User talk:AndroidCat/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

WELCOME!! Hello, AndroidCat/Archive 1! I want to personally welcome you on behalf of the Wikipedia community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you haven't already, you can put yourself new user log and list of users so you can be properly introduced to everyone. Don't forget to be bold, and don't be afraid of hungry Wikipedians...there's a rule about not biting newcomers. Some other good links are the tutorial, how to edit a page, or if you're really stuck, see the help pages. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a ♪ at my talk page...and again, welcome!--ViolinGirl^♪ 20:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

and another one is lured to their doom

How did I fail to see you getting sucked into the Wikipedia? Tch! Have fun ;-)

BTW, you or someone will have pages of your own filled with detailed Canadian info for List of Scientology organizations like I adapted from mine for Australian ones ... - David Gerard 09:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi AndroidCat thanks for the link to the Charity Commission report on the Scientology and the Legal System page. Which Wiki are you referring to? Really Spooky 17:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientology. There's also the short summary version, which makes interesting reading.

Request for Comments - Terryeo

I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Olberon and the 3RR

Just so you know, Olberon has been warned about the 3RR. Apparently he didn't really get it. -_- -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed referenced material without discussion

By the way, just as a reminder, it is generally frowned upon to remove verified, cited references from an article just because you don't like what it says. You removed: "Narconon's courses are secularized versions of Scientology religious texts, with terms such as like "Scientology" being replaced with "Narconon", and "Thetan" with "person". The courses, which have little or nothing to do with substance abuse, are exercises in concepts such as Suppressive Persons, PTS, Hubbard's ethics, and anti-psychiatry rhetoric. Scientology's Training Routine #8 (or TR 8) is also included as part of Narconon's "Communication and Perception" course. TR 8 instructs the subject to scream at an ashtray "in the loudest possible voice he can muster". Commands like "STAND UP!" and SIT DOWN!" are yelled directly at the ashtray, as it is lifted up and placed back down to aid the visualization. The subject is to acknowledge this each time by yelling "THANK YOU!" to the ashtray as loud as he possibly can. ^[1]" from the Narconon article without any discussion on the discussion page and with only a brief comment on your edit summary to say why you removed a good sized block of cited text.Terryeo 15:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you were paying attention rather than just frothing at the keyboard, you'd see that I restored text removed by someone else and then trimmed the parts that had been moved elsewhere. Do try to aquire a good source of clue Terryeo. AndroidCat 17:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Streamlight Problems

I have noticed that Streamlight lately has been engaging in counter-policy editing. What do you think should be the next step? --Fahrenheit451 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wog: derivative definition =

I've reverted your removal of the section in question, and as per your request for references, please see the following:

• Patrolling with Sean Kennedy - this is what made the definition in question relatively well known.
• Wog Coalition: What Is A Wog? - Other people's takes on what the term "wog" means to them, all of which share common elements (namely, the ones in the definition).

I had a similar discussion with Hartley Patterson; please see our respective talk pages.

--SpecOp Macavity 19:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - I can't seem to figure out how to properly edit the "references" section on the Wog page - all I get when I hit the edit link is:

== References ==

<references />

Any tips?

--SpecOp Macavity 19:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

i think i know where it goes ill try and do it tomorrow i have the paragraph saved in notepad --stapuft 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry didnt know bout the 3rr thanks for telling me :) but i will continue to edit that page soz but thats the way it goes its an alternate deffination and needs to be published ittl just have to wait about 22 hours wait does the 3rr count 24 hours from the first edit or the last anyway in 24 hours i will edit again --stapuft 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

wog

You might want to revisit wog, where the crew that's trying to keep the "Derivative_definition" paragraph are still at work. I'm at my 3RR limit for the day. You might want to look at my Talk page and my reply to User_talk:SpecOp_Macavity. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 21:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

