User talk:AlexJohnTorres12

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, AlexJohnTorres12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

Please do not add WP:TRIVIA to pages, as you did to the WP:BLP page, David Miscavige. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Hey Cirt, thanks for the warm welcome. I wanted to comment on this removal. As stated in the page you sent me, Wikipedia states: "Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate. " This is exactly what I did with the hobbies mentioned in the article previous Wikipedia Editors have cited at http://www.sptimes.com/TampaBay/102598/scientologypart4.html.[reply]

Here is the text I pulled from: "During frequent visits to Clearwater, where his mother lives, Miscavige said he spends his nights in Scientology’s staff dormitory, a converted apartment complex on Saturn Avenue. He said he eats in Scientology’s communal dining halls and sometimes gets out to Domenic’s Capri Italian Restaurant on Clearwater Beach. He goes to movies, enjoys trail biking in Hillsborough County, and has been known to ride a water scooter. He said he also plays piano, takes underwater photographs, reads several books a week, exercises daily and keeps a casual eye on his hometown sports teams from Philadelphia."

I understand how per the WP:TRIVIA page, "It may be necessary to perform research to give each fact some context or to add references. Some entries may be speculative or factually incorrect, and should be removed; some may fall outside the scope of the article and should be moved to other articles; and others, such as "how-to" material or tangential/irrelevant facts, may fall outside Wikipedia's scope and should be removed altogether," it is possible to construe this information as irrelevant; however, given other pieces of information within this page being not as relevant, adding this information about David Miscavige is equally relevant. Two examples of this are: "Among Scientologists, Miscavige is often referred to by his initials, "DM," or "C.O.B.," for Chairman of the Board.[11] He reportedly lives at Scientology's Gold Base, which is also the main RTC headquarters, near Hemet, California.[12]".

Why are his nicknames and living domain relevant, but his hobbies not?

AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Hi Cirt, you haven't responded to this point, so I'm going to go ahead and make the edit again.[reply]

July 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Robert Greenwald do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Rethink Afghanistan. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Carl Jung. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Addition of poorly sourced info to page, Carl Jung. Please see WP:RS/IMDB. -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Thanks for the note Cirt. I wanted to respond to this note by saying that per your article cited re: external links on Wikipedia, "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists," you are absolutely correct. These types of links do not belong on Wikipedia. My apologies for making such an error. I did want to mention that I have seen many Facebook and Twitter links on Wikipedia. Are these just legacy links? Or have they just not yet been flagged? Thanks.[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater[edit]

Hi. You somehow erased that page, presumably by accident, and the comment you wanted to post did not appear. Do you want to re-post it? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Damn. Sorry about that. Yeah, I'll repost and try not to screw it up this time. Not sure what happened there. My bad.[reply]

Notice regarding prior Scientology arbitration case[edit]

WP:ARBSCI

Please be aware of the arbitration case at the above link. Please read through the remedies, especially with regards to:

as well as other applicable relevant remedies. Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Miscavige[edit]

Hi. I, too, have had unpleasant experiences with Cirt, who seems to have a tendency toward being officious with the effect of discouraging, rather than helping, other editors. That said, I agree with his (or her) removal of your recent additions to the David Miscavige article. Most of the material you've dropped in seems to add little relevant information about Miscavige as a public figure... it largely comes across as an attempt on your part to make him look good. You should be aware that Scientology-related articles have a unique history at Wikipedia--at one point, an number of editors on different "sides" of Scientology issues were permanently banned from editing in those areas--so that articles about other topics on Wikipedia are not necessarily a good guide as to the standards that prevail re: Scientology-related topics. Folks are likely to jump on anything that seems partisan in that domain, so I advise you to be as scrupulously objective and rigorous about what really is relevant to the article as possible. And count on the fact that some frustration will come along with the process. -- BTfromLA (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say that I disagree that your latest addition to the article was "helpful and legit." Your changes will consistently (and correctly) be reverted if everything you add is of the same nature: Miscavige proclaiming the goodness of Scientology or himself. That is far removed from neutral, encyclopedic content. If you think there is a problem with the existing article, perhaps you will have more success if you address specific problems on the talk page, and suggest remedies there. --BTfromLA (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2010 (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).

AlexJohnTorres12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No sufficient reason has been stated for the blocking of my account. It is not fair just to be blocked on the basis of adding non-negative information on the David Miscavige page and being labeled as a sympathizer automatically. I am someone who is genuinely interested in the comprehensive picture of David Miscavige and other religous figures as well. I have a genuine concern for fairness in Wikipedia; I have been attempting to add truthful information to the article and other articles to make sure that the articles are well-balanced and objective. Please make your case and explain further why I am labeled as a sock account -- I deny the allegation and say with full conviction that I am genuinely interested in making Wikipedia a better resource for all us.

Decline reason:

Hello again. This reminds me of the conversation we had on your previous account. No, you really are blocked, even if you create a new username. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:10, 28 August 2010 (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.