User talk:Misou/Archive/Archive-Apr2007

Scientology template

Why would it not be labeled by the proper article name of Operation Clambake? - Denny 22:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the appropriate talk page here

You got it, it's here. - Denny 00:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Tilman_Hausherr#Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.2FNoticeboard

Didn't know you were part of my cabal didcha? --Justanother 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if I should feel honored now... Keep your cool and continue and this Wikipedia will result in something worthwhile to read. Misou 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, those are encouraging words! But, unless something changes, the bulk of the work will be done not by me but by non-Scientologist NPOV editors that are trying to make good articles and not propaganda pieces. Your help is welcome. --Justanother 23:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Deal. Misou 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Cool! PS, if you want another AfD on Tilman you just give it a different name like "Tilman Hausherr (2nd nomination)" on the AfD form. --Justanother 23:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(EC)? European Community? Extra Credit? Emergency Contraception? Misou 23:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(ha ha) Edit conflict. I usually put that if I amend what I was going to say as a result, which I did. --Justanother 23:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why an e-mail?

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)

Oi weh, I wonder who sent me one then if not you... Anyway, I think you should wish to sort out things off the record and save sorting out internal dissent for internal communication. But as you wish, we can have public discussions as well. Misou 23:08, 26 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 20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

WARNING: do not violate WP:HARASS

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)

Eh? Misou 01:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WARNING: Can you explain your edit summary at this diff? You are referring to another anonymous editor by a first name that Barbara Schwarz has claimed belongs to an anonymous editor. Outing editors by posting what you believe to be their real-life names is not appropriate behavior. If you continue in this vain, you will be blocked permanently. Vivaldi (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Vivaldi, I must have been in thoughts while typing that. How do I know that this is a "real name"? I actually don't nor have I claimed to know. However, "please find first RSes for your claims, and then you edit, thank you". That is the message here. Misou 20:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The name you used in the edit summary was one that Barbara Schwarz has previously alleged was the real name of an anonymous editor of Wikipedia. You intentionally violated harassment policy of Wikipedia by repeating it. It is harassment. I will not tolerate it and neither will the administrators of Wikipedia. I would suggest that you read through the policies and guidelines again. If you attempt to harass or intimidate Wikipedia editors again, you will be blocked. Vivaldi (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I got that and my intention was not what you say (sorry, but when I read an editors post I usually try to think of the person behind it, and not some anonymous identity. For me this makes it easier to follow the other guy's/girl's train of thought. After all this Scientology editors group here is pretty manageable and would barely fill a mini van). However, I will keep an extra eye on not typing it out loud. Misou 02:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You "try to think of the person behind it" and then you engage in a conversation with Barbara Schwarz to discover what she thinks are the real names of anonymous editors? And then you use this as literal fact while addressing others in edit summaries? Your excuse is pathetic and juvenile. And regardless of what you were trying to do (to keep it straight in your mind?), this is not appropriate behavior. Vivaldi (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You see, I have said my part on this and I am happy to give you something to rub in on me, since it might let you feel better. Now this is over and we get back to business. I never forget that this thread started off with you wildly deleting text in violation of WP:RS, without participating on the talk page of the article and without proper research.

BTW, I have never in my life talked or exchanged any type of communication with Barbara Schwarz nor taken any of her "research data" for fact. She seems however to be an interesting person just from the fact that you and others seem to give her so much attention. Is there any core of truth in what she has to say? Having filed so many FOIA requests she - just by probability - might have even received some eye-opening documents. Or - just to turn this around logically - are you aware that you are promoting her with your repeated mentioning? Misou 18:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, because when I think "solid, reliable, accurate reporting on 'eye-opening documents'" the first person I think of is the woman who thinks she was born in a submarine village beneath the Great Salt Lake. Stop trying to change the subject, Misou. The next time you pull those cutesy little "OOOOOOPS, I seem to have ACCIDENTALLY let slip what is purported to be the real name of an editor whom I just happen to regard as my enemy" it will not make one bit of difference that your information comes from a source less reliable than The Enquirer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

