User talk:Zambelo

Hi Zambelo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zambelo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Coffeepusher (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coffeepusher, and thanks for the welcome - I don't have a conflict of interest, just an interest in maintaining and representing both sides of the issue; I hadn't paid close attention to what you were reverting (poorly referenced material), so I reverted, looking closer those paragraphs definitely don't belong.

Zambelo (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Zambelo. I had to revert your edit to Steven Hassan because the source fails wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. Especially in biographies of living persons we have to be careful that anything critical of the individual is properly sourced and would stand up to scrutiny. While I do understand that the criticism came from a certified counselor, the sourcing guidelines require that it comes from a peer/editor reviewed source and blogs/self published web pages don't qualify. I'm sorry for the confusion. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Union nationale des associations de défense des familles et de l'individu, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Family and CCMM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why you removed link to O'Connor?. Stop it please.190.79.153.106 (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

forgive the intrusion Zambelo, but your friend has incorrectly identified your edit as vandalism, and I think the mistake should be noted. Your friend should be careful not to call something vandalism which is obviously not vandalism. I agree that the source identified, O'Connor (2009) doesn't contain the quote, so your friend should probably find a better source for the statement. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop blanking cited statements in articles. You have not demonstrated consensus for amending or excluding cited information prior to unilaterally removing. Including referenced material is much more constructive than blanking properly cited statements, whichis seen as tendentious. Your absolute distaste for Hassan is abundantly clear, however, that need not color your edits or behavior. • Astynax ^talk 21:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zambelo. The mind control article currently has a section dedicated to an Army report that supposedly debunks the idea that American POWs were brainwashed. I've never been able to verify the existence of this report. I was wondering if you have ever come across it in your research. Thanks, -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nietzsche123, I hadn't, but I do now have access to it, so I can verify it exists. Zambelo (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just added below an invitation to Zambello to comment on a quote he took from the report, and noticed this. The paper version of the report can be found in federal depository libraries; the one I read came from the University of Virginia law library. Pleased that Zambello found an online version. In future perhaps questions about citations may best be addressed on the talk page for the article in question? ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cult Awareness Network, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patricia Ryan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a question about some text I believe you may have added to the mind control page, regarding a quote out of an army report. I left the text in the article, despite my reservations about whether it breaks up the flow of the paragraphs where it has been interjected. I thought you might first like to weigh in.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zambelo. I've suggested merging Exit counseling into Deprogramming since it seems to be mainly notable as a sub-type of that. You are one of the few people still involved with the article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Exit counseling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Clark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zambelo. I would appreciate your input as a concerned editor at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 6#Category:Cult related terms and concepts. HelenOnline 18:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not dispute your objection to "suspect" (although a mere say-so on a hostile website hardly balances out a research paper), but in any event I moved the material back to the footnote because it duplicates something already mentioned in the section and there is consensus for the section to be pruned. Thanks Ridiculus mus (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Galen Kelly may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''Galen Kelley'' in newspaper articles) is a [[private investigator]] and [Cult Awareness Network]]-associated<ref>Davis, D. and B. Hankins. 2003. New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in
• CO0593AB.TXT Cleared once, man faces second kidnapping charge], Washington Times, March 6, 1993]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Waco siege". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 28 February 2014. 

The request for formal mediation concerning Waco siege, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Recovery from Cults, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David Clark and William Goldberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfC about the Waco siege failed. It wasn't even formatted properly. Your request for mediation failed. There was no consensus for this version you keep trying to force into the article. Who else supports the version you're putting in? You're clearly not being honest with yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC was more in regards to your behaviour, mischaracterisations and general lack of good faith. It failed because I hadn't formatted it correctly, and it therefore lacked visibility. The content has been changed since the original implementation, and has also moved to another section. You have yet to bring a valid reason for the content not to be in the article, despite it being relevant and referenced with high quality references. If you want to content gone, the onus is on you to prove that it has no place in the article. Until then, academic, media and state sources say otherwise. Zambelo; talk 01:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And there is your problem. RfC aren't for that purpose. I will ask one more time: Who else is supporting this version? Be specific. You claim there is support. Who is it? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references speak for themselves. The onus is on you to disprove the content. Zambelo; talk 01:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you've claimed that you have consensus and that "others" have assisted in creating this version. I will ask for the last time who else agreed to this version. And yes, your refusal (inability) to provide that answer will be used at the appropriate noticeboard. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article history. Good luck with the appropriate noticeboard. Zambelo; talk 07:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The edit history doesn't establish a consensus. The matter was discussed. A couple of people expressed a position that possibly a sentence or two could be included. Some not at all. Nobody supported all the material you're forcing in. Nobody. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well certainly not you. The fact is the RFC failed because of visibility. More input is needed - but the fact remains that the content is relevant, is referenced, and if you want to dispute it you should really provide a real reason, which you have failed time and time again to provide. The responsibility lies with you to discover why, if at all, the content doesn't belong in the article. If you really want the content gone, then please do post this to the appropriate noticeboard, I would love to see this resolved, one way or the other. In the meantime, the content stays. Zambelo; talk 01:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, challenged content doesn't "stay in the meantime". The fact that you say more input is needed is evidence that there is no consensus. Don't link to essays about ownership when you are exhibiting ownership issues in your edits. I can show editors that do NOT agree with the version you're forcing into the article. You can't show anyone supporting it. Guess who is trying playing the ownership game friend? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More input is needed, because you have refused to give any reasonable reason for verifiable, referenced and relevant content to be removed. You in fact offered no input on how it could be improved, and immediately sought to have the content removed. Again, the onus is on you to show the content doesn't belong. Zambelo; talk 12:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You keep repeating that lie that no input was given. It was, by more than one editor opposing it. You just don't like it. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only input given was that the content didn't belong in the prelude. Guess what? It is no longer in the prelude. Earlier input saying the content was too long was also implemented. It seems only you have refused input, aggressively and sarcastically dismissing the input from Woodshed, and refusing mediation. This while still not giving any reason for the content to be removed. Zambelo; talk 20:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to United Methodist Church may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *Opening Prayer}}
• *The Lessons (Old Testament / The Psalm / The Epistle / The Gospel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MrBill3 (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Thank you for your contributions to Sahaja Yoga. I appreciate your collaboration, it can be difficult to work together when editors have different opinions. You have engaged on the talk page in a collaborative manner with thoughtful and WP:CIVIL contributions. Your courtesy and respect are appreciated. I hope my posts have been well received, while I am an ardent advocate of my stance I do strive to be civil and constructive. I want to acknowledge not only your engagement on the talk page but also your extensive work on the article. I know thoughtful editing on WP takes a great deal of work and you have put in quite a bit. The article is much better thanks to your contributions.

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

- - MrBill3 (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evangelical Ministries to New Religions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gordon Lewis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Steven Hassan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Albion may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:William Blake - Albion Rose - from A Large Book of Designs 1793-6.jpg|thumb|right|In [[William

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mike Kropveld has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — ASCII-002 I ^Notify_Online 11:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mind control, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Bromley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zambelo. You seem to have added a 'malformed' ref. See the diff here and look at the Lingua Franca ref, № 39 in the references section. You gave no edit summary to describe what you did at all.

• The ref you added had no title. It also had "title={{cite web |url= |title=", that's an extraneous "{{cite web", "|url=" and "|title =".
• Archived sources also require some extra fields such as 'archivedate=', and 'archiveurl=', as well as the standard 'url='.

The full ref now, looks like this:

<ref name="linfran">{{cite web |last1=Allen |first1=Charlotte |title=BRAINWASHED! SCHOLARS OF CULTS ACCUSE EACH OTHER OF BAD FAITH |url=http://linguafranca.com/9812/allen.html |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20001203192600/ http://linguafranca.com/9812/allen.html |website=Lingua Franca |archivedate=2000-12-03 |date=December 1998 |publisher=linguafranca.com |accessdate=2014-06-16}}</ref>

