caution about any edits I've made, and have done nothing wrong, even when I was editing Scientology articles back in 2007.
Second, the ruling criticizes me for editing the article on Applied Scholastics and for including a link to my StudyTech.org web site. The StudyTech.org web site is the primary reference for anyone who wants a critical look at the subject. That is why the current Applied Scholastics article, which I have not touched since 2007, continues to link to StudyTech.org; any article that did not link to this resource would be incomplete. I don't think it's Wikpedia policy that only non-experts can edit an article. And I reject the view that my edits are self-interested. People write about what they know. Being a Scientology critic shouldn't prohibit me from editing Scientology-related articles any more than being a Scientologist would.
Being topic banned is humiliating and, in my case, unjustified. I'd like to request that this ban be rescinded. -- Touretzky (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
(This is the same copy to another ArbCom clerk for Tang Dynasty, Sam Korn) I'm seriously asking you to stop Tenmei continuing disruptive behaviors until the ArbCom case is closed. It is extremely frustrating that ArbCom clerks and Arbitrators just let Tenmei harass me. Tenmei has called me "toxic long-tern edit warrior" more than 10 times during the ArbCom case and attacked me with vicious verbal abuses. I can't imagine this kind of abuses has been condoned for two months, and if Tenmei were in other ArbCom cases like Macedonian or Obama case, he would have been already blocked for such behaviors. Since you're a ArbCom clerk, I'm asking you to warn him or impose an appropriate sanction to him. Thanks.--Caspian blue 17:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mailer, see my new notes here. Paul August☎ 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mailer. I've made a minor change to your posted "Final decision". My checking code found no errors, so good job. Paul August☎ 15:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Report #1, copy is on the article probation talk page[edit]
Mr. Diablo,
You have asked for comments. Here is a comment. I am so fed up with POV pushers that I have retired from WP since late 2008.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I hereby notify the working group that the article probation is ineffective. I am so fed up with subtle POV pushing (and not so subtle POV pushing) that these warriors have chased me away from WP. I am now retired. These warriors should be blocked for destructing WP by chasing people away.
The most common POV pushing is using wikilawyering excuses to get their way. They say a point is not relevant or they use some other excuse. Basically, any right wing fanatic that only edits negative information on Obama and other liberals are one kind of POV pusher. Another is a left wing radical who insists on no negative information on Obama. You can see them insist the same thing for articles like Sotomayor and/or Hillary Clinton. Important information is taken out.
These people are not hard to find. Just look at 3 days of edits and see if they are removing negative or adding negative. Then look at their other edits and 99% of the time, there is a pattern.
Another problem is the article doesn't comprehensive cover Obama. For example, his Afghanistan policy is very relevant. However, late last year, someone put a neutral comment about Afghanistan and the left wing radicals thought any mention of Afghanistan conflicted with the anti-war Iraq message so they took that out. The right wing fanatics are guilty of similar actions such as the Teleprompter issue. All of the fair minded people are gone.
The article probation is ineffective because it allows the old timer radicals to continue to edit, collapse peoples' comments into boxes to cover-up discussion. They claim the "undue weight" argument but insert trivial things themselves.
PARTIAL SOLUTION
The partial solution is to organize a committee to decide what sections there will be. Then sub-committees will decide on the most important topics of each section. Only the POV warriors have the energy to insert a sentence then fight over it. Neutral people don't have the fanaticism to do so.
This way, we can overcome radicalism. The current presidency section could be open to anyone to add a sentence or two since it is current. However, the committee work could fix his senatorial career and Illinois stuff and early life. Anyone could join the committee. The committee can work on one section every month and it will be done before years end.
Mailer Diablo, please consider this. It is important to combat radicalism because they ruin WP by chasing away editors. This is why I retired. So these radicals commit sneaky vandalism by chasing away people.
A tag has been placed on File:MD12-poster.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
A free licensed MD-12 picture is here
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:File:MD12-poster.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Uwe W. (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fantastico De Luxe. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, Mailer diablo! Do you remember our mutual peer review arrangement? We agreed that I would review Odex's actions against file-sharing, while you would review I Not Stupid Too (which you did, thanks!) and Murder of Huang Na. The latter article is currently on peer review and, after four days, has not received any reviews yet. I understand you are taking a wikibreak, but perhaps you could spare a little time to contribute a review? Alternatively, you could review one of the following three articles sometime in September to November: Xiaxue, Money No Enough or Pathlight School. Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
After sifting through what seemed to be eleventeen gajillion names and talk pages on the list of Adopters, I ultimately settled on contacting you (yay! you :) ).
