User talk:Misou/Archive/Archive-Aug2007

Freezone

Re 'Freezone survivors' website: please read the discussion page, this has been disputed before and should be discussed not used for yet another revert war. Messages also sent to others involved and discussion section opened. --Hartley Patterson 21:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You have responded to a request to discuss by reverting again. This is not good. --Hartley Patterson 17:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You have not started nor given any reason on the Talk page for your ruthless destruction of my contribution. Misou 17:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made any alterations to the article since May. I've asked people to discuss rather than revert. This is proceeding, and if you don't contribute your voice will not be heard. --Hartley Patterson 17:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not you but F451. Misou 17:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Original Thesis and Evolution of a Science are not the same!

Misou, you have The Original Thesis and The Dynamics of Life redirecting to Evolution of a Science. Of course, these books are not the same. I'm trying to fix the error, but am having trouble doing it.HubcapD 21:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I got it fixed! Will add more data later, once I have my new copy in front of me!HubcapD 22:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, how did that happen...! I wanted to redirect Dynamics of Life to The Original Thesis, same books or at least both in the same article. Thanks for fixing it. Misou 01:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Miscavige links

I think all your edits in the last few minutes are a definite improvement, except having TWO external links to scientologytoday.org probably won't fly. wikipediatrix 02:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see that. The one with the picture seems more informative. Let me correct it. Misou 02:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Help request

Can you look at the talk page of Scientology bibliography? --Leocomix 16:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Heads up from your false accusations

WP:DBAD--Fahrenheit451 00:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• sigh... sometimes it IS hard to just converse with you, man. Misou 01:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it utterly impossible. wikipediatrix 02:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you both avail yourselves to the subject you want to promote here and complete Grade 0 auditing. If it did not give you the end phenomena, you need to handle that.--Fahrenheit451 23:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And I'm sure you breezed by this line without any sense of irony whatsoever:Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly.HubcapD 00:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer "snorted by this line". Onto my talk page, that p...erson! Misou 04:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer that you would take note of your disruptive posts here: [1]--Fahrenheit451 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Scientology

Hi there, I don't want to seem prejudice but you seem to be making some major edits that seem to be removing well sourced court findings to make the article on Scientology less neutral, I suggest you revert your edits and talk about the changes on the Scientology talk page. Thanks, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 18:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep looking. I have not removed ANYTHING. I did exactly what I said in the edit summary (worth reading). Good that you don't want to seem prejudiced but tell me what is so important about the back and forth about auditing confidentiality over more than half page when there is no story at all? Misou 18:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at the difference between the last edit before you and your edit, something was removed, I'm saying that you should find support before doing that because it doesn't look neutral, you don't have to find support but removing stuff and only leaving their references is bad for Scientology because it makes it seem like they support censorship. PS: Usually when it goes to court it's notable and when something gets too long the Wikipedian way is to put it in a separate article and add a "see also" or "main article" template and not to delete it (after all, a lot of different and diverse people spent time working on it). Finally, it's only your opinion that it's too long and opinions don't really count for anything on a neutral website like this one, so go to the talk page, or else I'll have to revert your edits which might end up in an unproductive edit-war (although I haven't been in an edit war yet, so...). Jeffrey.Kleykamp 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In the big picture "auditing confidentiality" is minutia. If you'd want to put any court case about, by or against Scientology in there, you'd have several volumes soon. Read a little of WP:PG and check the style manual. And, finally, 60 years of auditing, one claim of a confidentiality breach, no victim, no witness. That makes it what? Genau, mein Lieber: PROPAGANDA. And no way that such crap stays in there. Misou 22:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. wikipediatrix 22:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My friend, quit biting me, I haven't reverted your edits. Plus, if it's not notable then delete the whole section and leave a note on the talk page instead of pushing your POV. And don't start with things like "Read a little of WP:PG and check the style manual" because you're just implying Ad hominem and that doesn't at all effect my argument that you're making major edits to get rid of anti-Scientology propaganda and replacing it with your own pro-Scientology one. Also, I have an issue with one of your more recent edits, you deleted half a sentence because there is no reference but the reference is right here (OK, I'll grant you that the reference doesn't really say "[Scientology's dietary recommendations are] inaccurately bequeathed or highly contested today" but that would just require a rephrase and not a deletion). Jeffrey.Kleykamp 23:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:Tilman, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Linking to a website such as this solely to harass and defame another editor is wholly inappropriate. Krimpet 00:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I deleted it but left my invitation (that's serious!). He is not here anyway. Misou 02:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Misou

Could you send me an email, or set yourself up to recieve email? There is a matter I'd like to discuss with you privately.HubcapD 01:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hum? I am set up to receive email...I think. If not, I will be in 2 minutes. Misou 02:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed. Misou 02:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring procedures on the arbcom evidence page

I'm not sure if you saw the notice on top of the evidence page, but it says editors should only post within their own sections. Here it is in case you did miss it.

Anynobody 01:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Yep, I missed that. Thanks for confirming my stuff as evidence. Take care. Misou 02:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You may want to rethink what I said is a confirmation of your comments being "evidence" for two reasons;
1) My definition of evidence is irrelevant, the arbitrators decide what is evidence.
2) I didn't actually say your post was evidence, just that it was on the evidence page in the wrong place so you must've thought it was which is why I created a section for you if you want to present evidence.
So if you really think it is evidence please move it to your section, if you don't think of it as evidence then move it to another page. It's not that I have a problem with what you are saying, it's just that we are not creating discussion threads there. (If we were, don't you think I would've analyzed Lsi john's statements under his section on the evidence page rather than on the workshop.) Anynobody 02:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's what I think you do, cheating. Look, if we want to get along here, everyone, it just doesn't work that you post your well covered snide remarks and discrediting stuff, no matter how shiny and intellectually sound you present it. The purpose here is to create great articles. Not to be right by all means or something like that. That's all. Get out of fighting-mode, the war is over. Misou 02:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to fight with you. The point is there are rules to posting there, and posting under another editors comments is not something we are supposed to do. If you are smart, you'll move your comments under other editors sections too. Otherwise it could look like you are in fighting-mode and ignoring the procedure. (If I was underhanded, I wouldn't tell you about these mistakes you and just let them bite you in the arse.) Anynobody 02:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, 10/4. Misou 02:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

template

Saw your troubles with the template... what were you trying to fix on there? wikipediatrix 20:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I want this thing collapsed, not spreading almost a page. It was like this earlier. Misou 20:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a glitch in Wikipedia itself, not the template. I looked in the history on old edits where it should have been the collapsible version, but it shows up as uncollapsible on all of them. wikipediatrix 20:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Per this instructions it should be possible. I'll fiddle around a bit. Misou 20:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

personal dispute between us

to avoid flooding the COFS/Workshop I will try to resolve some disputs with you here first(I know thats hard espescially we think so differently but lets try)

• just changed my userpage in order to try being more transparent(your idea) (;
• why do you want that anyone states his purpose/intention on Scientology. Most critical editors are contributing on many issues and not just Scientology. There is no reason to believe that this editors have an agenda on Scientology. To let them state their intentions wouldn't change anything ?! And you don't seem to trust critical editors at all and would probably not trust their statements anyway !
• It is only logical that editors make such allegations like I did against you. If a usercheck would find out that 5 editors used IP's from Scientology Task Force of the Hamburg Interior Authority you would probably react similar and I would support your charges as well. I know it is hard to stay civil if others make such allegations against you but I seriously ask you to try.
• try to explain why the same editors wich used Scientology access before now all use your-freedom.net or why you used a Scientology access shared by 4 other editors! Did you edit from a Scientology hotel once wich could be an explantion. But it doesn't help you to bring up this "witch hunt theories". No one here is hunting minorities! BTW, I could bring up the same argument against you and declare myself as German minority in the English WP who is attacked due to nazi comparisans! If you could explain plausible why you used the same network adresses I would revert my allegations instantly.
• You stated that you did not use a Scientology access. If this is really true you should maybe ask an administrator to redue the usercheck.
• You stated that you have no network knowledge which might make some accusations against you confusing to you. Feel free to ask me about this issue whenever you want.
• You stated that I lied or invent something. I don't know what you meant. Please explain me what was wrong and I will revert the "wrong accusations".
• if you don't want to have this conversation with me on your talkpage tell me and I will stop-- Stan _talk 23:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. I didn't start this "dispute", so please don't take it personal, eh? Nice user page, that squirrel is more of an inside joke, I guess.

I am trying to be as "sachlich" as possible here. If you choose to answer questions I will as well. Here we go.

There is reason to believe that most of the "Stammgäste" on WP/Scn have an agenda. Look at the edits, most of them POV material, while those non-WP/Scn edits are clearly alibi stuff. I am just puzzled by the initiative certain "Admins" suddenly show when the call is to kick butt of one Scientologist. When the most blatant lies went by for years. When the most moronic statements about Scientology just sit there for ages. When a couple of openly active "Scientology opponents" are WP Admins (and one in the WP board until recently). In a 1:80 ratio of Scn editor/"critic" on WP beginning of this year (less now). This is more than just blindness, this is prejudice. Yes, I spent some time researching.

One problem - I agree - is that not much of the existing neutral and pro-Scn stuff is online. Someone somewhere missed the boat on that some years ago when some Germans and friends had an internet field day. And I do mean Germans, duping some brainless idiots against the "baaaaad Scientology". On top, all I experienced in my short life on Scientology/Germany, has been awfully bad. Lost contracts for nothing, got spat at for nothing, got called names for nothing. This is nazi-shit, if you want to face it or not. Or call it discrimination, if that sounds more accurate. I have lived in your country and I like it, and the people. Then you say "Scientology" and most turn into some red-eyed fanatic, eager to save the Fatherland. You look why that is and open a can of worms. Send a PM if you are really interested.

On this access stuff, just read the whole thing and you will stop misinterpreting. I am occasionally using a proxy/firewall set up by the Church. This is not an internet access, I log on through whatever WLAN I find or "t-online" ;-). But it seems to be one IP for everyone using it, no matter from where (I tested it from Munich, LAX WLAN, Paris, NYC and Tampa so far and yes, the IP is always the same). I am told about 1,000 people are using it at any time. So actually I wonder why there are not more people on WP, ha. So this is my tech knowledge and this is enough for me. You see, the debate on this IP stuff was if COFS and me are the same person. I don't need any tech knowledge to answer that, man, and I still shave every morning. Then I don't know anyone else than me using your-freedom, where did you get this from? I use it "to SSL the line between the laptop and the hotspot", to prevent data theft (that's what the guy who installed it said). Maybe this is a common thing?

I am not confused. I just don't appreciate tech specialists come along, cut off my internet line and say "sorry I had to shoot you for some holy purpose" - or claim that I am not myself but 3000 miles west and female. Misou 03:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

actually, I only wanted a funny animal on my page. I didnt even know first that the Englisch name for "Eichhörnchen" is squirrel. In Germany the word squirrel is used as well in Scientology Jargon and I often read about squirrels without knowing that the correct translation was "Eichhörnchen". So as I found out, it made me smile and I chose it as picture. ... and some people may attribute me with that. So yes it was a kind of inside joke but I changed it now to avoid offending someone with it.

