User talk:Feoffer

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the We Stand Tall page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

We can't consider the tate family legacy site a reliable source because it isn't independent, nor does it have neutral editorial insight. You'll need to find other sources for those areas of the article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bruce M. Davis and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Feoffer, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! LaMona (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce M. Davis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LaMona (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feoffer,

I see there's a dead ref link on Scientology beliefs and practices: the ref called "urban2006" was introduced in this edit, but without a matching citation. Do you know how to fix this problem? Let me know if you have problems along the way. --Slashme (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:L Ron Hubbard R2-45 Racket Exposed ads.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Majora (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

The Steve Marshall site, Biroco, is a personal site, thus not reliable and should not be used. Self-published books (e.g. Lulu.com) cannot be used as sources. You should include a short bibliography of his works rather than just a link. If any of the books he wrote have ISBNs, please include those (because they become links to libraries and bookstores). For book references that you found through Google, be sure to cite the book with a full citation, not the Google page. You can find good book citations at http://worldcat.org - at the top right there is a link to download a citation.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:C.F. Russell and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you. Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 22:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

C.F. Russell, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN has been opened concerning R2-45 naming you as a contesting editor. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 22:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are in violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Purpose_of_Wikipedia and a number of other points in that decision by your editing of R2-45 and failure to collaborate. The terms of that decision will be invoked if you continue in your present course of action. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article R2-45 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on îbehalf of Sfarney -- Sfarney (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those diffs - they'll be useful for preparing an arbitration enforcement request. Could I please ask you a favour, as I think you've been involved with the article longer than me? Could you dig out any diffs in which they've attacked Tony Ortega? Prioryman (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your info: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Sfarney. Prioryman (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your further info: [2]. Hopefully the article (and the wider topic area) will have a chance to develop with a bit less disruption, at least for the next year. Good luck with your editing and thanks for your help with the diffs. Prioryman (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Scientology R2-45: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article R2-45 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:R2-45 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Still not satisfying our basic policies as the sources are only announcements and mentions.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Monique Yingling and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry M. Parkhurst, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elmina D. Slenker, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Missvain (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Typhonian Order into Draft:Agape Lodge. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agape Lodge, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For the great work on the Agape Lodge article. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eddie891 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

You are almost there, but just need a few more in-depth sources

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Louis Goldstone and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Monique Yingling, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cynthia Goldstone".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Louis T. Culling".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Louis Goldstone, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Louis Goldstone".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Monique Yingling, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Monique Yingling".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  » Shadowowl | talk 16:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship and Fratricide, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Lisa McPherson into Scientology and psychiatry. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. There’s actually very little I remember about the Agape Lodge. I was a babe in arms when my parents moved to 1003 and about 3 or 4 when they moved to a house with my grandmother. I remember Ron Hubbard (I know he’s called L. Ron, but I remember calling him Ron) and Dr. Regardie quite well- Dr. Regardie was a regular dinner guest until I was 11.

I believe my parents were very upset about their time in Agape Lodge and spent a lot of their lives trying to make up for it. They continued their study of Magick with BOTA , Qabalah, Regardie and Paul Case and the rest of the Hollywood community.

What is your interest in OTO and how do you know about it? Pshill555 (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha Foeffer: Here's what I remember about L. Ron Hubbard along with a brief history of my parents' involvement with Magick.

Rosicrucian Order, Agape Lodge, BOTA, Dr. Israel Regardie, SUBUD

My Mom, Margot, joined the Rosicrucian Order during the ‘30’s and moved to San Jose after studying Theosophy for awhile in Los Angeles. My father, Fred, also joined the Rosicrucian Order in the 30’s (along with his mother Clare Gwynn) and moved to San Jose from Los Angeles. They met and were married in 1941 within the order. I was born in 1943. Herbert Spence was my godfather (he must have been godfather to many, many of the order’s children)

My father was apparently a spectacular student and was encouraged by adepts within the Rosicrucian Order to join the Agape Lodge of OTO in 1943 or 1944 to continue his magical education. (I believe, but cannot verify, that there was a strong connection between the Rosicrucian Order and Aleister Crowley at that time). My father, mother, and I, as a babe in arms, moved to 1003 South Orange Grove Avenue. In time my father became the Lodge Secretary.

