User talk:Nuview

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 20:57, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology

Thanks for contributing to the Scientology-related articles - it's good to see an approach from another point of view. Don't forget to include references wherever possible - I'm trying to carefully reference everything I do on the subject. (That's why Xenu is a sea of reference links, for example.) - David Gerard 20:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested to see what ideas you have on talk:scientology for improving that article, however I think we all have to be careful about mainting NPOV and not changing it over to a pro point of view. If I can be of any help please don't hesitate to drop me a line, though I must admit I don't know much about scientology and thus prefer to take a backseat on the subject. Jtkiefer June 29, 2005 02:50 (UTC)

I would like to request assistance. I have been blocked on two personas I use in Wikipedia. I am well aware my IP can be seen and there is no secret or skullduggery involved. I note in my absence that the majority of positive links have been removed from the Scientology page and instead of there being a balance, as I had been maintaining, now it is majorly negative. The person who blocked me, though an administrator in Wiki has also posted a lot of negative material on Scientology and in fact helped create an anti-Scientology site. I don't consider this balanced or fair, in fact I am requesting that this be investigated by someone who is genuinely neutral on the subject of Scientology - not another editor who is a contributing critic. I'd appreciate any help on this. Thanks. Nuview August 2, 1005 20:20 (UTC)

It appears to me Nuview, that what you consider a critic or bias is simply what you do not agree with. Things that happen in Scientology are not all pretty, nor are they all bad. As wikipedia editors of Scientology articles, we need to leave the pr fluff to the cofs/rtc websites and report verifiable fact. The cofs internally applies rather heavy handed censorship. Those views are unacceptable out here. Don't be so quick to trash what does not fit in with your world view, even if you consider yours to be superior to another's. Don't be so fast to invalidate something that bothers you because it may contradict the views that you hold. In Scientology that is called a service facsimile. I suggest you really look at the person you treat as a sacred cow. Look and see if this person has people who object to actions and policies that contradict L. Ron Hubbard, gotten rid of or vilified. Throw the pr and coercion aside and really look at that person. Be your own counsel.--Fahrenheit451 22:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451 - Thanks for contacting me directly. I agree with you on the verifiable facts, hence the edits I am making. In fact when I reviewed this page and saw this frequent use of “reportedly” it immediately struck me that it obviously hadn’t been written per the guidelines. Much of what I have been trying to delete are things with no verifiable source. One shouldn’t say that it is common knowledge that something is the way it is. You might come up with 10 or so ex-staff saying how bad things are and I can come up with 1,000 staff who will say how good things are. You complain that something is a puff piece, well I can say the same thing about negative comments – kind of a puff piece in the opposite direction. Putting a negative comment into an article for the purpose of tainting the person in the eye of the reader is not being neutral. Pointing out something from a negative web site doesn’t make it verifiable and is against the guidelines because anyone can say anything he wants on his own site. You know that. People can be very bitter when they leave any organization but that bitterness should not be in an article appearing in this forum. When you go into a Church site you know that what you are reading is their beliefs, their views. When you go into a site like Lerma’s you know he is an ex-member and he is communicating from that point of view. But going into Wikipedia one expects to read something that is neutral coming from verifiable sources. That is my point. I am open to further dialogue on this, also, feel free to email me. Nuview December 29, 2005 13:15 (PST)

All right, but derogatory data from a website put up by a former scientologist does not imply it is false information. On the other hand, data from a newspaper or magazine article that is mixed or favorable does not mean it is true. The only way to verify, really, is to do a data analysis on the material. Also, there is no such thing as a reliable source. This goes back to data analysis. Wikipedia is a secondary resource. --Fahrenheit451 20:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Nuview. I just wanted to say hello. I have been editing on Dianetics issues. If you are interested you might take a look. I have been having a problem with acceptance of Bridge as a reputable publisher. Any ideas would be welcome. Spirit of Man 23:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of purported cults

Please vote regarding the deletion of this article. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of purported cults/2. --AI 16:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bulk Template Delete

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_article_series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Navigational_templates#Religion

There are both timeline-specific series, and series based a unifying theme. Thus, there is a scientology series. What belongs on the template, and where it's put, is another issue, but it's not true that a series, on wikipedia, is time based. Ronabop 03:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "Reliable Source" advocated by Nuview

Nuview, I keep noticing you compulsively bring up this "reliable source" excuse for your deletions of non-party line church of scientology edits. There is no such wikipedia policy. Are you squirreling?--Fahrenheit451 23:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Holmes

Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 18:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the Scientology Template

I would like to get into communication with you regarding the scientology template. Template:ScientologySeries and how we might arrange its terms for easy of navigation and to put the easiest to understand arrangement of terms. I like what you did. Dianetics Studies make good sense as the first section. Presently it is "Engram, Reactive mind, Dianetics,Clear" and I feel it would make better sense if it were: "Dianetics, Engram, Reactive mind, Clear" because there is a logical line leading from its beginning to Clear. How do you feel about that? In addition I changed "Past Lives" as it appears in the template to "Reincarnation" because that is the title of the article the link points to, reducing confusion for the user. I'm willing to talk about that too, of course. Terryeo 20:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning: Blatant vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to David Miscavige, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Glen Stollery C T 06:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously Mr. Stollery has not read the whole of the patter drills controversy. I've contributed to his discussion page and to the Miscavige [1] Discussion page.Terryeo 20:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Glen, just saw this. Thanks for the warning. However, I am not sure what powers you are exercising. Are you an Administrator? I ask you to actually read the discussion on this article. I have provided evidence, however, Fahrenheit451 refuses to accept the facts on this one. This is apart from the other argument on this one, that readers aren't really going to have a clue what this is all about. This is why I keep removing this from the page. Are you threatening me as an editor or as an anti-Scientologist? Nuview 15:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Rfc (against me)

Hello Nuview :) ChrisO has initiated a "Request of Comments" against me [2]. His intent is to "get a lengthly block". He did not place a notice to you, but placed notification to persons who generally agree with his point of view, to me and to a few others. If you chose to comment on that page I would appriciate it but if you choose not to then that's okay to. In any event, have a good one. Terryeo 19:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism to Template:ScientologySeries

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Template:ScientologySeries. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. There is no consensus to remove Xenu from the ScientologySeries template. Do not remove Xenu from this template in the future unless there is a consensus to do so. Vivaldi (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism ?

IP adress 168.226.122.124 added a line to your user page. I just thought I would warn you in case this was an act of vandalism. Yandman 13:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the alert. Nuview 18:40, 4 August 2006 (PST)

[edit] Golden Age of Tech

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Golden Age of Tech, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Golden Age of Tech. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Golden Age of Tech

I have nominated Golden Age of Tech, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Age of Tech. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cirt (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)