User talk:AndroidCat/Archive 1

Welcome!
WELCOME!! Hello, ! I want to personally welcome you on behalf of the Wikipedia community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you haven't already, you can put yourself new user log and list of users so you can be properly introduced to everyone. Don't forget to be bold, and don't be afraid of hungry Wikipedians...there's a rule about not biting newcomers. Some other good links are the tutorial, how to edit a page, or if you're really stuck, see the help pages. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a ♪ at my talk page...and again, welcome!-- Violin Girl ♪ 20:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

and another one is lured to their doom
How did I fail to see you getting sucked into the Wikipedia? Tch! Have fun ;-)

BTW, you or someone will have pages of your own filled with detailed Canadian info for List of Scientology organizations like I adapted from mine for Australian ones ... - David Gerard 09:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi AndroidCat thanks for the link to the Charity Commission report on the Scientology and the Legal System page. Which Wiki are you referring to?  Really Spooky 17:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Scientology. There's also the short summary version, which makes interesting reading.

Request for Comments - Terryeo
I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Olberon and the 3RR
Just so you know, Olberon has been warned about the 3RR. Apparently he didn't really get it. -_- -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed referenced material without discussion
By the way, just as a reminder, it is generally frowned upon to remove verified, cited references from an article just because you don't like what it says. You removed: "Narconon's courses are secularized versions of Scientology religious texts, with terms such as like "Scientology" being replaced with "Narconon", and "Thetan" with "person". The courses, which have little or nothing to do with substance abuse, are exercises in concepts such as Suppressive Persons, PTS, Hubbard's ethics, and anti-psychiatry rhetoric. Scientology's Training Routine #8 (or TR 8) is also included as part of Narconon's "Communication and Perception" course. TR 8 instructs the subject to scream at an ashtray "in the loudest possible voice he can muster". Commands like "STAND UP!" and SIT DOWN!" are yelled directly at the ashtray, as it is lifted up and placed back down to aid the visualization. The subject is to acknowledge this each time by yelling "THANK YOU!" to the ashtray as loud as he possibly can. " from the Narconon article without any discussion on the discussion page and with only a brief comment on your edit summary to say why you removed a good sized block of cited text.Terryeo 15:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you were paying attention rather than just frothing at the keyboard, you'd see that I restored text removed by someone else and then trimmed the parts that had been moved elsewhere. Do try to aquire a good source of clue Terryeo. AndroidCat 17:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Streamlight Problems
I have noticed that Streamlight lately has been engaging in counter-policy editing. What do you think should be the next step? --Fahrenheit451 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wog: derivative definition =
I've reverted your removal of the section in question, and as per your request for references, please see the following:


 * Patrolling with Sean Kennedy - this is what made the definition in question relatively well known.
 * Wog Coalition: What Is A Wog? - Other people's takes on what the term "wog" means to them, all of which share common elements (namely, the ones in the definition).

I had a similar discussion with Hartley Patterson; please see our respective talk pages.

--SpecOp Macavity 19:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - I can't seem to figure out how to properly edit the "references" section on the Wog page - all I get when I hit the edit link is:

== References ==

notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Photo-ops
My random list of articles that could use a picture, for when I need random locations to ride to, in no particular priority, depending on random weather. I'm open to suggestions, but I make no promises. I might do some touring/camping this summer, so further targets could be considered (if it's a nice trip). AndroidCat (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * King, Ontario
 * York Regional Road 12 Do-over of a 1915 photo in Keswick.
 * Queensville, Ontario
 * Lake Wilcox
 * Maple GO Station
 * Happy Valley, York Regional Municipality, Ontario
 * Ansnorveldt, Ontario
 * Hammertown, Ontario (Stop, Hammertown!)
 * Kettleby, Ontario
 * Muck Crops Research Station (just because of the name)
 * Richmond Hill Centre for the Performing Arts
 * King City weather radar station
 * Snowball, Ontario
 * Koffler Scientific Reserve
 * Thornhill, Ontario
 * Strange, Ontario (I rode through and there was nothing there. Alien abduction or ghost hamlet?)
 * King City GO Station
 * Maple Leaf Cricket Club
 * Eaton Hall (King City)
 * Regional Municipality of York
 * Hogan's Inn at four corners
 * King Township Public Library
 * Mary Lake Augustinian Monastery
 * Newmarket GO Station
 * Holland Landing Airpark
 * Cookstown Airport (Just happened to be passing and remembered the stub article.)
 * Lloydtown, Ontario and Jesse Lloyd‎
 * Hockley Highlands Inn
 * Temperanceville, Ontario
 * Looks like camping is closing off this weekend. No rain, finally, but chance of frost. What rotten weather! AndroidCat (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Germany
Hi Androidcat, thanks for the links (and I found the a.r.s. post with the now-archived article ;) ). I thought that yesterday or the day before, I read a similar article where German officials were quoted saying much the same things about Clinton, but were being quoted directly by some reporter, as raising these points in response to US criticism. The SPT article only quotes them in this indirect way ("It's no surprise, then, that German officials might be unhappy when ...") which won't stand up as a source for a statement actually made. For the life of me, I can't find the article any more. Do you happen to know which article it might have been? Thanks for your help.  JN 466  19:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Posting Issue: A. Edward Moch
I can assue you and "Wiki" that the material presented on "A. Edward Moch" and "Remote Viewing" is not original and can be "Legally" backed up by various members of The Psychical and intelligence Community, and at other sources. You have permission to seek from me within scope to do a FOIA request if need be to resolve any possible-additional misunderstandings. My attept to resolution this posting issue, but not dismiss "Possible Legal Direction" if need be. Please allow me the courtesy to postAedwardmoch (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

re Reprinted Boston Herald articles at Apologetics Index
Not the best website to linkback to,. -- Cirt (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there is an alternate site that could be used instead. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo-ops
My random list of articles for the 2010 season that could use a picture, for when I need random locations to ride to, in no particular priority, depending on random weather. (I must say that having Google View covering everything first takes a certain amount of the fun out it.) I'm open to suggestions, but I make no promises. AndroidCat (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * King, Ontario
 * York Regional Road 12 Do-over of a 1915 photo in Keswick.
 * Queensville, Ontario
 * Lake Wilcox
 * Happy Valley, York Regional Municipality, Ontario
 * Ansnorveldt, Ontario
 * Hammertown, Ontario (Stop, Hammertown!)
 * Muck Crops Research Station (just because of the name)
 * King City weather radar station
 * Strange, Ontario (I rode through and there was nothing there. Alien abduction or ghost hamlet?)
 * Hogan's Inn at four corners
 * King Township Public Library
 * Mary Lake Augustinian Monastery
 * Newmarket GO Station
 * Holland Landing Airpark


 * Strange is just a collection of about five houses now; most of the historical buildings are long gone, though there's likely some info and pics at the King Township Museum or the King Township Public Library (in the Archives). You may have trouble getting a pic of the radar, as the entrance on Jane Street has a gate, and the radar is set deep in the property. (Then again, I haven't been there for some time.) Mind  matrix  01:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Other suggestions nearby to the places listed above: Holland Marsh; schools, churches etc. in King City, Nobleton, Schomberg and Kettleby (whichever happen to be on your path), Crawford Wells in King City (should be across Keele street from Hogan's), King City Trail, Seneca College (Eaton Hall and the lakes too). Mind  matrix  01:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

something I noticed
Heh heh. Mind matrix  01:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Scientology topic ban
If you can't comment, due to an ArbCom topic ban I presume, then making this sort of edit is pointless. I have removed it. NW ( Talk ) 22:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for topic ban violations
I am blocking you for 48 hours for violations of your topic ban on Requests for arbitration/Scientology.

The this edit might be overlooked, although I'd call it trolling. However, taken with this edit which inserted two superfluous links to Scientology related articles - and you are clearly in violation.

I strongly recommend that you unwatch all related articles and resist the temptation to push the envelope. The next block will be longer.--Scott Mac 22:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The links are hardly superfluous and direct address the company TradeNet. AndroidCat (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, you do realize that Laundry ball is no longer a related article? So I presume that I'm banned from using relevant WP:RS references that use the S-word in the title in any article? (The articles which use the S-word in the title, conclude in the body that the company in not part of Church of S-word, and then go on to discuss TradeNet in some detail.) AndroidCat (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is no longer a related article because I removed the coatrack. Look, a topic ban means you get a new topic and stay well away from the old one. It doesn't mean you pick a company that until a few days ago was marked as "Scientology related" and add some links to Scientology related articles on the premise that they also discuss other stuff. Nor does it mean you troll a Scientology related AFD. Take these articles off your watchlist and do something completely and utterly unrelated to Scientology.--Scott Mac 17:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read the full articles. Have you? It's unfortunate that SPT shifted their full articles to pay-only, but there are summaries still available. You might find this ref usable as it doesn't use the S-word: Troubled firm's building for sale As for my watchlist, since I normally only login once a month or two, it doesn't really matter what's on it. (Nor is there a restriction on the contents of my watchlist.) However, it does raise a question: do admins have the capability of arbitrarily dumping watchlists? That sounds far more privacy intrusive than mass checkusers. AndroidCat (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW: Two problematic BLPs for you: Aziz al-Abub and especially Justin Tanner Petersen (many of the refs appear to be bogus). AndroidCat (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:ARBSCI Topic ban violation
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The incident in Question has been Directed to WP:AE The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have closed the above AE request in accordance with the consensus of the uninvolved administrators who commented there. The consensus among those admins is that the edits in question could legitimately be seen as a violation of your topic ban. However, the consensus is also in agreement with your assertion that you were upholding WP:BLP and that the topic ban should not take precedence over BLP. More than one comment suggested that you were unwise to make the edits in question, so I would strongly recommend that you seek assistance in any such future cases by posting on a relevant noticeboard or the talk page of an uninvolved admin rather than act yourself. It seems prudent to remind you that your topic ban is still in effect and that you may face a lengthy block if any of your future edits are deemed to be a violation of the ban. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. A discussion opened, debated, decided, closed and scrolled off within a day. Under the Arbcom restriction, I wouldn't even have been allowed to comment on it. I respectfully suggest that some people get a life. AndroidCat (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting that my topic block seems to have been unofficially expanded to "Anything Cultic". Does that include Ching Hai or various pseudo-woo treatments? Let's see who complains about this long term rubbish: . If you un-PROD, please add sources or I'll see you in AfD. (Jossi is gone, right?) AndroidCat (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No it Remains: "Discussions and Articles involving Scientology broadly defined." The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Including CESNUR, Dick Anthony, J. Gordon Melton, Louis Jolyon West and Anti-psychiatry seems very broad indeed. AndroidCat (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And in future, I suggest you address your complaints to the content of my edits, rather than a tediously vague IDONTLIKEITOMGBBQ. AndroidCat (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As a courtesy, please: open identities
Since I have used the same Wikipedia identity for the last six years, which connects to my ultra-Wiki identity, even my True Name, I politely request that anyone commenting here fill in the details if you've changed names in the last few years. Might as well fill in your wikipediareview id too, 'cause I'll look for that and your comment history. AndroidCat (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This is your only WP:ARBSCI Topic Ban Violation Warning
Please Watch it or its back to WP:AE, Edits like this are ok because its not Scientology Related edits like this this and this are under WP:ARBSCI. Do your best to avoid any scholar, activist, affiliated movements, persons, who has a significant tie to Scientology. This is my only warning or its back to WP:AE The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aware of your opinion on how wide reaching you feel that WP:ARBSCI covers, and you're probably aware of my opinion of that opinion. I see that you've knee-jerk reinstated the fluff. AndroidCat (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Feb 2010 topic ban violation
^^ It's 2011 AndroidCat (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked you for a week for violating your topic ban on James R. Lewis (scholar), as well as for editing while logged out to continue to edit war. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I edited James R. Lewis (scholar) once, which I question is within my topic ban. I don't edit while logged out, and I certainly don't use proxies to make it look like I'm coming from Australia rather than Canada. I suggest you recheck that, because if it was a sock puppet, it wasn't mine. AndroidCat (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume that you know my current actual IP address since you blocked it. (173.206.66.113 dsl-173-206-66-113.tor.primus.ca) How do you reconcile that with 118.208.147.244, which geo-locates to Canberra, on the other side of the planet? Also, since you know that I've never used that IP, did you check to see if anyone else has used it? (I would check that whole address range to see who uses that ISP, but that's probably beyond CheckUser's mandate.)


