Talk:Super Power Building

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Super Power Building 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.)

Incredible ! An anonomous editor is linking to a personal website which has stored a past page of a newsgroup and the editor presents information into the article based on a snippet that appeared in a newsgroup and is stored on a personal website ! Incredible ! Removing that "humoungous rundown" information. What a terrible source. WP:RS is the guideline which disallows that citation, while WP:CITE states what can be allowed and WP:V states the intent of reliable information. Terryeo 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal / Partisan websites and their use

WP:RS (reliable sources) addresses the issue of using personal websites within Wikipedia articles. They may be used, with care, in articles about themselves. However, when they are used as sources of information for articles except about themselves, issues arise about the quality of information they present. Because they are created and maintained by a single individual with no responsibility except to the thoughts of the website owner, as monitored by the legal system, WP:RS states: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Some exterior pointing links within the article point to personal websites.

• [1] points to [1] which is a personal website and can not be used within an article.
• [2] points to [2] which is a personal website and can not be used within an article
• [4] points to [3] which is a personal website and can not be used within an article. All three links should be removed from within the article to be presented in the "external links" section. Terryeo 03:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ChrisO's introduction of a newsgroup's support

User:ChrisO seems to prefer that editors stand down from the concensus reached over a long period of time at WP:RS. While the concensus of editors broadly states that no newsgroup can be used in any article, User:ChrisO not only disagrees, but takes it upon himself to test editor concensus by including such a link at [1], citing to a [4], a personal website's publication of a personal opinion, a "week in review" of a newsgroup. This sort of extremely bad citation happens again, and again, and again in these articles. The scum citations from unreliable, unattributable sources are cited again and again. Personal opinion which has not been published by any reliable source ever, anywhere, is cited IN GOOD FAITH by EXPERIENCED wikipedia editors, such as User:ChrisO's editing difference which he summated by saying about his off-concensus edit, 00:50, 21 February 2006 ChrisO (Talk | contribs) (citations added, some more info), thus explaining his defience of WP:V which ignores WP:RS which specifically states:

• Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet

  Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources.
  

How clear can a defience of editor concensus be ? This is not a personal attack, but I have stated this situation more strongly than I normally do state these very bad citations. Wikipedia does not allow newsgroup citations. This weekly summation of a newsgroup post, this personal opinion which appears as a summation, this personal opinion which is itself held on a personal website is in defience, direct defience Wikipedia's consenus of editors, WP:RS. Terryeo 08:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern... the week in review is, of course, a summary of newspaper articles as well as other things and this is why it was cited. I agree that it's better to cite the original news articles so I've done so now, as well as updating the article. -- ChrisO 09:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"The scum citations", Terryeo? Pray tell, what is a "scum citation"? I want to make sure I clear that particular phrase so that I know exactly what you mean when you call something a "scum citation". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy

Again, Terryeo treats Reliable Source as a policy as evidenced by his diatribe written above. It is a guideline and editors have judgemental leaway. Terryeo, please stop your tendentious arguments.--Fahrenheit451 15:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points mr Fahrenheit451 (your screen name relects your philosoph?)

• You have called my statements above which resulted in a better citation as a "diatribe". There would be better ways to make a point than by using that word.
• You have attempted to defend an edit which has already been changed.
• You have stated something about guidelines and their relationship to editing, implying guidelines need not be paid attention to. While I know otherwise, I'm not going to attempt to convince you.
• You have stated that I have argued. I have not argued. I have stated.
• You have requested that I no longer post such statements.  :) Terryeo 17:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of the article, not for making insinuations about another editor's screen name. Don't bother replying to me about it, just straighten up. This is the precisely the sort of behavior that got you banned. wikipediatrix 18:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)