User talk:Shutterbug/Archive1

Welcome

Scientologist. Feel free to ask questions.

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Watchlist

Hi COFS , Welcome to WP! Jpierreg 03:30, 15 February 2007 (GMT)

Thanks! COFS 06:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject updates

I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 21:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 21:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Quentin Hubbard

It's widely sourced that Quentin is gay. As you are a Scientologist yourself, I can't help but see your motivations and would like to ask your from refraining in removing the LGBT people category from this article as it belongs there just as much as say, Rock Hudson's article. It's fact, not allegation. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has gay to do with me being a Scientologist? And as for "facts" in the article, I invite you to familiarize with WP:ATTRIB or WP:RS and have a look at WP:BIAS. COFS 21:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of all those. And I'm not biased, I just think it's sourced very heavily. Also, your comment on my talk page was very rude, but nevermind.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sources on Inside Scientology

Hi,

I can't help but notice you removed "ref overkill" from this article. There is no wiki policy regarding "too many references", in fact, the feeling generally is "the more the merrier!". Furthermore, as you quite openly self-identify as a Scientologist, and given the fact that most of your edits revolve around the CoS in some way, the removal of such links could be easily interpreted as a conflict of interest.

I don't want to discourage you from working on these articles, but please keep Wiki policies like NPOV in mind.

Thanks!

Lankiveil 12:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you would go into the actual changes you would see that I removed doubles and triples of the same source text and left the ones which were from reliable sources while the others were not. If you criticize me for applying Wikipedia Policy in uncluttering articles and evaluate at the same time my religious affiliation I cannot help but reminding you that you are getting close to violate Wikipedia Policy geared to prevent discrimination on here. I am interested in learning Wikipedia Policy and for sure I would not claim that I am not in error here and there. But unless you are able to point out the exact violation please refrain yourself from personal comments. Thanks, COFS 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of navigational boxes

Please discuss on the talk page of {{ScientologySeries}}, instead of summarily removing navigational boxes without discussion. Some people have worked really hard on these. Thanks. Smee 04:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I thought there was a consensus that the bottom box is being used?! I missed the discussion that time but would have supported it. "Further reading" is always at the bottom or end of articles. The color is still a problem but that is a different discussion. COFS 04:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your mass removal of the box that other users have worked hard on, and instead discuss at Template talk:ScientologySeries. Thanks. Smee 04:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

COFS, I am not comfortable at this point in time to converse via email. Please instead take all of your concerns to the discussion page, Template talk:ScientologySeries. I will respect the unwritten rule, and not mention directly what you wrote in the email, but I highly suggest you bring all of those points to the talk page. Thank you. Smee 05:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I am not comfortable to go over this with everybody. COFS 04:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I take it that means you do not wish for me to reveal what was said? By default, without your say, I will not. Yours, Smee 06:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Tks. COFS 03:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your mass removal of links to {{tl:ScientologySeries}} and to sites that you don't agree with must stop. You are misinterpreting policy on NPOV -- it doesn't mean "I get to remove whatever I disagree with". Cleduc 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but you are mistaken. The site I remove is officially an anti-Scientology site which keeps Black lists of Scientologists. It is run by Kristi Wachter (as a private enterprise) whose main activity in regards to Scientology is to picket in front of Scientology members and yell at them. If this is not biased/slanted in the direction of unreliable behavior and thus totally violating WP:NPOV, WP:BIAS and WP:PG (Pt. 5), there is no hope for Wikipedia to ever become a resource of knowledge. It is good for giggles right now but if the Wachter's and Lerma's hateful views on a subject are presented as "RS", Wikipedia is not RS anymore itself. COFS 18:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the boxes, I am removing double entries here. There is a box at the bottom of the article and one at the side of it, both with identical content. One must go and in the tradition of good old books I prefer an index at the end of an article and not in the middle of it. It looks trashy and degrades the articles., especially the stub/short ones. COFS 18:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment here: WP:EL says under the heading of links to be avoided: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Wachter is far from being an authority and it is undoubtedly a private website. If such crap link is passed, the only consequence would be to include pro-Scientology links to personal blogs and private websites of Scientologists. There are thousands of them on the Internet. Is that what you would prefer? Wikipedia is trashed with links to biased and hateful sites which only sometimes come along with a "neutral" cloaking. So, think it over and let me know. COFS 18:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of links

Please stop going through articles deleting links while using plainly bogus edit summaries (e.g. "vandalism removed"). There may be an issue with whether the links are needed, but you should discuss this with other editors rather than going on a controversial link-deleting spree. -- ChrisO 18:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed. And send you an email as requested. Appreciated that you are caring. But I also notice that you picked up the ONE different edit summary (of 51 total) to criticize me. How about turning REALLY neutral? COFS 18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-deleting links from controversial articles without discussing tends to upset people. You have a better chance of convincing people that those links need to come out if, you know, you actually discuss the matter with them first. I'm sympathetic to your concerns, but let's not do this in a way that will just get people annoyed with you. -- ChrisO 18:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got your point. This is going to take aaages! But fine. I have to go to work now, will be back some time tonight. So long, lad. COFS 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. I'll unblock you in the meantime. -- ChrisO 18:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Bell

