User talk:Johnpedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Johnpedia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Justanother 14:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Cool

There are very few knowledgable Scientologists editing here; a good number of dedicated critics; and a lot of less biased editors that have none-the-less been influenced by misrepresentation of Scientology on the internet and have no positive experience of Scientology to balance that with. I seriously recommend that, before tackling Scientology articles, that you edit in other non-controversial articles that you are knowlegable about until you see how things work here. Also learn to use a watchlist (you can set your preferences up to watch every article you edit in). Follow the guidelines in the welcome message. Do not add or remove material without citing sources (or lack of sources after a good-faith attempt to find one yourself). Stay polite and never get personal. Do not allow yourself to be drawn into personal battles because someone attacked you first. Do not engage in edit wars. Many Scientologist editors have been banned from this site for breaking the rules; don't join them. See my page for general tips and a link to a "hat writeup" that may be helpful even though it is a very rough draft. Feel free to ask me anything. --Justanother 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll second all of that. Telling people they are wrong and then walking off isn't going to get anything changed, all it does is make you feel better and confirms the belief of your opponents that, in this case, scientologists can't discuss anything with 'outsiders' because they are 'crazy culties'.
Further advice would be to read the Talk:Scientology archives. You may well find that some of the specific points you want to raise have already been discussed at length, that there is a lot of information that you are not familiar with. It will also bring you up to speed on who's who, there are some editors who have been here for a while and will not take kindly to being told they are wrong, again, by someone who hasn't troubled to check the facts
There is a lot wrong with the Scientology articles on Wikipedia. This is not, in my view, a conspiracy against Scientology, just the inevitable result of the content being written by critics with little or no input by scientologists. Wikipedia articles always appear on the front page of Search Engines, and at present they are a major disaster for scientology. --Hartley Patterson 23:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mind here are 2 blocked user accounts that were trying their way to help wikipedia improve: User:Terryeo, and User:Highfructosecornsyrup -- Jpierreg 18:08, 03 January 2006 (GMT)

Terryeo is a Scientologist who was eventually banned from edited Wikipedia. Reading the user log on his now deleted User page will explain why. The editors of the Scientology pages were IMO reluctant to throw him out because he was for a while the only Scientologist editor; it was higher admin that banned him. --Hartley Patterson 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

Below the editing screen theres a small box that lets you write a note on why and what you edited to make it easier for other users to understand your edits, please try to use it. Joneleth 09:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brandy (entertainer)

"why did u remove my note about brandy taking scientology courses?"

don't take it peronsal, but the sentences you added don't fit to the rest to the text. write a sec tion like "brandy & church" to include your informatin on scientology. - Noboyo

Re your message: I think part of the reason the information is challenged is because the presentation does not follow Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and the article is a biography of a living person. Please take some time out and read these. --ElectricEye (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The quote you attributed to Brandy was unverifiable. --ElectricEye (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, I see. A reference was provided yet it was still removed. I'll restore it. --ElectricEye (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Got your message.

Thanks for your kind message. --Messenger2010 02:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BOG

Hello, your recent edits to The Dark Knight (film) have been identified as original research and reverted. Please do not add your personal opinion(s) or unverified claims to Wikipedia. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


A tag has been placed on 2009 films, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to add more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SkierRMH 08:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avatar and edit summary

Please do not mask your edits with an incorrect edit summary. Your "minor" edit of correcting a link was really a revert back to your version that contained uncited information. As you can see with the current article, each piece of information is cited. What you've added lacks citation, hence the revert of the information, since it is not verifiable. If you can provide citations for your information, we can work the information into the existing sections. There's no need to start a new section -- the history of development and pre-production is part of the overall production cycle. I recommend reading WP:CITE to understand how to back up the information you've inserted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please look at WP:CITE to learn how to cite. In addition, the page is structured in line with film articles that have achieved featured article class. In addition, I noticed that you copied and pasted parts of the ComingSoon.net article, which plagiarism, which Wikipedia is against. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] oh SHIT

damn i smell good —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.42.1.15 (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Justanother victim?

Hello, we both seem to have run afoul this editor. I thought it had something to do with my view of Scientology, but as he has become more "hostile" I've wondered who else he may have alienated overnight. I noticed you say you are a Scientologist, and I also noticed your downhill relationship with him. Would you mind explaining to me how things got so hostile between you?

The reason I ask is I was about to write him off as a paranoid "defender" of how he sees Scientology, who figured since I do not revere L Ron Hubbard I am against the CoS. I'm not against the CoS any more than I am almost anything else (I draw the line at human sacrifice, seriously). However I saw echoes of my situation happening with you, except I figured as a fellow Scientologist Justanother would treat you more as an ally than it appears he has.