AF sideline

Since you got it from Barbara Schwarz, you certainly don't know that this is an editor's real name, but as already explained to you, that does not matter: revealing what you think to be an editor's personal information is a blockable offense whether your information is correct or not. And no, "the message here" is not the content of your edit summary that did not violate WP:HARASS; "the message here" is not to violate that policy in the first place. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with you(!) that BS is not RS. Misou 02:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make false accusations in edit summaries

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)

What benefit was that, having my user page "initiated" with rude words from the start? "Hello Misou, you are just a jerk, knowing nothing about Wikipedia. So look up to me, I am 'Antaeus'". That is how your message came across that time and I do not appreciate that. Nor do I appreciate your invalidating comments now, one month after the fact, which does not result in anything. And now, I ask you for the second (or third) time: please get back to improve Wikipedia articles. This is why I am here and this is the reason for you being here to, I assume. We can do this together if you are willing to. Misou 20:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My supposedly "invalidating" comments now are not "a month after the fact"; they were in fact posted within 24 hours of you falsely accusing me of violating WP:AGF. Don't talk to me about how you found my comments "rude", don't tell me that your own personal translation of them was "you are just a jerk, knowing nothing about Wikipedia, so look up to me", don't tell me my comments are "invalidating" now. Don't talk to me about any of those things because all of them are changing the subject from your false accusations. My message pointed out that you had placed a proposed deletion tag on an article that, per the instructions at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, was not an eligible candidate -- and it assumed that this was a mistake made in good faith. However, it is growing impossible to find any trace of good faith in your current attempts to slander me with false accusations, and then cover up your slander with "well I choose to read all sorts of nasty things into your message so that somehow makes it okay for me to accuse you of nasty things you provably did not do!" and "Now that I've smeared your name the issue is over and you're a bad person for wanting to reply to my mud-flinging with the actual facts!" There was no reason at all to throw a completely gratuitous and false accusation of WP:AGF violation into an edit summary in the first place -- so spare us the whining about how you are here to improve Wikipedia articles, because you sure weren't too busy improving Wikipedia articles to smear your fellow editors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to provoke me, once again, into actually violating WP rules. It won't work, "Antaeus", and is a waste of time. Misou 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If spelling out that "do not make false accusations against your fellow editors" is in fact a WP rule that you have violated and exhorting you to stop violating it is something you perceive as "trying to provoke [you] into actually violating WP rules" that says far more about your skewed perceptions than about anything else. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Freezone

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! I was not threatening, but I am happy you agree that this article needs to be worked over.As for the link list, you know, there is always someone checking my user contributions to make sure that my changes are in alignment with the Scientology policies on Wikipedia. Don't worry about it, you'll get them back shortly. As for reliable information about the Free Zone, well, I have not found any really but I do not accept your we-are-victims argument that the Freezone's existence is being denied. Either it does not really exist (just a handful of loud voices) or is disorganized like hell. Misou 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"the next thing happening is to add all Scientology websites in a linklist on Scientology, right? Must be 100s." I count at least 1166 domains and sub-domains. (Not including other Scientology-related entities.) 33 freezone, but there's a lot of fluctuation there. ;) AndroidCat 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite a lot of sites, you got a list posted somewhere? I can see there must be a lot of fluctuation, these guys come across as utterly disorganized, somehow trying to emulate the Church organization without showing it. Rather strange, but if there is reliable data on them, it should go in that article. Misou 18:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Tilman AfD

Hi Misou. Please provide a reason or your "vote" will carry no weight. Thanks --Justanother 22:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a system. Gotta justify a vote.... Will do, thanks for the hint. Misou 02:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That is because it is a discussion, not a vote, so you are expected to at least agree with someone. Thanks. --Justanother 02:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Misou 02:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the system. The AfD is not a vote. It isn't a poll. It is a discussion that is aimed to garner a consensus on whether an article should be deleted, kept, merged, or whatever. Since an AfD isn't a vote, it doesn't do anybody any good to leave a comment that doesn't provide reasons. You can read more about the process at:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. Vivaldi (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there you go. I have given my reasons. Misou 02:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientology AfDs

