User talk:NestleNW911

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, NestleNW911! I am ResidentAnthropologist and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome! And happy holidays to you. NestleNW911 (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know your way around Wikipedia pretty well, have you edited here before? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, although I'm familiar with Facebook and a bit of HTML. Wikipedia is still rather new. What can I say, I'm trying to read your stuff prior to posting! ;) Cheers. NestleNW911 (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

NestleNW911 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to contest the "Shutterbug" investigation on my account – the evidence provided is speculative at best, asserting that I've executed a "similar behavior pattern" to other accounts that have been mentioned in Sockpuppet investigations. There is no empirical evidence, mainly interpretations of my behavior. I have respectfully revealed my identity and interest in Scientology right off the bat. Infact, I joined WikiProject Scientology and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_in_Scientology to establish myself as a contributing Wikipedian that has a great interest in eliminating bias in Scientology-related pages. Additionally, I have not made a single Scientology page edit. I have respectfully taken to the talk pages to propose edits to the administrators. It is with truth and confidence that I say that I have not violated any Wikipedia guidelines.

With this in mind, I would like to be acknowledged as a contributing Wikipedian and be rightfully exonerated from the "Shutterbug" investigation. I have no connection to this account, or the other accounts mentioned in the investigation.

Thank you so much. NestleNW911 (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

The behavioural evidence is not particularly damning, nor is the CU Possible and reblocks are easy if I'm wrong. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The behavioral evidence appears to support this block in my view. But I'm leaving the unblock request open for others to opine. It might be noteworthy that there has been recently a Shutterbug false positive, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Ban appeal by User:Turbotad. Sandstein 11:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a fresh set of eyes on this one via WP:AN; for my part, there have been many many controversies surrounding Scientology on wikipedia, and new users who jump right into that contentious area are occasionally found to be sockpuppets, so some suspicion is not unexpected. That said, I don't have the checkuser tools to run this one down. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the acknowledgement. I would like to further emphasize that my activity on Wikipedia is not like the other mentioned accounts at all, and that I've looked into the "behavior" of the other accounts and have seen no similarity. I assert that this case was hastily concluded on my expense, and that the evidence is insufficient. I would also like to mention that there has been positive admin response to my proposed edits on the David Miscavige page. I have made a positive contribution to NPOV on the David Miscavige page, and have not been disruptive in any way. That being said, I remain on standby for further action on my case.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (NestleNW911) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because having organization names as user names is not allowed. The term Nestle refers to the company Nestle. In case you have a reason where you believe this name should be kept by you, kindly mention it here. Otherwise, kindly change it as soon as possible. You may be blocked anytime for using a company's name.. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venues to change your user name

It's important to choose the right venue for your request. Otherwise, it may be delayed or declined. Once you are sure, proceed to the correct venue and follow the instructions there:

Simple – For renames to usernames that are not already taken. Check here to see whether the username you want is available.
Usurpations – For renames to usernames that arealready taken and have no significant edits.

Please feel free to write to me for any assistance. Kind regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've added the {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} templates around the discussion of your username here, feel free to remove them if you don't want them. I would recommend not just undoing this edit though, as I also removed a category that the username warning placed you in - just edit this section removing the two templates. demize (t · c) 23:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention needed at WP:CHUS

Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to See you back

Its always nice to have friendly Scientologist Editing here. Sorry for the Bureaucratic mess you wandered into. Cheers The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Glad to be back! NestleNW911 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NestleNW911. Please be informed that I have reopened your Shutterbug sockpuppet investigation: link. Startwater (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, NestleNW911. You have new messages at ResidentAnthropologist's talk page.
Message added 23:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Weasel Wording

Hiya! Nice interacting with you over at L Ron Hubbard. I just wanted to clarify that when I cautioned against Weasel Wording it wasn't meant as name calling or insult. Check this out: wp:weasel It basically says to avoid phrases like "some people say" because it denies the reader the ability to judge the claim based on the source. In L Ron Hubbard, you replaced "According to Scientology promotional materials" with "According to some sources" which obscures the fact that it's purely a Scientology church belief and contrary to what the public record says. I understand what you mean that you did not like the claim being called "promotional". So hows this for a solution, restore the proper citation per wiki policy and remove the word "promotional". Leave it as "According to Scientology..." and let the reader decide for themselves weather or not it's believable. Does that sound reasonable? Thanks! :) 69.245.72.101 (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you 69.245. I was just about to respond to your other Discussions as well. Sorry for the delay. NestleNW911 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Case

Nestle, I have opened an Arbcom Case against you here.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask a question?

