User talk:Bravehartbear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Scientology and the Supreme Being

What sentences did you think needed more sources? If the unsourced second paragraph bothers you, just yank it out. There's a paragraph somewhere in "What is Scientology?" that talks about meditation being frowned upon. wikipediatrix 19:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki my man! Too much to say in such a little time. For example the section about past lives starts with:

"Much of the controversy surrounding Scientology is a consequence of the doctrine of the immortal spirit in combination with the acceptance of past lives."

My point that that is someone POV. Many religions accept past lives and the immortal spirit so I felt that is very opinionated that someone said that they felt is controversial. Sections felt more like opinions with out citation than encyclopedic data. I will work on it when I get some time I just wanted to warm people about the pit falls in this section. Bravehartbear 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

AndroidCAT used this shortcuts not me. However, IADS is shortcut for this wich is believed to be a frontgroup of Scientology (regististered in Clearwater etc.) FASE seems to be explained here

[edit] your question

I don't want to question your beliefs but have a problem that it looks like scientificly proven in an encyclopedia. If we write about real affects of a program in WP we must consider reliable sources. Personally I believe that too much niacin causes Flushing wich stops after some weeks when the body gets used to it and the swimsuit shape(I have heard from that too) is explainable thought more possibities. But if you have other spiritual experiences with it I can't and don't want to disprove it. Why should I try to disprove the existence of god or buddha either, it impossible for me. And if you look in the article God you will see any "scientific" study that he really exist too.(: To show the believed good affects of narconon is not problematic for me but it must be cited as such in WP unless reliable sources are there. -- Stan talk 07:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

AndroidCAT used this shortcuts not me. However, IADS is shortcut for this wich is believed to be a frontgroup of Scientology (regististered in Clearwater etc.) FASE seems to be explained here -- Stan talk 07:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I was pretty sure that IADS was a subdivion of Narconon or Able. I'm sure we all know that. I will make sure that link makes it to the article. It was not my intencion to hide that. I just didn't to whom this org belongs too. Bravehartbear

[edit] Scientology Definition

This is an interesting article, good job :) Anynobody 06:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article for deletion

If anyone is interested the article Psychiatric abuse is slated for deletion. Please read the article and vote on whether to keep it if you are so inclined.S. M. Sullivan 19:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Scientology. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Marlith T/C 04:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Reversion

Sorry about that. Do what you intend to do, and we'll check if it follows guidelines. Thanks. Marlith T/C 03:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Scientology Symbol 2.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Scientology Symbol 2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image which is not under a free license or in the public domain and it has not been used in any article for more than seven days.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article] (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ddxc (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Scientology Symbol.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Scientology Symbol.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image which is not under a free license or in the public domain and it has not been used in any article for more than seven days.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article] (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ddxc (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Scientology for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. John Hayestalk 15:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


It must be really unpleasant for you scientologists to have Xenu all up in your thetans all the time. That must be why you killed Lisa McPherson, Margarit Winklemann, Peter E Frei, Herbert Pfaff, Roger Nind, Jeremy Perkins' mother(stabbed 77 times), Noah Lottick, and all the rest.

Scientology is a dangerous cult.

Scientology ruins lives.

Scientology KILLS.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Scientology Cross 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Scientology Cross 2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Scientology Symbol 3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Scientology Symbol 3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

From: Wikipedia:Non-free content
Images
Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia.
  2. Team and corporate logos: For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos.
  8. Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary. (Of course only the iconic status applies).
seems to me that fair use is fairly obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soyweiser (talk • contribs) 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Scientology Symbol Logo.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Scientology Symbol Logo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ==Thanks for the hello==

It's nice to feel welcomed. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Scientology Symbol Logo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Scientology Symbol Logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Scientology Cross Logo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Scientology Cross Logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Scientology Symbol 2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Scientology Symbol 2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Please don't remove a citation needed tag like you did with Scientology unless you provide a proper source. Corvus cornixtalk 05:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. The wikilink to the Auditing section is all what is needed. Bravehartbear (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Provide the source in the auditing page. Corvus cornixtalk 05:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You bet I will.Bravehartbear (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Good.  :) Corvus cornixtalk 05:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

BHB, don't "play games" as in "two can play at that game" - that can easily be viewed as WP:POINT and is frowned upon. In actual fact, I think there is little need to cite statements in the lead that are consistent with the cited material in the body of the article. If something in the lead goes beyond the material in the body then just remove it. It anything is uncited in the body of the article then just remove it. See Insist on sources. If anyone gives you trouble point them at Jimbo on the subject. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Black

Sorry, been sick for the last few days. I know he's a scientologist from this: http://bible.ca/scientology-is-a-religion-black.htmTicklemygrits (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you gave me a wrong link, in the paper you link he says that he is not. Bravehartbear (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology symbols

The images of the two Scientology symbols you uploaded need to have some captions added to them in the article to explain to the reader their significance or I cannot see any reason to keep them in the article. There really should be some commentary in the article about the symbols or they may not meet WP:NFCC #8. -Regards Nv8200p talk 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There a reference in the article about the eights dynamics that are represented in the 8 oints of the Scientology cross. And there are references to the KRC and ARC triangles in the article. I tried to put a caption but I didn't knew how.Bravehartbear (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alarmed Scientologists

Wikipedia's simply a NPOV site, and yes I understand how they might be a little upset, but I'm just about as upset about the pages about Christianity or the history of the Church, or even criticism about Jesus. The main problem is that many of those things stated on Scientology related articles, especially L. Ron Hubbard and Xenu are true, and they are well documented and many Scientologists and especially the Church of Scientology do not like it. I have just started researching Scientology recently and I've noticed this huge problem about POV pushing. I might join WikiProject Scientology to largely resolve these issues and I look forward to collaborating on Scientology articles to make them better, especially with all the attention sparked by Anonymous and their Project Chanology. --Chinese3126 (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)