Hi! You removed the source for Catherine Bell's status in scientology. Your reasoning makes sense, but can you provide a reliable source for the date of her entry into Scientology and her status as a Clear? If you'd like to dicuss this further, please do so on the talk page for the Catherine Bell article. Enuja 19:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is not clear, as far as I know. Why don't you ask her. Or google for her, she is quite active as a Scientologist. COFS 03:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for Source 139 in your nearest org. You'll notice that she is indeed clear. "as far as I know" is not really a source - it is very likely that for whatever reason, she didn't contact you when she went clear to tell you these "good news". --Tilman 18:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider yourself a cynic, but that is not true. You are a just a poor joke. COFS 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I do not understand your argument there. My point is that her being clear is properly sourced, while "as far as I know she is not" isn't. --Tilman 18:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removals

Please see User talk:ChrisO#COFS removal of non-RS, POV, Scientologist "outing site" and my talk. --Justanother 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA warning

This comment [1] in the edit summary: you must be on drugs or you did not read the book is uncalled for. Please respect WP:NPA. --Tilman 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the US this is a pretty normal saying. Sorry, I forgot for a moment that you are coming from this country where the Nazis ruled not long ago. COFS 18:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that statement you just made is also a highly inappropriate personal attack. Comment on content, not contributors. Thanks. Smee 18:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Spreading hate sites is not debatable content. It falls back on the "contributor" and his motives. And yours as well. What agenda are you running here? COFS 18:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hate site. As I explained to you, the site has compiled information from official scientology publications. --Tilman 18:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reported for 3RR Violations

You have been reported for violating WP:3RR. Please see WP:AN/3RR. Thank you. Smee 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for watching. COFS 18:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the times, you actually gave a bit of an answer on the question above. Does your agenda relate to silencing those who try to uncover the anti-Scientology scam on Wikipedia? COFS 18:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not respond to violations of WP:NPA. Smee 18:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There have not been any violations of WP:NPA. But you do respond in your own way, by reporting 3RR without warning, by smearing me on the Admin board. That it your way. I prefer direct and straight talk. COFS 18:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should really take the time to read WP:NPA. Please do also observe the dialogue between other scientology critics and scientologists in other discussions. You will notice that it is often very civil, despite what the people may really be thinking about each other. It is certainly helpful to avoid these personal attacks in a "closed" environment like Wikipedia, where the "valuable final product" (to use a scientology expression) are excellent articles. --Tilman 19:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA warning (2)

This remark [2] you are coming from this country where the Nazis ruled not long ago is uncalled for. Please respect WP:NPA. --Tilman 18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, is this not true? I tell you one last thing, Tilman: The way you treat Scientologists, your arrogant cynicism, in your personal article on Wikipedia (and backing website) and in your behavior in repeatedly violating WP:EL, is absolutely uncalled for and violates any good manners you might have been trained in as a kid. COFS 18:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been nice within wikipedia. My personal article in wikipedia is edited by others (I have understood months ago that it's not a small no-no, but a BIG NO-NO to edit there myself). I also believe that I have taken care not to violate WP:EL. --Tilman 18:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting personal websites (back) in articles in a violation of WP:EL. Learn. COFS 18:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on [[:Sterling Management Systems ]]. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

DES ^(talk) 19:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COFS, you might want to check out this. I am not a supporter of the cabal theories on Wikipedia, but this one might be worth a better look. CSI LA 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like the whole copyright discussion is none. Clear legal status here. Thanks, DES. COFS 20:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My interest in that page was in correcting misinformation about copyright law (I subject I have soem knowledge of) and not particualrly in Scientology, for or against. It is pure coincidience that I was involved with both that page and your 3RR situation. DES ^(talk) 21:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your vandalism