Hi, Nestle. Would you mind a question from me about your relationship to the Church of Scientology? -- BTfromLA (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BTfromLA. Go ahead! NestleNW911 (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nestle. I'm assuming that you are an active church member (correct?), though I don't know whether you are "staff" or "public" or in the Sea Org. My reading on the subject indicates that scientologists in general are discouraged from reading any material that is skeptical or critical with regard to scientology ("entheta"). Indeed, it seems that folks who do so are subject to "sec checks" that cost time and money and sound entirely unpleasant to me. So, I'm curious about whether you have been asked by the church to post to Wikipedia, where you come into regular contact with the critical information, or whether you are doing this without their knowledge, or what. If you are doing this without church supervision, how do you reconcile that with their policy regarding entheta materials? -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still curious about this, if you are willing to answer... -- BTfromLA (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My curiosity remains undiminished, would appreciate a reply. -- BTfromLA (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

Hello, I'm Ultra Venia. I noticed that you recently removed some content from David Miscavige without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. The removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Ultra Venia (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Your addition to Church of Scientology has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. My guess is that even a single additional instance of what you did on this article today would result in a lengthy block. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I thought that one could add content from sources directly as long as there is a Wikipedia citation. I have rewritten the content and posted it in the talk pages of "Church of Scientology" and "Scientology beliefs and practices." Please advise on whether it is okay to move forward.NestleNW911 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest

Hi NestleNW911, I noticed that you had attempted a speedy deletion of my article The Hole (Scientology). Whatever your concerns, it was improper to do so because, as a self-declared Scientologist, you have a severe conflict of interest in the matter. There is a good case for saying that your speedy deletion was a violation of the ongoing sanctions on Scientology-related articles following the Scientology arbitration case, in which conflicts of interest were a major issue. In addition, your contributions going back to your first edits over 2 years ago suggest that you are a single-purpose editor - again, this was an issue in the arbitration case, when numerous single-purpose accounts were topic-banned.

I'm not inclined to take this up at arbitration enforcement for the moment but I'd like you, at the least, to refrain from nominating articles for deletion. Your conflict of interest is such that it isn't proper for you to do so. There's nothing to stop you discussing POV or sourcing issues that you perceive on article talk pages, and I'd encourage you to do so. Also, I'd encourage you to widen your editing interests a bit - if you're only here to promote a pro-Scientology agenda (and your user page does suggest that rather strongly) then I think sooner or later someone is going to call you out for being here to promote your own interests. Prioryman (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your hesitation in having "The Hole" deleted. Yes, I have disclosed my identity as a Scientologist and one of my main concerns is NPOV in Scientology-related pages. I'd like to emphasize that I have honestly declared my affiliation and I do my best to abide by Wikipedia policy. (I honestly felt that the page was contradicting Wiki Policy) Having said that, I can defer to the maintenance of this page, but I do not agree that both sides are "reported fairly." I will continue my research as a Wikipedian and propose edits in order to balance the perspective of this page because it is teeming with challenged NPOV and degree of questionable sources. I also question the reliability of the ratings on this page - these ratings may come from individuals who have a biased agenda.NestleNW911 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic banned

Hi NestleNW911. Per Remedy 5.1 of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology, and in light of your assertion that you are on Wikipedia solely to edit Scientology articles and topics and the fact that you are obviously carrying out an agenda to oppose content critical of Scientology, I am placing you under a one-year topic ban from edits relating to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly construed. If you violate this topic ban, you will be subject to escalating blocks of not less than one month and not more than one year, as described here. If you wish to appeal this sanction, you may do so to either the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard or to the Arbitration Committee itself. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NestleNW911, I'm sorry to see you got topic-banned but considering that you've never edited anything other than Scientology articles it was probably inevitable that you would get fingered as a single-purpose account. As I said above, I'd suggest widening your editing interests on Wikipedia, if you intend to stick around. There's plenty of articles that need to be created or improved. How about something to do with Gibraltar? There's a long list of needed articles on Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar (the red links). Prioryman (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be submitting an appeal on the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard.NestleNW911 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see appeal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Appeal_to_being_Topic-banned_on_Scientology-related_articles

Thank you.NestleNW911 (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'd suggest that you also notify Fluffernutter on their user talk page so that they can explain their reasoning. Prioryman (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need, I've got this talk page on my watchlist. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. Nestle, there is also a standard template format for appeals. Don't worry about it; I've converted your post into the approved format. You can find it now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by NestleNW911. Prioryman (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result of your arbitration enforcement appeal

Please see this result of your appeal at WP:Arbitration enforcement. Your one-year ban from Scientology-related topics is upheld. An overview of the appeal process is here. As a practical matter, if you can find a way to contribute in other areas during your ban it would be beneficial. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for using an alternate account to circumvent an established topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been pruned from a list

Hi NestleNW911! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]