User talk:GoodDamon/Archives/2008/August

Thanks
Thnks for revert my user page. :) Caiaffa (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me, too. Looks like we have a problem user with Siwel Ziva. Grutness...wha?  07:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(Church of) Scientology
>I think you're looking for Church of Scientology. That article is about the organization. This one primarily covers the belief systems. --GoodDamon 01:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Tagging user pages for CSD
Hye man, wTF is you're problem with deleting all my tags, many of these articles ARE patent nonsense --Siwel Ziva (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhh, you tagged a whole bunch of user pages. Stop tagging. Now. Take a chill pill. If you're not a vandal, try taking a closer look at what you're tagging, or you'll find yourself banned. -- Good Damon 07:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientology as a CULT
First, no apology needed for your edits, any education on this process is welcome. The debate over Scientology has launched me into some territory I find rather invigorating academically, the first question of which I will pose to you now.

If it is true that a member of the CoS cannot be a source for Wiki content, as it would be considered bias, then it follows, does it not, that a self proclaimed member of the Christian church, such as Alister McGrath PhD (hailed as Britain's foremost evangelical theologian) cannot contribute to the section on Christianity?

You seem to be inundated with redundant questions in this category, so please forgive me if I represent a "cut and paste" inquiry but inasmuch as the debate roars on, I am still a bit unclear on this point.

As you may have guessed, I have been looking into the accolades of the authors of what appears to be the majority of material on various religions, and the vast majority does in fact, seem to come from authors who are themselves, or are related to publishing firms who are affiliated directly to the belief systems themselves.

Also, it is I who owe you an apology for absolutely missing the sections on Auditing and the triangles and so forth. It was simply an oversight - I didn't realize how long the page was to be honest.

Having seen the various sections though, I do have a new respect for the article overall, not that you need my vote for anything. It remains, however, a burning question as to why the controversies of Scientology are so centralized in the article, and not so with regard to other religious articles.

I still find it difficult not to read it as an attempt to centralize the controversy as opposed to the definition.

Thank you for your time. Please don't bother too much with cut-and-paste answers - you have better things to do I'm sure than to forge a newcomers education. But the questions herein I would appreciate a response to.

Thank you again. Gr8dna 11:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)gr8dna (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. A quick note on mechanics before I begin... Above, you're using 3 carriage-returns, when just two (which would produce a single blank line between paragraphs) is plenty.
 * Anyway, on to the meat of your question... A common misconception about Wikipedia rules is that they prohibit Scientologists from editing the Scientology articles. The truth of the matter is that while Scientologists have a built-in conflict of interest on those pages, a conflict of interest doesn't preclude editing in the area that conflict exists in, so long as it doesn't become a problem. Scientologists are free to edit in the Scientology articles just as much as Christians are free to edit in articles related to Christianity... but they must adhere -- and in many ways more strictly -- to the same restrictions as people who are not members of those religions. They must edit from a neutral point of view, they must use verifiable, reliable sources, and they must not let their pre-existing conflict of interest interfere with the article.
 * Now, as to what can be used as source information for citations and references, that's a different matter. Church-published material, and material published on behalf of the church, doesn't pass muster as reliable per Wikipedia's definition on most (but not all) topics. We can reproduce what the church says about itself; for instance, if we have a paragraph that reads, "The Church of Scientology says it is an organization devoted to blah blah blah," we can source that to church-published material under some circumstances, although such citations should immediately be replaced with non-church documentation when available. But what we can't do is make a statement of fact, such as "Dianetics really does cure mental illness," and source that to a church-owned publication.
 * This leads us to one of the trouble areas for Scientologists editing in Wikipedia. Avoiding church-published material and relying on peer-reviewed academic journals and news outlets -- in other words, reliable sources of information -- can be exceedingly difficult for Scientologists when those sources are so overwhelmingly negative. They paint a picture of an abusive and litigious organization that eventually reveals itself to be a UFO cult at its higher levels. Obviously, Scientologists themselves disagree with that characterization, but it is indisputable that this is the characterization that emerges from court documents, news, and academic studies.
 * So this is also the view that emerges in Wikipedia. Neutral POV means we have to state, without opinion, the information that we glean from news and academic journals, but it doesn't mean that the majority negative view needs to give equal time to the extreme minority positive view. To be blunt, the positive view of Scientology is a fringe view, while the negative one is mainstream. It would be granting undue weight to the fringe view if we gave it equal time.
 * And that brings us to the other trouble area for Scientologists on Wikipedia. The controversies -- litigation, celebrity recruitment, Fair Game, Disconnection, the RPF and other abuses towards members, internet censorship, Xenu, animosity towards psychiatry, and so on -- are the most notable things about Scientology, at least insofar as the rules on Wikipedia are concerned. When you take those away, you're left with a very tiny religion -- about 50,000 members in the United States. That's not to say the religion isn't notable in its own right, but that notability is far outweighed by how noteworthy the mainstream media and academia have found the church's controversial behavior to be. The Scientology article is an overview of the religion and the organizations that promote it, and as such, much of the material near the beginning will be of the variety found to be most notable, the controversial aspects of the faith.
 * Now the good news: There are articles devoted to specific aspects of Scientology, such as Scientology beliefs and practices, which provides more of the information you're looking for. These are articles that are narrow in scope and designed specifically to encompass large subtopics of the parent Scientology document. Breaking up articles in this way is called summary style, which is part of the Wikipedia manual of style, and it's a way to prevent an article from growing too large.
 * So I hope this all answers your questions. I really feel like I should take this and a few other things I've written on the topic, and make an essay, since we get so many questions like this so often. -- Good Damon 19:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy tagging after 3 minutes
I'm curious what persuaded you to speedy tag an article 3 minutes after it was created and while it was still being edited.--Rockfang (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh. That's really kind of weird, actually. I have no idea what I was thinking. I must have been tired that day or something. Looking back on it, it makes no sense. Sorry about that. -- Good Damon 05:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed, only have 5 Minutes of publishing - Still editing.
Hello, I think you might have accidently tagged my biography on our client. Lauren Falenski, of Express? She is the companys expert Fashion Buyer, and will be offically promoted to Vice President Fashion Buyer of Express on her birthday which is on the 14th of this month. This is extremely rare, especially for any Fashion Industry Company. She has made headlines in World Fashion 101 magazine, Forbes, XXL, Maxim, and several in state newspapers. Please get back to me, as this is holding a monkey wrench in my work today. Thank you. Ky.ross (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhh, no. Any article that has "is an all around badass and an aspiring fashion buyer" in it is probably not encyclopedic. This is an encyclopedia, not a personal website host. Try writing the article first, making sure to remove all cruft like that, and locate reliable, verifiable news articles to cite about Ms. Falenski. You might want to look at other biographies of living persons on Wikipedia before posting what's essentially a spam page. -- Good Damon 19:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your recent edits and moderation on The Obama Nation. You've definitely helped keep things cool and balanced. Without you, hotheads like me would dominate the talk page, and possibly ruin the article. Thanks. Wikilost (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! It's nice to be appreciated for that, and frankly kind of rare. -- Good Damon 05:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

