User talk:Kurtilein

feel free to comment, or to discuss with me. here is the place for doing this.

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Kurtilein, 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:

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) 04:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your unsourced addition to the article Keeping Scientology Working[edit]

Do you have independent reliable secondary sources for this info? Otherwise, for an individual Wikipedian to pick and choose from a primary source, what to include or not to include, borders on WP:NOR violation. Cirt (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Another passage that has been cited by critics of the organisation, especially in relation to cases of death where critics see connections to the organisation" = this part was completely unsourced. Cirt (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

then add sources instead of just removing this information from the article. if you keep removing it, then i will need to get the help of others to make sure that this information will be included into the article and stays there. but i dont think you will manage to keep this information out of the article for long. Kurtilein (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement report[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Kurtilein. Cirt (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 30 hours; served with sanctions[edit]

By edit warring and not being willing to engage in any form of discussion with your fellow editors when they raise a concern over your changes, you have edited the Keeping Scientology Working article with an approach that is unfavourable to collaboration. A topic area as contested as Scientology does not need such an approach. I am blocking you for 30 hours, in response to the edit warring, and also serving you with a notification that:

(i) this remedy of the Scientology arbitration case provides for an uninvolved administrator to ban an editor from editing the Scientology subject area if their presence is disruptive.

(ii) I consider those edits cited in the recent AE complaint that you were the subject of to be disruptive, and that, if you continue to edit in this manner, I will be compelled to topic ban you.

It is imperative that you when contributing to the project (and particularly to a topic as volatile as Scientology) that, when an editor disagrees with an edit of yours or makes an edit you disagree with, you do not blankly revert them, but instead pursue consensus-building discussion (and, if necessary, dispute resolution) with them.

Please take care in future that you follow our project's behavioural and editorial policies whilst contributing.

AGK 20:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]