User talk:RookZERO

you're still edit warring

You're still edit warring, you're still being rude and insulting, you're still not using the talk page to discuss your constant reverts, and you still can't spell the word "relevant".

I'm reporting you to an admin today if you don't stop this behavior (well, except the misspellings - you can still do that if you really want). wikipediatrix 16:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a lighter note

RookZERO, I thought you would find this enlightening User:Fahrenheit451/Guide--Fahrenheit451 23:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following my warning to RookZERO with your "defense against the badgering" edit summary and this paranoid stuff about OSA agents at Wikipedia sounds to me like you're still not letting go of your harassment campaign. I agree with ChrisO's assessment of your rant. wikipediatrix 03:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, knock off your incivility as I am not conducting any harassment campaign. I was not communicating to you. You were badgering RookZERO and you seem to be the user conducting a harassment campaign here. I am telling you to stop it. I guess we have mutual opinions of each other's work, like your mockery of it on your user page: User:Wikipediatrix--Fahrenheit451 03:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dianazene article

Please, refrain from edit warring on the Dianazene article. Wikipediatrix version is better than yours. There is no mention of "Dianazene" in the current application of the "Purification Rundown", and as far as I know, a "regimen of vitamins" is what is used now. Saying that "Dianazene" is still used in today's purif is not supported by any valid reference. Raymond Hill 16:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

WP:AN3RR --Justanother 20:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be familiar with WP:3RR, and have had several issues with the policy in the past, including a 48 hour block just a few weeks ago. Since you seem to still be having trouble with this, I have blocked you for one week to prevent further edit warring. Please let me know if there are specific issues about the policy which are unclear to you. Kuru ^talk 00:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question about Scientology

Are you sure you want to jump back into the same patterns of editing in Scientology-related articles that you were so recently blocked for? It doesn't achieve your goals, since the most likely outcome is that you will be blocked for a longer period of time, unable to make any edits at all. Wouldn't it be better to seek a reasonable amount of consensus on talk pages in these highly controversial articles, rather than edit-warring? -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

I labelled you a Single Purpose Account after reviewing your most recent edits, which I recognise is wrong. Until you started editing Scientology related articles you had a good and varied editing history. You should consider requesting that you be unblocked on the basis of you not editing Scientology related articles, or attempting to form consensus on talk pages before editing. However, until your disruptive approach to the subject matter is changed I do not see the tarrif being reduced. LessHeard vanU 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that mentorship through WP:ADOPT should be a condition of having your editing privileges restored. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By my count only 28 out of my last 50 edits have had anything to do with Scientology. Only 51 out of my last 100 had anything to do with Scientology. Only 6 out of my 15 top articles posted to have anything to do with Scientology (http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=RookZERO&site=en.wikipedia.org). That hardly seems to describe a single purpose account, even based only on recent history.(RookZERO 04:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Which is why I added, "...which I recognise is wrong." Regrettably, those edits to Scientology related articles you have made have not been to your usual standard and have been disruptive. I should be glad if you were able to come to some understanding regarding your participation in Scientology related articles so that you may continue doing your good work in other areas. LessHeard vanU 12:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what am I blocked for now? I don't have a single purpose account and haven't vandalized articles, I'm not over 3 reverts and I'm not sure what basis I am being blocked on.(RookZERO 14:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Disruptive editing. Firstly, 3RR is not a license to revert three times every 24 hours, have a nap and go for another three the next day - it is the maximum number of reverts permitted on a good faith basis where there is an edit war. Your edits indicated that the previous block had not changed your resolve to simply revert instead of engage in discussion. This is edit warring, and is disruptive. You further commented in your edit summaries that you were reverting "cult vandalism" (the cult being Scientology) - that implies that the other editor (wikipediatrix) is a member of said ~~cult~~ group which, from the examples provided by Fahrenheit451 above, you will be aware she finds very insulting. That is harassment as well as incivility. As it is there is discussion at WP:ANI about the length of your block, but without a change in your attitude toward the article and those who choose to edit it (and the bad faith assumptions of why they do so) I think any return to editing will likely to be short and troubled for you. LessHeard vanU 20:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard vanU, I wonder if you are attempting to tie me into this somehow with some non-existent "examples above". It looks to me like you are engaging in some "rough adminning" here with an indefinite block on RookZERO, rather than a lower gradient.--Fahrenheit451 05:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the rules but I think before an established user(1646 edits) gets blocked indefinitely he should be able to defend himself but no one informed him about this to respond. There is a considerable amount of provocation and constant attack from other users wich might have caused his ruthless comments. If other editors revert on a content disput, mark the revert as minor and constitute the revert with a vandalism claim it is hard to stay friendly like here [1] or even worse [2].(just two examples from August and they do it with every editor wich disputes their edits) and it didn't stop. [3] Considering the fact that this users are all confirmed sock puppets who don't get blocked but only warned for their disruptive behaviour it is likely that other editors become ruthless with them. That is no excuse for his comments and he uses too infrequently the talk pages to establish consent but neither do the editors wich he usually reverts. He never got blocked or warned for his unproductive edit comments before and should at least have the chance to improve his behaviour. Despite the disruptive edit comments I experienced that he never made personal attacks on talk pages and usually commented only on contributions but not editors. 5 of 6 editors he associated with Scientology or a cult are indeed Scientologists. Only Wikipediatrix isn't and the accusation can be considered a personal attack but since he was only blocked for 3RR but never for WP:NPA violation it looks not fair to me to block him indefinitly the first time. -- Stan_talk 21:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Stan En, you've only echoed and amplified the exact same lack of WP:AGF as RookZERO:

