User talk:GoodDamon/Archives/2008/July

Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren
Just a heads up...I partially reverted your last rvv. Though I was initially suspicious of the edit, it appears that most of it was actually putting the numbers into agreement with the cited sources. I don't know where the other new numbers came from, so I left those in the reverted state. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Qrazy sale at COTW! Act now! Total liquidation!
Greetings WikiProject Oregon folks, time for another edition of the Collaboration of the Week! Last week we saw some good improvements made to Westside Express Service, while we also worked on a Coordinates Drive. I don’t know how many articles had the coordinates added to, but thanks to those who helped out. This week we have two more requests: William Clark of Lewis & Clark fame and the famed Oregon Bottle Bill. Hopefully we can work both up to B class. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Adios. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Food chemistry
Hi tehre the info taht I changed on Food Chemistry is FACTUALLY incorrect. It needs to be corrected. It is not possible to ferment anything with 'lactic acid'. Also the browning of apples is NOT an example of a Maillard reaction. Please advise how I may change such errors on Wikipedia without having these changes reverted. I am new to this so am looking for you help. Thanks so much

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drhoy (talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've researched both of your statements, and find them surprising. The oxidization that occurs on sliced apples does appear to be an example of a Maillard reaction, contrary to your assertion. And the article on Lactic acid fermentation would appear to contradict your other assertion. Furthermore, I can't assist you in adding new information to Wikipedia unless that information comes from a reliable source, and you properly cite that source. I hope these answers help. -- Good Damon 16:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to respond so Im trying here. I am a practicing chemist and want to help with the Wikipedia project. There are MANY errors in FACT and many wording errors that are misleading on the chemistry related pages on Wikipedia. I want to be a responsible Wikipedia contributor.

The corrections that I made to Food chemistry much improved the info on that page. The first one which relates to lactic acid - The text is just wrong, one CANNOT do what is said on the page instead one has to USE microorganisms in order to FORM lactic acid from the lactose that is present in milk. The second correct to the apple browning part - the browning of apples is an oxidation causes by enzymes that are exposed when the apple is cut open. It is NOT a Maillard reaction I corrected that error also. Maillard reactions involve a sugar and an amino acid as stated on the maillard reaction page on Wikipedia that is my reference to the erroneous statement presently on the page.

Actually the whole food chemistry page needs rewriting. It looks as though it was written by a person who is not a native english speaker. I will get to that once my corrections are not being reversed :)

Just realised that I can add further to my comment about the browning. I refer you to the page on enzymatic browning where it states that browning of apples in enzymic while it also states that the Maillard reaction is a NON-enzymic process. Thanks again :)

Please advise how we should proceed. Can I just make my changes again? Drhoy --Drhoy (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Responding here is fine, I'm always happy to assist new Wikipedia contributors. One of the things that newer members of the community often overlook is verifiability. It isn't enough for you to tell me you're a practicing chemist. That may be true, and I don't dispute it... but you didn't provide any evidence to back it up.


 * The same is true for the edits you made to Food chemistry. Let me give you an example of what I'm referring to when I talk about verifiability. Here's a statement of fact I selected at random, without any citations:
 * In Scottsdale, Arizona, Janet Winkler Rice, a schools secretary, was caught and imprisoned for embezzling money from a school account.
 * It sounds plausible, doesn't it? But how do you know it's true? You don't. I didn't provide any citations to notable newspapers or magazines that you could use to fact-check my statement. Maybe I'm making up Ms. Rice. Or maybe I'm defaming her for a crime she didn't commit. How do you know it's true? The only way for you to verify my statement at all is if I provide what Wikipedia calls a reliable source for my statement. In this case, my reliable source is The Arizona Republic, a newspaper. I can even provide a link to an online version of the article. There, now you can verify my statement for yourself. Verifiability is key.