This diff here (past Line 44:) shows the changes required for the ref to 'work' properly. Just FYI. :-) --220 of ^Borg 13:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Goddess movement page, your edit caused a cite error (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) 00:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I left a question for you at BNA, Sadads (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please rsepond, else you will not receive an account, Sadads (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you removed this edit without explanation. This can be seen as vandalism. Please explain on the talk pages and in the edit summary next time. Milliongoldcoinpoint (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to relax. Zambelo; talk 15:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to be a collaborative editor and reply to the reasonable request. Always provide an edit summary, and don't mark edits as minor edits when they aren't. In fact it's never necessary to mark an edit as minor. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it because his first edit had an edit summary "sham" and his second carelessly plonked a large section of text down onto the article (which I then later went to clean up) - to the casual browser, these edits look disruptive, hence the revert, without a summary. He then came here and accused me of vandalism, after his disruptive edits. Ok. Zambelo; talk 00:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning. It is the lack of an edit summary and your dismissive tone that are the reasons for my comment. I see that you still make many edits without edit summaries. Please try to improve on that front. There are statistics over use of edit summaries, and your record isn't good. I suspect you wish to build a good reputation here, and this is just part of it. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are so concerned, but a lot of the type of edits I do don't require an edit summary - for instance, I do a lot of cleaning work involving removing old content tagged with dated tags/templates, or cleaning up articles that have had no input for years. I don't really care about reputation, frankly. My edits speak for themselves. Zambelo; talk 03:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what happened to the article? Milliongoldcoinpoint is replacing sourced text with OR and using poor sources.[1][2] See Talk:Acupuncture#Duplication and Talk:Acupuncture#Sham acupuncture in Germany but not acupuncture in general for a couple of current problems. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that. A comment still deserves a decent reply, and reverts and edits need edit summaries. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editor makes a lot of mistakes. Other editors are trying to fix the problems You are aware of that but who is going to fix the ongoing problems? There is a lot of funny things happening to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The account that added the outdated information to the page is indef-blocked. QuackGuru (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carol Giambalvo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (She got into the profession when her stepdaughter became involved with Iskcon, the International

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:EMNR logo - Logo for Evangelical Ministries to New Religions.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am challenging the inclusion of names in this template on the basis of basic verifiability - your assertion that you know who these people are and what they do is not a valid criteria for inclusion. More importantly, this would be a form of categorization that could be potentially controversial. Please write the articles if you feel they meet the notability guidelines and add them to the template afterwards. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable because they are part of notable anti-cult groups. The template includes them (under the group headings) because they are key figures in these organisations, and often chain in various anti-cult groups. These figures are referred to on the anti-cult movement article, the cult article, and in the respective anti-cult group articles. Anti-cult groups are by definition opposed to New Religious movements. They may not be notable outside their role as anti-cult activists, but they are notable within the groups they are part of - so while an article may not be appropriate, inclusion in the template is. Zambelo; talk 21:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person is notable in Wikipedia when there is an article about them in Wikipedia. I have no problem with you adding those names to the organizations, etc. as long as their participation and role is sourced. But I can't put a {{cn}} on a template used in multiple articles, nor is it realistic to have so many redlinks in one either. Again, basic verifiability. You can't circumvent Wikipedia policy simply because the content is in a template as opposed to an article. The core policies like V and BLP apply everywhere, to all content. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person is notable regardless of his/her as-yet unpublished article on WIkipedia. The individuals in question are mentioned in the articles about the groups they belong in, and as such they are verifiable and also belong to the category of people who Oppose NRMs. I don't have an issue with removing the redlinks, but I do with the removal of the names, as they are integral to the groups they comprise. Perhaps you could create a RFC for this issue, but until then the names that are verifiable from their parent articles should remain. Zambelo; talk 00:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:EMNR logo - Logo for Evangelical Ministries to New Religions.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Category:Religious discrimination because Category:Christian countercult movement is not necessarily, or even most likely, religious discrimination and should not be placed in that category. Editor2020 00:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It is most certainly religious discrimination - the very movement relies on this discrimination between approved Christian groups and other religions. Zambelo; talk 00:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Religious discrimination that is "when adherents of different religions (or denominations) are treated unequally, either before the law or in institutional settings such as employment or housing." Editor2020 00:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The institution here would be the church collective, religious institutions (often religious corporations) that treat other religious beliefs unequally. Zambelo; talk 00:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need your email address in order to give/renew your JSTOR access. Please email Library Coordinator Ocaasi at jorlowitzgmail.com so we can get you your account as soon as possible. Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 17:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Photo of Alan Meale.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. January (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Portrait of Janja Lalich.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. January (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lous Jolyon West.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. January (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:EMNR logo - Logo for Evangelical Ministries to New Religions.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.[reply]

Hello, you're right that Christian countercult movement is about converting members of New Religious Movements, but it's not about discrimination or persecution. Please read Discrimination and Persecution if you want to know more about these both concepts. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They define cults as any group not adhering to their definition of christianity (descrimination) and they actively seek to forcibly convert members of other religions (persecution). This is the purpose and mission of the CCM.