In the interest of honesty, I think you should know I'm working on an article that shows the general perceptions of Lt. Hubbard's Naval career are both wrong (Anti-CoS and CoS alike). I'm not out to bash Scientology (if you think about it nobody associated with religion is perfect, Jesus hung around with a whore for example.) but actually get the truth out there. (I enjoy researching Naval History, so when I read both accounts I wanted to see if either side accepted the truth based on technical explanation (in layman's terms) of original Navy documents.) This is what I originally suspected put me on the "enemies" list. If I have offended you by implying anything negative about Scientology based on the actions of Lt. Hubbard, I sincerely apologize. I also don't mean to give you the impression that I'm collecting information to use against Justanother. I've just never encountered anything quite like the surreal experience I've had with him. Anynobody 11:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your response makes me feel so much better, and please don't feel bad about "rambling". I do a lot of it myself, for reasons you pointed out. The people I'm talking to here can't hear the tone of my voice, see my facial expressions, etc. so I've found myself expanding (or rambling) what I would say in real life. Actually I've often pondered the fact that if people met me in real life they'd think I was shy because I don't say nearly as much when trying to convey an idea. For example if I were chatting with you face to face, instead of saying what I just said, it probably be something like "I know exactly what you mean".
I can't tell you how relieved I am that Justanother is the exception when it comes to Scientologists, and not a typical one. It's been my experience that religions/cults are usually not as "bad" as they are represented to be by their critics. (I say usually, becomes sometimes the critics are right like with Jim Jones.)
Justanother was seriously making me think the critics could be 100% right, obviously now that I've talked to you I that I was right the first time. I think you must be right, seeing how you've been treated, makes me think it's more about ego than it is about religion. When I thought it was about the religion it made me really uncomfortable because I try not to criticize any religion, because I can't say one is any more "correct" than another. (I suspect the U.S. Navy probably "feels" the same since they don't have religious requirements, on the subject of Lt. Hubbard's WW2 experience.)
I also have to agree it's amazing he'll warn others not to do something, then usually turn around and do it himself. The amazing part is that the person he warns is actually NOT doing anything like it.
The truly epic part about his behavior though is that by "defending" Scientology like he is, it's actually hurting Scientology by perpetuating a negative stereotype. Because his ego is so large, even his friends and family probably wouldn't be able to convince him he is doing anything wrong.
I really appreciate your prompt reply too. Anynobody 23:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIVIL

Johnpedia, please moderate your tone when speaking to or about other users. Your comments here are quite rude, and while they're not a personal attack, you need to be more civil in the future. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, my TONE was fine :) My comments were my opinions. Perhaps you should write on Justanother's talk page and ask him to not be so condescending Johnpedia 02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Mr. Darcy appears to have been representing Justanother, I just went to his talk page to let him know what my initial question was about but he seems to be on a Wikibreak. Frankly, since neither one of us was going to act on the information we discussed about Justanother I think Mr. Darcy is out of line. The simple truth is that in my experience with Justanother rapidly went from cordial to what it is now very quickly. He accused me of trying to offend him using his beliefs, which I was not trying to do. While he still allowed me to discuss this with him on his talk page (Justanother) I saw what appeared to be a cordial relationship with Johnpedia go sour. Since Johnpedia is a Scientologist and also someone who's relationship with Justanother went bad. I simply wanted to get an idea if the falling out was my fault for saying something offensive about Scientology, and if not try to find another reason. Accusing Johnpedia of being rude to a third party in a conversation said party is not participating in doesn't seem rude to me. Anynobody 05:13, 8 March 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 21:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Would you mind voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)?

Please don't feel pressure to vote to keep the article, I honestly want your real opinion.
DISCLAIMER I feel terrible asking your opinion again partially because of your religion and not just your intelligence (which I won't insult by pretending it isn't a part of the reason I'm asking you, I really hope that made sense). You don't have to participate of course. If I were you I might be thinking something like "Oh I see, I'm your Scientologist friend. I'm not a walking set of CoS cliff notes!"
Justanother finds the volcano on the cover of Dianetics offensive when mentioned by a non Scientologist, is that something really is offensive to Scientologists in general? If it is, I'll leave it alone. I'm not out to prove or disprove any religion, as a result I'm also not out to offend any religion either. However if he is fairly unique in his views about the volcano, I don't see why we should feel obligated to make sure content isn't offensive to him alone. I think we can all find information on Wikipedia which offends each of us, but still belongs here all the same. Hope your weekend is going well, Anynobody 07:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I didn't mean any offen$e with my attempt at being clever

Johnpedia I really don't want to give you the impression I was trying to knock Scientology while discussing it's exterior differences and similarities with Smee. I find different schools of thought concerning spiritual subjects very interesting by themselves, but am truly fascinated to watch them interact with other philosophies. Fred Newman and est appear to be very different from Scientology but with some basic traits in common. They both require followers to spend money in order to advance themselves, and they both have suffered negative public scrutiny.

I wondered if Scientology works with them to address the negative public perceptions or persecution for holding non-mainstream beliefs. After all a cause can make for odd allies, look at World War 2 the U.S./U.K. allied with the Soviet Union. Joseph Stalin whole platform before being invaded by Nazi Germany was facilitating the overthrow of their capitalist systems in favor of communism.

I don't support one over the other (CoS vs est), so please don't get the impression I'm saying Newman or est are "better" than the CoS. Actually I read about James Slee who just dropped dead at one of their seminars and the staff holding up emergency responders, so they may actually be "worse". (I'd think if the LAFD turned up at the Celebrity Center responding to an emergency they wouldn't be stopped by anyone.) Anynobody 07:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Wiki-dave-meyers.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Wiki-dave-meyers.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShadowHalo 23:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wiki-DMBSpaceBetween.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wiki-DMBSpaceBetween.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)