WP:AGF would probably trump WP:COI if you only have a strong content dispute with other editors and me. A strong content dispute is hard to avoid on controversial issues anyway even if every editor is commited to WP guidelines only. I don't want that anyone gets blocked because of a content/POV/NPOV dispute. It would destroy Wikipedia ....

proxy, ip stuff:

• thanks for trying to give an explanation, your use of your-freedom.net sounds plausible to me and I wouldn't care if only one or two editors used this service
• my problem with your-freedom.net: about 30 000 people worldwide use your-freedom.net: There are at least 300 million people worldwide(probably more) wich speak English and have internet access. About 10 pro-Scientology editors in the Scientology article. The propability that 5 of them used your-freedom.net is < 0.000000000000000000001 ! That is the reason why I presented this strong accusations especially because some of you also used the same CoS IP !(don't need to be a mathematician to become suspicious about that) And that why I asked you if someone recomended this service wich might make it possible without you beeing a sockpuppet. Might there be a another reason why Scientologists or pro-Scientology editors used your-freedom.net above-average which could be a plausible explanation ?
• Please don't take it personal but I even think about bringing it up to the evidence page later(Only If I don't find a possible expalantion for it). However, mabe COFS or the other involved parties will contribute to the arbCom with a good explanation. The burden to explain this is not just on you and I don't expect you to make explantions for COFS,CSI LA wich you might not be able to give. I hope they do and remove some question marks. I will wait a little before bringing up this charges on evidence. -- Stan _talk 01:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• BTW, we share one opinion(unbelievable). The campaign driven by some activists and politicians in Germany right now is really excessive and inappropriate. But don't blame every German for it. Not everyone shares the POV from Caberta or Gandow wich even want to prohibit US actors to shoot a film in Germany(without success of course).-- Stan _talk 02:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Bye. Misou 02:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be my current IP, no clue what that means

I am using the same computer and same internet line since more than a week now. User:Jpgordon, please explain what you are doing. Per WP:AGF I should not believe that you are blocking BECAUSE OF EDITS I am currently doing, but I tell you, it is quite hard. Misou 21:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've paid no attention to the edits you've been making. Editing via open proxies is not allowed, period. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much. Now, what do I do? Throw away my laptop? I don't know sh** how to change these settings. And by the way, as I have to log on to this service, pay for it regularly, how come you say this is a "open proxy". Just looked that up, it means exactly the opposite. Something is very fishy here. Misou 21:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not particularly. See WP:NOP: Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. It doesn't matter whether you pay to use the anonymizing proxy or not. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It does matter, this is about being identifiable in case of emergency or threat. This is a Wikipolicy with legal background. And I am probably more than some really anonymous Internet Cafe user which you don't care about. So yes, I don't get it. I think it's arbitrary and wrong. Misou 22:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for curiosity, per this definition, what is the difference between "anonymizing proxy" and AOL, Starbucks WLAN, some Internet Cafe or other "Hotspots"? Misou 23:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A last one, what is a "softblock"? Misou 23:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I can answer your first question, for the second I'd consult Help:Block and unblock#Blocking options (it's better than pasting it here and taking up too much space).

Anyway the difference between an anonymizing proxy service vs AOL, most hotspots in cafes and private businesses. AOL can track an IP to a screen name by checking the access logs of each screen name using the IP. So if Wikipedia complains to AOL about an IP and gives them a list of the pages accessed, the account in question can be located. Internet cafes, and most places that offer hotspot access require some form of payment, which also gives the possibility of tracking down someone who uses them. An anonymizing proxy service intentionally makes it nigh impossible to track edits back to a person. Why does that matter? In case of emergency or threat- believe it or not editors have threatened suicide on here. I haven't heard about it but tracking back would also be necessary in case of specific threats so the info can be forwarded to law enforcement. Wikipedia does its best to protect your privacy, and you do have the right to vanish, however that right ends when the law or a life is in question. (I know it sounds hammy but it's the truth.) Anynobody 03:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

For a change we are on the same page here. That's what I was saying saying all along! I am paying for this thing, and how "anonymizing" it is you can see in the "debate": not at all. This easily identifiable SSL/proxy service has my data on file and can pull it if legally ok. Unlike one of the many free hotspots. Right down the street of my office is one, no charge, no registration, no identification. Sit on a bench and get a line. Or sit on campus, get a line, no identification required. But THOSE accesses are ok, aren't they. Robot logic, that is. Misou 03:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is users of anonymizing services are intentionally trying to get the accidental anonymity afforded by loop holes like the hotspots you described. In this case an editor is changing articles related to an organization, which also happens to be the provider of at least some internet access for the editor. Now that editor wants to use a service which conceals the identity of the internet provider used, not so much the customer according to what you are saying about the service just giving up your billing info.