I ask you to stop vandalizing the Free Zone (Scientology) article. You removed the freezoneamerica link and the Idenics link. Idenics is a freezone practice. --Fahrenheit451 22:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, look up WP:VANDAL. You have misunderstoods sitting there. Then, look at WP:EL, because the whole article has NO CONTENT but is a link list and should be nixed since a long time. Start providing information about this practice that would justify a link to more information. Start providing ANY CONTENT about your group. Otherwise you are susceptible to the accusation of commercial promotion. COFS 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no misunderstoods, COFS. You removed links without a discussion. That is what vandals do. You are clearly not a neutral editor here. There is no commercial promotion any more than a link to a cofs group is a commercial promotion.--Fahrenheit451 23:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have no say on this if your only contribution to this article is the addition of more promotional links instead of beefing up the article with some CONTENT. You are not neutral on this page nor on any other Scientology-related issue and I would not expect that (how should that work) but I am calling on you to at least SHARE YOUR INFORMATION in an encyclopedic article. I am not editing the article because I probably could not refrain from snide remarks and I have not enough information about you guys to structure a whole article. But you can and you are not doing it. COFS 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that you do not understand what the word "content" means. Links are valid content as well. You cannot cite a wikipedia policy stating to the contrary because such a policy does not exist. Please be civil in your discussions.--Fahrenheit451 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itis not true, that "links are content": WP:NOT#DIR. Can't you write ANYTHING? Check it out, I just put some content in there. COFS 23:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your citation does not refute that links are not content. If you are truly curious about my editing, I suggest you look at my user contributions. In the meantime, I advise you to knock off your incivility.--Fahrenheit451 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not curious about your editing. I just do not accept articles to be "Directories". If I'd agree to that I could add hundreds of links to the Scientology articles. WP:CIVIL Yes, Sir. Now, how about adding some content to the FZ article? COFS 00:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote you, "Can't you write ANYTHING?" As you deny you are curious about my editing, I take your remark as incivility. Knock it off. Also, I choose which articles I edit. Your agenda is for you.--Fahrenheit451 00:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over and out. COFS 00:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smee's interpretations of NPA

Please Stop. Take the time to read through Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. This DIFF is highly inappropriate. Smee 02:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Huh? What are you talking about Smee. She is not attacking another editor. She is not even attacking Kristi which might be a WP:BLP vio but it is not as there is no attack. False accusation of WP:PA is serious business. Please be more circumspect and stop looking to get other editors that you do not like in trouble. --Justanother 04:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused and could not find relief in re-reading WP:NPA. Are we looking at the same DIFF, i.e. :this one here:

Tilman about KW's site: "It is not a personal site." That is interesting. So it is governmental? Educational? Commercial? Kristi Wachter's Scientologist Smearing Service Ltd.? She must spend a lot of time doing that and I always wondered who pays her - a non-Scientologist with a broke record label and no relation to Scientology at all - to do all the smear work. Quite interesting. Tilman, are you planning to come to the US in the next weeks? COFS 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know why you feel attacked by this statement (or any Wiki editor working on the Catherine Bell article). Kristi is known to smear Scientologists in her own cynic way (and that is easy to document, simply Google her or just by going on her sites). She runs several websites with the sole and advertised purpose to stop Scientology. She has every right to have her own opinion about Scientology and say it to whoever listens but normally people are not that hyperactive about such issues without untold motives, like a personal story or being paid. It does not matter much for Wikipedia since the motive and the fact that the website is personal does disqualify it as a reliable source. Why Tilman does not agree, well, I don't know. COFS 04:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always wondered who pays her - a non-Scientologist with a broke record label and no relation to Scientology at all - to do all the smear work. Quite interesting. Tilman, are you planning to come to the US in the next weeks? - If this is not a personal attack, what specifically were you implying and attempting to convey when you wrote this and clicked the save button??? Smee 07:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Kristi is not an acknowledged editor here so NPA does not apply to her. Do you mean asking Tilman about coming to the US? What in the world is wrong with that? His trip(s) to the US to picket Scientology churches is/are documented on his website. Please stop trying to get other editors in trouble and please stop trying to score points for future trouble, especially by misrepresentation and false accusation. --Justanother 12:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a done deal. The commentary was obviously highly inappropriate, and was not about the content of the article, but about attacking individuals. Let's all just leave it at that. Thanks. Smee 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - OK, you are wrong. This thread is done (laff). --Justanother 21:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Though I respect your opinion, it is you who are wrong. This thread is done. Thanks. Smee 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        No, you are wrong. This thread is done (laff). Seriously, would you care to make any argument to support your claim or does just baldly stating something work for you? You might want to start by looking at WP:NPA, which clearly states:
        This page discusses personal attacks made against other editors. For attacks against living people who are the subjects of articles, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
        How do you work that into your charge of WP:PA or does "this thread is done" mean that you do not have to? --Justanother 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user in question has been warned in the past. This further continuation of this thread is bull-baiting, and I will not be a party to it. Suffice it to say that there seems to be a pattern among certain editors of baiting and incivility, and discussion of contributors rather than content of articles. Smee 22:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- So let me see if I have this straight. You falsely accuse another editor of WP:PA and when asked to justify the accusation you bring up their past history and spout generalities and try to end the conversation. Gotcha. We can be done now if you like. Just so we are straight. --Justanother 23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... thank you very much for the attention. The curtain is down now and the audience has left. Good Night! COFS 23:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we are all straight, the user was engaging in baiting, using highly inappropriate language, and discussing the contributor when the user should have instead been disucssing content, as per the verbatim text with emphasis in the original at Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. Just so we are straight. Thanks. Smee 23:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The only comment on a contributer was asking Tilman if he was coming to the US in the next weeks. What is wrong with that? What am I missing here? --Justanother 23:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smee, please go home. The party was nice but I would really like to have my talk page back. COFS 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will respect that request. Smee 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Warning about Legal Threats