i'm new and im still figuring out what im doing - JohnKong

scientology

Hi. I'm just starting to learn about scientology. There are several thousand items in google scholar for "scientology". However, this is a subject area that I am not familiar with. I have no idea which journals with articles about scientology are serious, peer-reviewed journals. --JWSchmidt 18:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are not too keen on the scientology subject, maybe you should have read more about it before you retracted my entry about Ron Howard and L. Ron Hubbard. Its true but thanks for accusing me of vandalising. I mentioned it to my mom, who is a scientologist, and she told me she knewn about the mistaken identity thing for years. Sorry you are such "in the dark". I read some of your other entrys though. Good work!  :) Thejax 22:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pull the other one, it's got bells on. AndroidCat 14:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Superpowerbldg.jpg

See also comments at Image talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg Francis Schonken 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Superpowerbldg.jpg

Just to let you know that the possible-problem-tagging for this image has been changed. --Francis Schonken 08:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That loss of ":A" in my revert of the Scientology template was unintentional

Thanks for pointing it out. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Celebs

Hi

Would you pls revert again there to my last edit; wikipediatrix reverted me when I did not even remove the offending material, all I did was polish the other bit. I don't think she bothered to look. I would do it myself but I decided to seek some assistance rather than continue the war.

Thanks and good nite--Justanother 02:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no wish to follow you over the 3RR limit. Good night. AndroidCat 02:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not think you would. No prob, I will redo it.--Justanother 02:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientology controversy

Hello,

Just when you've got some time. Where do you see the following about the Religious Freedom Watch: "Domain registrations, letters by Joel Philips, statements on video.." I can't seam to see it anywhere. Jpierreg 15:10, 2 November 2006 (GMT)

The Internet whois information is easily available for the domains religiousfreedomwatch.org, religiousfreedomwatch.com, religiousfreedomwatch.net and the original parishioners.org. (All of these are the same site on the same server.) References to at least one letter sent by Joel Phillips as RFW and acknowledging on video that he runs it are available, but I don't have time to hunt them down right now. AndroidCat 12:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Digital Lightwave

Hi Android Cat....I'm interested in getting input from other editors about getting more info about Digital Lightwave assembled and represented on Wikipedia, since the subject is extremely Scientology-related, involving David Miscavige's sister Denise Licciardi, Doug Dohring, Norton S. Karno, Greta Van Susteren, and Scientology attorneys Michael Baum and George W. Murgatroyd. Since you were a recent editor of the Scientology and the legal system article, I thought I'd fly this by you. The Digital Lightwave story is such a convoluted labyrinth I'm hoping there are other editors who understand it better than I. wikipediatrix 17:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Brrrnnnggg

This is your wake-up call. --Justanother 04:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Space opera

Why do you keep talking about the book being withdrawn, and "Is there anything official from CoS saying that the book is no longer canon?" These have nothing to do with the issue. The problem here is that you and other editors are defining "doctrine" as being anything ever written by LRH or ever published by the CoS. That is misleading. This is doctrine, and it has nothing to do with the Obscene Dog Incident or the anonymous past life memories in HYLBTL. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Whole Track and past lives are certainly part of Scientology doctrine. The "anonymous past life memories" in HYLBTL were the ones selected by L. Ron Hubbard as examples and published in a book with his name on it. The Space Opera parts are just part of the Whole Track, even before Incident II in OT-III. AndroidCat 03:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientology and Celebrities

Oops! I see the citation now - but the way it is organized, it looks to be a confirmation of the Church wishing the couple well (which is not particularly controversial, or worthy of a citation) rather than on the issue of whether the marriage was staged. Is it possible we could shift it up a spot, to make it more clear? Thanks again. Tuviya 04:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's not clear that the cite is for the whole paragraph rather just the last (unimportant) sentence. The cite should probably be shifted or maybe the unimportant text dropped. AndroidCat 16:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

reverted endnotes

Hi,

Just noticed you reverted in Space Opera Scientology writing: "if converted to references, the links should remain usable".