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"  :-)

Hi there, sorry for the delay, I was traveling IRL and had only access to email once in a while. Agreed on Tilman and BS. Those articles are mainly sounding boards to bring the bias of some editors up to the surface for everyone to see. And yes, let's get rid of some articles here. You got one in mind? I'll recommend Freezone once more since nobody showed up to add vital data. They might as well be a fake organization with one guy running some noisy websites. I wish I had the time to dig into some of these articles (I bet most are pure pieces of networked propaganda in best German tradition). Otherwise a worthwhile activity would be to delete all paragraphs/sentences going along with a "citation needed" tag. These unsourced opinions sit there partially for months with no one bothering to support them. Misou 04:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

haggerman bot

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)

It confuses talk pages as it takes a while for the bot to come by and clean up after you. It is also a matter of manners. Misou 02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is accidental. I try, but I forget sometimes Thaddeus Slamp 18:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA / WP:WQ warning

Please avoid inflammatory language like

• poison dripping off your teeth now again, [1]
• knucklehead like Touretzky [2]
• You might want to spill some cold water in your face as you must be dreaming[3]
• PFUI (name of editor) [4]

this is not helpful in an environment where we have to work together. --Tilman 16:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate to "work together" but find it extremely hard if you or other editors insist in WP:EL, WP:ATTRIB, WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS reverts/additions and if you step back and look at it again you'll find that any of my comments was preceded by some cynic or sarcastic statement. Be bold is one of Wikipedia's basic columns and I think that is needed. You are outnumbering the Wikipedians not sharing your POV but Wikipedia is also no democracy. There are rules and those include that personal websites and opinions are not qualified as external links, no matter how often you repeat that. Misou 15:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're evading the topic. I ask you to avoid inflammatory language. You can still accuse me of "Wikicrimes" :-) without using any of it. --Tilman 15:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to accuse you of "Wikicrimes", just don't commit any. On whatever language, ok, I know by know who is a little bit more "sensitive" than others and will take that into account. Misou 15:58, 11 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)

If this is a tactic (to continually harss you with the rules and by walking a line and dancing around the rules, until you lose your cool), then it is easily countered. Just be civil and don't make any personal attacks. It may be as difficult for him as it is for me, but I think that I can do it, and so should he. --Tilman 17:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Or do it like Tilman, who is venting with dripping sarcasm and cynic statements. Did you know, Tilman, that this can create in ulcer and worse? Let it out, man, it's better for you. Misou 17:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil comments from you

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)

Get off my talk page. Sure there is more people like you than me in this "discussion". But that should not make you think that you are free to spread your cynic statements on this page. I don't think you are dumb so don't play the primadonna here, feeling "uncivilly treated". A look on the template page can teach you that no changes are done without prior consent (and not even then). Then the purpose of the box is to provide an index and overview on the various topics connected to Scientology. Your article - and you wrote it - contains Hubbard text and little else, does not explain anything. It is not worth being indexed. Maybe in the future, if it has some content, but not now. Misou 17:41, 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)

WP:CIVIL hint

Comments like these

• ... so obviously tainted by anti-Scientology POVs that I could puke [5]
• If this is all you have to contribute to my request you might as well shut up [6]

are possibly not according to the spirit of WP:CIVIL. And they're not very helpful either. --Tilman 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

1) You are faking my quotes (the top one relates to a one-sided list of court judgments and 2) if someone's comments are not helpful that these are yours in the same context. I asked for more judgements and you responded "dripping with sarcasm" and with a lie, which is a WP:CIVIL violation. Just stop to accuse me of things YOU are doing, thank you. Misou 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not respond with a lie. I responded with a quote from an official scientology policy. Is this a problem for you? --Tilman 05:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did. What the hell are you talking about. I did not see you mention any "official scientology policy"? Misou 05:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Worst Scientology article?

Please check out Scientology Finance. Steve Dufour 05:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Steve, I have no way to check that. Misou 01:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

scientology

see my comment on the discussion page of the article. (RookZERO 02:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC))