User talk:Maureen D

POV
If you are going to contribute to articles of you associates, you can expect other's to include information which you omit. --AI 21:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Arnaldo Lerma
After such a number of reverts in the last few days, I have reported you and AI to Administrators' noticeboard/3RR to stop this edit war which is only costing times and nerves. I am aware that neither of you has violated the 3RR rule to the letter and I have stated that in the report. --Irmgard 10:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Arnaldo's Copyright Violation
"rv; correction - AI has reverted three times without discussion, if anon user 168.215.232.22 is also AI, this would be 4th revert without discussion on talk" - Maureen D (8 September 2005 18:23 edit summary)

That is not true. I have discussed this dispute with you see below. --AI 12:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

RTC vs. Lerma: Judge Brinkema
The text you're adding highlights a copyright issue that does not merit the impunity, or precedent, then or now as the EFF's opinion above logically and professionally states - verbatim. The bulk of RTC vs Lerma is on the World Wide Web for others to read. This POV you express, based on a Scientology press release (and amongst many opinions stated in the court documents) suggests the copyright issue as being senior to the overall outcome - which it was not. It was decided that the harassment was senior. 3 September, 2005 - Maureen D


 * Nowhere do I suggest that the copyright issue is the senior issue or not the senior issue. The EFF's opinions only represents the POVs of certain demographics in society. Their opinion has no legal authority over official judicial rulings. --AI 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The comment by the EFF Website confirms the obviously provable fact that the judge ruled in favor of RTC regarding Lerma's alleged copyright violations, regardless of any other issues. And Lerma's copyright violation(s) are simply an issue, regardless of any seniority of the issue. Lerma's alleged claims of harrassment do not nullify the CoS claims of alleged copyright violation. Seniority does not disqualify the significant-minority view.(see WP:NPOV) Censorship of the copyright issues ruled upon at the January 19, 1996 hearing is a violation of WP:NPOV. --AI 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Also AI, please click on the url (as listed above,) and see that the name of the judge in numerous offical court documents listed under the RTC vs Lerma et al case you've cited in the heading - is incorrect. The name of the judge is Leonie M. Brinkema. I'll leave your error so that you will possibly take that as a hint to actually read and familiarize yourself with this case in it's entirety before you make spurious corrections and edits. Just as you could have read the EFF's opinion of the text you've added to the article. The EFF's POV clearly could have saved the addition of this material in the first place, had you read it. 06:56, 3 September 2005 Maureen D


 * You should have corrected the name, the purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to leave hints supporting claims that another contributor's edits and corrections are spurious. The mistake over a judge's name does not justify censorship. Censorship of the January 19, 1996 ruling of Lerma's copyright violation(s) is a violation of WP:NPOV. --AI 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

My POV regarding Lerma's copyright violation is not based on personal opinions or my personal activist views on copyrights. On January 19, 1996, the judge granted RTC's summary judgement motion based on evidence of wholesale and verbatim infringements by Lerma of 33 separate works. At the same time, the judge denied a summary judgement motion filed by Lerma who claimed that his actions were "fair use" and should be allowed. Censorship of the POV I am presenting is a violation of WP:NPOV. All POV's must be presented fairly: '''"Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority- and significant-minority views fairly and without bias." WP:NPOV''' Maureen is entitled to her POV and I welcome all POV's, but will not accept her censorship of the POV I am presenting which is based on facts. --AI 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The last two headings that AI has placed here, omit much of the text from the Arnie Lerma talk page,including my comments of 6 September, 2005. (Note: Wiki post date is 7 Sept.) You surely have added your POV, with talk of censorship and NPOV violation -- by eliminating my comments?

In fact you have reverted text into the article several times and not addressed my last comments, nor placed all of those comments here, but chosen to represent your own POV excusively.

I will place all of the comments from the Arnie Lerma talk page here now, and repeat that AI has reverted numerous times after adding text without addressing my last comments on the talk page. You included sources on the talk page and my comment of 6 September 2005 addressed those sources. I suggest the proper court documents be cited so that others in the community may read and determine the NPOV. Otherwise the community wastes unnecessary amounts of time. The burden of proof of that authenticity is yours, not others. Here is that topic on the Arnie Lerma talk page, of which you left out my comments above: Maureen D 02:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Bias and propaganda has blinded you, that's all there is to this dispute. I have attributed my contributions and NPOV requires all POV's to be fairly represented. --AI 03:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

RTC vs. Lerma: Judge Brinkema
--AI 03:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The EFF had this comment  about the Scientology press release, of which text you have added to the article. Based on their opinion of this text, I am reverting back:

''cos_lerma_011996.announce"

''CoS press release on the Jan. 19 ruling in favor of RTC and against Arnaldo Lerma. This press release diverges from previous ones, having more factual information and less spin, though it does state "This is a significant decision not only for the Church of Scientology but all other intellectual property owners..." This is not true - the case was jurisprudentially routine, and established little or nothing in the way of new precedent. The aspects of the larger case that are interesting from a precedent and legal significance point of view - whether Digital Gateway Systems and the Washington Post could also be held liable - have already been resolved, and not in CoS's favor. The press release also of course neglects to mention the judge's chastisement of CoS for the improper raid on Lerma, and other significant aspects of the decision.''

