User talk:Makoshack/Archive

This is not a discussion page. Hold your discussions on the respective pages made for it.

Stop blanking your talk page

You are in error regarding the purpose of this talk page. Study this. Continually blanking out your talk page can be construed as vandalism, and ordering other editors not to post to it makes no sense - that's precisely what it's for. wikipediatrix 18:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She has a point. It's incredibly frustrating, not to mention kinda rude Glen 19:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. My understanding is that the discussion pages for each Wikipedia article are the discussion pages for that article and the user talk page, well, for exchange of thoughts of a general nature? The point here is that creative processes would be lost if they happen on talk pages. No one looking at an article would have the opportunity to participage, since he/she would go on the discussion page and has no possibility to even find a random user talk page thought exchange. Having said all that, I'll return onto watching the template discussion, in the hope that there will be one to watch and not just vandalism and random changes. Makoshack 23:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

email

From: Makoshack

To: Coelacan

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:38:00 GMT

Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

May I ask why my IP is blocked? I read the block description but that does not answer the question. Who or what is "CSI LA"?

Hi Makoshack. Sorry I guess I don't check my email often enough. I'm posting your email here so that other users can understand your side of the story regarding the Church of Scientology proxy. To answer your question, you were autoblocked when User:CSI LA was blocked, because you were using the same IP address, a content filter that appears to be related to the Scieno Sitter. ··coel acan 06:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get you. Thanks for letting me know! Makoshack 04:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from David Miscavige. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Smee 16:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information that is backed up by reputable secondary sourced citations, and please do not do this while using misleading edit summaries. Diff Thanks. Smee 16:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The content of the source can be verified at google print [1]. If the URL doesn't work, enter Streissgut Miscagive at print.google.com. Plus, this text is nothing new; that "activity" (squeezing out the mission holders) has been described in other books, too, it's common knowledge. --Tilman 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not think of this possibility. But I should not be forced to do so, right? WP:OR and all? Why can't Smee just quote the relevant parts in the ref. Makoshack 01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course nobody forces you to "know" about google print, or to go to a library to verify (amusingly, a majority of editors in the german wikipedia insist that "source doubters" have to do the research and the legwork - I disagree with this). The simple thing per WP:AGF would have been to ask Smee what the original text said and wait if a satisfying response would come up, instead of "delete first" with a misleading edit summary. Plus, as I said, the mission holder squeeze is common knowledge (enter miscavige mission holders in google); the addition wasn't something extremely weird fact that had never been heard before. --Tilman 16:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that - in the knowledge of your personal website and German background - I am not inclined to nod off unreferenced claims that something is "common knowledge". I am aware of the transcript of this mission holder conference as well as those willfully false interpretations written by disgruntled ex-mission holders, people with a hidden agenda spreading gossip and lies and who Smee obviously seems to trust more than the reports about the actual occurrences. The text Smee wrote is biased in the sense of using propaganda terms and is based on a tabloid-type of book based on factual errors even an openly hostile editor such as Smee can see and was written by an author without any credentials. Smee did mess up a stable and balanced version of the article - some controversy, mostly facts - by introducing "pulp" quality texts. It could well be that I have not enough good faith in propaganda pushing but you tell me why I should trust? Makoshack 17:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My website and my german background are irrelevant to this. From what I see, Thomas Streissguth is an author who is specialized in biographies, and he's not connected to anti scientology circles, as far as I know. Feel free to add a text from a reliable source that has a different slant on the mission holder squeeze than these sources: [2][3][4] --Tilman 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism (Second Warning)

Please do not remove material backed up by reputable secondary sourced citations, as you did, again, here: Diff. Your edit summary of An Earth is a disk. Is also misleading and does not indicate that you removed material from the article that was backed up by reputable citations. Thank you. Smee 22:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I removed POV pushing materials. Makoshack 23:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed factual material backed up by reputable secondary sourced citations that followed WP:RS, and you have engaged in WP:NPA, above. Smee 23:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You are trying to provoke me. That is not nice of you. Deal with the facts of the matter and stop attacking with bureaucratic lingo, thank you. Makoshack 23:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the cited policies. You are in violation of them. Smee 23:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, I will do that. You will have to stand the application of it on yourself as well. Makoshack 23:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough now

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Makoshack (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

66.96.216.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Makoshack". The reason given for Makoshack's block is: "Sockpuppet in COFS sock run (checkuser confirmed)".

Blocking administrator: Georgewilliamherbert (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Yamla 23:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP block was lifted after some days because it was a mistake. Please read my talk page and the related discussion. Makoshack 23:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly editing the same materials as the COFS editors. We're not idiots. If you feel like following this up, you can post another unblock request here clarifying your argument that your edits aren't those of the COFS editors, appeal to unblock-en-l@wikimedia.org, or to Wikipedia's arbcom here. But I think anyone looking at the evidence will conclude that you're COFS. Georgewilliamherbert 23:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Makoshack (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You are just uninformed and you have not read the ArbCom members viewpoint on the matter which is in the links I emailed you and which you should have read before acting on behalf of someone who thinks she must be a personal enemy of mine. COFS sits in L.A.. I am very much closer to the Wikipedia servers. And I am not acting on behalf of her (COFS) not anyone else, even less an organization. I do not have to convince you and I am not interested in that. What I am interested in is that a shared IP for more than 1,000 people who are as much connected as the employees of an international company is seen as a shared IP. Certainly these people are interested in caring for neutral information about their religious affiliation. Please unblock.

Decline reason:

Your block has expired. — John Reaves (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

IP address blocking disabled (didn't intend to get that in the first place); user is still blocked for 48 hrs for disruption and removing sourced information. Georgewilliamherbert 00:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious: what was the disruption and what article did Makoshack remove sourced information from? I noticed he twice removed some information that I had placed on Space opera in Scientology scripture, but that sort of thing goes on in the Scientology articles on a daily basis and no one gets a 48 hour block for it. Even though Makoshack has been uncivil to me and even though it was my edit he was revert-warring over, I still think a 48 hour block without a warning is rather excessive, to say the least. wikipediatrix 03:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. He doesn't "see" you if you post here. Admins react on ring-ring-ring like this one:

{unblock|Admin Georgewilliamherbert blocked me for 48hrs and said he unblocked my shared IP. The latter does not work still. Please check it out. Thanks.}} Makoshack 04:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still around?

Please note this one here. You are mentioned. COFS 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]