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)