Misplaced Pages

User talk:Love-in-ark

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SQL (talk | contribs) at 01:37, 12 October 2007 (Fellowship of Friends: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:37, 12 October 2007 by SQL (talk | contribs) (Fellowship of Friends: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively.
The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.
See block log and lists of suspected and confirmed accounts.

Template:Do not deleteTemplate:Do not delete

FOF Draft Page

Dear Love-in-Ark, welcome to WP. I see that you are editing the FOF article. There is currently a draft article - please edit the draft if you intend to do more edits. Thanks, --Moon Rising 02:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, but I don't see the need of the draft. The page looks stable to me. Love-in-ark 05:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued participation. The page has been fairly stable, but if you were to read the talk page and the archives, you would see that there has been a contentious past, which is why the draft was created, and why we are under mediation. Perhaps it is time to dispense with the draft and with mediation, but that needs to be a decision between the regular editors and our mediator, whose name is Vassyana. If you want to discuss this with him, you can go to his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Vassyana Until he advises otherwise, I'm going to continue to edit his draft, and I think it would be easier for everyone if we all edited the same version. BTW, here's the link to the draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Vassyana/FoF/NPOV#Beliefs_and_practices. good luck!--Moon Rising 05:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jzknight.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jzknight.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 06:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

You've deleted a sourced entry from List of groups referred to as cults twice without even giving an edit summary. There's an article talk page that is intended for discussions. Please tell the other editors why you're deleting the material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

FOF editors

Dear Love, you posted a comment on the FOF talk page asking Aeuio to stay, because he is not a member or former member of the FOF and therefore not biased. Since you were not around earlier on, and have probably not read the archives thoroughly, I just wanted to let you know that he is most definitively biased. I can't quote him exactly, but he let it be known when he first joined the page that he thought poorly of the organization. This is not to say that his edits are not welcome. He is an experienced editor and has some good ideas. He may be more neutral than a member or former member, but still has his own bias. Also, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that all other editors are either current or former members.--Moon Rising 21:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Love, no offense was meant by my last post to you - the one that you deleted. I find you a valuable contributor. It's my understanding the user talk pages are the place for such comments, rather than the article talk pages, which are to focus on the article, rather than user styles. Any, my apologies if I offended you; it was not my intent. Keep up the good work!--Moon Rising 16:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Alex Horn's page

Hi CattleGirl, I noticed that the article about Alex Horn that I created yesterday was deleted very quickly (I guess that's why it's called "speedy deletion"...) and editors had no time to contribute to it. Is there a way to keep the page for, let's say, 24 hours or so before deletion to give the baby a chance to survive? By the way, Alex Horn was a controversial spiritual teacher and theater playwriter and there are lots of people that would like to know more about him. One of his students, Robert Burton, founded a religious organization with 2,000 members that has a article in Misplaced Pages Fellowship of Friends that is attracting a lot of attention (check the Talk page with 6 archives). If there is nothing you can do, it's OK. Thanks! Love-in-ark 18:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, how are you?
The reason I deleted the page was because a google search showed up none of the information in the page, besides the site that you referenced, so the reliability is in doubt if it is not backed up by more sources.
However, if you could find more sources and establish notability, and maybe focusing on a biography of Alex Horn rather than the Theatre of Possibilities, you could recreate the page. I hoped that helped you, if not, feel free to ask- CattleGirl 02:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends

Please read Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum 17:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Fellowship of Friends. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Pax:Vobiscum 18:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Love-in-ark (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME, IT IS ABOUT ANOTHER EDITOR BLOCKED UNJUSTLY FOR BEING A SOCK OF ME. I fully understand that I was blocked temporarily because I violated the 3RR, but I noticed that another editor (Baby Dove) has been blocked undefinitively for been a sock puppet of me. That is not true, we are 2 different people, as a Misplaced Pages Aadministrator that was involved in a mediation of the article in the past (Vassyana) knows. Also, I have been editing for 2 months now and Baby Dove has been editing for 8 months, so he can't be my puppet. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Decline reason:

The unblock template is not to get attention for things like this. When your block is up, I'd recommend that you take the issue up at Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. — SQL 01:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Category: