| Revision as of 17:07, 9 February 2013 editCoffeepusher (talk | contribs)7,488 edits Warning: Making legal threats on Volunteer Ministers. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:15, 9 February 2013 edit undoDrg55 (talk | contribs)315 edits →February 2013: response to CoffeepusherNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| == February 2013 == | == February 2013 == | ||
| ] ] to ] could give Misplaced Pages contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Misplaced Pages itself. Please note that making such threats on Misplaced Pages is '''''strictly prohibited''''' under Misplaced Pages's policies on ] and ]. '''Users who make such threats may be ]'''. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Misplaced Pages, please follow the proper channels for ]. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by ] and focusing especially on ] errors of fact. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-legal --> ] (]) 17:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | ] ] to ] could give Misplaced Pages contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Misplaced Pages itself. Please note that making such threats on Misplaced Pages is '''''strictly prohibited''''' under Misplaced Pages's policies on ] and ]. '''Users who make such threats may be ]'''. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Misplaced Pages, please follow the proper channels for ]. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by ] and focusing especially on ] errors of fact. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-legal --> ] (]) 17:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| It is not a legal threat, it is a fact. I think it would be considered by you to be "uncivil" if some little hacker published your private emails in Misplaced Pages. In 1998 the Church of Scientology sued an organisation called Cult Awareness Network and got full possession of all its assets. That is a matter of history. Furthermore Anonymous is coming under increasing legal attack by Governments and their members are being jailed. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-25/anonymous-hackers-jailed-for-paypal-attack/4483552 | |||
| There are vested interests at work in Misplaced Pages, articles are being vandalised by members of Anonymous and also possibly Skeptics. Most articles about the Church of Scientology in Misplaced Pages violate the agreement in that they are a soap box for the paranoid theories of neofascists. Why neofascists? Because they do not allow another point of view. | |||
| In the Talk Scientology as a Business, you might note that I caught out Andrewman327 he said there was "no consensus" for the edits that I had made, yet he was the only other editor active beside myself at that point - page stats were spiking dramatically every time I made an edit, so I could only conclude that he was discussing it in another forum which is proof of what I said in the preceding paragraph. Here's the relevant section: | |||
| <blockquote><p>"There was no consensus for the non-neutral edits that you made so I reverted them. Janet Reitman addresses the connection between Dianetics and Scientology in her book, so I added a bridge sentence to address that concern. I can expand it if you'd like. I have not seen any reliable sources that indicate Hubbard living anything close to a "frugal lifestyle". In fact, several sources I've seen indicate that he had a private ship staffed by "Sea Org" members before he moved into hiding on his private ranch. More to the point, this article is about the business practices of Scientology, it is not an essay for a comparative religions class. If you would like to create Scientology compared to other religions, you are free to do so. Andrew327 08:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| When you say "there was no consensus for the non-neutral edits that you made" (your edits of course being neutral), and I notice visitor stats spiking, are you discussing this article in another forum, perhaps Anonymous?"</p></blockquote> | |||
| And I noticed you deleted the reference to the Secret Gospel of Mark article from the OT VIII article, this reference of purported comments has no external validity but the Secret Gospel of Mark controversy is real and it is what is purportedly being quoted. Did you actually read that or did you just reactively revert the article?] (]) 23:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:15, 9 February 2013
August 2011
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Ten Commandments. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 08:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I share your view that the article is slanted toward the religious rather than the academic perspective. I hope you choose to stick around. Misplaced Pages can be a very fulfilling place to donate your time. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
February 2013
Your recent edits to Volunteer Ministers could give Misplaced Pages contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Misplaced Pages itself. Please note that making such threats on Misplaced Pages is strictly prohibited under Misplaced Pages's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Misplaced Pages, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Coffeepusher (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not a legal threat, it is a fact. I think it would be considered by you to be "uncivil" if some little hacker published your private emails in Misplaced Pages. In 1998 the Church of Scientology sued an organisation called Cult Awareness Network and got full possession of all its assets. That is a matter of history. Furthermore Anonymous is coming under increasing legal attack by Governments and their members are being jailed. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-25/anonymous-hackers-jailed-for-paypal-attack/4483552
There are vested interests at work in Misplaced Pages, articles are being vandalised by members of Anonymous and also possibly Skeptics. Most articles about the Church of Scientology in Misplaced Pages violate the agreement in that they are a soap box for the paranoid theories of neofascists. Why neofascists? Because they do not allow another point of view.
In the Talk Scientology as a Business, you might note that I caught out Andrewman327 he said there was "no consensus" for the edits that I had made, yet he was the only other editor active beside myself at that point - page stats were spiking dramatically every time I made an edit, so I could only conclude that he was discussing it in another forum which is proof of what I said in the preceding paragraph. Here's the relevant section:
"There was no consensus for the non-neutral edits that you made so I reverted them. Janet Reitman addresses the connection between Dianetics and Scientology in her book, so I added a bridge sentence to address that concern. I can expand it if you'd like. I have not seen any reliable sources that indicate Hubbard living anything close to a "frugal lifestyle". In fact, several sources I've seen indicate that he had a private ship staffed by "Sea Org" members before he moved into hiding on his private ranch. More to the point, this article is about the business practices of Scientology, it is not an essay for a comparative religions class. If you would like to create Scientology compared to other religions, you are free to do so. Andrew327 08:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC) When you say "there was no consensus for the non-neutral edits that you made" (your edits of course being neutral), and I notice visitor stats spiking, are you discussing this article in another forum, perhaps Anonymous?"
And I noticed you deleted the reference to the Secret Gospel of Mark article from the OT VIII article, this reference of purported comments has no external validity but the Secret Gospel of Mark controversy is real and it is what is purportedly being quoted. Did you actually read that or did you just reactively revert the article?Drg55 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)