1 Year of the Collaboration of the Week
Hello again to those of WikiProject Oregon. It is time again for another Collaboration of the Week. The last two weeks were a Stub Improvement Drive, and thank you to those who improved any Stubs.

This week marks the one week anniversary of the COTW, so a brief highlight reel: And now on with our countdown. This week we have two requests, the Willamette Meteorite and Tom McCall. Hopefully we can get both to GA quality. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Thank you. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At least 10 DYKs
 * Three articles passed GA after being listed at COTW
 * Probably around 25 articles started
 * Almost all Top importance articles are now better than Stub class

Hey, good work on the Obama rewrite
I had removed a couple of passages about Corsi that weren't about the book, and put them on the talk page. I see they were still in your rewrite, and I assume that's just a kind of editing conflict, so I removed them again. I'm all for adding them back if we can put them in context, and they're on the talk page. Overall your rewrite looks very good. Thanks for doing that! -- Noroton (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Very welcome! It was a bit of a pain to get it done, because every time I'd try to save it, someone else had made some niggling little change or edit-warred over a particular blog entry. -- Good Damon 19:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, that was probably -- me! At least some of the time. Would you address my comment at the talk page here and here (comment in either spot would be fine). My point is that WP:RS specifically allows commentary from reliable-source opinion publications, including National Review Online (affiliated, obviously, with that magazine) and, I think, a widely known commentator like Hugh Hewitt (who publishes articles in respected magazines). Opinion about a book, even about its accuracy, is important. Even otherwise unreliable sites like Media Matters, if their opinions become prominent in the debate, have a role. And an article on a contentious book needs to cover some of the contentiousness. Please respond on the article talk page. You had posted underneath one of those comments, but it didn't address my points. Thanks! Noroton (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

On User talk:58.178.105.125
I'm sorry to say, but you violated WP:3RR on User talk:58.178.105.125. Please watch your edits next time. If a vandal persists, please report it on WP:RPP. Thanks and happy editing! E Wing (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhh? Wait, rolling back continued vandalism and reporting the IP address responsible qualifies as WP:3RR violations? Since when?!? -- Good Damon 05:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but please disregard this message. I've just cleared with certain editors on the WP:IRC. Looks like I misread the article. Thanks and happy editing! E Wing (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on The Obama Nation
I've been trying to learn by watching experienced editors. Thanks so much for your work. ... By the way, in the External links why don't you put the excerpts closer to the top of the list? --Ohaohashingo (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I considered it, and it's really just a style choice. They could go at the top or bottom, it doesn't matter to me. Feel free to rearrange them. In fact, I was kind of hoping someone would go to the trouble of arranging them thematically, or in some other way that makes sense, because right now it's just a list. -- Good Damon 06:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm sorry I was unclear. I welcome debate on fiction/non-fiction. That is not what I'm talking about. I was asking that a definitive comment that the impugning of my motives instead of commenting on my edits be leveled. (I don't think it will be a problem to get re added after protection expires as I have already spoken with the editor who removed the edit). Thanks for your time.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, misunderstood. Yeah, impugning your motives was uncalled for and rather rude. I'm afraid tensions will simply run high on articles like that one. -- Good Damon 03:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits to User_talk:OrangeMarlin
Careful before you revert stuff like that as vandalism - its a joke, in keeping with the thread there and at User_talk:MastCell. Avruch  T 03:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh, sorry. Looked like random vandalism to me. Please do go on. :) -- Good Damon 03:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to your last comment on the content question at Talk:Barack Obama
Here. -- Noroton (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Jim N E Cricket, its another Oregon Collaboration of the Week
Greetings WikiProject Oregon folks, it is time for another edition of the Collaboration of the Week! A big thanks to those who helped out in improving Tom McCall and the Willamette Meteorite last week. This week we have a request for Mr. Greg Oden who has been back in the news as of late, so hopefully we can get him up to B class before training camp starts. Then we have a Hospital red link drive with plenty of opportunity for DYKs! As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Bu bye. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You are mentioned in an Obama incident report
HereTalk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents - courtesy notice. - Wikidemo (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)