The text you're adding highlights a copyright issue that does not merit the impunity, or precedent, then or now as the EFF's opinion above logically and professionally states - verbatim. The bulk of RTC vs Lerma is on the World Wide Web for others to read. This POV you express, based on a Scientology press release (and amongst many opinions stated in the court documents) suggests the copyright issue as being senior to the overall outcome - which it was not. It was decided that the harassment was senior. Maureen D 3 September, 2005


 * Nowhere do I suggest that the copyright issue is the senior issue or not the senior issue. The EFF's opinions only represents the POVs of certain demographics in society. Their opinion has no legal authority over official judicial rulings. --AI 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The comment by the EFF Website confirms the obviously provable fact that the judge ruled in favor of RTC regarding Lerma's alleged copyright violations, regardless of any other issues. And Lerma's copyright violation(s) are simply an issue, regardless of any seniority of the issue. Lerma's alleged claims of harrassment do not nullify the CoS claims of alleged copyright violation. Seniority does not disqualify the significant-minority view.(see WP:NPOV) Censorship of the copyright issues ruled upon at the January 19, 1996 hearing is a violation of WP:NPOV. --AI 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Also AI, please click on the url (as listed above,) and see that the name of the judge in numerous offical court documents listed under the RTC vs Lerma et al case you've cited in the heading - is incorrect. The name of the judge is Leonie M. Brinkema. I'll leave your error so that you will possibly take that as a hint to actually read and familiarize yourself with this case in it's entirety before you make spurious corrections and edits. Just as you could have read the EFF's opinion of the text you've added to the article. The EFF's POV clearly could have saved the addition of this material in the first place, had you read it.   06:56, 3 September 2005 Maureen D


 * You should have corrected the name, the purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to leave hints supporting claims that another contributor's edits and corrections are spurious. The mistake over a judge's name does not justify censorship. Censorship of the January 19, 1996 ruling of Lerma's copyright violation(s) is a violation of WP:NPOV. --AI 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

My POV regarding Lerma's copyright violation is not based on personal opinions or my personal activist views on copyrights. On January 19, 1996, the judge granted RTC's summary judgement motion based on evidence of wholesale and verbatim infringements by Lerma of 33 separate works. At the same time, the judge denied a summary judgement motion filed by Lerma who claimed that his actions were "fair use" and should be allowed. Censorship of the POV I am presenting is a violation of WP:NPOV. All POV's must be presented fairly: '''"Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority- and significant-minority views fairly and without bias." WP:NPOV''' Maureen is entitled to her POV and I welcome all POV's, but will not accept her censorship of the POV I am presenting which is based on facts. --AI 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You did not cite your sources in the article - only here, with one press release from Scientology. The listing of your December hearing above: "RTC filed a summary judgement motion in December based on evidence of wholesale and verbatim infringements by Lerma of 33 separate works.. is much past explanation rendered in official court documents if you have read either of the two hearings you refer to. Or the ones before or after the dates. There are linked court docs in the article that discuss these issues as well. (and is it 33 separate works or 31? or 5 infringements?) If you cite the same press release on the article, it will not be acceptable because it doesn't include any official opinion of both of the hearings you have cited. The facts are in the court documents. Scientology makes untruthful statements in respect to the explanation of the fair use, as the denial of one motion is not an overall reason to conclude that the hearing caused a precedent setting event. That is not a POV that is a distortion of the facts. When there are not other professional renderings of such a conclusion, that is not an opinion. In retrospect, the facts have been distorted.

The idea of censorship and NPOV are your words, not mine. I do not accept your summarization that I am censoring a fair use issue because you misspelled the judges name. 6 September, 2005

Reverted back 6 September, 2005 Maureen D

I cited my sources here in the talk page and the source is apparent on the article with the way I worded it. Long rants won't drown my statements. --AI 03:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Information control pattern recognition
''"Plaintiffs (Church of Scientology) have abused the federal court system by using it, inter alia, to destroy their opponents, rather than to resolve an actual dispute over trademark law or any other legal matter," Kolts wrote. "This constitutes 'extraordinary, malicious, wanton, and oppressive conduct.'" He later stated, "It is abundantly clear that plaintiffs (the Church of Scientology) sought to harass the individual defendants and destroy the church defendants through massive over-litigation and other highly questionable litigation tactics. The Special Master (Kolts) has never seen a more glaring example of bad faith litigation than this." ''

Special Magistrate James Kolts, Santa Barbara Independent, 23 January,1993 Maureen D 03:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Please stop your senseless reverting at capture bonding. I keep adding more and more “source” material and you keep reverting? You have reverted material supported by 5 sources now. Please stop this. If you keep this up I soon will be reporting to WP:AN/3RR and request for a block. This is not the direction I want to go. I would rather work with you to build this article. The version you revert to is from 09 April 2006 and is horrible. Four people now, if you hadn’t noticed, have put “clean up” and “wikify” on the article. Please stop your reverting. --Sadi Carnot 04:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Keith Henson
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please always observe our core policies. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 13:16, 11 May 2007 (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 : (Community Ban),
 * Topic-banned :, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 * To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*,
 * Other restrictions :
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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 01:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=605498751 your edit] to Bent Corydon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bent Georg Corydon' (born June 11, 1942) in Copenhagen, Denmark is an American author and [[

Nomination of Tom Theo Klemesrud for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tom Theo Klemesrud 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 Articles for deletion/Tom Theo Klemesrud 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. Schazjmd  (talk)  18:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)