 * The exceptions to this would be if there were a Wikipedia article already covering the details you would like to make available in this one. For example, you could replace the Maillard reaction article link with the Enzymatic browning one, and rephrase the sentence on Lactic acid to make clear that microorganisms are responsible for converting lactose. See what I'm doing there? Now, I've actually already made those changes after researching further, but you could continue to make changes like that in the article body.


 * So on the one hand, I have to say no, you can't just make the exact same changes again. But on the other hand, you could make changes in the manner I've proposed. I suggest reading WP:CITE for more information on references and citing. -- Good Damon 16:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just made another edit on food chemistry. Is this a better way to do it? --Drhoy (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference that I put on the page to acidulated water is a bit of overkill. Could I have made the change yet not included that on the page and then somehow add that reference to my comments for readers like yourself?

Another question - I dont think the acidulated water page is correctly named I think that it would be better named acidified water. How do I go abot proposing that change. It seems to be a more major change than my earlier edits Thanks again. --Drhoy (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done. That was an exemplary edit. I followed it up with an additional link to pertinent information on the Lemon page. As for Acidulated water, a quick glance at my chem references indicates both terms are used regularly. Personally, I prefer "acidified" myself, but you might want to propose the name change on the article's talk page. -- Good Damon 17:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Summer Time in the COTW
Hello again to those of the WikiProject Oregon Clan. Time for another new edition of Collaboration of the Week. Last week there was some good improvements to William Clark and the legendary Oregon Bottle Bill, great job to those who helped out. This week, by request is the Owyhee Reservoir, which is short enough to easily conjure up a DYK. Then, also by request is a red link elimination drive on Oregon newspapers. Feel free to help out with either. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Homo Sapiens Sapiens
There was nothing wrong wtih my edit, we're about 150,000 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.162.253 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The references in the article indicate otherwise, as does the main article on human evolution. I know 150,000 years was the old number, but that number's been updated by new evidence that pushes back the origins of humanity quite a bit. -- Good Damon 16:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Simmer the fuck down
Bullshit. You didn't let me finish. DO NOT assume everybody trying to edit the page is there to vandalize it. God damn! --Ragemanchoo (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You were systematically deleting the entire page, without saying anything about it in the edit summaries. That's the sort of behavior that's typical of vandals. Would you mind saying what you're doing and why it requires mass deletion from the article? -- Good Damon 06:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard foremost a 'Science' Fiction writer?
I oppose to the changes made in the Scientology article by OnBeyondZebrax. Talk:Scientology, see #5 L. Ron Hubbard: speculative fiction writer or science fiction writer. I made a response and give a link to information. You are invited to join. --Olberon (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

External links and edits
Dear Gooddamon, this is Taodeptus. Thanx for the welcome letter and infos, from which I can see that I will have to learn the rules of the editing game. I can not see though, why the external links and the pdf expertises have been removed, in both the wiki-articles on Dianetics and on Scientology. These studies come from reputable and published sources and are external viewpoints on the subject of Scientology. In the article on Dianetics, the subject of Scientology is not conveyed as separate and essentially different from Dianetics, which unlike Scientology, deals about structure. Therefore I added the external links and pdf studies to both articles, my intention being to provide the means for as many reader levels as possible to see what these subjects are about. To remove as many impediments to quick understanding as possible, I added quiet a few short definitions to undefined and technical words, such as theta, thetan and MEST, in the beginning of the article on Dianetics, but they were removed. I was dissapointed at the level of understanding shown on the subject, both in the article in general and in comments. For example, and i quote!, "Winter cites the example of a patient with a persistent headache supposedly tracing the problem to a doctor saying "Take him now" during the preclear's birth." This makes now sense to any reader, because in the example the "take him now" is not connected to severe pain in the head during birth and unconsciousness. Also, through the whole article, the reactive mind is clearly conveyed as an unconscious mind, which makes it very difficult for any level of reader to understand the article and the subject synopsis it should convey. A centerpin of the subject and its therapy is that the freudian unconscious doesnt exist and that any unconsciousness is suffered on the part of our analytical or so called conscious mind. A entirely different story. So i am still perplexed that such a simple subject isn't simply shown as it is.

