User talk:Spanked

Your edits on Xenu etc

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. -- ChrisO 00:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What policy am I in violation of? Please tell me, and for your information, calling for blocks is considered uncivil. --Spanked 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The items you deleted from Operating Thetan constituted a summary of the OT levels, a legally published affidavit and a fair use analysis of the OT levels. Your deletions from Xenu included one website which claims to have OT III scans (but doesn't any more) and a fair use analysis of the OT III. And what is your explanation for this deletion of referenced, non-copyvio content? Why did you use the rather dishonest edit summary "removed unreferenced", when what you removed was in fact referenced in several places?

Your actions constitute blanking for presumably POV reasons, which is a form of vandalism and is a blockable action. Please don't do it. If you have legitimate issues with links, discuss them on the talk page - don't just delete them without comment. -- ChrisO 00:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained the removal of uncited information on your talk page. Please provide a cite your source lest your reverts be considered vandalism, bad faith, or simply erroneous. --Spanked 00:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me spell this out for you. On Office of Special Affairs, you deleted a block of cited, referenced text under an inaccurate and frankly dishonest edit summary ("removed unreferenced"). This was in no way "uncited information". On Xenu and Operating Thetan you deleted several external links on the grounds that they were copyright violations. Most of the links you removed were in fact fair use summaries, including one document ([1]) which has been specifically okayed for publication by the courts. To repeat what I said earlier, you're removing valid external links and referenced material for patently invalid reasons. That constitutes vandalism - don't do it. There won't be any further warnings. -- ChrisO 00:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me spell it out for you, instead, ChrisO. You obviously did not examine my edits very carefully. Is the "block" of information you are referring to in the OSA article? That "block" was not deleted. Only one sentence from that block was deleted. Are you going to provide a citation for that sentence? You're revert is responsible for the inclusion of the material in question, provide a citation or else you're revert will be considered vandalism. As far as removing sites with copyvios on the other 2 articles, you claim spaink has received okay. Did she receive ok in the United States where EN.wikipedia resides? I doubt it, and if that is the case then provide proof that she is exempt from Wikipedia's policies about websites with copyright violations. Failure to answer will be documented and used against you in arbitration. Your threats of blocks and complaints of non-existent vandalism will be considered uncivil and used against you in arbitration. --Spanked 01:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious...

You seem to have such a good knowledge of wikipedia policies for a new user. Your familiarity with Wikipedia gives the impression you maybe be a sockpuppet of some other user. If this is the case, I would appreciate if you follow Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Tagging_alternate_accounts. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 00:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]