Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roger Davies (talk | contribs) at 14:43, 6 April 2009 (→Scientology arbitration: comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Frustration

Please don't let the actions of a few users discourage you from contributing here. Your efforts are appreciated, and necessary if Misplaced Pages is going to represent a greater reality than the wishes of just a few users. The Jade Knight (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, but I have been following that particular article since the start of the trouble, and the source of the truble is one user in particular; it is obvious from the history of the article that he is behind it, hand yet no action has been taken.

Terms of your unblock

Apparently, user talk:Richard Rolles was deleted. I'll re-state the terms of my unblock: "Per our discussion via e-mail, I have decided to unblock you. You will remain unblocked, permitted that you refrain from editing Scientology-related articles, unless in cases of strictly defined vandalism." Yes, I know the userspace and Misplaced Pages namespaces are not articles, so let me make myself even clearer. Do not edit Scientology-related articles, unless in cases of strictly defined vandalism, participate in Scientology-related discussions, post rants about Scientology editors in your userspace, or any other activities involving Scientology in any userspace. If you fail to meet this condition, I will have no choice but to reblock you indefinitely. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, Nishkid, and I have not touched any Scientology articles since. I wanted to comment on the RfA, as I have seen first hand examples of the kind of problem they want to sort out. And rather than do it in th RfA, I thought it perhaps better to do it on my userspace. I have removed my 'rant' as you would call it from my userspace now. BTW, could you clarify 'except in cases of strictly defined vandalism' for me? I take that to mean, if I saw someone for example removing properly sourced material, then I woiuld be OK to put it back in?The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have thought it over some more and I have removed the ALL Scientology stuff from my userspace. Sorry about that The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If someone removed properly sourced material without an explanation whatsoever, it would be best to ask them personally why they made that edit, and if necessary, revert their edit. If they provide an explanation, you should not undo their edit, as long as it possesses some merits (e.g. "i removed it because it's a bunch of nonsense" is a bad explanation). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

OK Nishkid, thanks for that! The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RfAr Scientology

Please do not further contribute to this arbitration, as it is in violation of your topic ban. While the arbitrators will probably not view one or two postings, made in good faith, as too egregious, any displays of inappropriate behaviour will have serious repercussions. Please heed this advice as it is a pity to throw away the efforts you have undeniably made over the last few months.  Roger Davies 12:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientology arbitration

This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Notifying you is really just a formality. If you have any comments, please make them to me by email and do not participate in the case.  Roger Davies 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)