I don't want to take up more of your time, so to end off, here are two examples of those studies which have been removed, so you can quickly understand what I mean by them:

Religious Toleration & Religious Diversity Bryan Wilson, Ph.D. Emeritus Fellow Oxford University Scientology: A Way of Spiritual Self-Identification by Michael A. Sivertsev, Expert Advisor on International Matters to the Committee of the Russian Federation

I will try and "sign" properly this time: 192.38.110.236 (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Like that, right?


 * Hello Taodeptus. I'll see if I can explain in detail the reasons for my reversions to your edits. First off, please don't take any of it personally; when I reverted you, it wasn't because I don't think you have valid contributions to make. It was simply because your edits violated several Wikipedia policies. I'll lay out what was wrong with each edit:
 * Your first edit introduced the concept that Hubbard "rediscovered" the system of beliefs that comprise Dianetics and Scientology. For all I know, they really did already exist and he rediscovered them, but there's no evidence. Nothing at all except Hubbard's word. In order to go into Wikipedia, information has to be verifiable -- meaning it's possible to check it ourselves -- and reliable -- which means it can't be self-published or published by the organization the article is about. The only sources that claim Hubbard "rediscovered" anything are published by the Church of Scientology, so can't be used. All other sources say Hubbard created it.
 * This edit also went into unneeded detail about Hubbard's idea of a so-called "reactive mind," which is already discussed in detail in the appropriate article, and linked to from the page.
 * Finally, this edit introduced a lot of jargon that only makes sense to Scientologists. Non-members and people otherwise inexperienced with Scientology can't read what you wrote and make any sense of it. "Symbolic sound codes" even confuses me, and I've been editing these pages for a while. I have no idea what you meant by it.
 * | Your second edit introduced far more jargon, and stated many things as fact that have no medical or scientific backing, without using any reliable, verifiable sources for references. I can't emphasize this enough: We cannot make this encyclopedia a clone of what the Church of Scientology says Scientology is. Imagine if we did that with everything... The Richard Nixon article wouldn't say anything at all about Watergate, just as an example. And imagine what the Communist party would do if they had free reign to edit the China article!
 * Your third edit was pretty minor, making adjustments to what you'd already written, but as you can see, none of what you'd already written belonged in an encyclopedia.
 * Your fourth edit was also minor, but it did add an unnecessary definition of MEST, which we already have an article for.
 * Your fifth edit was more of the same, and introduced the unmedical and unscientific notion of a "cellular memory trace." You are welcome to believe there is such a thing, but that is a religious belief, not founded in any science. Anything that is religious or otherwise belief-based must be identified as such in the article, and absolutely cannot be stated as fact, any more than I could go into the Evolution article and state as fact that "Jesus Christ did it."
 * I'm going to be blunt, and I really hope you don't take this the wrong way. You have a built-in conflict of interest when editing in these articles, because you're a Scientologist. That's not to denigrate Scientology or you in any way, but it is something you'll need to overcome if you want to edit here. To be honest, you'll need to develop a thick skin, and you'll need to develop a tolerance for "entheta" like none you've ever seen. You will have to accept things that you know with absolute certainty are wrong or twisted by critics of the Church of Scientology, because they come from reliable sources, and you'll have to get used to the idea that in Wikipedia, the Church of Scientology's statements contradicting the critics don't qualify as reliable.
 * You'll also need to learn which parts of your vocabulary are unintelligible to non-Scientologists. For instance, outside of Scientology there is no such thing as a "preclear." No one has ever been "enturbulated," "withhold" is a verb, not a noun, and "overt" is an adjective. A lot of the language you introduced to the article would quite simply make no sense at all to anyone outside your religion, and that's almost everyone.
 * Finally, you'll need to recognize and accept that Scientology is not well-regarded by non-members. On the outside, it is largely considered a cult.
 * None of this is to say you can't edit here. I wanted to emphasize that after all the bad news above. Just be aware that everyone else will scrutinize your edits, so you'll need to source them scrupulously. You would be best served, I think, acquiring some practice in other areas of Wikipedia. -- Good Damon 22:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Zebras are not allowed to participate at COTW, but penguins may
Howdy ya’ll, its WikiProject Oregon Collaboration of the Week time! Thanks to those who helped improve Owyhee Reservoir and start some new Oregon newspaper article, we had four new ones. This week it is time for a Stub Improvement Drive. So select a Stub, any Stub, and try to improve it to at least a Start class. If you expand it by 5X, then think about nominating it at Did You Know so it can be featured on the main page. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Dianetics image about weight loss cure
Hi GoodDamon,

