Shinealight2007

Welcome....I see that you are a new user to Wikipedia. There are a couple of policies on Wikipedia that I think you should be aware of. Please review the 3 revert policy WP:3RR. You probably don't intend it, but your reversions are negating the work done by several users to get the Werner Erhard Aticle to meet the criterion for Biographies of Living Persons. Please review WP:BLP--Saladdays 17:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

Assuming that you are new here just realize that calling me a "Scientology operative" is a personal attack and WP:NPA does not allow that. Please do not make that mistake again. --Justanother 20:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• How is that a "personal attack" ? I have not used any slang or swears or anything like that - but YOU used "crap" in an edit summary. I ask you again, are you or are you not an operative of Scientology, reporting back to your seniors about your edits here? If so, that is a conflict of interest, and you should stop. Shinealight2007 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Calling Justanother a "scientology operative" implies you have prejudice against the issues he brings based on your speculation of what he is or isn't. Debate the issues, not the person. If there are dispute that can't come to a resolution, there are mechanisms to bring outside opinions to the debate. Raymond Hill 23:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC) [just noticed you have been blocked — listen to the advices. Raymond Hill 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)]

2nd Scientology operative rudely butts in to the discussion

Shinealight2007, WP:ATTACK clearly spells out not to bring any affiliations of other editors (real or paranoidly imagined) into comments. One could easily speculate a pro-Werner Erhard agenda from your own edits, which could explain your zeal to discredit Scientology as much as you possibly can in as many articles as you possibly can. But I'll assume good faith and won't make that assumption. Yet. wikipediatrix 20:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Who are you, and why are you butting in to this discussion? Are you also a Scientology operative? Please allow for Justanother to answer whether or not he is a Scientology operative, and then you can answer next. Thank you. Shinealight2007 20:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

I have no intention of addressing that question. If you state or imply it again I will report you for continued WP:PA after warning. --Justanother 20:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am asking because if you are a Scientology operative, and reporting in collusion with User:COFS AKA user:Shutterbug, then that is against the Wikipedia rules, and you should stop, now. Shinealight2007 20:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

• Shinealight2007, you need to cool down. Reverting someone's edits based on supposed affiliation and making comments to that effect in your edit summary is a bad idea and can be seen as a form of attack. Try discussing the merit of the content you're changing instead. Jumping on Wikipediatrix for cautioning you isn't helping your case and continuing may end up getting you blocked. Have some tea or a bubble bath and come back refreshed :) Shell ^babelfish 21:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks Shell, I will try to do that. Forgetting the references to specific editors for just one moment. What about you, do you care one way or the other if User:COFS, his various sockpuppets, and other Scientology operatives are editing Wikipedia with a big ol' conflict of interest, and are told with order from on high what to do and how to do it, and collaborate with each other offline? Do you see that as a matter for concern for Wikipedia Administrators, or not? Shinealight2007 21:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

If you believe there are problems going on, there's a couple of things you can do to have other experienced Wikipedian's take a gander. First, with sockpuppets, you can gather together the information you have and open a case on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets - make sure to read the information under Reporting suspected sock puppets to help make sure you open the case correctly. If there is a clear COI leading to problematic editing you can try bringing it up at WP:COI/N where editors who deal with COI frequently can look into the issue. If its not a clear conflict case, options for dispute resolution might be a better route. Without knowing the particulars, I couldn't advise you which avenues to use, but there are many options to resolve issues on Wikipedia. Just remember, even when frustrated its important to be civil. Hope that helps! Shell ^babelfish 21:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Sandstein 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Specifically, it is (as others have pointed out to you) a violation of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy to claim (truly, falsely, or otherwise) that a user has certain outside affiliations and that those are affecting their Wikipedia edits. Please refrain from doing so, and please assume that other editors are here to improve Wikipedia as I'm sure you are. --Darkwind (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)