I'am afraid I don't understand this. Can you explain? References look good as endotes and they look really bad as they were before I converted them. Don't you agree?

--Cesar Tort 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't check to see if Wiki would wrap a bare URL into a clickable link. When I saw that it did, I reverted my revert. AndroidCat 21:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Prince

Hey. It is not really germane to the discussion on the talk page but for point of interest, the judge was throwing out an affidavit from Prince that it was his informed opinion that DM authorized letting Lisa just die.[1] This was to name DM as an additional party in the civil suit.

I find there are no facts to support Prince’s opinion, and thus, the opinion cannot come in before the jury, unless facts are developed prior to the trial.

and

His extreme bias against the Church has been discussed by this court on numerous occasions. I find his credibility, based on his previous testimony, and the testimony before me at the Omnibus Hearing, to be suspect.

Stacy Brooks admitted she cooked that idea up and encouraged Prince to write the statement. I say "not germane" because, even though this is a no-brainer to those familiar with the scene such familiarity is not necessary to see that this is highly inflammatory and POV material from a single biased source and only presented on a single biased websites (though it may be copied elsewhere on other biased site.)

I might be silly but I am kinda hoping that you will come down on my side on this one. I really don't want this to be about battling where even your "opponent's" valid points are belittled. I would rather that it were about compromise where we acknowledge each other's valid points while still seeking to present the truth as we perceive it. --Justanother 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding yet. Not ignored, just juggling many priority streams. AndroidCat 07:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No prob. We have other fish to fry anyway. I got that book you recommended, the pulp mystery book with the Mañana Society, but have not had much chance to read it. --Justanother 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done! What did you think of the book?

Reference striping

AndroidCat, what is "reference striping"? Tanaats 06:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mass removal of references, some definitely good, some not-so-good, with justification that all are bad. All without discussion. See Talk:Keith_Henson#Striping references and fact-bombing AndroidCat 06:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Tanaats 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject updates

• I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)

I think this may interest you. Kind regards, Orsini 06:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I try to stay as far from that great nasty time-sink as possible, but I'll take a look. :) AndroidCat 21:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Xenu

The first three paras contain no sources and definite opinions. Why don't you delete those on the commented criteria you used to delete mine? Could it be that anything you don't agree with saying publicly is in fact POV by your definition? MarkThomas 12:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Human rights/Scientology pages vandalized

In case you haven't noticed, a new contributor to the "Youth for human rights international" and "International Foundation for Human Rights and Tolerance" pages made massive deletions, including, not surprisingly, the controversy subheads. Like.liberation 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going along with the consensus of Keep for the article Tim Bowles the Scientologist-attorney. Bearian 15:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Off-Wiki Scientology mapping project

(Let's see how many people keep an eye on my Talk page eh?) I've been playing around with Google's new MyMaps feature. It's a simple front-end to the Google Maps API that lets users create their own map lists with location pins annotated by text, images, links and even videos.Reuters While playing around, I created one of various Scientology-related locations, and added some images and links to the matching Wikipedia article. There seem to be some limitations when dealing with large numbers of locations, and the list order doesn't seem to be too flexible. I'm not sure yet how to build a link that would connect to a particular pin in the map list. (For example, to go from the Bridge Publications Wiki article to zoomed-in on the BPI pin on the map.)

Some thoughts of problems in using something like this in articles:

• Single control of the map. MyMaps isn't designed for collaborative teamwork. Any map would be the work of one person, and outside of Wikipedia.
• POV. Since the points included and how they are labeled are the work of one person, there will be POV issues. (The current map list wasn't done to be NPOV. I'm willing to make changes, but POV will still be a problem.)
• External link or ref which is not RS. In general, MyMaps aren't inherently any more RS than Myspace pages, except for the actual maps.