I agree that should be kept, but it would be good if there was a reference... ISBN would do fine. Do you have one?

Cheers,


 * --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 08:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't, and even if I did, I don't think it should be kept, and certainly not in the lead. That book only mentions Dianetics peripherally if at all, and adding it to the WP:LEAD like that isn't good for the article. As I said in my second reversion, perhaps there should be a section on non-Scientologists using Dianetics. And this discussion really belongs on the Talk page. -- Good Damon 16:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Picking up the gauntlet
Taodeptus, I'm going to intersperse my comments between yours, so I can answer each point individually. It will also make it easier to read, because with the way Wikipedia rendered that text, it was very difficult to read. all of my answers will be below yours and indented.

Hello GoodDamon, this is Taodeptus. Thanx for your (unpersonal) comments, cause as a true rhino-man with a rondavel named after him, they were a good scrub in this drought. Let me briefly touch on them now and use them with my editing lateron.


 * You're welcome.

The point I hope to make here, is that I dont care what the CoS or any authority, critic, or anybody else SAY the subjects are, but that I do care they are presented as they are. One can't discuss, critisize, use or improve anything without having the actual thing first. Agree?


 * Surprisingly, no. As a writer and as a developer, I have to be able to conceptualize things that I don't have. For instance, I don't need to physically have a DIV tag to imagine how I might use one to, for instance, encapsulate a TEXTAREA field so I can resize the field however I need to. I'm a pretty imaginative guy, so I can learn from abstracts pretty easily.

That may or may not be feasible with (a system of) beliefs, but I swear by all the deamons I know, good and bad, that there is no belief in DN, and for what I know, none in SC either. I changed "patient" into "preclear", because DN and SC are definitely not for patients or people in such a condition. Also, the word Clear was mentioned in the article before and most readers who succeed in reading further than that will have had enough schooling to see the logic in pre+clear.


 * I'm not sure I understand you. Dianetics isn't a science as science is usually defined, and discusses unscientific ideas (such as "engrams"). It might be characterized as a component of a religion or as a series of philosophical and mental exercises, but you certainly believe in it, don't you? It's a matter of faith, the same as with any other religion. There's no scientific evidence for Buddhist reincarnation, or Taoist enlightenment, but devotees of both religions believe in them. As for "patient" and "preclear," the term is defined elsewhere in the series of articles on Dianetics and Scientology, in more logically appropriate places. Be careful that you're not duplicating things that are already there!

About Hubbard rediscovering: I meant that DN and SC are not new, but what is done with the data is new. Hubbard already writes in The Original Thesis pg 7: ”...almost any of its parts can be found somewhere in history.” That the discoveries have been around IS the evidence, right? So if ”all other sources say” he created it, don't they contradict themselves? (Be careful with ”all”, check for example some scholastic studies) This reminds me of an important reversion: I had included the latest publication of that book, because all former pubs (also most other DN and SC books) are incomplete, perverted and unreliable. Why was it reverted?


