User talk:Lily Firered

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! D. J. Bracey (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Thanks for responding. I am not an admin. and would never wish to be one, though. V.  Molotov [[Image:Flag of California.png|25px]] 19:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz
I reverted your edit because it was a) redundant, and b) unencyclopædic. For 'a', Ms Schwarz's still being a Scientologist is covered in the opening paragraph, so you don't need to create a new section just to say "she's a Scientologist". As for 'b', section headings like "What Scientology doesn't want you to know" are contrary to Neutral point of view and entirely the wrong tone to use for an encyclopædia.

Does that make sense? --fuddlemark (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, fuddlemark, not so much. Because you see, a) it is covered once in the opening paragraph that she considers herself being a scientologist. And then it is covered three times, that she is not a scientologist: "kicked out", "not a member", "no longer active" - three times it says the very same thing yet in contradiction to the before said fact, that she is a scientologist. b) That is a pity, that headings like "What Scientology does not want you to know" are the wrong tone for wikipedia. I wonder only because a content like that: "According to Schwarz, these events were the result of a conspiracy by a group called the 'Still Existing German Nazi Psychiatrists Mindcontroller Secret Service' (SEGNPMSS)." is the right tone. ??? Explain this to me, please. Lily Firered 14:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The "kicked out" bit is referenced to a comment by Ms Schwarz herself. "Not a member" and "no longer active" mean that, although she may still be a Scientologist, she no longer participates in the Church of Scientology (because, as you yourself have said, the Church is "infiltrated").

I never said, that church is infiltrated! You insinuate something to an author, which this author never said. I never even thought about that. And it does not interest me. This might be something which scientologists are interested in, but for sure not me. You know, how what you try to do with me, is called in the world of science? Manipulation. Another word for lie.Lily Firered 08:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Apologies. It was Ms Schwartz who said that the church was infiltrated, not you.  I shall be more careful checking "who said what" in future. --fuddlemark (talk) [[Image:Australian Federation Flag without Union Jack.svg|50px]] 23:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As for tone, you may find What Wikipedia is not and Neutral point of view are useful in understanding what I mean. If not, you might like to try reading another encyclopaedia (e.g. Britannica, World Book, Encarta) for examples of the "encyclopaedic tone" we try to adopt here. --fuddlemark (talk) [[Image:Australian Federation Flag without Union Jack.svg|50px]] 18:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

In this case wikipedia has a need to educate their contributors in the foundations of scientific working. Lily Firered 08:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand you there? --fuddlemark (talk) [[Image:Australian Federation Flag without Union Jack.svg|50px]] 23:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I reverted your edits. The scientology tactic of accusing "critics" to be scientologists does not work efectively on wikipedia. This is in part because wikipedia does not have a "limited staff," it has countless volunteers around the world who are willing to research and correct inacuracies. If you wish to post pro-scientology views, you are encouraged to do so, but please do so honestly, and source your material.

You have repeatedly vandalized scientology vs. internet article, including removing random letters from linking articles, which shows your bad intentions towards wikipedia. Please stop. :)