Anyway, this is just tossed out as a "Hey, look at this!" for feedback rather than a serious proposal. If there's interest, then discussion could be moved to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology page. As well, the Google Maps API has been available for a couple years, so perhaps there have been other Wiki discussions about this sort of thing (like if it's even a good idea). AndroidCat 00:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, there is a rather complex Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates that I'll take a look at. AndroidCat 00:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Larry Gluck

Hi, here's one for you: User:Tataburundanga is continually reverting the Lawrence Jerrold Gluck‎ article, whitewashing it so there's no mention of Scientology whatsoever. I'm not sure whether to keep edit-warring on it or let someone else take a crack at it. Want to have a look? wikipediatrix 16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

cited you as example

Hello AndroidCat, to sum up recent events in a couple of links: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS and now there's: User talk:Coelacan#COFS and CSI LA where I cited as an example your discussion with COFS regarding the Sunday Times article on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard. Anynobody 06:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

When Scholars Know Sin

Damn, I was hoping I would not have to read that - that is really dense prose and that baby crap background . . . Thanks a lot! --Justanother 00:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

RVY book

I only removed that because I found it on Amazon [2] and he is not listed as an author. I could have put the ISBN but I was taking it out as I thought it was an error. I should have tagged it instead. --Justanother 18:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

RTC

Hi. You reverted my edit. Why do you need two indexes/templates on an article which is not even half a page long? COFS 21:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

4RR

Hi. You are 4RR on the XenuTV link. Pls. self-revert. Also you are going against the talk page discussion. This is not like you, AndroidCat. --Justanother 22:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Afraid not. Check again. As for going against the Talk page, you are going against an established RFC. AndroidCat 22:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The 24 hour time frame is not hard and fast, you are not supposed to game the 24 hours. It is moot now but I would wager that if I put it up now you would see a warning against edit-warring and 3RR. --Justanother 22:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I bow to your experience at gaming the rules, however I have no previous history of being close to the edge and have no intention of making a habit of it. Would you like a side-bet on the edit-warring warning if our records are compared..? AndroidCat 22:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I already checked your block log, that is why I said that you would get off with a warning. If I were the sort, I would put you up so you get the warning and next time the block but you don't deserve that treatment. --Justanother 22:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. AndroidCat 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What is it with the one-word "whatever" replies lately? Tilman did it just the other day, and it was also a favorite snappy comeback of Smee's. wikipediatrix 22:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We all took the same TR-W course. AndroidCat 22:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because a few editors decided something among themselves awhile back doesn't mean the matter is permanently laid to rest forevermore. No one in the RfC bothered to note what I am noting, which is that the "but the credits say online permission is granted" argument was superceded by Brett's revocation of that permission. The xenutv link you're trying to push even acknowledges this. The film is easily obtainable all over the web to anyone who does a Google search anyway, so why is it so important to you that Wikipedia take part in xenutv's flouting of the law and of Brett's wishes? wikipediatrix 22:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Check again. This was discussed. AndroidCat 22:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm discussing it some more. wikipediatrix 22:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Of possible interest

You may want to look at this: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientology_Justice--Fahrenheit451 21:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Reeve

Was a Reeve a scientologist? Because a reference^[2] from a list of former scientologists it appears you added him to, leads to an article saying he hates scientology. Also coincidentally the list's headline is a link to the category article for Former Scientologists, Reeve is not on that list. Any light you could share on the matter would be much appreciated, cheers. Ryan4314 20:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As a side note there is also no mention of Scientology on Reeve's article neither? Ryan4314 20:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you add one? AndroidCat 05:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

'cause he would be toasted and you know that. Reeves has never been a Scientologist but farted around in the media that he never wants to be one. From his description he never even read a basic Scientology or Dianetics book. Repeats what he "heard" or got told. He spent a visit or two and then got run over by the usual crap. Too bad, Scientology could have helped him. Misou 18:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There are good references that he was taking courses and auditing. That means that he signed a services contract, which is about the only "proof of membership" short of joining IAS there is in Scientology. If CoS would produce a verifiable definition of "Scientologist" rather than Heber's BS about "people who taken a course or have read Dianetics", then this wouldn't be a problem. Of course, the claimed 10 million number would implode. Not that that's a bad thing. AndroidCat 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Misou's 3RR

