Talk:Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia/Archive 1

Foreign Policy article
Good NPOV article, Cirt. I remember at the time there was this critical comment from Evgeny Morozov in Foreign Policy:. I don't entirely agree with what he says, and history does not seem to have borne him out so far, but he still raises some worthwhile points which would make a good addition to the Analysis section. Perhaps you might want to look at incorporating his key arguments; if not I'll have a go in a few days' time. Cheers, -- JN 466  03:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for stating the article is good and NPOV. Okay, I will add that in to the Analysis subsection soon. -- Cirt (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, . -- Cirt (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Bolded title format
Regarding, let us please keep the same bolded title formatting in use for all other articles within the topic of WikiProject Scientlogy. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

COI tag added by user Weaponbb7
As the article itself is of a satisfactory high-level of quality, as per comments from multiple different editors (User:Jayen466, above, and others at the AFD) - the tag should be removed. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) COI tag added by user Weaponbb7 = no explanation has been given to the tag on the talk page.
 * 2) I was indeed a party to the arbitration case, Scientology. The Arbitration Committee concluded: "From careful examination of the submitted evidence, the committee concludes that, since his request for adminship in September 2008, Cirt does not appear to have deliberately misused administrative tools."
 * 3) The article utilizes 100% secondary sources, and has received much praise from a vast majority of "Keep" comments at the AFD.
 * 4) Above, on this talk page, commented, "Good NPOV article, Cirt.".
 * 5) The tag is not designed to remain indefinitely on an article, rather, its placement is intended to bring the article to the attention of other editors, so they can review it. The article has already received a great deal of attention at the AFD.
 * Update: Tag has been removed by . -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Image alignment
Thanks to the various users for the formatting changes to the image display for the first image on the page. As far as placement, the image should appear directly to the right of the first paragraph of text in the intro/lede subsection. -- Cirt (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional sources
Will continue to do some further research in order to find additional sources to add to the article. If other editors have recommendations for additional independent and reliable secondary sources on this subject matter to use to add to the article, those suggestions would be most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

GA article
This article had a GA Review, and was successfully upgraded in quality to WP:GA status. The review is at Talk:Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia/GA1. -- Cirt (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Title
Shouldn't the title of this article be Church of Scientology editing of Wikipedia? One doesn't edit "on" a publication, one edits the publication itself. Thoughts? – ukexpat (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, article should remain as currently named, as it deals with the activities of the controversial organization on the website itself. -- Cirt (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support; makes grammatical sense to me. Kansan (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, no objections to this move, is correct that it is grammatically a good idea. -- Cirt (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone wishes it, they can post a request to WP:REQMOVE. An admin will have to delete the redirect in order to move the page successfully. -- Cirt (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I agree that "of" does make grammatical senseCoffeepusher (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Lede / intro
= this is inappropriate. Per WP:LEAD, the lede/intro should not have more than four (4) paragraphs. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wondering
I've been on Wikipedia for years, and never knew it was willing to ban whole religions and all their critics. The great meaning of this article should mean nearly everyone who reads would comment on it, but there are no comments. Not a lot of people found this page, and I think we all know why. I'll be adding links to this page where appropriate, if no one objects. 173.183.66.173 (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggestion for a reliable and verifiable secondary source? -- Cirt (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531112558/http://news.smh.com.au:80/breaking-news-technology/wikipedia-blocks-scientology-from-altering-entries-20090530-bqy8.html to http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/wikipedia-blocks-scientology-from-altering-entries-20090530-bqy8.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613141422/http://kuow.org/program.php?id=17662 to http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=17662
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100628101427/http://www.kuow.org/mp3high/mp3/Conversation/Conversation20090601.mp3 to http://www.kuow.org/mp3high/mp3/Conversation/Conversation20090601.mp3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613141422/http://kuow.org/program.php?id=17662 to http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=17662

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721185622/http://www.barimia.info/modules/article/view.article.php?18549 to http://www.barimia.info/modules/article/view.article.php?18549
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102150343/http://www.lastampa.it/_web/CMSTP/tmplrubriche/giornalisti/grubrica.asp?ID_blog=196&ID_articolo=420&ID_sezione=&sezione= to http://www.lastampa.it/_web/CMSTP/tmplrubriche/giornalisti/grubrica.asp?ID_blog=196&ID_articolo=420&ID_sezione=&sezione=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110413052408/http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/29/why_wikipedia_was_wrong_to_ban_scientology to http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/29/why_wikipedia_was_wrong_to_ban_scientology

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Could this article pass an FA nomination?
I believe this article is of FA-level quality now. Since I am not a frequent editor of this page, I am not nominating it immediately. Invalid OS (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the page at least needs a serious copyedit. Many paragraphs are of the form "[Publication] reported [event], saying [quote]", which is unnecessary when we could just describe the event. Sam Walton (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)