User talk:AndroidCat

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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#AndroidCat 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 | 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: [1]. 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

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. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)