User talk:Stan En

	Archives:

Barbara Schwarz

Hi Stan. Thanks for your help with this article. Could you take a look at it? It seems to be creeping back to what it was. I really don't want to come back to Project Scientology. Thanks. Steve Dufour 21:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already feared that someone will stick it back in the intro. Her FOIA requests are just too boring and unspectacular. If notability is missing you have to write a soap opera. ): -- Stan talk 18:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology world map

It's so good I'm stealing it for this page:
http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/stolgy_5.htm
--Hartley Patterson 13:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to hear that it is usefull not only for WP somehow :). I'm not an expert on this copyright stuff but it should be no problem at all since the image and the raw map its based on from Vardion are both released into public domain. -- Stan talk 13:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Management Systems Mediation

User:Fahrenheit451 has requested mediation regarding the following:

Sterling Management Systems Dispute

and your participation has been requested by the parties. I will be the mediator of this dispute.

--Leonmon 06:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stan En, Misou has been disruptive of the mediation, Ibeme has evaded answering any questions about his connection to Sterling Management Systems and is clearly not participating in good faith. I have requested that Leonmon conclude the informal mediation as it cannot progress to a resolution under these circumstances.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. I'd suggest Admin Noticeboard for Misou. Especially his reply(lie on tone scale) is a rude personal attack and harassment in light of his previous questions(Dead_agenting#.22Dead_agenting.22). Ibeme didn't edit the article anymore since we pointed him to WP:COI. I think he doesn't need to answer this question as long he doesn't edit the article and anyone with a COI is allowed to participate on talk pages. Its obvious anyway(take a closer look at his image upload(the particular image wasn't accessable in the Web as he uploaded it;both alleged sources(googlemap and the official website didn't provide this image) or check the IPs he left as he forgot to login). I wouldn't close mediation now but wait till Leonmen makes further suggestions. -- Stan talk 20:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stan - You will be missed. --Ibeme (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I have gotten Free_Zone_(Scientology) unprotected and did some editing in accordance with our discussion. Take a look and let me know.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

answered here. Looks fine to me but I don't know how important idenics within the Freezone is. If important enough it may be more detailed. -- Stan talk 00:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

In addition to the thanks on my own talk I have to ask, how long did you spend on that? Looks great. Durova^Charge! 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not very long, considering the time you spend to help Wikipedia. -- Stan talk 23:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe

Read before haphazardly reverting my edits as it it is mere vandalism. --Ezeu 19:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my comment ? I didn't say its vandalism but you inserted the caption and link twice. I used TW to be able to revert both of your edits (both had the same mistake). And you did it again ! -- Stan talk 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where in this version is the "the caption and link twice"? And in what way does your lates revert change anything exept move the image back to the top, and add a section called "Headline text"? --Ezeu 19:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I now see that "Main|History of Zimbabwe" was a duplicate. Sorry for that. --Ezeu 19:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, maybe my comment was misleading and I also reverted accidently a good edit(pushed the wrong button). Sorry, didn't want to offend anyone. I only moved the first image back and deleted the caption and link now. -- Stan talk 19:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Stan. Glad we got this misunderstanding cleared. --Ezeu 19:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Zimbabwe

Hi und grüß dich!. As I'm sure you have seen from the edit history of Zimbabwe I have made many alterations to the GA criteria to Zimbabwe alone and have a methodical way of doing things by now. Thanks for your help. Any changes you make please make sure you add {{tick}}, {{cross}} or {{working}} to the comments on the Talk page so that I know what has been done and what still needs to be done (as you have already been doing). Also, please when making changes double check your English so we don't get picked up on errors come next review. So far I havn't seen any mistakes on the Zimbabwe page but there were a couple in the message you left me on my talk page. Once again it is nice collaborating with you. Many thanks. Mangwanani 20:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for your advices. I learned something today. I wanted to make all corrections with one edit but as I finished I noticed that you did most changes already! I will use {{working}} next time. By the way, I usually double check my English when editing an article. However, on talk pages I tend to be careless! -- Stan talk 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...or did this woman just piss you off?

I figured it'd be better to answer here than on the actual talk page, as my feelings/opinion of Schwarz isn't actually what's going into the article so discussing it there seems inappropriate.

I'm not angry at or trying to "attack" her. The simple fact is that some sources covered her quest for answers in which her legal status has been discussed by said source using her own words. (If the Tribune hadn't mentioned it, I wouldn't be adding it.)

We're not supposed to edit by "feelings", this guy pisses me off so I don't edit his article. I feel sorry for everyone involved with this woman's fate and don't edit that one either. If I felt strongly one way or another about Schwarz I wouldn't edit about her. Anynobody 05:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that your previous interest in her deleted bibliography does now motivate you to include so many details about her even if it is off topic for her FOIA requests. However, my question was a bit provocative and I didn't mean to offend you nor do I think that you have a conflict of interest. If I would have been a major contributor to an article which gets deleted after 4 AFD's I would probably also not be amused and try to save as much content as possible in related articles. I think we just disagree strongly about the content and interpretation of WP:BLP and there is no need for you to justify your efforts on this topic. -- Stan talk 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really no biggie to me her article was deleted, if anything that makes things easier since her role within Scientology before she went nuts, her history on usenet and attempted Scientology deprogramming aren't necessary to include with what I happen to think is notable about her. (It actually eliminated the stuff I personally didn't think was notable, but for which there were sources thus forcing me to work those topics too.) Nor was I offended, had I been I'd of said so, I actually understand why you'd ask if I had something against her.

I'm not so much trying to justify my efforts as I am trying to explain them since there are people who do seem to hate her with a passion. My interest is actually in the government/law aspects of her saga. It illustrates several aspects and problems with the US federal government. It's amazing to me personally that the government would bend over backwards looking for non-existent information for one person who technically isn't supposed to be here, but if her name was Gianina Negro from Mexico they'd of probably deported her. (Schwarz means "black" in German, and Negro means "black" in Spanish.) Anynobody 02:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark, a cult/religion?

Relavence? See Lanmark Education Litigation, or the related page. 21st Century Democrats...case appearing in FED court. There's your source. Washington Post. --Pax Arcane 23:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't dispute the relevance ! I only asked for a reliable source in order to to justify a sentence which is disputed by other editors. -- Stan talk 00:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me/my intentions, I think. laughs. I replied to give you a source on your talk page, it was one I had at my fingertips[1]. :) Cheers! --Pax Arcane 03:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found it. I wasn't aware of the article Landmark Education litigation. But thanks for the update and link. -- Stan talk 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime, m'man. --Pax Arcane 18:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think now is a good time to cannibalise the religious info on the German site and add the link above. I'll help with the writing. E-mail me. I have more data on another area. --Pax Arcane 01:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Arica Chile.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071127/NATION/111270023/1002