COFS, you are warned to knock off your legal threats Wikipedia:No legal threats. Here is the discussion Template_talk:ScientologySeries#Added_.5B.5BDead_File.5D.5D_to_template. --Fahrenheit451 23:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, harm yourself, get toasted. It's your right, who cares. You seem to have the wrong concept here that I would be the one doing legal action. I am not. Got no money, time and desire to nurture attorneys. You are not free however to intentionally misinterpret WP:NLT just to be able to attack me. This is rude and anti-community. COFS 01:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who would "toast" me, COFS? Who are you refering to? --Fahrenheit451 01:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is your problem. You seem to identify me with something or someone else. I am not "toasting" anyone. I am editing articles. And if you are about to get yourself in trouble, I drop you a note to let you know. But not anymore, since you very obviously do not appreciate that. COFS 01:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COFS, please see comments by other editors way before you made your veiled threats, at: Wikipedia talk:No legal threats. See where the 2 editors discuss "veiled legal threats" and where one says: "veiled threats are, nevertheless, threats". You are on shaky ground. Stop now. Thanks. Smee 01:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the link. Shows you in action again. COFS 01:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F451

Hi F451. I moved your stuff over here. COFS 03:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing discussion

COFS, Stop blanking and moving discussions from their proper pages.--Fahrenheit451 03:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merged two games you want to play with me as they were almost identical. Did I screw up the processing composition or whatever you guys call that? COFS 03:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I saw you deleted it now on the other page. So YOU are the one having blanketed a whole discussion. Are you PTS or what? COFS 03:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you just demonstrated disruptive editing.--Fahrenheit451 03:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are so boring. I am going now back to editing articles. Over and out. COFS 03:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you are going back to editing. I moved the discussion you blanked to User:Fahrenheit451. When you are ready to answer the questions in that discussion, please let me know.--Fahrenheit451 03:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. You didn't accept the missing part on there and Smee blanketed my data from your page, so I left whatever there was on your talk page. COFS 04:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC) I just saw that you claim your user page as vandalized when I tried to put the discussion on there (which you started and removed from the template page). This is so kindergarten level, unbelievable. But good to know what you are up to. That's it then. COFS 04:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to edit. You have indicated that you have some other agenda here. That is not lasting.--Fahrenheit451 04:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you were here to edit and I wish I had some other agenda than to improve articles. Would make me less pissed off every time somebody comes along and tries to inject BIAS in an article. By the way. Stop violating WP:NPA, this is my last warning. Thank you. COFS 04:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am warning YOU to not edit my user page. I am warning you to not disruptively edit article or template discussion pages by selectively removing materials or adding irrelevant material from another discussion. You do that and there is greater possibility that we get along.--Fahrenheit451 04:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing this after the fact that you smeered me allover of the Admin notice board, after the fact that you attacked me several times very personally and after the fact that you tricked me using your user page to answer questions which you promptly re-defined as vandalism. Your behavior is not appropriate. COFS 04:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reported your policy violations on the Admin notice board and you are fantasizing or lying about my attacking you. That's a good one, COFS, you blame me for your vandalizing my user page. That is a rather irresponsible attitude. Both you and I know that you may comment on my talk page, but user pages are off-limits to other users. Who is your osa handler?--Fahrenheit451 15:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your WP:NPA violations and go on editing. This is not a.r.s. here. COFS 16:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your false accusations, COFS. What is a.r.s.? Is that a new cofs term?--Fahrenheit451 16:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come! On! That is the forum where you got ridiculed by our common opponents last year. Bye. COFS 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was never on that forum. How do I find it?--Fahrenheit451 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is outside Wikipedia. I cancel my above statement that this would "not be a.r.s.". It is not important as it is not part of the Wikipedia system. This page is not a forum so any discussion here covering only you and me and what the other is doing wrong etc is actually a waste of time and energy. COFS 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I googled and found it. Looks like a spam and slugfest chatroom. Looks to me like the kind of folks who participate are those who want to fight. So, have you been one of the combatants on A.R.S? --Fahrenheit451 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never posted on a.r.s.. Here, you might want to participate in this more creative discussion. COFS

scientology

I don't believe my revert of the article is accurately characterized as vandalism, especially since I retained edits that seem NPOV compliant. If there is information in the scientology article which you feel is innaccurate, you should provide a sourced rebuttal or reply rather than simply deleting the content or changing its meaning. (RookZERO 21:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I don't care what you believe. I do care what you can source and prove and I haven't seen you active doing that nor can I see that you spent a second actually looking at the source material to see where the article text comes from. Otherwise you would not have missed why the corrections were necessary. You vandalized the page in at least 8 counts and that is only what I had to revert. You might want to take up your strange and destructive POV with an Admin or - for starters - contribute on the talk page. COFS 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Sadly, no. There are three flaws with the image.

