| Revision as of 07:22, 9 August 2009 editGeorgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,680 edits →Topic banned from Scientology topics: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:26, 9 August 2009 edit undo170.206.224.50 (talk) →Topic banned from Scientology topicsNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| Thank you. ] (]) 07:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | Thank you. ] (]) 07:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I am certainly not a single purpose account and have edited in a variety of subjects! How do you get this idea??? Yes, there seems to be single opinion editing ongoing in the biographical article you mention. And it should be investigated. Just the last edits to the article clearly removed legit material to the effect of slanting the article in a certain direction and violated a neutral point of view. I think the Arbitration Committee should look into this. ] (]) 08:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:26, 9 August 2009
January 2009
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The recent edit you made to Erich von Manstein has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. J.delanoyadds 19:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Cannonballs has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Misplaced Pages. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): googlepages\.com (links: http://resurrectcannonballs.googlepages.com/index.html).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Misplaced Pages's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
July 2009
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The recent edit you made to the page Jason C. Miller has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Topic banned from Scientology topics
Misplaced Pages's arbitration committee earlier this year decided a case in which accounts with a single purpose of promoting Scientology may be banned from editing that topic for one year by any uninvolved Misplaced Pages administrator. See: Misplaced Pages:ARBSCI#Single purpose accounts with agendas. Numerous accounts associated with the Church of Scientology itself have been specifically identified and sanctioned for abusive activity on Misplaced Pages, in that case and other actions.
Recent activity on David Miscavage indicates that you are such a single purpose account. A cluster of new accounts and IP addresses are involved in this editing and all are being topic banned for the year.
If you violate this topic ban you may be blocked from editing.
Please limit your Misplaced Pages contributions to unrelated topics.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am certainly not a single purpose account and have edited in a variety of subjects! How do you get this idea??? Yes, there seems to be single opinion editing ongoing in the biographical article you mention. And it should be investigated. Just the last edits to the article clearly removed legit material to the effect of slanting the article in a certain direction and violated a neutral point of view. I think the Arbitration Committee should look into this. 170.206.224.50 (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)