User talk:AndroidCat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

WELCOME!! Hello, AndroidCat! I want to personally welcome you on behalf of the Wikipedia community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you haven't already, you can put yourself new user log and list of users so you can be properly introduced to everyone. Don't forget to be bold, and don't be afraid of hungry Wikipedians...there's a rule about not biting newcomers. Some other good links are the tutorial, how to edit a page, or if you're really stuck, see the help pages. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a ♪ at my talk page...and again, welcome!--ViolinGirl^♪ 20:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] and another one is lured to their doom

How did I fail to see you getting sucked into the Wikipedia? Tch! Have fun ;-)

BTW, you or someone will have pages of your own filled with detailed Canadian info for List of Scientology organizations like I adapted from mine for Australian ones ... - David Gerard 09:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi AndroidCat thanks for the link to the Charity Commission report on the Scientology and the Legal System page. Which Wiki are you referring to? Really Spooky 17:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientology. There's also the short summary version, which makes interesting reading.

[edit] Request for Comments - Terryeo

I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olberon and the 3RR

Just so you know, Olberon has been warned about the 3RR. Apparently he didn't really get it. -_- -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed referenced material without discussion

By the way, just as a reminder, it is generally frowned upon to remove verified, cited references from an article just because you don't like what it says. You removed: "Narconon's courses are secularized versions of Scientology religious texts, with terms such as like "Scientology" being replaced with "Narconon", and "Thetan" with "person". The courses, which have little or nothing to do with substance abuse, are exercises in concepts such as Suppressive Persons, PTS, Hubbard's ethics, and anti-psychiatry rhetoric. Scientology's Training Routine #8 (or TR 8) is also included as part of Narconon's "Communication and Perception" course. TR 8 instructs the subject to scream at an ashtray "in the loudest possible voice he can muster". Commands like "STAND UP!" and SIT DOWN!" are yelled directly at the ashtray, as it is lifted up and placed back down to aid the visualization. The subject is to acknowledge this each time by yelling "THANK YOU!" to the ashtray as loud as he possibly can. ^[1]" from the Narconon article without any discussion on the discussion page and with only a brief comment on your edit summary to say why you removed a good sized block of cited text.Terryeo 15:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you were paying attention rather than just frothing at the keyboard, you'd see that I restored text removed by someone else and then trimmed the parts that had been moved elsewhere. Do try to aquire a good source of clue Terryeo. AndroidCat 17:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Streamlight Problems

I have noticed that Streamlight lately has been engaging in counter-policy editing. What do you think should be the next step? --Fahrenheit451 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wog: derivative definition =

I've reverted your removal of the section in question, and as per your request for references, please see the following:

• Patrolling with Sean Kennedy - this is what made the definition in question relatively well known.
• Wog Coalition: What Is A Wog? - Other people's takes on what the term "wog" means to them, all of which share common elements (namely, the ones in the definition).

I had a similar discussion with Hartley Patterson; please see our respective talk pages.

--SpecOp Macavity 19:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - I can't seem to figure out how to properly edit the "references" section on the Wog page - all I get when I hit the edit link is:

== References ==

<references />

Any tips?

--SpecOp Macavity 19:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

i think i know where it goes ill try and do it tomorrow i have the paragraph saved in notepad --stapuft 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry didnt know bout the 3rr thanks for telling me :) but i will continue to edit that page soz but thats the way it goes its an alternate deffination and needs to be published ittl just have to wait about 22 hours wait does the 3rr count 24 hours from the first edit or the last anyway in 24 hours i will edit again --stapuft 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wog

You might want to revisit wog, where the crew that's trying to keep the "Derivative_definition" paragraph are still at work. I'm at my 3RR limit for the day. You might want to look at my Talk page and my reply to User_talk:SpecOp_Macavity. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 21:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

i'm new and im still figuring out what im doing - JohnKong

[edit] scientology

Hi. I'm just starting to learn about scientology. There are several thousand items in google scholar for "scientology". However, this is a subject area that I am not familiar with. I have no idea which journals with articles about scientology are serious, peer-reviewed journals. --JWSchmidt 18:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are not too keen on the scientology subject, maybe you should have read more about it before you retracted my entry about Ron Howard and L. Ron Hubbard. Its true but thanks for accusing me of vandalising. I mentioned it to my mom, who is a scientologist, and she told me she knewn about the mistaken identity thing for years. Sorry you are such "in the dark". I read some of your other entrys though. Good work!  :) Thejax 22:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pull the other one, it's got bells on. AndroidCat 14:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superpowerbldg image

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Superpowerbldg.jpg

See also comments at Image talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg Francis Schonken 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Superpowerbldg.jpg

Just to let you know that the possible-problem-tagging for this image has been changed. --Francis Schonken 08:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That loss of ":A" in my revert of the Scientology template was unintentional

Thanks for pointing it out. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celebs

Hi

Would you pls revert again there to my last edit; wikipediatrix reverted me when I did not even remove the offending material, all I did was polish the other bit. I don't think she bothered to look. I would do it myself but I decided to seek some assistance rather than continue the war.