Persecution: hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs; oppression

Descrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex: victims of racial discrimination | discrimination against homosexuals

Zambelo; talk 06:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly, defining is not unjust treating, it's just categorizing. And there is nothing in the article about forcible conversion. So neither discrimination nor persecution is the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zambelo,

I just reverted you again on Opposition to NRMs template. I saw your edit summary, problem is, the people you're trying to add in don't have articles (they're redlinked) and without articles and reliable sources that indicate they're opposed to NRMs, they can't be added in per BLP. If you can supply reliable references that say they're opposed to NRM's, then I can't very well argue BLP, right ? KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They belong to the mentioned anti-cult groups, and so are opposed to NRMs... The articles on these groups mention these names with references. Zambelo; talk 16:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've put people's name in, it's those name that I removed per BLP (No article, so no references ). Without references they cannot stay per BLP. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj

The references for those names are found in the articles for the groups. So they are referenced, per BLP. Zambelo; talk 16:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful on the reverts on the Men's Rights page, there is a 1RR rule in place, ie no more than 1 revert per 24 hrs. I'd hate to see you blocked, your voice is important in the discussion. CSDarrow (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah it's clear that the article has a lot of issues, and that there are people with agendas actively trying to impose their view on it - I'll keep it low key and to the talk page for now :) Zambelo; talk 04:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to David Clark (consultant) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''David Clark''' is a "[[Deprogramming|thought reform consultant, a court certified [[cult]] expert, and a [[Christian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cult Awareness Network may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (D-[[Millbrae, California]]), who died from gunfire while investigating conditions at the Jonestown]] compound.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zambelo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello! I noted that you re-added New Religious Movement to the Landmark Worldwide article. I had removed that categorization as it was found in this RfC that the company (or at least the sources) does not meet the criteria for an NRM. Please take a look, and remove the NRM characterisation if you agree with my understanding of the RfC. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your reasoning, however the context in the article is that Landmark Worldwide had been characterised as an NRM, by various people. So the statement isn't that Landmark is an NRM, but rather that it has been characterised as such. Zambelo; talk 03:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see that now, thank you! --Tgeairn (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Michael Langone, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Can't remove a "like resume" tag without discussion--certainly not if in the same edits you turn it back into what is blatantly a resume. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on David Clark (consultant) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tgeairn (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmph... I didn't realize you created this until the notify step. Would you consider moving it to a user draft or the draft namespace? Thanks --Tgeairn (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ian Haworth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:BIO. No Secondary sources to establish Notability separate from his organization.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tgeairn (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Raffaella Di Marzio page, your edit caused a translated title error (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) 00:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Cults, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cults and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Cults during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zambelo-

I added {{noindex}} to a couple pages in your userspace, following the instructions here. If you disagree with the addition of this template, please discuss here before removing. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zambelo, you're mentioned on this page , specifically the NRM template you keep adding names back into. You need to stop , per BLP , unless you can supply reliable sources for your allegations. It's a violation of BLP to do otherwise. Y0u've been told this both by myself and Free Range Frog, who's a sysop. You can be blocked if you refuse to comply. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zambelo,