Anyhow, I'm not certain what all an adopter/adoptee relationship entails, but I do know that I have a couple of questions that could best be answered by one who is more deeply entrenched in the wikipedia community than myself. My current questions have to do with what seems to be pretty basic information (ie. article structure, valid references). However, I probably stumble upon one situation a week for which I could use the input of a more seasoned editor. Perhaps I just need to better find my way around the help pages and FAQ's (over the years, it seems they have become pretty convoluted and misleading). I'm not sure, but if you could hit me back at your convenience, maybe I could ask you some things. -K10wnsta (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll pose a couple of questions I have relating to an edit I made several days ago...
The 'Latest News' section on the Daniel Ruettiger page (the subject of the movie Rudy) does not seem to be very encyclopedic. At least in my opinion. I checked several other pages devoted to celebrities and was unable to find any that followed a structure that listed 'Latest News' (although I don't doubt they're out there). My searches of the FAQ's on formatting turned up nothing explicitly against it, but it just seemed inappropriate to me.
That being said, I would have been content to merely tweak the heading to something more appropriate, but then I began scrutinizing the actual content of the section. The fact that the subject has a book deal seemed somewhat frivolous, though possibly noteworthy (once the book is finished, obviously it's worth mentioning). Upon checking the citation for the information on some of the claims, the reference material seemed grossly self-promotional.
Anyhow, I just deleted the section (and saw that someone else had deleted it before as well). Sure enough, 2 days later, it was reverted (as was the case in the prior deletion).
So I guess my question is twofold: Is the reference listed in that section appropriate 'source' material and how does that section, in general, hold up to wikipedia standards? -K10wnsta (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
In re-examining the above mentioned article, I noticed a lengthy 'Awards' section at the end of it. Do listings such as that require references? Some of them seemed like maybe the guy posted them himself, in which case, it wouldn't require a citation would it? I mean...he would know, wouldn't he? -K10wnsta (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Btw, I hope you feel better soon (if feeling bad is part of the reason for your leave) -K10wnsta (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Hi there MD. The question you asked me (and everyone else) seems to be hard to answer in general terms. Could you maybe provide examples of behavior that you would classify as such "attempts of gaming the system"? Regards SoWhy 06:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Requesting action or please advise on this editing restriction of one revert per week and a requirement of using the talk page. ChildofMidnight's the only editor reverting on the Paul Krugman BLP article without using the talk page. Recent reverts here and here. Thanks in advance. Scribner (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I like taylor garron. she's the best girl ever! i liked her on zoom and fetch! with ruff ruffman. anyway, why did you delete her article from wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.160.165 (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've heard of OTRS, but I don't completely understand it. What exactly is it, and how can Brian Quintana's claim be verified? If the source was retracted, where was it retracted? In a subsequent issue? Can he supply it? Or can material like this simply be removed on a BLP's say-so? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't "link" him to the charity, the reliable sources we cited did. And what does the fact that the charity bears Zamora's name have to do with it? As for Quintana's claim, if it hasn't been substantiated, then there is no basis for removing that material, since it's sourced. If The Advocate retracted the claim, he should be able to cite the subsequent issue in which they did so. Until he does, then it hasn't been established that it's been retracted. Nightscream (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
No prob. But the more detailed version of that material would certainly be valid for inclusion in Quintana's own article (which I forgot he had), unless he can provide that documentation that it was retracted. Let me know whether or not he is able to provide it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I have another question. Well a couple little questions about one article.
Okay, I happened upon this article about a little known band that played at Woodstock. It's a wall of text that includes statements like:
"The remaining four disbanded Quill .... leaving a major asterisk in the history of the late '60's rock culture explosion."
That particular quote sounds like...I dunno, I want to say it's peacocking but I'm not sure that's it. Anyhow, in the entire wall of text, there's not a single citation. A request for citations in the article was put up in June.
