User talk:Childnicotine

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Jesus in Scientology
Okay, will add it to that template. Please stop adding the image of Tom Cruise to the article though, at least until/when there is potentially more significant relevant discussion in the article. Cirt (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. The article is large enough to support a picture of Jesus (or his substitute) somewhere.Childnicotine (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-free content
Take a moment to read Non-free content, and please do not add images which are not free-use and for which a fair use rationale would not be acceptable into this article. Cirt (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability
"'Man is basically good but he could not attain expression of this until now. Nobody but the individual could die for his own sins -- to arrange things otherwise was to keep man in chains.'"
 * Can you please provide more information for this citation, so as to satisfy WP:V, other than just - "What is Scientology?" (1992) ? That alone is not really enough for someone else to come along and verify that info if they wanted to.  Cirt (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a better cite with more cite info. Cirt (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "What is Scientology?" is definitely a book that exists and, moreover, was published by the Church of Scientology. I've seen it and browsed it in a public library.Childnicotine (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you need to provide more than just the title and year. How about page number for that quote?  It's a moot point at this point, because I added a verfiable cite that cites that same quote.  Cirt (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Christian Science
Why did you remove this info? It is directly relevant to a contrast between 2 confused groups. Cirt (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll always remove it. That group has no relevance to Scientology or the subject matter of 'Jesus in Scientology' any more than Social scientists do.Childnicotine (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It has direct relevance. The Christian Scientists are directly commenting on how they are different from Scientology, by emphasizing their observance of the teachings of Jesus.  How is this not relevant?  Please restore this info to the article.  Cirt (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, never. That's for the article Jesus in Christian Science, if it ever exists.Childnicotine (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, we can leave this out for now and focus on other info, could always revisit and add it back in later. Cirt (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm yet to meet anyone who believes that Christian Science and Scientology have some common accomodation. The first came around decades before the other and has never applied the term 'Scientology' to anything it has ever said or done. Likewise, the latter has never applied the term 'Christian' to anything it has said or done. What's next? Do we need to then take responsibility for distinguishing Scientology from Scientific method and Scientific community and Islamic science. That's getting ridiculous.Childnicotine (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the very fact that this is addressed in at least the one secondary WP:RS/WP:V source that I have cited is notable. But I will wait to revisit this at a later point in time.  Cirt (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One of my areas of interest is comparative religious studies and my current field of research is New Thought which is the umbrella concept that encompasses (among others) Unity Church, Religious Science/Science of Mind, and (via a historical vector) Christian Science. While I do not yet have a WP:V/WP:RS for this, I have been advised by a few local CRS members that "United Church of Religious Science" (UCRS) has officially changed its name to "United Centers for Spiritual Living" (UCSL) supposedly at least in part because they keep getting asked "Are you related to Scientology?". I could see why Christian Scientists might also be asked this question, especially since they also are opposed to psychiatrists (and ALL types of doctors). In both of these cases the teachings are almost diametrically opposed (they have radically different concepts of how healing is accomplished) from Scientology even on the most surface level. Once a V/RS is found it seems appropriate to somehow provide a point of clarification in the main pages of each religion, perhaps under an "Affiliations" section. -- Low Sea (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, that is most helpful. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Help:Edit summary
It would be helpful for both of us to follow what each other is doing when editing if we utilized edit summaries. Cirt (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would really appreciate it if you used edit summaries. Also, why did you add Category:Scientology ? This is redundant to the other Scientology category, which is more specific.  Cirt (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not considered so in Scientology and sex and Scientology and marriage, both of which I checked beforehand.Childnicotine (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, my mistake, sorry about that. Cirt (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Montgomery article
Hi. I'm not trying to stop you from posting anything about Monty's possible pederastic tendencies. My point is that categories and "see also" links have to be supported by the article itself, so you need to write up a neutrally-worded, fact-oriented new section about the claims being made before you can add the links and cats. Please let me know if I'm not being clear, and I'll be glad to explain. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  07:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please also note that you are in danger of violating the 3 revert rule. Thanks. Leithp 07:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus as a "lover of boys"
You have placed Jesus in Scientology as a "See Also" link in in several pederast articles however, the Fishman Affidavit which alleges that Jesus was a pederast is disputed by the Church: "Jackson and Pattinson agree that the Fishman Affidavit does not accurately reflect the course the church presently offers." Moreover, "see also" links should be supported by the article itself which has yet to be done and under the circumstances I don't believe it could be done in a neutral manner supported by reliable sources.Mysteryquest (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I
This concerns you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  08:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Leave Ed alone! He's just a person like you or me! Oh the humanity! 128.208.53.45 (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not a number, I am a free man. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  08:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)