User talk:Shutterbug/Archive/Archive-Sep2007

Moscow
your statements for your strange rv.:
 * "the AGS is a Youth Authority " nonesense, it is a department of state in Germany wich belongs to the "Department for Domestic Affairs" in Germany
 *  "it's Working Group". [yes, often cited, reliable etc.]
 *  "they are NO authority on legal cases, not even in Germany" wrong, they are an authority on legal cases, where did you get this idea from ? 5 employee and one is a lawyer! too often cited in newspapers.-- Stan talk 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * , babelfish says: "in addition IE working group Scientology sect is the highest national youth authority for new religious and idiologische communities and Psychogruppen.". Not national, for sure, but for the City of Hamburg. As to "legal authority", it is naive that Caberta is a legal authority, or anyone in her office is. Why are they employing lawyers then in all cases they have to defend themselves, if they are soooo competent? If you do not know what cases I am talking about you either a) have a little COI problem or b) you should read up on Scientology in your country. Let me know if you need help. Shutterbug 18:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) your link doesn't work 2) the laywer is employed and part of the team 3) they are sooooo competent because they have a lawyer for such things (4) no, I don't have a COI and read in the newspaper about this working group. Believe it or not but the Working Group is cited in almost every news article in Germany and many other countries. 5) it is already noticed that it is only an opinion by the worrking group and I didn't delete that even if the rest of the article is mainly WP:OR by some editors here. -- Stan talk 18:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

To make the link work you have to click on it. Shutterbug 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It does work in Firefox.
 * On 2), who is that lawyer then?
 * Your answer to 3) does not make sense.
 * 4) Very good that you do not have a COI issue.


 * ok the link does work if you seriously meant this. I thought you mistyped because it doesn't state what you stated. (yes they also have to deal with young people sometimes but its not their major task.(even if their is a prominent case right now)
 * 2) I don't know and its good enough for me that it is a state department. I never read anywhere who this lawyer is but only that a lawyer is employed ... and I don't care because the actual authority is not the lawyer but the department anyway. If you want single lawyers I would recommend Heinemann (.
 * 3)you don't have to, good enough that I do. It was your ridiculious claim and not my wich started this point. ... it started with your false claim on User_talk:Really_Spooky's talk page that the work group doesn't even have a lawyer. -- Stan talk 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess the problem here really is WP:BIAS. That is why Germans have their own Wikipedia, so their own understanding of "authority" can be properly make into "encyclopedic" articles. All I read here is "authoritative letterhead" = "no need to give a source" = "no need to be verifiable". Your reference - and I do not try to take it out for neutrality reason - is IMHO a total piece of sh** document which claims to be a legal opinion but is just a piece of propaganda to undermine and attack jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. That is how far anti-Scientology fanaticism can go, up to the attempt to destroy the credibility of the European Court of Human Rights. Shutterbug 02:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Aside from that, the AGS is the laughingstock of the German legal professional scene as they tend to loose ALL their cases and for sure the key ones. If they really have a lawyer on board - and again you just repeat propaganda but cannot name names - this person must be a total loser. Shutterbug 02:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "no need to give a source" it is itself the source and I already tried to explain why GO's don't mention the authors of publications(not just in Germany) unless its written by an external author. And I didn't insert this source anyway. If you have another reliable source wich we could insert to explanain findings of the court ruling than I wouldn't even care if someone deletes it completely. -- Stan talk 22:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Sandbox for test edits. -- ChrisO 17:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this is referring to, but if this is about the Scientology article, not only does that not even come close to warrant using this vandalism warning template, the fact that it's over such blatantly heavy-handed and unnecessary material such as "unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and abuses the trust of its members" is a real head-scratcher to me. I mean, come on. Just because something is sourced still doesn't mean it belongs in the article. And if this is about Youth for Human Rights International, that article is bending over backwards to give as much attention as possible to Caberta/Germany's opinion of Scientology (the country where Scientology is hated the most, of course!)... Letting German opinion of an international organization dominate their article is such an Undue Weight violation I can't believe I should have to explain it. wikipediatrix 19:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at this edit, where he deleted without explanation most of an entire section on the etymology of the word "Scientology", and this edit, where he deleted links to critical books on Hubbard, you'll see why I posted the warning. -- ChrisO 20:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Having such a long and overblown POV deconstruction of the definition is a bit much. Especially when so much of it is leaning on Jon Atack's POV. What's so wrong about this version, which just gives the definition and moves on? This is all already covered on Scientology Definition, which is prominently linked to. This is so obvious, I can't really blame Shutterbug for thinking it was self-explanatory. wikipediatrix 20:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandal edits to 'Freedom Magazine' that were done by RookZero. S. M. Sullivan 02:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-14 Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia
Please provide your opinion and input in the Mediation Cabal Case. Alpta 19:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not your enemy
Dude, I'm not your enemy, and don't want to edit war with you, but this is getting absurd. You've been so confrontational, and even in cases where I completely agree with you, you've shown very bad form indeed. Would it kill you to talk about these issues, first? --GoodDamon 17:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, you are right. I'll chill. Shutterbug 18:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's much appreciated. --GoodDamon 18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to mention, I saw your change here and that is, in my opinion, a very good edit indeed. Instead of deleting it or applying any POV to it, you took away an obvious POV generalization and made it a "nothing but the facts, ma'am" statement. Excellent. --GoodDamon 22:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I bet that it won't stay. Too many predators around, but never give up. Shutterbug 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Vitamic C
You get scurvy if you don't get enough Vitamin C. When you edited the "Silent birth and infant care" section of Scientology, it read like this is something that's contentious. It's not. It also read like you were belittling PubMed publications as coming from just "one group of health practitioners," when PubMed articles are made up of well-vetted citations from the most respected -- and largest -- health organizations in the world. Again, I'm not your enemy, but you've *got* to stop doing that. --GoodDamon 19:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You, if happen to be Foobaz as well, got to stop generalizing individual incidents. The ref describes one incident and that's it. No further facts available. Ten thousands of Scientology kids or even more have been brought up following this nutrition advice (and it does not even say that no other food should be used) and one kid had trouble and got better when being given Vitamin C and other nutrition (as the PubMed text says)? Give me a break. you did not even note the contradictory information that the "case" is a) two years old (more than one year older than Barley is advised to be given) and b) not a boy but a girl. The sickness of Wikipedia propaganda is that individual cases and single statements are used to generalize and make it valid for everyone and everything. That is slimy propaganda, the one putting it in there a liar and it has no place here. Shutterbug 21:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, I'm not Foobaz, and that's a rather bizarre accusation. You have no reason to attack me, and I'm not sure why you're doing it, I just wish you'd stop. I *still* don't have a beef with you, I *still* am not your enemy, and I *still* even agree with some of your edits. I'm just going to pretend you never made that accusation, and hope you will do likewise. :)
 * Now then, on to the topic at hand. The reference in question is to a case of one person, yes (and you, not I, mistakenly identified the child as a boy). But Vitamin C deficiency is known to cause scurvy, and the link supports that, as well as Wikipedia's own article about scurvy. You would be hard-pressed to find any pediatric health expert that recommends a diet lacking in Vitamin C, which is in all infant formulas -- except Hubbard's -- and in natural breast milk.
 * All that said, you do have a point. The source, by itself, is probably not enough to cover the statement as it stands. However, some simple rewording would probably solve the problem completely. I'm giving it a go. --GoodDamon 22:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tks. I changed it super slightly. Check it out. Shutterbug 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your 3RR report
By my count you are also responsible for a 3RR violation within, or just over the 24 hours. Just be aware that the behaviour of everyone on an article gets reviewed when its reported at 3RR and many admins simply block everyone concerned. I'm protecting the article otherwise you would have been included in any blocks I issued. Spartaz Humbug! 18:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it. Yes, I am somewhat part of this round of RR'ing. Thanks for protecting the article. It should be under watch... Shutterbug 19:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Harmonious editing
You might look at the Harmonious Editing Club. My philosophy is that the editor who walks away from an edit war is the winner. Your goal in a debate is the change minds: your opponents or the observers. By walking away you have a good chance of winning some of the observers over to your point of view. - Jehochman Talk 19:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, if you don't mind my butting in, what you suggest would indeed be true if we were talking about two ordinary people arguing over pop stars or Keynesian economics or computing Pi to the 8808th place. But we're not. We're talking about two organized sets of people with definite hardcore agendas - one is a group of overzealous anti-Scientologist crusaders who are all part of a small subculture of crude "Scientology is Evil" websites that all link to one another. The other are the Scientologists themselves, who are actually far less organized and single-minded in their mission - they don't even agree with each other half the time because some are Freezoners and some are just ordinary public Scientologists not far up the Bridge.


