SternComradeLoyalFascist

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to David Miscavige appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Coffeepusher (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes well lets achieve that. Start by not suppressing knowledge that there's never been any findings or sanctions upon the man, and that numerous people are acknowledged to have made liars and hypocrites of themselves (sometimes with prior directly controverted sworn statements) with utterances coming from their mouths in their estrangement. It's the attempt to bring that balance and fairness to a living subject. A problem?SternComradeLoyalFascist (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well please address the policy of WP:WEIGHT and WP:VCoffeepusher (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Also it appears this is not your first account with wikipidea, have you edited here before.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Against your belief that there is zero weight to the acknowledged fact that M Rathbun confesses to the same abusive conduct that he blames on his former boss, and there there is zero weight to, say, M Rinder, earlier denying what he later alleges as serious criminal conduct - I say that that there is nonzero weight. Both are beyond dispute as facts. And that being so, while it stands let's get some more views.SternComradeLoyalFascist (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

actually this isn't against my view, it is against the WP:RS. The rewording you are proposing goes against WP:NPOV as it does not accurately reflect the tone of the reliable sources. What other account have you used here?Coffeepusher (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Freedom Magazine has written extensively about the bio subj highlighting that there's no court or police or judicial findings of any kind whatsoever adverse upon him, and no public record heretofore produced in any way has assailed that important conclusion. Not important? What if it was you being innuendoed?SternComradeLoyalFascist (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Freedom Magazine isn't a WP:RS.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Last I checked it's right there as one of the acknowledged references to the article, & not because I had anything to do with having it put there. Further, examining our article on the publication itself, we don't find it having attacted and reputation for unreliability in relating aspects of the biographical subject's activities which, after all, ranks as the sole focus our task on cleaning up the trash out of his entry here.SternComradeLoyalFascist (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

you should probably read WP:RS again.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

take your own advice. It implores "remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person". It is not contentious that sources Rathbun and Rinder have made past thorough denials of Miscavige having assaulted people, or that Rathbun is an agent of the asserted culture of abuse which he later makes a mission of denouncing. It's public domain on video. Liars and hypocrites bigtime. Nor is it contentious that David has never been subject of any finding of unlawful or unprofessional conduct, either internally or externally, by any competent authority ever. Evidence would dissuade. None of that detectable from you.SternComradeLoyalFascist (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to argue for changes in the article, may I suggest that effort would be better served on the article's talk page than on your personal page? -- BTfromLA (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

He's responsible to a board and shareholders. They've received every complaint, none has stood up, and the Board has never founded cause to discipline or reprimand him in any way. Absolutely no case to answer. That would warrant coverage in his bio to balance all the unproved, untested smears and malignings. Why ever not? I've noticed an integrity lack in responding to this and similar challenges.

Have at it. Transclude this there. I've met my onus.SternComradeLoyalFascist (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 01:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Withdraw that. Is this your opinionating about the 'Kony scam' phenomena? Have you ever done a basic internet search for the term. It is a wellacknowledged widely discussed phenomena and material already supplied here, and in the process of being supplied, adequately documents it. It has operated through a misleading film, offensive to black Ugandans of the place it has represented, used as a chief vehicle soliciting funds not for their benefit but for that of a corporate organisation in the USA controlled exclusively by whites. It is a film encouraging precipitate intervention by foreign racial groups in their country. Can you spell n-e-o-c-o-l-o-n-i-a-l ?SternComradeLoyalFascist (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Kony scam

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for taking the time to contribute.

I'm a bot designed by another Wikipedia editor, and I'm here to help you with our deletion process. I noticed that while working on an article recently, you removed a speedy deletion template that tagged it for deletion. Don't get discouraged! Deletion discussions happen on Wikipedia all the time.

If you don't want the article to get deleted, please click here.

The link will take you to the talk page, where you can explain why the article should be kept. If you have any questions about this or need help with editing, you can ask at the Help desk.

We really hope you'll stick around to help make Wikipedia better! Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Please stop. If you continue to create malicious redirects, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for soapboxing via redirects. Acroterion (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll give you a short time to consider withdrawing that after you've read up at Talk:Kony scam. That's where you'll be appreciated, not here.SternComradeLoyalFascist (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When multiple editors revert you, you must discuss the edits and build consensus, not keep reverting

Your recent editing history at David Miscavige shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Same-sex quasimarriage. ~ty^(talk) 03:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop with the same sex marriage page moves

This is your only warning; if you move a page maliciously again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Malice includes flagrant application of personal points of view to the article titles or otherwise disrupting Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It has become apparent that your account

is only being used for vandalism

is only being used for vandalism

is only being used for vandalism

is only being used for vandalism

is only being used for vandalism

is only being used for vandalism

is only being used for vandalism

, so it has been blocked indefinitely. Now go find something to do with your life. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Whew! Thanks for that. This person scares me. Blake Burba (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71

The checkuser came back that this account was a sock of User:DavidYork71, his behavior since the investigation only furthers to confirm his editing habits.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)