 * I'm trying to Assume Good Faith here, but I feel that you're being gamed by ResidentAnthropologist, who seems to suffer from a very bad case of OWN on those articles, and seems willing to resort to any means possible to insure that. His/her claim that I am topic-blocked from articles on religious scholars because they have some connection to Scientology is spurious. He/she raised that during a WP:ARBSCI that he/she submitted, and it was dismissed, closed, and scrolled off before I could even comment on it. ResidentAnthropologist was stretching the truth somewhat to claim that as if it was decided fact. If ARBSCI ever actually decides such a thing, I assume that I would be likewise blocked from editing Supreme Court of the United States in any way since they have tried many cases involving Scientology.


 * Since those articles come under the strict editing rules of WP:BLP, I do wonder why ResidentAnthropologist feels the need to use a hammer when discussion has never been tried. (And I wouldn't be human if I didn't think those Australian edits smell a lot like a set up.) I also wonder why ResidentAnthropologist makes no objection to Jayen466 editing a number of those scholar articles when he/she would also be blocked on the same grounds? (I can't raise this with ARBSCI because that does fall within my topic block.)


 * I will abide to the block. As a gesture of good faith, I point out that my IP address is dynamic and it would be the work of minutes to pop up from somewhere else within Primus' sprawling IP blocks. (To paraphrase Scotty: "Another IP address is easy. A different continent, now that's hard!") I am a little (more) insulted that anyone would think that I'd do anything so crude if I ever went over to the Dark Side. AndroidCat (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, why does the CheckUser page have a section for "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims" when I was never informed until it was all over and closed? Kafka would die with envy! AndroidCat (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that Resident Anthropologist, on receiving the negative results, said he/she was going to take up with ARBCOM but never did, and deleted that entry. Very poorly done, old chap. AndroidCat (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The CheckUser Clerked declined the request and did not run it. You are allowed to edit religious scholar articles except ones who have done significant works on Scientology as your topic banned is broadly defined. James R. Lewis and J. Gordon Melton are definitely well within the topic area as both have done significant works on Scientology. HelloAnnonging blocked you before any WP:AE request could be filed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you saying that the clerk never even bothered to run the CheckUser, or what? Never bothered to actually check the IP addresses, logs, possibly the browser strings, the geo locations, side of the planet, certainly never bothered asking for Accused parties comments? What kind of dying popsicle stand operation is this? (Admins are leaving faster than they are being created, what does that suggest about the number of editors?)

Well, be advised that Jayen466 is also broadly blocked from any scholar who has ever commented on Rick Ross. I expect you to enforce that ARBCOM topic ban likewise. AndroidCat (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Clerk declined - CU won't connect an IP to an account." looks like a CU done, but negative results to me, in other words, you seem to be lying. How do you hold a moral position that requires acts like that? AndroidCat (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:ClamBake.gif
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ClamBake.gif, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do everyone a favor and read the discussion of all the previous times this tempest in a toilet erupted. Meanwhile, I am broadly blocked from commenting at the discussion. Have a nice day. AndroidCat (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Epiphany
Since I have been declared by the ARBCOM to be a single-purpose editor on the subject of Scientology, I can't be declared in violation of that essay on any other topic. (Barring a convoluted rationale connecting it back to Scientology in a Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon fashion.) AndroidCat (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Narconon "papers"
That's good to know, I'll check the Narconon article and eliminate the fake front references as I find them. It shows that one must be careful about the references and citations that manage to make it in to an article which the Scientology corporation has tried to remove, it seems they double-down the effort to vandalize such articles with illegitimate sources when they can't replace facts with advertising. Damotclese (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

CENSUR editwarring
CENSUR was removed after you alerted it is not considered RS. Original user has re-added it to three articles. Feoffer (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:SRLastThumb.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:SRLastThumb.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Is AUM investigation OR/SYNTH
Since you're up to speed on the CESNUR discussion, would you advise us over at Talk:CESNUR Feoffer (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)