1.You provided no diffs for your claim that RookZERO is under "constant attack from other users".

2.Regarding User:Shutterbug, you just said "this users are all confirmed sock puppets who don't get blocked" and I'd like to know how you back up this accusation.

3. You said "he never made personal attacks on talk pages" and that's not true. I can provide diffs if any admin asks.

4. You said "5 of 6 editors he associated with Scientology or a cult are indeed Scientologists" And you know this for a fact how? wikipediatrix 21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did say that his comments are not appropriate but disputed the indefinite block because I assume good faith and I don't think that an established editor should be blocked indefinitly but get a second chance.

1.I already provided three diffs and there are many more wich you should know. Just look on the talk page of these editors and ~~call~~count the NPA and CIVIL warnings even if they don't get warned everytime because editors seem to become used to it.

2.not likelely or possible but confirmed (COFS is Shutterbug)

3. I said I never saw him making personal attacks on talk pages. you have to provide diffs if you know of personal attacks.

4. Per your examples he reverted Shutterbug,Misou,Braveheartbear and you making the cult claims. Except you, all did claim to be Scientologists or editing from Scientology IP's. I also noted that he often placed such comments on Justanother and Sujada wich also claim to be Scientologists. However, he should stop placing such inappropriate comments. -- Stan_talk 22:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new)+ one more example wich shows that RookZERO was provocated by some editors [4].-- Stan_talk 00:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned that this went right back to editing the same articles, and continued the really very insulting edit summaries. However, I think s/he has shown that s/he can edit usefully, and just has trouble staying neutral about Scientology; I'd support lifting the indefinite block for now with a strong caution to be very, very careful about how s/he edits in this subject area in the future. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amended- I'd support lifting the indef block and replacing it with a limited block, conditional on this user's making specific guarantees regarding future behavior. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to Stan En) Two points; firstly WP:NPA states "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme..." is not permitted, so it doesn't matter if the editors RookZERO referred to are Scientologists or not, and, secondly, RookZERO had just come off a weeks block for making exactly the same edits. RookZERO should have been aware that resuming the same pattern of editing that got them previously blocked was likely going to procure a more severe sanction - and also that their actions would be reported. LessHeard vanU 21:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he violated WP:NPA but wanted to show the whole picture. -- Stan_talk 22:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their views motivated their deletion of cited and relevant material without cause (ie vandalism). Their views in and of themselves would not cause me any concern. It is when their edits are simple vandalism in service of a group of which they are a member that I have raised their actions in the edit summary.(RookZERO 02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, and as for the sockpuppet/meatpuppet/coi behavior that stan en made referance to, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/COFS .(RookZERO 02:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

you should realize that you also wrongfully connected Wikipediatrix to this group wich was a personal attack and you didn't show any prove for your accusations. It is also not advisable to highlight this issue in every edit summarie. If a problem occurs and you think it happened due to a COI issue you should report it to AN/I or appropriate places. I support FisherQueen last statement that you only get a limited block but you should assure that you don't make unconstructive edit summaries with personal attacks, revert warring(the best would probably be 1RR) and participate more on talk pages to justify your edits. I know it is difficult on Scientology related articles to stay civil(as I made my first edit to Scientology and was attacked personally afterwards[5] I wanted to say things wich would could have me blocked instantly but I didn't) but the fact that other people behave like this doesn't give you permission to react the same way in WP. I think it is a good rule because otherwise WP would just be an absurd battlefield. --03:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)-- Stan_talk 03:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatrix is extremely sensitive about the abbreviation used to identify s/he and asserting that s/he is involved with the cofs. Unless a user identifies themself with their true identity or IP address and you can verify it, there is no way to be certain about gender or organizational affiliations. I know a number of cases where an editor's persona was quite different from real life. In any case, the medcap for David Miscavige should be imminent and hopefully, that will quell the edit-warring and vindictiveness extant with certain editors.--Fahrenheit451 06:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Ceres (organization)

I have nominated Ceres (organization), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceres (organization). 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Chzz ► 18:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of CIA drug trafficking for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CIA drug trafficking is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIA drug trafficking until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GabrielF (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chang Tung Sheng for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chang Tung Sheng is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chang Tung Sheng until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Geoponic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Geoponic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoponic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Paleorthid (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]