 * Well, that's the problem. Hubbard says this, but we can't use him as a reliable source. I really recommend reading that Wikipedia policy, by the way. It will help explain a lot of what I've been saying. The fact that Hubbard says they "can be found somewhere in history" doesn't make it true, at least not by Wikipedia policy. That's the kind of statement that has to be fact-checked by a news organization or by reputable scholarly reviews before it could be incorporated into an article. And Dianetics itself can't be used as a source for information about it, unless we're pulling a specific quote from the book. Per Reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources."

You were puzzled by ”symbolic sound codes”? Just sounds symbolizing MEST (matter, energy, space, time), i.e words. Necessary realization for understaning prenatal ”memory”, as the fetus doesnt generally speak english before birth, but afterwards, when he has learned some, he can ”unconsciously” decode the sounds (when similar perceptic keys are there), and get the pain in that ”memory”. DN is about pain, not about memory, you know.


 * And that's the kind of thing right there that non-Scientologists can't understand at all. I'll try to break it all down for you, and again, please don't take offense at this, because it's going to sound like I'm attacking your beliefs, when I'm really not.
 * I really was confused by "symbolic sound codes," and every non-Scientologist you meet would also be confused by it. It's an overly-complicated way to say "words." To us, it's similar to saying "rapid energetic oxidation accompanied by excessive heat" when you mean "fire."
 * There is no scientific basis for the belief that people can remember the sounds they heard before knowing how to speak, decode those sounds into words, and then be haunted by those sounds later in life. I'm not saying that it's impossible, just that there is no evidence for it. Believing in it is fine, but you must accept that to non-Scientologists, it very much appears to be a religious belief. It can't be proven true.

”Cellular memory trace”, a religious belief?! GoodDamon, give me a break, religion is about spirits, not cells.


 * Not necessarily. Religion would be about any series of beliefs or preconceived notions supported by faith. Are you familiar with cargo cults? These are third-world cults that develop around the belief that the devices and skills shown by Westerners are mystical.

My 5th edit should be unscientific and unmedical? Merriam Webster's definition of engram: a memory trace; specifically: a protoplasmic change in neural tissue hypothesized to account for the persistence of memory. International scientific lingo.


 * You're conflating Hubbard's definition of "engram" with the scientific definition. In scientific studies of neurology, an "engram" is a (quoting Merriam-Webster myself here) "a hypothetical change in neural tissue postulated in order to account for persistence of memory." One important distinction is that the neurosciences do not share Hubbard's belief that an engram could be wiped out, nor that they were any cause of misery. They're just the changes in brain tissue that happen when a memory is stored. Of engrams, Hubbard wrote, "It is a recording in the reactive mind of something which actually happened to an individual in the past and which contained pain and unconsciousness." However, the scientific understanding of engrams is that they're all memories, good, bad, and indifferent. They're just a way to describe how the brain records experiences.

But no bad vibs, allright. As to conflicts of interest: I am not a Scientologist, but a student of Scientology. Scientologist is a title I and many others will be mighty proud of one day. The more one gets to be one, the more pan-determined he can be, like a chess-master. It's a wise investment too, cause next lifetime I can start out early, like child prodigy Samuel Rzeschewski, problably pastlife Clear. Just trying you.


 * To non-members of your church, you are a Scientologist. Again, please don't take offense at that. It's just that from the outside, we don't make such distinctions. Those of us who have an interest in it understand that there are various levels of Scientology -- preclear, clear, Operating Thetan, and so on -- but even to us, you appear to be fully invested in your beliefs, making you a Scientologist... even if the ones you call Scientologists wouldn't call you one. Also, I have to point out that belief in past lives and future lives is a spiritual belief, further reducing the scientific credibility of Dianetics.

Prefinally: ”You will have to accept things that you know with absolute certainty are wrong or twisted by critics of the Church of Scientology” Does this mean, that should those things be found in a different light in analyses by reputed scholars in the fields of religion, social sciences, etc, such as Urbano A Galan, Doctor in Philosophy and Licenciate in Theology, at Gregorian University and Saint Bonaventure Pontifical Faculty Rome, or Michael A. Sivertsev, Expert Advisor on International Matters to the Committee of the Russian Federation, to name a few reputable sources, that light cannot shine in Wikipedia? You still didn't tell me why their external links and PDFs were removed.


