Revision as of 04:00, 7 December 2008 editShutterbug (talk | contribs)1,972 edits →Hello← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:28, 8 December 2008 edit undoDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits rfarNext edit → | ||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
Hello, there seem to be a lot of rules and regulation here. What would you recommend to read? ] (]) 02:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | Hello, there seem to be a lot of rules and regulation here. What would you recommend to read? ] (]) 02:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
:Hi?! Try this one: ]. ] (]) 04:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | :Hi?! Try this one: ]. ] (]) 04:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
== ] == | |||
I've opened a request for arbitration and listed you as a named party. You may wish to make a statement. Best wishes, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:28, 8 December 2008
Manual Archives: 1, 2 and 3.
Automatic Archive: User talk:Shutterbug/Archive/Archive-Jan2025 |
Please strike your accusation
Hello,
In the past, you and I had a reasonably good working relationship, so I ask again in good faith that you strike the comment you made accusing me of attacking Su-Jada. Contrary to it being an attack, it was a perfectly accurate description of an inappropriate edit and an inaccurate edit summary. Striking your accusations would go a long way towards re-establishing good faith in general. --GoodDamon 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- You did attack Su-Jada and you are consistently nagging me for this and for that. This would be OK if you would currently contribute something to increase the quality of the article but you don't. What happened to you? You take what I write and complain about it, concentrating on how bad I am and so on. This is not a basis for consensus and not even a common effort, so I am actually wondering what happened to you in the past months. Did you get attacked for your neutral position on the issue? Yes, we have been working successfully together and yes I am interested in restoring this condition. It just doesn't work if we allow getting carried away in finger-pointing instead of doing research, adding sources and exchanging ideas on the grounds of Misplaced Pages policy. Shutterbug (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Incident notice
A discussion in which you are mentioned is currently under way here. This is a courtesy notice. --GoodDamon 09:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not "dead", only "sleeping". This has been moved to WP:AE. Cheers. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Good morning! Have a coffee! Shutterbug (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Why
Ill leave it here because I do not want to embarrass you: we all as humans are inheritly non neutral. your edits such as this one is one of the reasons Ive decided to vote in the way I did, Your deletion had references to back it up, we could get into a whole theological discussion but that would prove futile I fear. to cut to the chase I think your delusioned, That does not mean your a bad person. My friend If you say Im banning you from Misplaced Pages because Im voting to Scientology topic ban you, you are on Misplaced Pages for the wrong reasons. I from now on will abandon the subject of your banning. I hope I have not offended you in any way thank you, That is enough explanation for a whole day --Zaharous (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is: I did not delete your paragraph, even though I could have done it, per WP:BRD. Instead I MOVED it on the talk page to sit there until the media news story settled into some encyclopedic occurrence. Point is, Misplaced Pages is not a news source WP:NOT, so if there is something developing in the media we should wait until it has settled. That's why I moved it. Your argument is nil so I still do not understand why you are attacking me. Shutterbug (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- PS: Out of hundreds of edits you picked one I did in April 2007(!) - which was corrected, including my understanding of Misplaced Pages policy - to explain to me why you are attacking me? Do you want to provoke or something? Shutterbug (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested
Shutterbug, recently you were involved in a conflict on Scientology. I am trying to figure out the best approach to come a mutual understanding between all parties involved that will eventually lead to a consensus. I invite you to respond either here or here, so we can start working towards a solution. Thank you. ←Spidern→ 14:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Eitherway
Either way I hope you enjoyed your Thanks giving time --Zaharous (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I did. No computers, lots of peace. Would you mind to answer my question? Shutterbug (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Acknowledgement of Xenu in Scientology scripture ?
This is a most interesting edit. Are you saying that "in real life", Xenu is mentioned in Scientology scripture? Cirt (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are some texts mentioning this name (like this one: . But not in "doctrine" (I bet I know what your next comment is). Shutterbug (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I did not say "doctrine". But this edit acknowledges "Xenu, the Galactic Ruler mentioned in Scientology scripture" in "real life". I think this is the first admission by the Church of Scientology that Xenu is a part of "Scientology scripture" since Warren McShane testified to that effect in RTC v. FactNet in 1995, though I may be mistaken. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why are you asking a question if you "know" the answer already. "Doctrine" vs "Scripture" was my change in the article. That's why I mentioned it. And I am not the Church of Scientology. Somehow this has been ingrained in your mind but that does not make it true. I have a request with the Church to send a rep here so this bullshit can finally stop. What do you think of this idea? Shutterbug (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I did not say "doctrine". But this edit acknowledges "Xenu, the Galactic Ruler mentioned in Scientology scripture" in "real life". I think this is the first admission by the Church of Scientology that Xenu is a part of "Scientology scripture" since Warren McShane testified to that effect in RTC v. FactNet in 1995, though I may be mistaken. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
This was an interesting discussion until you chose to use inappropriate uncivil language such as "bullshit". Cirt (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I can not see why this is a good reason to stop talking. Shutterbug (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Recent Blanking of L. Ron Hubbard
Can you explain this, bearing in mind your reply will have a bearing on not only whether you are blocked, but also for how long? This isn't the first time you have edited disruptively and I know that you are aware that all Scientology-related articles are on ArbCom probation. Please choose your words very, very carefully. --Rodhullandemu 23:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- It was a mistake. I do not exactly know what happened but I would not blank a page intentionally and I have no track of vandalism. Nor would I add to the edit summary that I my edit reinstates the article from a POV edit and then blank the page. Sorry, if another editor would not have been faster I had reverted myself right away. Shutterbug (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I accept that can happen. You will already be aware, however, that your edits are under scrutiny in a number of venues, hence the quick reaction. Please be careful. --Rodhullandemu 23:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I am very aware of the scrutiny each of my edits gets. Not necessarily a bad thing. Shutterbug (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I accept that can happen. You will already be aware, however, that your edits are under scrutiny in a number of venues, hence the quick reaction. Please be careful. --Rodhullandemu 23:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Hello, there seem to be a lot of rules and regulation here. What would you recommend to read? Proximodiz (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi?! Try this one: WP:FIVE. Shutterbug (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Scientology
I've opened a request for arbitration and listed you as a named party. You may wish to make a statement. Best wishes, Durova 18:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)