Thanks and good nite--Justanother 02:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no wish to follow you over the 3RR limit. Good night. AndroidCat 02:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not think you would. No prob, I will redo it.--Justanother 02:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology controversy

Hello,

Just when you've got some time. Where do you see the following about the Religious Freedom Watch: "Domain registrations, letters by Joel Philips, statements on video.." I can't seam to see it anywhere. Jpierreg 15:10, 2 November 2006 (GMT)

The Internet whois information is easily available for the domains religiousfreedomwatch.org, religiousfreedomwatch.com, religiousfreedomwatch.net and the original parishioners.org. (All of these are the same site on the same server.) References to at least one letter sent by Joel Phillips as RFW and acknowledging on video that he runs it are available, but I don't have time to hunt them down right now. AndroidCat 12:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Lightwave

Hi Android Cat....I'm interested in getting input from other editors about getting more info about Digital Lightwave assembled and represented on Wikipedia, since the subject is extremely Scientology-related, involving David Miscavige's sister Denise Licciardi, Doug Dohring, Norton S. Karno, Greta Van Susteren, and Scientology attorneys Michael Baum and George W. Murgatroyd. Since you were a recent editor of the Scientology and the legal system article, I thought I'd fly this by you. The Digital Lightwave story is such a convoluted labyrinth I'm hoping there are other editors who understand it better than I. wikipediatrix 17:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brrrnnnggg

This is your wake-up call. --Justanother 04:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space opera

Why do you keep talking about the book being withdrawn, and "Is there anything official from CoS saying that the book is no longer canon?" These have nothing to do with the issue. The problem here is that you and other editors are defining "doctrine" as being anything ever written by LRH or ever published by the CoS. That is misleading. This is doctrine, and it has nothing to do with the Obscene Dog Incident or the anonymous past life memories in HYLBTL. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Whole Track and past lives are certainly part of Scientology doctrine. The "anonymous past life memories" in HYLBTL were the ones selected by L. Ron Hubbard as examples and published in a book with his name on it. The Space Opera parts are just part of the Whole Track, even before Incident II in OT-III. AndroidCat 03:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology and Celebrities

Oops! I see the citation now - but the way it is organized, it looks to be a confirmation of the Church wishing the couple well (which is not particularly controversial, or worthy of a citation) rather than on the issue of whether the marriage was staged. Is it possible we could shift it up a spot, to make it more clear? Thanks again. Tuviya 04:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's not clear that the cite is for the whole paragraph rather just the last (unimportant) sentence. The cite should probably be shifted or maybe the unimportant text dropped. AndroidCat 16:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverted endnotes

Hi,

Just noticed you reverted in Space Opera Scientology writing: "if converted to references, the links should remain usable".

I'am afraid I don't understand this. Can you explain? References look good as endotes and they look really bad as they were before I converted them. Don't you agree?

--Cesar Tort 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't check to see if Wiki would wrap a bare URL into a clickable link. When I saw that it did, I reverted my revert. AndroidCat 21:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prince

Hey. It is not really germane to the discussion on the talk page but for point of interest, the judge was throwing out an affidavit from Prince that it was his informed opinion that DM authorized letting Lisa just die.[1] This was to name DM as an additional party in the civil suit.

I find there are no facts to support Prince’s opinion, and thus, the opinion cannot come in before the jury, unless facts are developed prior to the trial.

and

His extreme bias against the Church has been discussed by this court on numerous occasions. I find his credibility, based on his previous testimony, and the testimony before me at the Omnibus Hearing, to be suspect.

Stacy Brooks admitted she cooked that idea up and encouraged Prince to write the statement. I say "not germane" because, even though this is a no-brainer to those familiar with the scene such familiarity is not necessary to see that this is highly inflammatory and POV material from a single biased source and only presented on a single biased websites (though it may be copied elsewhere on other biased site.)

I might be silly but I am kinda hoping that you will come down on my side on this one. I really don't want this to be about battling where even your "opponent's" valid points are belittled. I would rather that it were about compromise where we acknowledge each other's valid points while still seeking to present the truth as we perceive it. --Justanother 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding yet. Not ignored, just juggling many priority streams. AndroidCat 07:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No prob. We have other fish to fry anyway. I got that book you recommended, the pulp mystery book with the Mañana Society, but have not had much chance to read it. --Justanother 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference striping

AndroidCat, what is "reference striping"? Tanaats 06:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mass removal of references, some definitely good, some not-so-good, with justification that all are bad. All without discussion. See Talk:Keith_Henson#Striping references and fact-bombing AndroidCat 06:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Tanaats 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject updates

• I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)

I think this may interest you. Kind regards, Orsini 06:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I try to stay as far from that great nasty time-sink as possible, but I'll take a look. :) AndroidCat 21:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xenu

The first three paras contain no sources and definite opinions. Why don't you delete those on the commented criteria you used to delete mine? Could it be that anything you don't agree with saying publicly is in fact POV by your definition? MarkThomas 12:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)