This is kinda unrelated, but the logic is mind boggling. If you are paying a service to hide your identity, and assume they will divulge it anyway, why pay for the service? Anynobody 05:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, strange, isn't it. I am not paying a service to hide my identity, I am paying to have a SSL connected on my WLAN access. Gosh, feels like a broken record, repeating myself again and again. Misou 05:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

Your edit summary in [2] contained a rather unpleasant personal attack. Please refrain from making such attacks in future, and I recommend that you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- ChrisO 18:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that so? Who did I get personal with? Jeff is not here nor a Wikipedian, he is most likely out chanting somewhere. Misou 20:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: BTW, are you saying Jeff is not anti-Scientology? Might want to have a look at his website then, says "page made by Jeff Jacobsen. This page is ANTI-Scientology". Misou 20:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe he has contributed here in the past. In any case, it was an uncivil and unnecessary remark. There's no need to make such remarks. -- ChrisO 20:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deal. Misou 20:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Scientology reversion

Hello. I'm going to redo the edit I made to the article Church of Scientology (here). I'd appreciate an explanation why you think my wording is 'vandalism':

• "...and members of its most devoted orders need donate nothing for services."

-- This is inaccurate, as it clearly contradicts the following sentence: "...each time a person receives something, he or she must pay something back...". Can you suggest a better correction, as one must be made to remove this inaccuracy?

• "By doing so, a Scientologist maintains "inflow" and "outflow", avoiding spiritual decline."

-- This sentence is a description of a belief, yet it talks in a factual tone (ie. "spiritual decline" is believed to follow this imbalance; the link is not provable). Again, can you suggest alternate phrasing, since it must be changed.

Regards, -- drrngrvy ^tlk @ 23:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. In WP "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (WP:VANDAL). Adding meaning or other stuff requires a reliable source (WP:RS) or is vandalism, as it compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. You did not provide one and just rv'ed the corrections of Wikipedians (twice, I think). Go ahead, find a reliable source, adjust the text, name the ref. And we are all happy. Or put you ideas on the talk page (not mine, the one of the article). Misou 23:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. As I stated above (perhaps not clearly enough?), these changes are not changes to facts. Can you be more specific about how those edits fall under the definition of vandalism you quoted? I don't agree that they do. I did not actually revert any edits by fellow Wikipedians (I don't follow this article closely): I made a correction based on logical inaccuracies I saw in the text.

• They are alterations to inaccuracies that are referenced in the article. As such, I shall make a change to the first point (above), as this is already referenced (see Doctrine of Exchange) - the point is that "...donate nothing..." is untrue since time must be donated. That 'time' is 'not nothing' does not need to be referenced, IMO. Is that fair?
• As for the second point, my suggested alteration is to alter the tone of the sentence to make it obvious that what is being said is not a proven fact (I refer you to WP:WAF). The quoted reference does not prove the link between "inflow/outflow" and "spiritual decline" and to my knowledge this link has not been proven elsewhere. According to Wikipedia style guidelines, the sentence must be reworded.

-- drrngrvy ^tlk @ 00:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I am changing my mind here. Your last change make sense, thank you. Misou 00:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR and you

I responded to your comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. In case you're not watching that page, i didn't want you to miss it. Foobaz·o< 20:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You got a response there. We probably can spent days on this page with no improvement of Wikipedia. Misou 01:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi ;-)

I see you have been busy... anything I can help with?

