User talk:GoodDamon/Archives/2007/November

New COTW
Hello again from WikiProject Oregon. A round of applause for the project in October when we added three GAs, one FA, plus 10 DYKs! Next, thanks to all those who participated in last week’s Collaboration of the Week, John Wesley Davis & Johnny Kitzmiller. This week we have the Cayuse War, and in honor of the home opener, the Portland Trail Blazers. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies 18:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007: Bejamin Franklin incident
My friend was actually being stupid and edited the article when i was in the washroom. I already know about the sandbox and Im sorry your the incident. Annoyomous24 00:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Maybe lock the computer next time? ;) --GoodDamon 00:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

POV Error?
I don't mean to come off as a hypocrite posting here, but for discussions of editor behavior the user talk page is the place. That said, I think you've misunderstood my efforts. I have never said "positive" sounding stuff about Hubbard should be excluded, and whats more the version you say is mine, isn't. This one is, mine. Anynobody 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I accidentally referenced the main page version. That was my mistake. Sorry about that.
 * If I'm misunderstanding your efforts, then please clarify them. There are two issues here. The first is that I see no specific need for tight chronological order in a section about Hubbard's personality, since such a section will necessarily cover a wide swath of the man's life. The second is where I may be misunderstanding you. You seemed, to me at least, to be indicating that I cherry-picked positive things about Hubbard and had to stretch to find them. It's true that I had to stretch to find the Ketchikan article itself, but once I found it, the positive things it says about Hubbard are right there. The article itself is roughly balanced between positives and negatives, so I pulled a little of both from it. In all, my current version is very negative towards Hubbard, because that's what the balance of reliable sources indicates, but that doesn't mean I had to struggle particularly to find positive things to say.
 * In any event, I'm sorry if I've been missing your point. --GoodDamon 14:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity, I have no problem with including the Ketchikan article, and the stretch I was talking about was the 20 year gap between a source calling him sociable and the other calling him a charmer. But I'll expand more about that on the talk page.

I'm actually posting here to address your concern about my being driven by making the article as "negative" as possible. I dislike the positive/negative talk because its so skewed between what normal people and Scientologists define them as. An excellent example appears in the Ketchikan article where it discusses his debt to a local bank. In reality, Hubbard isn't the first or last person to default on a bank loan, and it's not really that negative. To Scientologists, since it's not positive, pointing it out would be smearing him. I think it's interesting that the founder of a religion had bad credit just like many other people, and the author must've agreed because it was in the article.


 * No argument there... Please do note that my version is weighted towards the negative views on Hubbard, because those are the most prevalent. --GoodDamon 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting off the Ketchikan article, NPOV means including ALL relevant information regardless of how it will be perceived by Scientologists (or the extreme anti-Cos factions). Therefore striking a balance by taking equal numbers of "positive" and "negative" facts from a hypothetical source is actually violating NPOV by leaving out the excess pos/neg facts unmentioned. I'm not saying this because I dislike Scientology or Hubbard, but because it's just the way we're supposed to edit articles. (In this case, editors who include all relevant sources on Hubbard are going to be perceived as being anti-Hubbard by Scientologists.) Anynobody 22:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If we include "ALL" relevant information, we're writing a book. Take a look at the length of article... It's already 78K long. The Isaac Asimov article is only 69K, and he's a much more notable and respected author, a much more legitimate humanitarian, a scientist, a philosopher, etc.... Try to take a step back, and ask yourself whether every single negative detail about Hubbard you find needs to go in there. I left out more positive details from the Ketchikan story, for instance, because the article didn't need every single instance of him being affable or charming to support the assertion that he was affable and charming. It doesn't take every single instance of Hubbard being a criminal, delusional, mean-spirited, short-tempered, sadistic, or a liar to support the assertion that he was...well...all of the above. ;) We're talking about an overview of his personality in an encyclopedia, not a whole new book about Hubbard. We need examples, not every single incident. --GoodDamon 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that it's not about positive or negative details but what we can source. As to size, that is a concern which is addressed by summary style. If the personality (or any other section) gets too big it can be spun off into its own article as part of the L Ron Hubbard series. Like L. Ron Hubbard and the military. Size isn't a concern, it just means reorganization. Anynobody 00:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WPOR's newest COTW
Thank you to all those editors who helped improve Cayuse War and Portland Trail Blazers last week as part of the Collaboration of the Week. They are looking much better. This week, with the election season over, we’ll tackle a request for Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004), which should have plenty of WP:RS available to work with on improvement. Our other article is another Stub in the High category, our only Miss America, Katie Harman. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Legal disclaimer: WikiProject Oregon and its affiliates are not liable for any personal injuries acquired while editing on the COTW including but not limited to carpel tunnel syndrome, Wikistress, alcoholism, anxiety attacks, or extreme emotional distress. Aboutmovies 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

New signature.
This is my new signature: -- Good Damon 18:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yay! -- Good Damon 18:26, 13 November 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 06:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I bonking you?
I noticed someone had removed most of the quotation type stuff from L. Ron Hubbard and have been in the process of restoring them when you posted the bonking notice. Is there any connection?

I like your new sig by the way. Anynobody 06:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In part, yes. I realized I was getting too invested in that argument, and after that realization I just couldn't bring myself to focus on any of the articles I normally watch. But don't blame yourself for that, it's mostly my own doing. I've just got too much going on. As for the quotation type stuff, I removed some of it after I realized the quotes could be integrated into the paragraphs about Hubbard rather than being made to stand alone. Maybe it's just the writer in me, but I thought that worked better stylistically.


 * And I'm glad you like the sig. :) -- Good Damon 16:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand your point about integration, generally that's the best way to do things. However Hubbard's article is, well special, and prone to POV misunderstandings. To minimize this, including long quotations by and about Hubbard has done some good. The problem is that they get to be so numerous that the paragraph can become dominated by them. At that point a template seems to be most appropriate.

Would that be a good compromise, including special formatting for longer quotes only? Anynobody 20:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oregon COTW version 11.20
Welcome to the jungle folks. Thanks to those who helped out with Katie Harman and Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004) last week. This week, we have two high priority stubs, one of the two major hospitals in Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center, and Oregon Department of Education. Enjoy your turkeys, or for some enjoy your tofurkeys. As always, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WPORE Civil War COTW
Hello again to WikiProject Oregon members, time for this week’s Collaboration of the Week. Thank you to those who helped out improving Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center and Oregon Department of Education last week. This week, in honor of the annual Civil War, we have the University of Oregon Ducks and the Oregon State University Beavers. Or if you attended some other school, feel free to improve your alma mater’s article. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize
Please accept my apologies. Indeed, it is my first week in Wikipedia. I knew about the existence of the sandboxes, but for no avail: I need to organize my own user, and obviously, I have to read the tutorials. I tried to do the same kind of thing with the article about Salvador Dali (that is: take a piece of text... and put it in its place again =:-o). It seems to me, after several checks, that the article has not been damaged; at least, it's my hope, and I see fit to say it to you. I have visited your user: it seems very helpful. By the way, I don't know exactly what a bot is -- I promise I should read the tutorials in two weeks. I don't like to be in an Eternal September more than that.

Ariel Gerondi Ariel Gerondi (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

YO
Nice New siggy!!!Jefferson Schmit (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhh, thanks? -- Good Damon 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)