First, screenshots need to be used only for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents. Since this is being used to illustrate an article about the subject of the picture, it isn't fair use as we understand the definition. If it was about the TV channel or its news programme, then yes; but for Ms Slaughter, no.

Second, as I read from the article, Ms Slaughter is living. This means it is notionally possible to locate or take a free-use image. This invalidates a claim of fair-use.

Third, and more technically, the image has been given an incorrect source. The source should be whichever station that broadcast the footage from which the screen capture was taken. An image found on another website - and not sourced there - is very completely unsourced, especially with the source link being to the image directly and not to a page of the website (the site owner may consider this out-and-out theft, leaving aside their own claims of fair-use; also, Wikipedia can't judge the copyright status of the image as it is used on the other website - we're not the web police - so if they other website gets in trouble, their trouble would be our trouble).

I'll arrange for the image to go through our ponderous removal process - perhaps you can obtain a free-use alternative via your church? REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Benetta Slaughter herself could provide one, but the tune of the article is not in a way she would support (I guess). COFS 18:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's worth a try - people are often flattered to find that there is a need for a free image of them. This page has some useful advice on how to go about asking for a free-use image that might be of help.

Also, if the article is unfair on the subject in question (in other words, if it has assertions about the subject that cannot be sourced to reliable third party sources) then you have the right to remove those passages and ask for assistance if you are reverted (don't edit war, just head to WP:AN or WP:DR and be sure to mention "BLP"). However, if the subject has just had some unflattering press from reliable sources... well, it's not our job to protect her from herself :o).

Hope this helps and happy editing! REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHILL!

COFS, chill! Thank you. Misou 04:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This report

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

yandman 16:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note regarding BLP/OR

Hi COFS, I see you've been adding quite a few undersourced BLPs on the BLP noticeboard. I understand where you're coming from. However, the noticeboard is not the place to report (possible) original research whose removal has no urgency per WP:BLP. As I've remarked in your BLPNB report regarding Karin Spaink, WP:BLP and the noticeboard are mainly intended to either remove or source contentious unsourced material that may lead to problems (loss of job/income, damaged reputation, complaints, legal threats, lawsuits, etc.) In most cases the subject is expected to request deletion of the material if (made) aware of its presence in Wikipedia. BLP also aims to remove overly positive and other problematic material. However, material that in all probability will be sourcable (common sense issues, e.g. something we expect the subject to confirm, like the Xenu doll caption, or material added or requested by the subject) does not fall under the extra protection of WP:BLP. You're quite right that such material falls under WP:OR of course, and it should be sourced sooner or later; however, it is not necessary to source or delete it straight away and normal consensus-building per content policies, WP:consensus and WP:DR should be quite sufficient to resolve any content disputes of this type. I hope this helps a bit. AvB ÷ talk 07:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, noted. COFS 16:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

COFS, you are warned to stop your incivility. You are violating wikipedia policy doing so.--Fahrenheit451 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sock block

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for confirmed block evasion using sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS). If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ··coel acan 21:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Just got called on this. This seems arbitrary or lack of information. I want this procedure re-done with all data revealed in the open.

Decline reason:

Please contact the individual with Checkuser status as he is the only one who can review any evidence (also, actual data from Checkuser checks are never done in the open).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To answer your question

You asked when you tried to talk me out of going through with the checkuser request, if you really want to know here is what I took to be an attempt to get me to reconsider:

