User talk:RookZERO

you're still edit warring

You're still edit warring, you're still being rude and insulting, you're still not using the talk page to discuss your constant reverts, and you still can't spell the word "relevant".

I'm reporting you to an admin today if you don't stop this behavior (well, except the misspellings - you can still do that if you really want). wikipediatrix 16:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

On a lighter note

RookZERO, I thought you would find this enlightening User:Fahrenheit451/Guide--Fahrenheit451 23:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Following my warning to RookZERO with your "defense against the badgering" edit summary and this paranoid stuff about OSA agents at Wikipedia sounds to me like you're still not letting go of your harassment campaign. I agree with ChrisO's assessment of your rant. wikipediatrix 03:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, knock off your incivility as I am not conducting any harassment campaign. I was not communicating to you. You were badgering RookZERO and you seem to be the user conducting a harassment campaign here. I am telling you to stop it. I guess we have mutual opinions of each other's work, like your mockery of it on your user page: User:Wikipediatrix--Fahrenheit451 03:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dianazene article

Please, refrain from edit warring on the Dianazene article. Wikipediatrix version is better than yours. There is no mention of "Dianazene" in the current application of the "Purification Rundown", and as far as I know, a "regimen of vitamins" is what is used now. Saying that "Dianazene" is still used in today's purif is not supported by any valid reference. Raymond Hill 16:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR

WP:AN3RR --Justanother 20:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be familiar with WP:3RR, and have had several issues with the policy in the past, including a 48 hour block just a few weeks ago. Since you seem to still be having trouble with this, I have blocked you for one week to prevent further edit warring. Please let me know if there are specific issues about the policy which are unclear to you. Kuru ^talk 00:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A question about Scientology

Are you sure you want to jump back into the same patterns of editing in Scientology-related articles that you were so recently blocked for? It doesn't achieve your goals, since the most likely outcome is that you will be blocked for a longer period of time, unable to make any edits at all. Wouldn't it be better to seek a reasonable amount of consensus on talk pages in these highly controversial articles, rather than edit-warring? -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

I labelled you a Single Purpose Account after reviewing your most recent edits, which I recognise is wrong. Until you started editing Scientology related articles you had a good and varied editing history. You should consider requesting that you be unblocked on the basis of you not editing Scientology related articles, or attempting to form consensus on talk pages before editing. However, until your disruptive approach to the subject matter is changed I do not see the tarrif being reduced. LessHeard vanU 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would add that mentorship through WP:ADOPT should be a condition of having your editing privileges restored. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

By my count only 28 out of my last 50 edits have had anything to do with Scientology. Only 51 out of my last 100 had anything to do with Scientology. Only 6 out of my 15 top articles posted to have anything to do with Scientology (http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=RookZERO&site=en.wikipedia.org). That hardly seems to describe a single purpose account, even based only on recent history.(RookZERO 04:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

Which is why I added, "...which I recognise is wrong." Regrettably, those edits to Scientology related articles you have made have not been to your usual standard and have been disruptive. I should be glad if you were able to come to some understanding regarding your participation in Scientology related articles so that you may continue doing your good work in other areas. LessHeard vanU 12:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So what am I blocked for now? I don't have a single purpose account and haven't vandalized articles, I'm not over 3 reverts and I'm not sure what basis I am being blocked on.(RookZERO 14:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC))