User talk:Misou
|
|
Sorry, got no time yet to put something in here. But feel free to leave questions or comments.
Hi there!
[edit]Please feel free to discuss all kinds of things here, as long as the Talk page of an article is not the better choice. Misou whats up just wanted to see waht was going on!! Whats your email ? reply to jiggulad@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.88.45 (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- What's up? Misou (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Dianetics: The Original Thesis
[edit]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dianetics: The Original Thesis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Dianetics: The Original Thesis. Cirt (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Dianetics: The Original Thesis
[edit]
I have nominated Dianetics: The Original Thesis, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianetics: The Original Thesis. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Cirt (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Incident notice
[edit]A discussion in which you are mentioned is currently under way here. This is a courtesy notice. --GoodDamon 09:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hum? Did find nothing there. Am I late or something? Misou (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, late. It's at WP:AE now. --GoodDamon 23:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Gosh, this sh*t again... Thanks. Misou (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, late. It's at WP:AE now. --GoodDamon 23:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, you've made three reverts within the last 2 hours or so ([1] [2] [3]). Another revert in the next 24 hours will place you in violation of the three revert rule. Best, - auburnpilot talk 01:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. No need to, the link is now gone (was said to be a false positive[4] but it's not needed anyway). Misou (talk) 02:13, 6 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, DurovaCharge! 18:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- About what. There's not even a subject yet. Misou (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology
[edit]Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.
On your statement you talk about an overwhelming need for an arbcom case. What do you feel the past arbcom case was not able to address?
You state that there will be no peace ever as long as the discrimination continues. Can you specify what you mean by that?
To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?
-- Cat chi? 18:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :
- Banned : John254 (talk · contribs) (Community Ban), Justallofthem (talk · contribs)
- Topic-banned : CSI LA (talk · contribs), Grrrilla (talk · contribs), Makoshack (talk · contribs), Proximodiz (talk · contribs), Su-Jada (talk · contribs), TaborG (talk · contribs), Jack Russell Terrier (talk · contribs), Jpierreg (talk · contribs), Maureen D (talk · contribs), OngoingHow (talk · contribs), Seelltey (talk · contribs), Tturrisi (talk · contribs), Voxpopulis (talk · contribs), AndroidCat (talk · contribs), Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs), Anynobody (talk · contribs), Derflipper (talk · contribs), Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs), Orsini (talk · contribs), Shrampes (talk · contribs), Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), Tilman (talk · contribs), The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs), Touretzky (talk · contribs)
- To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*, Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs)
- Other restrictions :
- Jossi (talk · contribs) gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
- ChrisO (talk · contribs) is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
- Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.
- #Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.
Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.
All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.
- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)