In 1946 or 47 my parents purchased a house in the Silver Lake District of Los Angeles where they moved with my grandmother. I believe they broke with the Lodge and OTO at that time but remained friends with a woman I remember as Alma. My father continued studying Magick with Israel Regardie, DC. My mother became L. Ron Hubbard’s private secretary and helped to edit the book on Dianetics.

Ron was a frequent guest in our house at this time. While my father was at work, Ron and my mother would practice some of the principles that were the core of his book – I remember - mind you, I was maybe 5 so much of this is very simplistic – there were “buttons” – hurtful events that had occurred in the past made “buttons” that, when “pushed” elicited a behavioral or emotional reaction. We also practiced “going back along the time tract” to erase these “buttons”.

They practiced hypnosis as a way accessing the "time track”. I was an available, and therefore frequent subject. A pendulum would be produced. I would be asked to look at it. An image would be discussed – walking backward, going down a flight of stairs, taking a journey, falling asleep. I’d be asked to look at my reflection in a mirror lit with a candle and report how it changed. My level of hypnosis would be checked by response to pain – a lighted cigarette would be stubbed out on my arm; a needle would be run through my thigh.

My father disliked Ron, even though I doubt he knew about the afternoon practice sessions and my role in them. When Ron boasted about having caused a complete stranger to trip by pacing him down the street and then altering the rhythm of the pace (I vividly remember this story), my father asked my mother to sever all ties. She did this. She then went on to ghost write and edit a book on Hypnosis.

My father, who had nothing at all to do with Ron Hubbard and his book (he would quip that inventing a religion was Ron’s way of becoming rich) studied with Dr. Regardie quite seriously and was initiated into Qabalistic principles. Dr. Regardie was a frequent dinner guest. I adored him. When my cat fell from a second story balcony, Dr. Regardie rushed over to straighten his spine. When I was exposed to polio, he stayed with us for several nights providing periodic chiropractic adjustments to make sure nothing settled in my body. Although I was forced into quarantine for a month, I merely developed a bad cold with no other symptoms. When I announced that my path in life was to dance and teach dance, he brought me psychology texts and discussed them with me weekly to divert my interest.

Both my parents, following the advice of Dr. Regardie, joined Builders of the Atydum, Ltd (BOTA), and became close friends of Paul Foster Case. We visited Dr. Case and his wife, Hilary, regularly because he had a lovely grand piano and my mother, a pianist, and he enjoyed playing duets and four hand piano pieces. Dr. Case also was an excellent stage magician and amused me with card tricks. I loved Dr. Case, his wife and little dog and was devastated when he passed on.

This doesn’t show up in Dr. Case’s biography, so it’s possible I’m very mistaken. My father told me that Dr. Case was, along with a musician and both stage and practical magician, a physician and student of Wilhelm Reich like Dr. Regardie. He said Dr. Case had been imprisoned for awhile for practicing non-AMA approved medicine. If this is true, Dr. Case had given up medical practice when we met him.

Ann Davies was Dr. Case’s secretary. She and my mother were good friends, so she often came to our home. There was another BOTA member who was a concentration camp survivor who was also a close friend – I don’t remember this woman’s name, but she had serious spinal issues and walked with a cane.

As a family we studied BOTA subjects on a daily basis. We worked with the meaning and interplay of color and sound – this was of particular interest to both my parents as my mother was a musician and my father was a sound engineer. We had a chart of the Tree of Life that had been carefully constructed with a protractor and ruler and hand colored with fine inks. I now understand this was a Chakra Chart. We carefully and meticulously colored the Major Arcana Tarot Cards with those ink. I still have my child sized cards – 3.5 x 5”- as well as my parents’ Tarot cards and their color cards. We were each assigned major Arcana cards based on our birthdates and personalities and were expected to study and meditate with them daily.

My parents remained Rosicrucian and BOTA members throughout their lives. They also, in the early 1960’s, joined SUBUD and remained active members until their transitions. Bapak changed my father’s name to Rafael. SUBUD offered a gentleness and camaraderie to their lives that the other organizations never encouraged.

I have inherited a significant collection of occult works from my parents. My cousin inherited other occult works from our Grandmother. Taken together, they amount to a significant collection.

Pshill555 (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Peggy[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). books on the occult and letters that were preserved within them, personal memories, manuscripts of my mother's ghost writing.

Foeffer, I would love to talk with others about OTO, Rosicrucians, Hubbard (shudder), BOTA and SUBUD - but don't really know how to use those links. Help please! Peggy

Thank you for uploading File:ForbesMagazine October2003 FrontCover KeithRaniere.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Though elaborately referenced, the sources don't provide significant biographical detail about the subject, primarily consisting of quotes or passing mentions in cases in which he's involved. This doesn't rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marc Agnifilo and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Marc Agnifilo, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bilorv was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at L. Ron Hubbard instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Timeline articles for individual people are not appropriate. Important information from this draft is already present at L. Ron Hubbard.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Timeline of L. Ron Hubbard and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Timeline of L. Ron Hubbard, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Bilorv (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing why you have been reversing my entries on Scientology, as nothing of what I have posted has been shown to be unreliable. In fact, a number of these sources aren't even from CESNUR, which has not been shown to be unreliable only allegations of it as "unreliable" are thrown about without evidence, especially as CESNUR's own page has no evidence of this. Did you read the cited pages in the article to see the direct images of the letter and phone transcript in the UCLA archives before you reversed? Iamsnag12 (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Feoffer, please stop adding bare url´s as sources to CESNUR and other articles. Bare url´s are prone to link-rot and create verifiability problems in the long run. Please see Wikipedia:Bare URLs and Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to construct a full bibliographic citation. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Feoffer, I do not want to start a war and I agree that controversy often improves articles. However please see the talk page of CESNUR about James R. Lewis. Everybody who follows the field knows that Lewis, although participating in CESNUR conferences (but so did many others who are certainly not “CESNUR-affiliated”), has a different approach, notably on China, Falun Gong, etc. and this not recently but from many years, That he was “affiliated” with CESNUR does not show up either in his or in CESNUR’s Web sites and should be proved. Also, on the 1997 CESNUR conference in Amsterdam, either the incident about the New Acropolis speaker is not mentioned at all (it becomes a major part of the article, perhaps exaggerated, while CESNUR has been involved in other similar controversies not mentioned there), or if it is, the fact that her participation was cancelled is relevant and should not be omitted. The fact that the participation of this lady was cancelled does not support the idea that CESNUR “defends” New Acropolis. Finally, accusing somebody of defending the Order of the Solar Temple is a very serious charge. You are accusing CESNUR of aiding and abetting criminals. I found only articles “critical” of the Order of the Solar Temple by CESNUR-affiliated authors such as Introvigne, Melton, etc. I know you quote “L’Humanité” but we can perhaps agree that this article was part of a heated controversy and relying on a single source to accuse a whole organization of what is technically a serious crime is grossly unfair. Aidayoung (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I agree with you move, but moved it again to Murder of Wu Shuoyan - that seems to be unambiguous. Guy (help!) 10:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Scientology. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

