Talk:Author Services Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Author Services Inc. article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Current ASI owners vs controllers

The most recent information that I have is that as of December 31, 1993, all shares of Author Services Inc. were transfered to the Church of Spiritual Technology as part of the secret IRS closing agreement. It seems very likely that the RTC oversees operation of ASI, as RTC does with all Hubbard copyrights that went to CST via Authors Family Trust B, but proving this in a crystal-clear manner among the fog and nested corporations of Scientology could be tricky. --AndroidCat 04:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A simple Google search shows that there is much more data on ASI, so someone might want to upgrade this article with not much effort. The latest rv was unfounded. Just stick to the Wikipedia rules, Wikipediatrix! I have reverted it back to the unbiased version. Misou 02:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The above editor, User:Misou, has made precisely five edits to Wikipedia as of this writing. Author Services Inc. is the first and only article they have edited, and it was to revert my previous edit. For a brand-new user to jump in swinging and tossing insults like this screams "sockpuppet". wikipediatrix 02:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix: Sorry to say, but I have never been registered in Wikipedia earlier and I am actually new to it. I usually write more professional articles but in a different language. Interesting enough that you blame me for insult when I remind you of Wikipedia rules which I think you violate. And by the way, you just violated one more, which is "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia." [1]. What is your reason to delete half of the article. I have not deleted anything but added to it with data referenced on the Internet. So, now what good reason to you have to vandalize this article??? Misou 02:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The only personal attacks here were uttered by you: "Just stick to the Wikipedia rules, Wikipediatrix! I have reverted it back to the unbiased version." And now, "what good reason to you have to vandalize this article?" Your lack of Good Faith from the getgo leaves me no reason to communicate further with you. wikipediatrix 02:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, if you wish. I take the "biased" back. I am trying to strictly apply the rules I just read. You just had cut 70% of my text to zero, even though it was founded. What would you think if somebody does this to you? Would you think this is vandalism? I thought that. Thanks for the last change. This actually makes sense. So I will see if I can find a more direct link (the names are actually on that websites, which is where I found them). Misou 02:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)