Hi. Well, keep your head up and dive in! For neutral and fair articles on Wikipedia. The Scientology article looks bad again - check the talk page if you want. Misou 01:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued hostility/personal attack from User:Misou

Greetings. I have posted an alert regarding some of the commentary you made yesterday on the Scientology talk page. Raymond Hill 15:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raymond, thanks. I answered on there. You shouldn't leave half of the story out, man. Misou 16:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Titles of Links

My comment is right on the talk page. You responded to it yourself.(RookZERO 02:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

Exactly. Now, the purpose of an EL is that the reader (hopefully not a Scn-basher, but a normal person) can see from the link description what awaits him. You proposal does not show that. So I might amend mine a bit. Misou 02:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The there is nothing misleading in the origional titles. They clearly state what the creators of the page call their site. It is unnecessary to editorialize what you think of their content and who you speculate worked or did not work on the sites. REPLACING the actual titles with your commentary on the contents in inappropriate.(RookZERO 02:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

They clearly state what the creators call their site. Exactly. And the reader has no clue what it is about then. Misou 02:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The link section isn;t really an area for the discussion of what different people think about the links. It just provides the links. The reader can click on it and read for herself/himself.(RookZERO 02:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, and the title gives a hint on what's following to help the reader decide what he/she wants to know. So those link titles need to be descriptive, somewhat. And they are right now, so don't change it. Misou 02:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks - 24h

I'm sorry to announce that your editing privileges have been withheld for a day due to persistent personal attacks, of which this is the latest example. You've been sufficiently warned against behaving this way, and I hope you'll refrain from doing so in future. Thankyou, yandman 10:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. It's ok to warn me, it's ok to keep some form of manners, civility and so on. At the same time Wikipedia quality goes down the drain. Why not also having an eye on obvious POV pushing? A warning to those trying to harm the integrity of Wikipedia? Help. Go to the Scientology Talk page and tell me what is wrong with this picture. Please. Misou 16:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that the coverage of your organisation is unfair, and you are quite right to try and rectify this perceived injustice, but it must always be through patient, constructive dialogue. Certain CoS editors have managed to bring important changes this way, whereas those who become confrontational (and there have been a few) have a very short life expectancy. I'll try and pass by the talk page to see what the problem is. In the mean time, just be patient, even if certain people are getting on your nerves. Cheers, yandman 11:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't feel to be a "CoS editor". I am a Wikipedia editor with some clue about some subjects. It's not either "for" or "against" Scientology. NO! It's "is this content in alignment with Wikipedia policy"??? We got too much politics crap and considerations in here. But alright, it might well be that this can be solved very civilly. Very well then. Misou 05:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Misou

I understand that things became quite heated on Template:ScientologySeries, and I can see how you were frustrated. But I just wanted to remind you that it's sort of bad form to identify edits as vandalism in edit summaries when it's clear that it's a differing point of view (as opposed to clearcut vandalism) that you are reverting: [3]. Also, it's better not to use automated vandal fighting software or scripts (such as Twinkle) when engaged in disputes over content as opposed to vandalism reversion. For example, admins with the rollback feature are instructed never to use them in content disputes. Just wanted to point it out. Hope you guys are able to find a solution on the template talk page -- Samir 04:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Also thanks for freezing the article. This dickheadery is kinda annoying at times. Misou 04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted your contribution

Hi, I deleted your contribution because it was placed in an inappropriate section! -- Stan _talk 05:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Move it, don't delete it. Or better, ask me if I want to move it and tell me why you think that. Remember WP is lots of "talking". Misou 05:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, you may be right and I should have moved it rather than deleting it. -- Stan _talk 05:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Too many edits to Scientology

If you look here you'll see that you made a lot of edits to Scientology and related articles. This may be a conflict of interest. And, although there are no limits to the amount of edits you're allowed to make, maybe it's time you stop editing those articles and move on to other subjects or to stop editing Wikipedia altogether. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 12:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I just want you to stop editing Scientology articles temporarily so that it doesn't look like you have a conflict of interest, you are still welcome to contribute to the list in the Scientology talk page. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 13:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a really strange message. Would you mind to introduce yourself? Misou 05:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)