User talk:69.156.1.46

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:
This IP address, 69.156.1.46, is registered to Bell Canada. In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts should be made to contact Bell Canada to report abuse, which can be done here. Contact information can be viewed in the WHOIS report.
If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it is possible for the owner of the IP, Bell Canada, to determine who was making contributions from this address at a given time.
If you are the owner of this address responding to reports of inappropriate conduct from this address, you may find the contributions history and block log for this address helpful. Please feel free to contact any administrator who has blocked this address with questions (blocking admins will be listed in the block log).

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Talk:Xenu has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. —αlεx•mullεr 20:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

alphachimp 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A friendly note

Hello,

I've been reading with interest the discussion on the Xenu talk page, where you state unequivocally that you are a Scientologist at OT-III. I can't describe for you what you have seen, but the publicly leaked version of OT-III is all about Xenu and the Galactic Confederacy. This version has been verified in extensive court cases during which the church publicly claimed Xenu was not part of the religion while privately attempting to enforce copyright on the Xenu text.

Let me make this clear: I don't have a vested interest in this either way. I am neither a Scientologist nor a critic. But the facts do stand. The church admitted, in court, in records that are publicly available, that Xenu and the OT-III text, the "Wall of Fire," as Hubbard described it, is a true part of Scientology.

Whether those facts are accurate is another question entirely, but this is an encyclopedia; we have to rely on reliable source. And all of the reliable sources agree on the matter.

I understand you're in a Catch-22... In order to disprove the presence of the Xenu story in Scientology doctrine, which is otherwise heavily supported by both court cases and a preponderance of evidence from former Scientologists, you would have to publicly reveal the contents of OT-III, something Scientologists feel very strongly should not be revealed to people who aren't ready. Unfortunately, this puts you into a situation where you have to deny the news stories about OT-III, without ever saying what's actually inaccurate in those news stories. A paradox, to be sure.

As a Wikipedia editor, I can only caution you that you would probably be best off avoiding any interaction with the Scientology-related articles, as you have an inherent conflict of interest that you cannot apparently overcome. --GoodDamon 20:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "long cat is looooooooong"

Decline reason: "Seems like, as you said a few edits back, you're just trolling. Will protect the page then. - Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.