::Glad you could come by,CSI LA. Well, here we are, Anynobody, no offense taken. What now, brown cow? COFS 04:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the request to be processed, again no offense meant but as I said on the project page the circumstances seem odd. Also, it seems weird that you'd try to talk me out of going forward with the request by assuring me you aren't socks because if I were in a similar situation I wouldn't mind having checkuser run on me to assuage another editors concerns. Actually now that I think of it, I even offered the option to an editor who thought I was a sock, I'll dig through my history and see if I can find it to post here. Anynobody 04:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I will hear back from the results. BTW, where did I "try to talk [you] out of going forward with the request"? That seems to me like a strange allegation in contrast to your proclaimed good faith. In any case, it is rather funny, especially in the light that I got to know about the person CSI LA in the context of your checkuser request. That was worth the effort already. COFS 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Both accounts I suspect of sockpuppetry try to assure me on the talk page of a checkuser request I opened that they are not the same editor. Then ask what's next? I assumed you meant was I going to take down the request, and that's what my answer above addressed. You then responded like I was giving you an answer to your question:Well, I guess I will hear back from the results. It's like I said, if someone wanted to run a checkuser on me, I wouldn't care (probably wouldn't comment on the request). Anynobody 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. For me that requires a bit of around-the-corner think to follow your logic but I think I got it. The difference between you and me seems to be that I like to continue talking even though my talk partner turns hostile (like you did, in a way) and that I will keep on communicating whatever happens. Anyway, the outcome of the checkuser request is not acceptable on several counts. First of all the block is unjustified as I am not CSI LA, second that both of us have been blocked would even be unjustified if I would be CSI LA (see Wikipediatrix/Highfructosecornsyrop, she was cheating for real and kept one of her IDs), third the procedure applied must have been faulty (hence the outcome) and fourth the block seems to extent over a whole IP range with the only purpose to block Scientologists. The latter smells like it could turn into trouble in real life as well. I requested a new check and to see the reasoning. This is going to be a test of whether Wikipedia is what it says it is. COFS 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COFS, please explain how a block extended over an IP range can only block scientologists. Also, your remark "The latter smells like it could turn into trouble in real life as well." is clearly a threat. Will there be retaliation with murder, violence, or a lawsuit?--Fahrenheit451 14:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True enough that Wikipediatrix/Highfructosecornsyrop were the same, however Wikipediatrix was proving a point by arguing the other side of her views. You were using the other account to advance your opinion outside community rules, COFS wass blocked and CSI LA steps in to take up his argument as shown here, diff. That was the first time I encountered the userid. Anynobody 02:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, my two accounts never had conversations with each other, as CSI LA and COFS did. My two accounts never backed each other up regarding any edit - in fact, I had stopped editing as Wikipediatrix during that time entirely. I never operated two accounts simultaneously. COFS/CSI LA, by contrast, made every effort to portray themselves as two different persons, talked to each other, and used the identities to bolster one user's opinion with two user's voices. wikipediatrix 18:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSI LA has been editing outside the noise on talk pages and got more active a while ago when he saw hostile arguments blowing over the top. I understand why he does not spent as much time in Wikipedia as we do but that is none of your business. I at least was happy that someone was continuing the discussion when I was not able to participate. Your "suspicion" was - as you wrote earlier - mainly based on the fact that I wrote on my user page that I forgot my previous user name. I had that one some time back in 2004 and was open about it. What I get back for that honesty is really amazing. I am not sure why you are doing that but I will find out. COFS 02:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I said in the request, the statement about forgetting your previous username and password was more of the last straw than it was what caused my original suspicion. If you look at it again Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, you'll notice I laid out the diffs first and then said it is also suspicious you had that message considering the circumstances.

As to the forgotten userid, there are ways to find these things out. You could have e-mailed Wikipedia, or looked at the history of a page you edited back in 2004. I'm sure you probably edited L. Ron Hubbard or some other Scientologist topics, and as an example you can find out who edited Hubbard going all the way back to 2001 diff.

What I get back for that honesty is really amazing.

I guess we know how each other feels then, I find it amazing you are questioning why I set up the checkuser case. (It's because using another account to evade a community imposed block is against the rules). Anynobody 03:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused...

I am confused, and am having a real problem with the comments made by COFS in this DIFF : -- "...and fourth the block seems to extent over a whole IP range with the only purpose to block Scientologists."

My question is thus: How would this user know that a block extends "over a whole IP range with the only purpose to block Scientologists" ????? This seems very strange, and a very strange thing to say... Any other comments on this??? Smee 14:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The more I think about it, the more it sounds like the same accusations we've-(we being those who disagree with any part of Scientology)- been getting all along. (Agendas, bias, etc.) Anynobody 21:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an obvious explanation, Smee: (s)he's editing from a network used exclusively by Scientologists. I'm guessing COFS is a staff member posting from a Scientology-owned computer somewhere (CSI LA?). -- ChrisO 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suppose it's something like the OSA? Anynobody 22:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm getting into conspiracy/uninventive acronym territory, but has anyone besides me thought: "COFS" = "Church OF Scientology" and "CSI LA" = "Church of Scientology In LA"