JimRenge (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Marc Agnifilo, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Timeline of L. Ron Hubbard, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Timeline of L. Ron Hubbard".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a note to say that I've requested for an independent admin to look at the merge closure for the crash articles, and I mentioned your name there as part of what unfolded. I'm assuming good faith in the part of all participants, it's just a request for a fresh pair of eyes, to see if the discussion can be closed early. The discussion is here: [3] Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Killing of George Floyd does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Love of Corey (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a recent edit based on WP:SAID and WP:NPOV. The evidence certainly appears overwhelming that tear gas and/or pepper spray were used. And your proposed subhead may well prove accurate. However given official denials, it's worth giving this another day or two to let the fact checkers dig deeper. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Assault on Martin Gugino.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Masem (t) 12:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Assault on Martin Gugino.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for documenting the emergence of PACT. Your work and your diligence are truly important--they are noted and appreciated! Ocaasi t | c 01:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Roy Den Hollander, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Marc Agnifilo".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Chad Wolf, you may be blocked from editing. Trying to reconnect (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to White House outbreak of COVID-19 does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!  — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your creation of the article White House outbreak of COVID-19. Taking that initiative was a very good idea and is much appreciated by someone like me who is looking for a timeline of events. --William Graham ^talk 16:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@William Graham: Thanks for that!!!! I recognized I was being quite bold, but it seemed crucial to the discourse that the events NOT be characterized as a biographical sub-article. Thank you for recognizing this, it meant the world! PS, great name. Feoffer (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should anyone else get author credit? --evrik ^(talk) 19:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of White House COVID-19 outbreak at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --evrik ^(talk) 19:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is going up on the main page in a couple of hours. I pulled the figure of 36 confirmed cases from the infobox. Could you add something in prose to the article, like: As of October 7, there are 36 confirmed cases. and source it please? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see the chart. Are there 36 confirmed cases there, or more? Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to this article. Please self-revert this edit. Per WP:BRD, this is content I removed that was decidedly added boldly. We can then discuss this on the talk page if you would like. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion begun, but you have an uphill battle. It's a very hard sell to try to argue that we shouldn't cover the Speaker of the House publicly questioning the president's mental state.  :) Feoffer (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is more a "battle" for you, as this article is covered by WP:1RR. I'm asking you to self-revert so that you're not unintentionally breaching. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article White House COVID-19 outbreak, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a COVID-19 outbreak at the White House infected at least 35 people, including the President, First Lady, three senators, and a governor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/White House COVID-19 outbreak. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, White House COVID-19 outbreak), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feoffer, just wanted to let you know that when you made this revert to White House COVID-19 outbreak, you also reverted a few of my edits that fixed some bare URL references and an incorrect reference tag. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Exposed in White House COVID-19 outbreak has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tested positive in White House COVID-19 outbreak has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Symptomatic in White House COVID-19 outbreak has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hospitalized in White House COVID-19 outbreak has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not remove visibility of borders in the header row of the table at White House COVID-19 outbreak#People_who_tested_positive_for_COVID-19, because such removal of border visibility seriously affects usability. People have to know where the cells are, and which cells are clickable for sorting. -Mardus /talk 10:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at White House COVID-19 outbreak, you may be blocked from editing. You've admitted to restoring bold content that was reverted by someone else here, and after I removed the bold content again here, you again restored the content with this edit. This article has one-revert-rule restrictions in place covered by WP:ARBAPDS. I'm asking you to self-revert fully as you are in clear violation of 1RR, potentially more than once, and to cease un-reverting when your bold edits are reverted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am really having trouble understanding why you refuse to go to the article talk page, propose a change, and talk it over with the other editors. I have seen dozens of WP:STATUSQUO rollbacks, and in every one of them except this one everybody involved "gets it" and takes it to talk. If your proposed changes really are uncontroversial, nobody will object to them.

You are putting me in a bad position. If Onetwothreeip voluntarily stops editing and takes it to talk while you keep editing, that isn't fair to Onetwothreeip. If I tell Onetwothreeip that it's OK to edit, we get a resumption of the edit war. Again I ask you, PLEASE TAKE IT TO TALK. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: I am doing my level-best not to edit war, but my job is to continue improving our articles with novel constructive edits believed to be to be uncontroversial. Your unkind words ("you don't belong here" or such) do not reflect well on you and they certainly don't serve the project. As you request, controversial changes will be proposed on talk (as they have been in the past), but constructive edits are always welcome on our articles, though I may increasingly employ self-reverts after my constructive edits while disruption is on-going. Feoffer (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say they are productive. That doesn't make it true. At least one other editor disagrees. That's why I asked you to take it to talk, to resolve that disagreement. I hereby revoke your license to decide all by yourself that your edits are "believed to be uncontroversial". You have gotten that wrong far too many times. New rule: at least for now you need to ask first. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know why I (and someone else) removed the RfC template you posted about whether to include the September 10 event in the article: RfCs are not to be used every time you want to talk about something at the talk page. If you want to discuss something or get other people's opinions, just start a new thread and discuss. RfCs are for when the issue has already been discussed at the talk page but a consensus has not been reached (remembering that consensus does not have to be unanimous). Per WP:RFCBEFORE: "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to ma