 * Until the Scientology articles are wrested from the clammy grips of both sides and the majority of editors are those who don't have a dog in this fight at all, there ARE no "winners". It's hard to walk away from an edit war when that means allowing an article to stand containing lies or half-truths, and nothing is done about it. I can show diffs to literally dozens of good-faith attempts to elicit talk-page discussion about various edits, that went completely unanswered and ignored by the Usual Gang of So-and-So's.


 * The fact that Scientology is such an extremely convoluted and complicated subject works to the advantage of the Scn-haters because the average observer is overwhelmed by it all and usually just stays on the sidelines.


 * Now, I'm not necessarily saying all of this justifies edit warring.... but I understand. wikipediatrix 19:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am saying to walk away and let the wrong version be. Then go to the appropriate forum and ask for help from uninvolved editors. If the uninvolved editors come to a consensus that goes against you, accept it and move on.  - Jehochman  Talk 21:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This sounds like an interesting philosophy but seems to be inapplicable to creating an encyclopedia. Majority opinion is not always verifiable as fact. Usually this does not matter but if you want to create an encyclopedia our quality standards have to be a bit higher than let widespread rumors take over, don't you think? Shutterbug 21:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The number of good people far exceeds the number of bad people. If you walk away, somebody good is likely to see the need, jump in and replace you.  When neutral parties see one editor arguing with many different editors, you know which one will get blocked.  That's the great power of walking away.  - Jehochman  Talk 21:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm. Ok, I will try it at times. Shutterbug 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say Jehochman's idea that "The number of good people far exceeds the number of bad people" is pie-in-the-sky pollyanna wishful thinking. With all due respect to my Scientology acquaintances who believe that "Man is essentially good", most people on this planet are selfish, deluded, evil, greedy, superstitious, and dumber than a bagful of milk duds. Vandalism and bad edits are on a sharp rise at Wikipedia because more and more of the general population are taking part in it, and percentage-wise, the bad will always outnumber the good and the stupid will always outnumber the smart. (If I just violated WP:AGF against the entire human race, so be it.)

Further, Jehochman's claim that "If you walk away, somebody good is likely to see the need, jump in and replace you" is true for articles of great common interest but is demonstrably not true for articles related to Scientology, which despite its recent fame, is still a fringe subject to most ordinary people. Like the finer intricacies of quantum physics, most people don't know the first thing about the subject and thus don't get involved with editing the Scientology articles unless maybe it's to revert clear vandalism like page-blanking and "HAIL XENU!!! BAHAHAHAH!!!" nonsense.

Apologies to Shutterbug for philosophizing on her talk page, but I found Jehochman's "walk away and everything will be a-OK" philosophy really irksome, and the idea of "harmonious editing" on Scientology articles will remain a rock candy mountain pipe dream until a group of impartial admins make it a high priority to monitor these articles for POV-pushing from both sides. At the moment, however, there is apparently no incentive for that to happen. Perhaps one will arise. wikipediatrix 01:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hopefully one will arise. Feel free to use my talk page anytime. Shutterbug 04:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)