It's true they'd be nonstandard capitalizations as far as conventional acronyms go, though. I've also kinda followed this checkuser and banning with interest. I mean, if COFS and CSI LA turn out NOT to be the same person, wouldn't that mean they'd be two users with almost the same interests editing from the same IP? Ah well. Checkusers aren't public, and with good privacy reasons, so I'd think that this one will stay where it is. But that's just my cynical prediction. Raeft 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too assumed CofS to be the same abrev COFS. CSI LA I figured was Church of Scientology International Los Angeles. (You're right it would be quite a coincidence) Anynobody 23:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using an abbreviation meaning Church of Scientology International Los Angeles is as "covered" as an LA cop pretending to be LAPD. Scientologists editing about Scientology shows same interest, too. I've never made a secret of my Scientology membership and neither did CSI LA. You are sure not trying to make the obvious into a mystery, are you? COFS 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, not that. And there's nothing inherently wrong with editing Scientology articles while a member of the church, other than the usual stuff about conflict of interest, which presumably would not be too serious if you could keep a level and neutral head about it. Nonetheless, it IS a coincidence if two people with acronymic naming conventions along that line were editing from the same IP address, or, as suggested by above comments, an amalgam of the SAME IP addresses, interconnectedly, with the same interests and such aberrant editing patterns as have been displayed (COFS blocked, CSI LA edits, COFS unblocks, CSI LA stops editing). If it is a coincidence, without outside intelligent intervention to make it so, or some other explanation why the checkuser showed a sock (which has not been forthcoming) or at least an explanation of your above comments about it "turning into real world trouble", it's a quite unlikely coincidence indeed. Raeft 13:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now what is it that actually want to say here? I don't know much about IPs and so on. As far as I understand the network me and some 999 more people are using has one IP address. It is a slime/hate/nausea filter or something like that, quite handy usually. On Wikipedia it sometimes fails for the lack of straight talk. Don't you think Wikipedia should have a filter function so that user comments from black listed users can be automatically ignored? I think we all would save A LOT of time. Or at least "could have saved" a lot of time (being exiled right now). COFS 17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"... there's nothing inherently wrong with editing Scientology articles while a member of the church, other than the usual stuff about conflict of interest, which presumably would not be too serious if you could keep a level and neutral head about it." In this case, of course, it would be nauseating hypocrisy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shall let my stunned emote-faces do the talking for me: O_0 O_o o_O

This said, I do feel it necessary to add that, yes, a Scientologist editor editing Scientology articles has less right and oomph to accuse a non-Scientologist editor of a conflict of interest when editing the SAME topics. And it's indeed verging if not utterly into the territory of the hipocrite to do so. 142.227.73.25 15:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you say could be rather funny. How about Free Zoners and Ron's Orgers? How about making it necessary to register your religious affiliation when you start editing in Wikipedia? A little checklist maybe. Why not including some other characteristics. "Are you gay?" (for exclusion from gay articles), "Are you black?" (for exclusion or at least less rights when editing Civil War articles), "Are you against abortion?" (for exclusion from feminist articles), "Are you on drugs when editing Wikipedia?" (for super-user rights in Scientology articles). And anyone found to lie about his personal information get his/her own article, instantly, and awarded the Golden Stake lit by The Holy Wikipedian. COFS 18:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused, COFS. Are you trying to emulate outrage, or are you actually advocating that we should adopt these exclusionary procedures? It's hard to tell, since you have been the one most vigorously looking for perceived conflicts of interest. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to confuse you. I forgot that you might have no sense for exaggerations as a means of protest. To put it bluntly: Our anon up there basically advocates that Wikipedia editors have to be classified by their membership in certain organizations or groups and based on that have more or less rights. So I was playing through what could happen if we did that. From your response I figure that you are not supporting those exclusionary procedures. That means we are thinking alike. COFS 16:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

block reduced

I have reduced your block, as you have not yet shown a sustained pattern of abuse. Since you are known to be editing alongside other editors, you must not use these accounts for vote-stacking, circumventing 3RR (or other gaming), or over-representing consensus (read WP:SOCK for the details). For your convenience here are links to your block log, and the expiration of your current block. ··coel acan 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

email

From: COFS

To: Coelacan

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 02:10:48 GMT

Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

Hi, something is very wrong with this block. I did not turn schizophrenic and I am very sure that I am not another person as well. Please let me know what happened here. CSI LA is somebody I did not even know before this checkuser request started by one editor who just lost an argument with me. CSI LA and myself have only in common that we are both from Los Angeles and members of the Church of Scientology.

What's next?

Hi COFS. Sorry I guess I don't check my email often enough. I'm posting your email here so that other users can understand your side of the story regarding the Church of Scientology proxy. As noted, your block is already reduced and will expire, so this is just for future reference. ··coel acan 06:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi coelacan. I had studiously avoided commenting up until now but I want to be sure that I understand the issue and the constraints on COFS and CSI LA. From what I understand from your conversation with Anynobody, you discovered that a number of editors are editing from a block of IPs assigned to the Church of Scientology. Let me clearly state that, to the best of my knowledge, only an employee of the Church or someone with access to an employee's computer would be able to edit from such an IP. Please confirm for me that we are talking here about such a range and not about, say, a range of Earthlink IPs for a certain area of LA; that we are talking about a range of IPs assigned by ARIN to the CoS. I understand the issue now and will address it further very soon. --Justanother 19:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that to be the case then I imagine that the constraints would be identical to the constraints that would be placed on any set of employees editing from their firm's computers on subjects directly related to their firm. I do not think that we need to use insulting terms such as "meatpuppet"; if two otherwise unrelated Microsoft employees were editing Microsoft articles and both were concerned about a certain critical (mis)representation and both were attempting to address it and they were (naturally) supporting one another edits, what would be the constraints there?

