Template talk:Scientology/Archive 1
Add topicCount
[edit]Count=5 was copied from an earlier infobox, not as some effort to otherwise promote a point of view. I cannot say the same for Misou reducing the count to articles he has started that are pro-scientology. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are seeing ghosts, wake up. I reduced the box size so it would fit the smaller articles and not mess them up. Misou 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Count=5 is about standard, IMO. Shorter articles can be expanded easily, there is much to say on such a controversial subject. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I tried 5 but it is too long for most of the existing articles, cutting into the "Sources" box. 4 works fine, but ok, 5 it is then. Misou 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not really a problem if it cuts down the side of the sources box. If it meant there was lots of blank space or something, then it would require shortening. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I changed it to five and reduced the lines below the photo. How do I get rid of the blank space between the article list and the photo? Misou 22:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not really a problem if it cuts down the side of the sources box. If it meant there was lots of blank space or something, then it would require shortening. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I tried 5 but it is too long for most of the existing articles, cutting into the "Sources" box. 4 works fine, but ok, 5 it is then. Misou 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Count=5 is about standard, IMO. Shorter articles can be expanded easily, there is much to say on such a controversial subject. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
3RR
[edit]I have again reverted your reduction of the article count. This is - as far as I am concerned - an efforto to reduce the number of articles critical of Scientology. Should you make another change to a lower number I will judge it to be a violation of WN:3RR and request a full 24 hour block. I have already requested a checkuser because I have good reason - based on your bloody-minded obsessiveness here and on Wikipedia - that you are too closely involved with Scientology to edit any articles on the topic.
Should you care to revert my final edit, or in any other way reduce the count of articles listed, I will go against convention myself and perform the CheckUser. If - as I strongly suspect - you are a Scientology shill I will permanently block as appropriate and wait for wrath from on high. Xenu forgive me! --Brian McNeil / talk 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are behind the 8ball here. Maybe you check my user contribs and see what I am doing. Guessing and spreading prejudice is nuts and has no place on Wikinews. And you are an Admin on top? God help us all. Misou 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at your contributions, I have the same suspicions as Brian. Soryy, but it really does apear that you are censoring the subject, possibly on behalf of the church. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand. Give me an example where you think you see that. I might just have a viewpoint which requires some thinking to understand. You see, Brianmc went as far to block me because I do not follow his POV. This is an abuse of user rights, right out of fanatism. Misou, 22:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at your contributions, I have the same suspicions as Brian. Soryy, but it really does apear that you are censoring the subject, possibly on behalf of the church. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Warning: All users are warned that edit warring is unacceptable and that continuously reverting edits which aren't blatant vandalism could result in blocks or this page being protected. Adambro 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)