You were mentioned here . This is in regard to your frequent BLP violating editing of this template . I've proposed a TBAN as this is your third time doing this, you were warned three times by yourself, myself and a third editor. I hate to propose this, however, BLP is serious business, even so, your input is requested. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this edit. Please don't make any more edits like that unless you have discussed and obtained a strong consensus to do so. --John (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion, and All I was doing was reverting the deletions. These should be discussed, not the existing template. If you have concerns, bring them to the talk page, by all means. Zambelo; talk 20:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rosanne Henry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosanne Henry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Please don't create articles unless you are certain there are secondary sources that can support the creation of these articles. See WP:NOTABILITY for guidance. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noted your second reversion of my removal of flagicon templates from Oppostion to NRMs. I have started a discussion on their use in this navigation template. Please comment there. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Clark (consultant) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Clark (consultant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tgeairn (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of deprogrammers. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 03:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as User:Zambelo/VAPNG, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from , and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at User talk:Zambelo/VAPNG and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, User:Zambelo/VAPNG, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on User talk:Zambelo/VAPNG. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at User talk:Zambelo/VAPNG with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at User talk:Zambelo/VAPNG saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Stefan2 (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2 , this is an archive from a wikipedia page. No copyright issue. Zambelo; talk 20:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a duplicate of a Wikipedia page. Without knowing which page it is, it is impossible to satisfy the licensing requirements. Therefore, the page is a copyright violation. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was "Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous", which currently no longer exists. Zambelo; talk 21:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The revision history does not appear to be available there. You must provide a place where the original revision history is available for inspection. Otherwise, it is not possible to fix this. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zambelo, the status of User:Zambelo/VAPNG is confusing. Due to the template that is on it now, it will probably be deleted soon. I understand that the revision history is still sitting under the redirect at Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. Thus, you can always get the material again if you need to work on it. In my opinion the simplest option is to let this page be deleted. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your latest edit to the List of deprogrammers article - it is absolutely clear that there is a consensus that the names you have been adding lack the necessary sources to establish their notability, and therefore their inclusion is a violation of WP:BLP policy. Consider this a final warning - if you add these names again without establishing a clear consensus for their inclusion, I shall raise the matter at WP:ANI, where I shall call for you to be topic-banned from all articles relating to cults, to new religious movements, and to 'deprogramming'. WP:BLP policy is not open to negotiation, and your refusal to listen to the multiple experienced contributors who have advised you regarding this matter can only ever have one result. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was with the references; I added new references: have a look. Zambelo; talk 03:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please note that I have restructured the layout of the RfC at List of deprogrammers. Please review and make certain your comments are in the intended section(s). Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mike Kropveld is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Kropveld until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tgeairn (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are indefinitely topic banned from editing articles related to new religious movements and indoctrination including all articles, talk pages, user pages, user talk pages, and all namespaces on Wikipedia except to appeal this topic ban or to file/participate in an Arbitration case.--v/r - TP 03:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Zambelo; talk 02:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you point me to where I can appeal this ban? Zambelo; talk 11:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNBAN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Guangzhou. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating your topic ban, as you did at Landmark Education litigation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  v/r - TP 20:39, 12 October 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The article is unrelated to New Religious Movements. Zambelo; talk 3:46 am, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

Topic bans are expected to be broadly construed. Since Landmark Worldwide clearly falls under the topic of new religious movements, any article about its activities would also fall under the topic ban. If you are unable to understand the terms of your topic ban, then you are likely to be blocked indefinitely to prevent further disruption. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:39, 14 October 2014 (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.