coelacan, the bias against and misrepresentation of Scientology in these pages is obvious and painful to any Scientologist that happens across a Scientology-series article. If you look at my first edits here you see how it goes. Scientologist sees something odd, something misrepresented; fixes it (that should be easy, right?); Scientologist reverted, disrespected, and soon discovers that the series was largely written by and is largely controlled by a small group of off-wiki Scientology critics and their on-wiki supporters. Fair enough, we will deal with it. My point is that we all seem to have the same agenda because there is only one agenda; remove the "taint" (my latest term for it thanks to another editor) from these tainted articles. I invite neutral editors and fair-minded critics to help and some are helping. But until we break the hold that a small agenda-pushing group has on these articles I think that all Scientology editors may well "look the same" to you; please do not hold that against us. I look forward to your reply. --Justanother 11:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

coelacan, it is actually jpgordon that was talking more to Anynobody about the details of the case over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser#Can a confirmed case be re-listed? I will ask this question over there too. Thanks. --Justanother 15:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you editing Wikipedia...

... if it is against the Scientology directives? I am curious. Smee 05:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. Scientology directives and me editing in Wikipedia have no relation to each other. What are you talking about? COFS 05:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diff. Scientology staff members are apparently not supposed to surf the internet and edit Wikipedia while at work. Smee 05:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

So what? COFS 05:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, therefore you are not supposed to be editing Wikipedia, per directives, unless all edits are reported to your superiors, I suppose??? Smee 05:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Awesome logic, but totally false. Why don't you wake up to the fact that Scientologists are individuals with their own ideas and actions? Is that so inconvenient, because then we have to be dealt with individually? I got no superiors, I am not at work and I do not have directives on editing in Wikipedia or anywhere else. The only thing that's true is that I am editing in Wikipedia. Get real. COFS 05:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes or no answer, of course, you don't have to edit if you do not wish to I guess. Are you editing Wikipedia on behalf of employed staff members and or volunteers for the Church of Scientology? Smee 05:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Both your AIV reports have been removed. This is not vandalism. If you have issues, try dispute resolution. Regards, – Riana_ऋ 05:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is clear vandalism to remove cited material, as such material in this case was cited to the specific source. However, your advice is astute, others have already recommended seeking other avenues for this and I will seek out more advice on the matter. Smee 05:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome back

Ok try not get banned again ok, is lonely here for me with no Scientology support. Why Smee says that you work for Scientology? Are you a staff member? Don't pay attention to the SPs. Concentrate on the positive ok. Don't get PTS I know I did. I even got sick for arguing with the SPs here. Never again. I want to write a section about the volunter ministers in the main scientology page. Also the drug free marshals. ARC Bravehartbear 07:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC) PS Play by the rules ok. Bravehartbear 07:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I'm going to ask you to totally ignore the SPs. Arguing doesn't help. Just concentrate on writing positive things. Have you done the PTS/SP course? I would be suicidal to be here with out that. ARC Bravehartbear 15:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest warning

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Stacy Meyer, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Accounts used solely for blatant self-promotion may be blocked indefinitely without further warning.

For more details, please read the Conflict of Interest guideline. Thank you. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 18:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Kirstie Alley. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Bennetta Slaughter, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to David Singer, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 02:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, this is utterly inappropriate. This editor has not edited since 05:26, 12 May 2007 and ALL your warnings were after that. You have issued one warning, please. And on a COI case that was incomplete and not even decided. What are you up to here? Please remove all except your first warning. Thank you. --Justanother 02:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Administrators considering a block of this user

I issued a sequence of three warnings because I saw a pattern of POV pushing. [3] [4] [5] Because of the strong COI, and past blocking for abusive sock puppets, I think that a single level 4 warning would have been appropriate. User:Justanother suggested this, and I agree. Note that abusive COI/SPA accounts can be blocked after a single warning. The level 4 warning may be superfluous. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 15:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day. I see that I did a lot of wrong things on Wikipedia while not being on Wikipedia. Wow, smells prejudice to me or lack of information. Jehochman, please read the whole "blocking" discussion before you are pushing out one warning after the other. This whole sockpuppet nonsense has been settled. It has not been true, was not true, is not true and will not be true, no matter how often some editors here push it for the sole purpose to smear me. COFS 02:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]