 * Because they were links to a Church of Scientology-owned website. If instead those PDFs were hosted at universities or in peer-reviewed publications, they might be acceptable for certain things. For instance, Urbano A. Galan's paper argues that Scientology is a religion, and might be used to strengthen the argument that it is one. But it would need to be hosted at a non-Church website. And now that I've checked, Michael A. Sivertsev's work wouldn't be acceptable in any way. He works for and is a member of the Church of Scientology. The Church of Scientology can't be used as a source for the same reason you can't argue that the Bible is accurate with quotations from the Bible. It's circular logic.

Finally: ”you'll need to recognize and accept that Scientology is not well-regarded by non-members. On the outside, it is largely considered a cult.” As I said before, I am not interested in opinions but in actual viewpoints (results from having looked), such as presented in analytical studies of DN and SC. Don't you think these scholars should be referred to in Wikipedia?: James A. Beckford. Ph.D, Prof Sociology (Scientology, Social Science and the Definition of Religion), Per-Arne Berglie, Prof History and Religion (Scientology, Comparison with Religions of the East and West), Allan W Black, Associate Prof of Sociology (Is Scientology a Religion?), M Darrol Bryant Ph. D, Prof of Religion and Culture (Scientology, a New Religion), Régis Dericquebourg, Prof Sociology and Religion (Scientology), Frank K Flinn Ph.D, Associate Prof of Sociology (Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences), Harri Heino, Prof of Theology (Scientology, its True Nature), Dean M Kelley, Counsellor on Religious Liberty (Is Scientology a Religion?), Lonnie D Kliever, Dr. Phil, Prof Religious Studies (The Reliability of Apostate Testimony about New Religious Movements), G C Oosthuizen, Th.D, Prof (retired) Dept of Science and Religion (Religious Philosophy, Religion and Church), Geoffrey Parrinder, Ph. D, Prof Emeritus (The Religious Nature of Scientology), Bryan Ronald Wilson, Ph. D (Apostates and New Religious Movements and Social Change and New Religious Movements), Dario Sabbattuci, Prof of History and Religion (Scientology, its Historical and Morphological Frame), Christiaan Vonck, Ph. D, Rector Faculty for Comparative Study of Religions (Scientology and Religion), Alejandro Frigerio, Ph. D, Associate Prof Sociology (Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences), J Pentikainen, Ph. D (The Church of Scientology), Fumio Sawada, Eighth Holder of the Secrets (The Relationship between Scientology and other Religions). And if you don't think so, why? (Taodeptus (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Frankly, I'm astonished. I checked quite a few of the names on your list, and every single one of them works for and is a member of the Church of Scientology. Not a single one of them is from outside the organization. So in other words, no. None of them can be used, except as sources for what the Church of Scientology says about itself. None of what they write can be quoted as fact, because they have built-in conflicts of interest. You would have to strip out all the names of members of your church and use only sources that really are independent of the church.


 * I really do hope you don't take offense at anything I've written here, but I felt I owed it to you to be frank. No scientists accept anything Hubbard said or wrote as scientifically factual. That's not to say you can't believe in him if you choose. "What's true is what's true for you," as he would say. But you must accept that, as far as everyone outside your religion is concerned, those beliefs are based on faith, not fact. -- Good Damon 23:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

AIV Report on User:D.LEMONZ
Hi there. I just wanted to remind you to give users, even those with accounts, adequate warning before reporting them to WP:AIV. Your recent report was made with only one warning given after a single edit by the user in question. Next time, be sure to warn the user four times with user warning templates and only report them when they vandalize after their final warning. Thanks. Okiefromokla questions? 23:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, I goofed. Too fast on the trigger finger... -- Good Damon 23:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)