Perhaps you are the one failing to understand this. Zambelo; talk 09:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This would also constitute a violation of your topic ban. To reiterate: you are not allowed to discuss new religious movements - under whose banner Landmark Worldwide is included - anywhere on Wikipedia. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm trying to ascertain whether or not it is an NRM - so that I can or cannot comment on it. The discussion was in relation to this, not the organization itself. Zambelo; talk 11:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is or isn't doesn't actually matter - the fact is that it has been discussed as one, and therefore falls under the auspices of your topic ban. An affirmative conclusion to the discussion is not required; you are not allowed to edit areas that relate to NRMs, not simply articles about NRMs. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Zambelo; talk 11:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick(Talk) 01:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zambelo, I think you need to stop following me around, especially if, as you seem to prove almost daily, you don't know that much about writing an encyclopedia. I submit the history of Guangzhou as evidence as well, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jani Schofield, where you provided a nonsense rationale on an article you had never edited, right after my well-formed and well-argued comment. I appreciate that you're following my edits and keeping an eye on my talk page, but I was hoping you'd learn something from it. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to keep an eye on editors which have a history of POV-pushing and bypassing due process. And indeed, this is what I encountered. Zambelo; talk 06:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor, I think your time spend here is wasted. --Randykitty (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you too have a history of bypassing due process - in fact, you have done this in conjunction with Drmies. Zambelo; talk 06:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors, especially admins, bypassing due process is a very serious thing that cannot be allowed to stand. I think you have two options: 1/ File your evidence at ANI so that the perpetrators can be blocked and desyssopped ASAP. 2/ Stop making accusations that you cannot back up. Of course, given your recent actions and your current postings at ArbCom, a permanent ban, which in practice will default to enforcing #2, is becoming ever more probable. --Randykitty (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I provided evidence at ArbCom of your, Drmies and Tgeairns' involvement in bypassing due process. That was me backing up my accusations. If I file my ecidence over at ANI, I have no doubt that you three will again resort to simply attacking my character instead of addressing the issue, so I won't do that. The Arbcom filing is in relation to Landmark Worldwide and your activities surrounding that article - if you feel that your name needs to be vindicated, present my accusations in an ANI filling yourself, if you can control yourself and just present the fact without resorting to attacking my character. Zambelo; talk 08:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, I like your sense of humor! --Randykitty (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it per WP:ATTACK. You are not allowed to keep references to other users around as a badge of shame. If you need a temporary sandbox to write up evidence for a dispute process, use your user sandbox for that. If you need any material from any revision of your user page, just let me know and I can provide it to you. --John (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A warning to both Andy and Zambelo; while almost by definition, we do not get to an Arbcom case without some issues between editors, the evidence page is for the documentation of evidence, it isn't a forum for back and forth sniping.

Some of what has been posted is not in the spirit desired, whether it rises to the level that it requires removal is something I need to look into, but future additions by both should be evidence—factual assertions about behavior backed up by diffs, not pot shots or unsubstantiated inferences about motives. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, and have the responsibility of making sure that Case pages are edited appropriately.

I would like you to rewrite your evidence for the Landmark Worldwide case. The diffs are:

• here
• and here

It is understood that you will be identifying behavior which is problematic. However, it is possible to do so without imputing motives. It is also necessary to provide diffs supporting your claims.

For example, you can cite diffs identifying attempts to remove articles, without concluding that such attempts were "vindictive". You can cite diffs detailing the removal of articles without characterizing such removal as "destructive".

I'll also note with puzzlement, a list of six articles, five of which exist and one of which was deleted. What was the point? If some editors attempted to delete those articles, you should be citing the AfD, otherwise, what is the point?

Terms such as "conspired" are extremely strong, tendentious words. We expect that editors may be drawn to similar articles and may hold similar opinions about them. That does not necessarily mean that the editors were "conspiring". If you do not have citable evidence of such conspiring, you ought to remove it, as such a claim without evidence is a personal attack, and may result in actions against you.

I understand you may feel that other editors have acted against you, but you can itemize the evidence to be reviewed without using such wording.

You identified "forum shopping" as an issue, but did not cite any evidence. Please cite the evidence, or remove the claim from the evidence.

I do have the authority to remove your statement and ask you to start over, but I would prefer that you make the changes yourself. --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your suggestions - the first six articles were all nominated for deletion, and it was only because I intervened and provided more secondary sources that they weren't. I used the word 'conspiring' because there is a strong suggestion that the editors were acting in a POV-pushing way: for instance, the first articles to be nominated for deletion were all related to the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article which they were pushing to have deleted, even when new references were found and implemented. They then consistently teamed up to naminate the other articles I listed for deletion, and so forced the issue, rather than waiting for neutral outside commentary (there was also never any prior discussion before the nominations.)

The reason that I am now topic-banned from edition NRM-related articles is that I grated in some nerves - but consider the fact that I was attempting to save articles from certain and improper deletion - one editor against three who were determined to have these articles deleted.

The forum shopping issue was brought up by another editor in the original filing - I'll find the link, but remove in the meanwhile. I'll rewrite the first diff you listed, however I think the second one represents the issue factually. Andy the Grump has been following me around for the past two weeks, first pushing for my topic ban (successfully) and now attempting to have me banned from editing altogether - his behaviour can only be described as vindictive and mean-spirited.