Thanks for adding the additional reverts to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I felt uncomfortable having them under my name only, so i added your name to the heading. I hope you don't mind. Foobaz·o< 20:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have done that. AndroidCat 20:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

MedCab request involving you

Let's cool down

Hi AndroidCat. We started this unlucky day with some useless back and forth on the Scientology article. Sorry if I went overboard on commenting your edits. How about stepping back a bit and give it another try? Shutterbug 06:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Finance Series

For obvious reasons here. Your Q on the LRH talk page: "The 12-point list is HCO Policy Letter of 9 March 1972 Issue I "Finance Series 11 - Income Flows and Pools - Principles of Money Management". ("Understand money flow lines not only in an org but org to org as customers flow upward.") Is there some kind of tag that separates the religious HCOPLs from the secular ones? AndroidCat 12:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC). Yes, the "Management Series" (abbreviated "MS", containing Computer Series, Finance Series, PR Series and some other, in three volumes) have secular content, as well as the OEC Series (though trimmed for use in Scientology organizations which the MS are not). Purely religious content is in the red and blue volumes and the Scientology books and lectures (currently part of the "The Basics", see bpi.goldenageofknowledge.net). Hubbard administrative technology does have some philosophical nuances but that is no different to other other management systems. The management tech is also used for the organization of Churches of Scientology which makes this "tech" part of the CoS' existence. If you are coming from a copyright angle, well, IANAL, so I actually don't know if there is a legal tag here. Organizationally though the above is the difference. Shutterbug 16:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, there is no clear distinction as it is all based on Hubbard's research into the human spirit and condition. Green on white is 3rd dynamic tech as red on white is 1st dynamic tech. There is overlap when you get into things like debug tech, FDS, ethics, etc. If by "secular" we mean "not related to the human spirit" then, IMO, there is little secular in the HCOPLs, how to run a mimeo machine would probably qualify as secular. That is my general idea, I am a bit unclear on what the specific issue is here and in the article. --Justanother 19:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

AndroidCat asks for some "handle" to use to distinguish religious from secular tech. Well, taking Secularity by definition the use of Admin tech (Green on White) is secular, even though it is used to achieve religious purposes. Making money is very much secular, setting up a finance system which prevents you from going broke is secular (worldly) for sure, no matter if that affects your private finances, a Church of Scientology or a company. Shutterbug 02:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And my point is that I doubt that LRH made that artificial distinction; it was all of a whole. I mean what specific thing in the article were you addressing? I think that can be sorted out without trying to overcatagorize Scientology. --Justanother 02:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible deal

Hi AC. I just made an offer on Talk:Barbara Schwarz‎ which could take me out of Project Scientology. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Steve Dufour 07:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) I don't edit that article. (2) Your "offer" sounds like some sort of blackmail. (3) Does this mean that your edits of Project Scientology articles are done as bad faith trolling, a stick to get what you want in Barbara Schwarz‎? If so, I think that "taking you out of Project Scientology" can be accomplished by administrative channels. AndroidCat 08:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason I got involved in Scientology articles here was because Barbara asked me to get rid of her article, which she feels is attacking her. However the edits I have made to the other Scientology related articles has been in the interest of improving them. Even if you have no interest in Barbara, other Scientology critics do under the mistaken impression that somehow attacking her makes Scientology look bad (she is an ex-Cos member). I think the cause of anti-Scientology would be advanced if her article did not have the character of a personal attack. That is all I am asking for. Steve Dufour 08:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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 06:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Frances Farmer

Hi, AndroidCat! I don't edit here much anymore (a long and twisted tale, LOL), but I saw your response to User:Parkwells statement about "Shedding Light" not being sourced. I agree with you completely--"Shedding" is exhaustively sourced, one of the few really sourced references you can find on Farmer. I posted to Parkwells' talk page that his/her last two edits to the Farmer article are incorrect. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, so I'll leave it to him/her to hopefully make corrections/reverts. However, I am happy to provide you with a couple of the citations you need for the article. Go here to read about Dr. Jones and his denial of the lobotomy: http://www.skagitriverjournal.com/NearbyS-W/NSH/NSH1-Intro.html (Look on the sidebar at the right--you'll of course see it's somewhat incestuous in that that site's owner also quotes "Shedding Light," but he evidently knew Jones personally). The Edith Farmer Elliot citation needed is from her self-published book "Look Back in Love." If you Google her name and the book title you can get the ISBN. And the Graeme Clifford quote comes from the most recent DVD release of "Frances," which is the only one with a commentary--maybe you can get the info on Amazon. 75.164.223.219 23:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth (film)

I added lots of {{fact}} tags, we need to parse through current sources and demarcate precisely which sources/cites are used at the end of which sentence. You seem to be more familiar with the referencing on this article, feel like helping out? Cirt (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DianeticsTEoAS.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DianeticsTEoAS.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienTOMogy

You're right, the link should stay there, if anything that "dead links" template is cool - because it gives a link to the Internet Archives history. Any chance you know of any references to ScienTOMogy in secondary sources not already present in the article? Cirt (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

I don't think so, but I'll dredge my news db for anything I've missed. AndroidCat (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Cirt (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

Sources for a potential new article...?

Hello AndroidCat (talk · contribs), you are usually pretty good at finding sources, I am thinking of writing a new article about the book Hollywood Undercover, by Ian Halperin. Think you could compile a list of sources w/ links somewhere for me? Cirt (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

It's not so much that I'm good at compiling links, it's just that I got tired of fishing for references through Google. So I sucked down a copy every news article I could find the original source, and turned a local search engine on all the fish in that one barrel. Then when I do catch something, I record it in a database, tagged so that I can find it again. What's in FrontCite (monster TiddlyWiki HTML) is mostly everything except my growing backlog (thank you Mr's Morton and Cruise!). Ah, one bite:

• Scientology No Road To Oz, Says "Gay Actor". Queerty (2008-01-17). Retrieved on 2008-01-20. Tags: Hollywood Undercover, Ian Halperin, Jon Atack, Michael Pattinson, Quentin Hubbard, Robert Vaughn Young. AndroidCat (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. I've already found a few other sources, so I will go ahead and create the article soon, though it will be a little while. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Is this Queerty really a valid source for Wikipedia? Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
    • I haven't checked to see how established it is. Google News listed it, but that's not a ringing endorsement. I'm really not sure how well the sites it cites would be received by some editors. :) I hit another one while looking at something else:

• Weisblott, Marc (2008-01-16). Praying for Tom Cruise. Eye Weekly. Retrieved on 2008-01-20. AndroidCat (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, better... Cirt (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

• Widdicombe, Ben (2008-01-20). Scientologist elects to be bigoted. Gatecrasher. NY Daily News. Retrieved on 2008-01-22. Perhaps iffy. AndroidCat (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I found a new database to search for sources, so I should be able to find lots more stuff, but thank you for this, I'll check out the above stuff as well. Probably will get on creating this new article w/in a coupla days. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it ...

The sources can still be cited w/out the actual hyperlinks, per a suggestion from MER-C (talk · contribs) on WP:ANI. It's a good temp fix for now. Cirt (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DianeticsTEoAS.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DianeticsTEoAS.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.   jj137 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Pyroto

If you have a second, please see: Talk:Pyroto Mountain Maury (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Foundation for Religious Freedom

• Lattin, Don (2000-05-15). Travolta's Religious Battlefield: Critics say movie bolsters Scientology. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved on 2008-02-02.

"Gimme a break," replied Nancy O'Meara, a longtime Scientologist and treasurer of the Foundation for Religious Freedom, which seeks to counter the activities of the anti-cult movement. "That's like saying people are going to go see 'Gladiator' and then suddenly find themselves wanting to explore Christianity."

• Nancy O'Meara, treasurer of "Foundation for Religious Freedom" - and now she is the treasurer of the Cult Awareness Network. Do you know of more secondary sources that discuss this organization, Foundation for Religious Freedom ? Cirt (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Foundation for Religious Freedom is Cult Awareness Network#"New CAN". There should be a redirect for that. Just these two for it [3] Also see the new CAN site [4] AndroidCat (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Right, I knew about that part - then why do they purport to still have their own separate website [5] ? Cirt (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Domains are cheap, and the sites are on the same server. [6][7][8][9] Better search engine coverage? AndroidCat (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I see. Cirt (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientology membership

Thanks for the correction. In re reading my addition it did appear misleading as to the source. I have redone the sentance, and believe it accuratly demonstrates what was said in the interview.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought the cite could be salvaged, but wasn't comfortable the previous wording. AndroidCat (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicky

Just a little nitpicky thing I noticed - when you format your cites you seem to put the name of press/media work in the "publisher" field, when it should go in the "work" field, so it will get italicized. Also leave an option for another editor to later come in and add more info to the cite. Cirt (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We've already had part of this discussion. While changing the mapping from my database to the template fields is trivial, it's not clear that that is the correct usage, and there are problems with some unusual cases.

Originally, I intended to use cite news as my one-fits-all template, but at the time there were problems with date formatting—now fixed. In discussions, it seems that for cite news, at least, publisher is intended to be the publication name, and the field name is a legacy from templates such as for books where the publishing company is important. (I do make an exception for some weeklies because they are part of large chain with minor local differences between editions.) I'll test with cite news and switch back if everything is now fine.

I'm not sure what you mean by leave an option for another editor. Each field on a separate line? AndroidCat (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I still think I prefer the layout for cite web. AndroidCat (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You see, in your examples you just gave above, St. Petersburg Times should be in the "work" field, not the "publisher" field, and it should be italicized. Cirt (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to take this up on the template pages. I'm unwilling to remove the name of a series which won a Pulitzer, but there doesn't seem to be a field that can be used for holding it. (A kludge like stuffing it in with the title would be an abomination.) As well, there's no place to include the name of a column, indicate that an article is an editorial or opinion piece, or that it is a reprint from another paper or wire service (sometimes with edit changes from the original). AndroidCat (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, easy fix. Just add the page of the article's first appearance in the paper, with a colon, and then the name of the series. Cirt (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

spam?

I got the impression that Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/xenu.net, who mentions me because I originally posted that link in Scientology and psychiatry, meant per se a policy. But it seems I was mistaken. :) Cesar Tort 15:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like someone is unleashing yet another kludgy bot on Wiki without bothering to justify it through existing rules and processes. For instance, who decided (and where) that xenu.net was any kind of spam link? Who nominated it, was there any kind of discussion process and what is the appeal process? (And then they act surprised when a mob of wikipedians arrives on their doorstep with pitchforks and torches... Like the last time someone summarily removed a "spam link" from featured articles.) AndroidCat (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

stop messing with my page

I could have your account deleted from here with one phonecall you know. Just back off, trust me it is simply not worth it.David M RTC (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

One word and it's Long Cat battlegroups and troop transports on your head. AndroidCat (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing tags

Are you trying to send me a pointed message to leave notes on talk pages when I tag articles with obvious problems? If so, I got the message - when I tag articles in the future, I'll leave a note on the talk page, though in the last 2 cases I would have thought it was blatantly obvious. Cirt (talk) 10:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In the future, I would appreciate it if you could WP:AGF - especially if the article tagged cites zero sources. Cirt (talk) 10:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Citizens for Social Reform

An editor has nominated Citizens for Social Reform, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizens for Social Reform and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)