But here's where it gets interesting (in my opinion). If you go back to the original article postings (it's had less than 100 edits since 2004), the information about how their performance at Woodstock was received is radically different. Strangely, I've heard personal accounts from Woodstock attendees about a band that did exactly what was described in the original article posting (throwing stage equipment into the crowd because they weren't well-received). However, neither of the folks relating the events to me could remember who the band was (and I didn't bother finding out as this was a few years ago, long before I knew anything about this band, much less the circumstances of this article)
Upon further review of the edit history, it seems the original info in the article was changed to it's current form (in 2006) by the band leader.
So here's my questions/curiousities:
If citations aren't provided within X amount of time, would it be necessary to just delete the entire article since it's wholly uncited?
In it's current state, the article sounds blatantly embellished to cast the subject in a favorable light. What's more, it seems like it's a comflict of interest (POV-wise) for the leader of the band to be the source of the material (I would trust the info from the concert attendees before I would trust his account of it, seeing as how they'd be less prone to bias).
I know it's frowned upon for a living person to edit their own article (POV/bias). Wouldn't this be a comparable situation? (It seems no different than Bill Gates writing the entire article on Microsoft)
As a result of the 40th anniversary of Woodstock, this article is being used heavily in [[2]] newspaper articles. I find it alarming that articles that using the wiki as source may now be cited as source for the wiki. Is history being rewritten? Uggh...the conundrum makes my head hurt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K10wnsta (talk • contribs) 10:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm new here, but I hope to add what I can to the project. Thanks for helping make it human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JungleJoe (talk • contribs) 10:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello diablo,
can i seek your advice i added some balanced and on the record/in the public domain information to this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Tea_Tree_Gully
and the entire section i added was deleted. Was that the correct page for that information to be located?
If not, Can you make a suggestion as to where would be a more appropriate page to have this information.
thanks.
Wildstyle (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
A friend of mine some time ago suggested that I write to someone in Wiki to clarify an issue. I never did in the past because I am not a fan of this site and am not interested in its content, and I am not because of the reason, and reasons like it, my friend requested I contact you. She asked due to errors that existed in my bio, but since the bio has been deleted, I feel a lot better about this site since, if you can't get information right, you might as well not have any there. From the recent news I've read, I am glad to see Wiki has learned this lesson.
Anyway, even in the chronicle of deletion events surrounding the bio, one of the errors creeps in, and it has to do with my name. My BIRTH name is Eric Dwight Ben-Meir. My LEGAL name is Sankara Saranam, as I had a LEGAL name change. Anyone anywhere that references me by my birth name, when they must know me first as Sankara Saranam (the legal name I went by years before I published my book) is merely being rude. There was a little clique of angry writers on the net that decided to only refer to me by my birth name in condescending tones because they were angry that I exposed, in clear English, their yoga teacher as a fraud. Since they could not reply with reason, they replied with rudeness.
I don't know if I will ever do anything in this world to warrant a Wiki bio entry, but if others request or start writing them again, I would appreciate it if you could get my name right, and post it under Sankara Saranam. That is my legal name and the name my friends and family call me by. Of course, referencing my birth name in such a biographical article is fine, and I have no reason to be ashamed of that name since it is the name given my my father, Alon Ben-Meir, who was a great father and who happens to have a bio on Wiki for his worldly accomplishments.
In the chronicle of deletions, it also states that on one of my web pages it mentions that my legal name is Eric Dwight Ben-Meir. That is also false since I made Sankara Saranam legal only a few weeks after I received the name in Varanasi, which was around ten years ago. I am the sole editor of my web pages, and only I determine content. The only place my birth name was ever mentioned was in the response to an E-mail from the fraud teacher himself. Again, since he could not apply reason to hide his sense of shame at appearing as such a simpleton, he went on a rampage of hate entries that spanned from his blog to Amazon.com reviews to a whole host of forum posts around the net, with his henchmen following suit.
So, two errors just in the chronicle of deletions, not to mention in the bio. Then again, as an expert on religion and its history, I see errors in posts from supposed religion professors. I think misinformation of this kind is even more destructive when it is amalgamated into correct and useful information, as it degrades the discriminatory abilities of readers. Then again, if readers take things here with a grain of salt, I don't see much harm done. I do love Wiktionary.
Thanks for your time.
Sankara Saranam
P.S. You can write to me at SSaranam <redacted> and I will happily confirm that I am writing this missive. My apologies if this is the wrong place to send this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.128.67.208 (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You might get a better response by writing to info-en-q at wikimedia dot org, which deals with such requests specifically. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Some time ago an edit by user X was reported by a second user on WP:ANI, whereupon user X was indefinitely blocked by an administrator. The argumentation for the block, which was based on one of our policies, was supported by several other administrators. However, I am of the opinion that the scope of the policy appealed to is rather narrow for good reasons and does not apply to the edit by X (independent of the merits of this edit or lack thereof), and that, if let stand, this application of the policy sets a precedent that dangerously widens the scope of this policy. I have argued this in vain at WP:ANI, and have been advised that if I want to pursue the issue I should file a request for arbitration. Indeed, I would like to see ArbComm consider whether this specification application of the policy was correct or – as I think – an "error of law". To file a request I need to identify the "involved parties".
At one extreme, everyone else who has contributed an opinion in this case (some 16 users) is an involved party. At the other extreme, only the blocking admin is an involved party. I am really unclear here about what it takes to become an "involved party" and at a loss how I should determine who is one and who is not. Please advise. --Lambiam 09:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Stephen Toulouse. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. White 720 (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Diablo: Earlier this month I made a contribution to Naturalism (Philosophy). It was immediately taken down by Snowded, who made three remarks: 1) I didn't have enough attribution. If you will check my work I think you will see there was plenty of it, all with proper links or footnotes. 2)That I seemed to have an agenda. Well, I did, namely to distinguish between the many various factions of Naturalism and to demonstrate that in many cases between highly distinguished sources there is disagreement about definitions. 3)He didn't like my attribution to Ayn Rand. I now discover that he was banned from editing Ayn Rand for 3 months. Perhaps it's one of the reasons he jumped on me so quickly?
I used his Talk page to discuss a few things with him, but he said if I wanted to discuss the subject, use the subject Talk page. That I did. He has not addressed my concerns since that time, and I'd like to go back and work on Naturalism, but not until I can be certain Snowded or someone like him won't just hack my work off completely. Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I need to unsemi-protect an article that i need to edit instead of using the wikipedia sandbox. Please unsemi-protect the article spongebob squarepants (character) so i can edit it. Will you please do the job? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.160.170 (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
It'll be better if you can discuss the proposed changes on the article's talkpage, or the admin who have originally semi-protected it (check the protection log for details). Other editors interested in the topic would be more than happy to make the specific changes for you when they see the talkpage. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I came across several odd edits to User:GoodDamon's user page watching recent changes. I wanted to revert but since your name was mentioned in one of the edits, I thought I'd check with you. If you are able to shed any light on the matter it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Tiderolls 02:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for taking care of that for me. Is there a project or effort on Wikipedia to protect children? I was thinking of a Child Protection Task Force type thing. Perhaps a bot that searches user pages for people who identify themselves as 13 or younger and also has an address, email, phone, ect? Anything that could be a COPAA violation? I noticed there is no real policy and only a few essays. Is this a big part of what you do as Oversight? Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, I think the arbs noted the BLP violations should be suppressed, and the GainLine FoFs should be combined. Perhaps you could look this over. Thanks. Steven ZhangThe clock is ticking.... 09:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I realise this, but am pretty sure the arbs noted the closing clerk should omit the diffs from the final decision [3]. I could post an amendment if you'd prefer though. Steven ZhangThe clock is ticking.... 09:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem. There are a few more comments I'd like to make, but I'll make them at the Committee noticeboard talk page...but the section isn't there yet :). Noticed the case is still marked as open. :) Steven ZhangThe clock is ticking.... 09:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to verify the articles that are being placed under restriction, is it Just the articles that you have templated ?
Thanks! so only remotely linked articles eg. Garda Public Order Unit or Ray Burke, would only be restricted for subject matter related to Corrib gas? also sorry for forgetting to sign previous post GainLine ♠♥ 11:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
mobman was deleted there is more proove he is real there been interviews with him and all. The basis that he was deleted would be the same basis to delete Bill Gates from here. mobman's software was in the book of world records! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregtampa (talk • contribs) 22:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Crystallization separates a product from a liquid feedstream, often in extremely pure form, by cooling the feedstream or adding precipitants which lower the solubility of the desired product so that it forms crystals. The pure solid BABY ARE DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN. and the sky is fallin dowwwwnnnnn.. ahaha. jay sean you rock my world, the way you make me feel. i fell like i can heal the world with the help of billie jean.
Mailer diablo ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Tayib Rauf, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tayib Rauf. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. IQinn (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Pacnet.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
