User talk:NestleNW911: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:20, 2 February 2012

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, NestleNW911! I am ResidentAnthropologist and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome! And happy holidays to you. NestleNW911 (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know your way around Wikipedia pretty well, have you edited here before? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, although I'm familiar with Facebook and a bit of HTML. Wikipedia is still rather new. What can I say, I'm trying to read your stuff prior to posting! ;) Cheers. NestleNW911 (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

NestleNW911 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to contest the "Shutterbug" investigation on my account – the evidence provided is speculative at best, asserting that I've executed a "similar behavior pattern" to other accounts that have been mentioned in Sockpuppet investigations. There is no empirical evidence, mainly interpretations of my behavior. I have respectfully revealed my identity and interest in Scientology right off the bat. Infact, I joined WikiProject Scientology and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_in_Scientology to establish myself as a contributing Wikipedian that has a great interest in eliminating bias in Scientology-related pages. Additionally, I have not made a single Scientology page edit. I have respectfully taken to the talk pages to propose edits to the administrators. It is with truth and confidence that I say that I have not violated any Wikipedia guidelines.

With this in mind, I would like to be acknowledged as a contributing Wikipedian and be rightfully exonerated from the "Shutterbug" investigation. I have no connection to this account, or the other accounts mentioned in the investigation.

Thank you so much. NestleNW911 (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

The behavioural evidence is not particularly damning, nor is the CU Possible and reblocks are easy if I'm wrong. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The behavioral evidence appears to support this block in my view. But I'm leaving the unblock request open for others to opine. It might be noteworthy that there has been recently a Shutterbug false positive, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Ban appeal by User:Turbotad. Sandstein 11:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a fresh set of eyes on this one via WP:AN; for my part, there have been many many controversies surrounding Scientology on wikipedia, and new users who jump right into that contentious area are occasionally found to be sockpuppets, so some suspicion is not unexpected. That said, I don't have the checkuser tools to run this one down. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the acknowledgement. I would like to further emphasize that my activity on Wikipedia is not like the other mentioned accounts at all, and that I've looked into the "behavior" of the other accounts and have seen no similarity. I assert that this case was hastily concluded on my expense, and that the evidence is insufficient. I would also like to mention that there has been positive admin response to my proposed edits on the David Miscavige page. I have made a positive contribution to NPOV on the David Miscavige page, and have not been disruptive in any way. That being said, I remain on standby for further action on my case.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (NestleNW911) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because having organization names as user names is not allowed. The term Nestle refers to the company Nestle. In case you have a reason where you believe this name should be kept by you, kindly mention it here. Otherwise, kindly change it as soon as possible. You may be blocked anytime for using a company's name.. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venues to change your user name

It's important to choose the right venue for your request. Otherwise, it may be delayed or declined. Once you are sure, proceed to the correct venue and follow the instructions there:

Simple – For renames to usernames that are not already taken. Check here to see whether the username you want is available.
Usurpations – For renames to usernames that arealready taken and have no significant edits.

Please feel free to write to me for any assistance. Kind regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've added the {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} templates around the discussion of your username here, feel free to remove them if you don't want them. I would recommend not just undoing this edit though, as I also removed a category that the username warning placed you in - just edit this section removing the two templates. demize (t · c) 23:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention needed at WP:CHUS

Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to See you back

Its always nice to have friendly Scientologist Editing here. Sorry for the Bureaucratic mess you wandered into. Cheers The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Glad to be back! NestleNW911 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NestleNW911. Please be informed that I have reopened your Shutterbug sockpuppet investigation: link. Startwater (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, NestleNW911. You have new messages at ResidentAnthropologist's talk page.
Message added 23:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Weasel Wording

Hiya! Nice interacting with you over at L Ron Hubbard. I just wanted to clarify that when I cautioned against Weasel Wording it wasn't meant as name calling or insult. Check this out: wp:weasel It basically says to avoid phrases like "some people say" because it denies the reader the ability to judge the claim based on the source. In L Ron Hubbard, you replaced "According to Scientology promotional materials" with "According to some sources" which obscures the fact that it's purely a Scientology church belief and contrary to what the public record says. I understand what you mean that you did not like the claim being called "promotional". So hows this for a solution, restore the proper citation per wiki policy and remove the word "promotional". Leave it as "According to Scientology..." and let the reader decide for themselves weather or not it's believable. Does that sound reasonable? Thanks! :) 69.245.72.101 (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you 69.245. I was just about to respond to your other Discussions as well. Sorry for the delay. NestleNW911 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Case

Nestle, I have opened an Arbcom Case against you here.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 Hiya! Nice interacting with you over at [[L Ron Hubbard]]. I just wanted to clarify that when I cautioned against Weasel Wording it wasn't meant as name calling or insult. Check this out: [[wp:weasel]] It basically says to avoid phrases like "some people say" because it denies the reader the ability to judge the claim based on the source. In L Ron Hubbard, you replaced "According to Scientology promotional materials" with "According to some sources" which obscures the fact that it's purely a Scientology church belief and contrary to what the public record says. I understand what you mean that you did not like the claim being called "promotional". So hows this for a solution, restore the proper citation per wiki policy and remove the word "promotional". Leave it as "According to Scientology..." and let the reader decide for themselves weather or not it's believable. Does that sound reasonable? Thanks! :) [[Special:Contributions/69.245.72.101|69.245.72.101]] ([[User talk:69.245.72.101|talk]]) 07:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 :No, thank you 69.245. I was just about to respond to your other Discussions as well. Sorry for the delay. [[User:NestleNW911|NestleNW911]] ([[User talk:NestleNW911#top|talk]]) 22:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
+==Arbcom Case==
+Nestle,  I have opened an Arbcom Case against you [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#NestleNW911|here]].[[User:Coffeepusher|Coffeepusher]] ([[User talk:Coffeepusher|talk]]) 05:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)