Please let me know your thoughts, Zambelo; talk 08:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm not a sockpuppet. The evidence given was that I've edited a few articles in common with another editor (who ceased editing 6 years ago) - don't you think it's possible I may have looked at that editor's list of edits, since he/she was also editing NRM-related articles? Because this is in fact what happened. I have undoubtedly edited other articles in common with other editors editing the same topics as well - because this is the best way to discover articles about NRMs. Zambelo; talk 09:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2014 (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.

• The evidence is far more extensive than that you have "edited a few articles in common with another editor". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, please provide this "evidence". JamesBWatson. Zambelo; talk 00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giving you a full account of how you gave yourself away would, no doubt, be very helpful to you, as it would enable you to avoid the same mistakes again. However, I have no intention of doing so, as it would make my job, and that of other administrators, more difficult. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What it looks like to me is that you don't have any evidence. And that you've banned me despite this, in an abuse of your administrative powers. Supply the proof or allow another moderator with more experience handle the job. Zambelo; talk 20:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request unblocking again. The original admin is refusing to provide a valid reason or evidence for the block - what I can surmise, going on the original filing for my banning is that the only 'evidence' provided is that I've edited articles in common with another editor. I have explained why this is (the vast majority are NRM-related, which is primarily the area I was active in) - and I had used that user's edit history to discover new and neglected NRM articles.

On of the examples cited was that I edited the Sahaja Yoga article. If you look closer at sfacets' edit behaviour, you will notice that he/she clearly had a bias in regards to Sahaja Yoga, whereas, if you inspect my edits, you will notice that I have removed a large portion of that user's edits, and streamlined the article.

Sahaja Yoga was just one of the articles I noticed on Sfacet's edit history - I added a bunch of them to my watch list, which is why I intervened a few times in articles such as Pune or Bohemia. The other overlaps can be explained by the fact that NRM-related articles are a niche subject, and there simply aren't that many of them - of course my edits would have overlapped with another user who was at one time active within this niche.

If you were to look at other editors active at the time that sfacets was editing within the NRM-sphere, such as User:Smee, I have no doubt my edits would heavily overlap with this user's as well.

This is pretty flimsy evidence, and circumstantial at best.

Zambelo; talk 01:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were told that there is evidence against you that has not been disclosed to you. The undisclosed evidence was determined to be conclusive. Your unblock request only scratches the surface; it does not address the conclusive evidence. You cannot challenge this evidence because you don't know what it is. I don't think your unblock request will work. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see how this could be problematic? It's like sentencing someone for a crime without process or a chance to defend themselves. I didn't know WIkipedia was Guantanamo Bay. Zambelo; talk 03:00, 22 October 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Per above. The fact that I've edited the same articles as another user does not mean I am that user. Zambelo; talk 04:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've compared your edits with Sfacets, and I think, on balance, you are the same.

• https://tools.wmflabs.org/intersect-contribs/index.php?project=enwiki&user1=Sfacets&user2=Zambelo&sort=0
• https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/topedits/?lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&user=Zambelo&namespace=0
• https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/topedits/?lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&user=Sfacets&namespace=0

Aside from the interest in New Religious Movements (NRM), there is the interest in Bohemia (musician). Or in other words, one of the very few articles you edit that it isn't NRM related, happens to be a musician's biography that Sfacets edited. Also, based on your editing times, you seem to be in the same time zone, with relatively little editing between 16:00 and 20:00 (UTC). Overall, while this is all somewhat circumstantial, I personally consider that it is probable that you are the same user, hence I am declining this unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2014 (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.

I've explained this, above. I've added a whole bunch of articles from this user's edit history, and have done the same for other users as well. Quacks like a duck, is a goose. Zambelo; talk 11:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alexandra Schmidt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not asserted. The only notable material is one incident in 1981. The article does not make clear if she is still alive. If so this is a concern for WP:BLP as well as WP:N.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Borock (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European Federation of Centres of Research and Information on Sectarianism members, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I am reviewing the former edits on wikipedia by you. The Steve Hassan page has a citation "Sweeney" and I am trying to figure out what that is. Thank You. Twillisjr (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brainwashing theory proponents has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply