User talk:Olberon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Olberon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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!  --Arnzy (Talk) 07:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hubbard founding the Church

At the very least, it is still a matter of opinion and controversy whether Hubbard founded the Church himself, or whether others did. Sure, official Scientology sources say that others did, but there are other sources which state that these people were employed by Hubbard to set it up for him. If you persist in pushing the Church's "Hubbard didn't found it" party line, I'll have to gather up the many sources which contradict this assertion, and then an entire paragraph about it will further clog up these articles. Furthermore, the Church can't keep its own position straight on the matter: I just found several official Church sites that refer to Hubbard as its founder. Let it go. wikipediatrix 20:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Then what you do is saying as it IS! The Church of Scientology publications say that the Church was founded on 18 February 1954 by a group of Scientologists in Los Angeles. Others however may claim that he founded the Church himself. It is dishonest to exclude this information either way. I will adjust accordingly. Olberon 21:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not an important enough matter to justify cluttering the introductory paragraph of all these articles with your analysis of it. As long as there are official Church sites that say Hubbard was its founder - and there are - then the Church's position is inconsistent at best, and thus your own selective portrayal of it becomes the dishonest one. wikipediatrix 23:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Then you tell this. The Church publications however are quite clear about this. Wikipedia is about objectivity. You provide the options that exist. Fixating on only your version (Hubbard founded the Church) is misleading, it is subjective! And that makes you the dishonest one! Olberon 06:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, the intro paragraph to Mary Sue Hubbard is not the place to go into a long diversionary dissertation about who founded what when. Secondly, for someone who calls themselves a "critic" as you did in your edit summary, you seem awfully hell-bent on inserting Hubbard's own original (and discredited) version of the story. As I said, there are plenty of CoS websites and texts that currently refer to LRH as the founder of the Church. Thirdly, your zeal for inserting the information is overshadowing the fundamentals of good clear writing. wikipediatrix 14:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
To focus on primarily his SF is a misleading and a falsity. So you shorten it to "pulp fiction writer in various genre", which is true. The main book "What Is Scientology" says specifically that the subject was founded by Hubbard, but that First Church was founded by a group of Scientologists in LA. This is what first should be followed. Foremost the information should be truthful, shorten if you like but let it reflect reality. Olberon 15:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Please show me the contract. He founded HASI, he is not on the Church contract. I have accomodated you on this. See my latest change. If you continue changing we will have to call in third parties re this. I will not let go, as what you want is not historically nor factually correct! Olberon 15:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Olberon, I can agree with you up to a point. If the Church actually claims that technically LRH was not the founder of the Church of Scientology, then that is perhaps interesting information that we should have somewhere. However, Wikipediatrix has a very strong point that you may come to appreciate more as you get more experience with Wikipedia: even if a piece of information is technically true, doesn't mean it should be mentioned everywhere it can be. It may be true that LRH wrote in many different genres besides just science fiction, but does that information really need to go in the introductory paragraph of Mary Sue Hubbard?? Before mentioning what's notable about Mary Sue, who unlike L. Ron Hubbard is the actual subject of the article? You have made that change several times now, and argued that it must be kept by saying "Wiki rules say improve not get rid of additions" -- but how does one improve "additions" that are misplaced?
The same applies to the issue of Hubbard as the founder of the Church -- it may be worthy of mention, but you may also be overestimating just how much mention it's worthy of. When the District Court of the Hague makes the very first point of a ruling "L. Ron Hubbard is the founder of the Church of Scientology hereinafter CoS)" and the Church disputes other points but not that one, then it's hard to see why someone else's name occupying the place as "founder" on paper makes any practical difference. Perhaps you can explain why you see any more of a difference than we do, but just as Wikipedia only explain that some people believe the Earth to be flat on the pages about the people believing that, it really doesn't make sense to put the claim that Hubbard wasn't the founder of the Church in the introduction of every single Wikipedia article related to LRH. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand me. All I have tried to do is to accomodate. I totally agree that it should not be listed all over the place. It should be short enough but also truthful. I expected it to be shortened. However changing it to solely SF writer and Founder of the Church is not correct. See also my respons to Wikipediatrix in the above.
In fact L. Ron Hubbard was asked by this group of Scientologists if they could use his technology, he granted this. To have control over this and regulate the printing of materials, housing etc. he founded the HASI in May of 1954. He also put the copyrights in this HASI. Historically he simply did not found the church, he did not even originate it. Do you see what this does to the argument that he founded the Church (religion) for making money. It does suffice to say that he founded Scientology, and that he prior to that was a pulp fiction writer, mostly renowned by his SF stories. Olberon 15:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Nnnnnnnno. No, I'm afraid that the evidence is very clear that Hubbard was the driving force between turning Scientology into a "religion" and forming a "church" around it. Yes, I see very well what it would do to the argument that Hubbard founded the CoS to make money, and I have no doubts at all that that is why the CoS would like it to be believed that Hubbard didn't found the Church, simply "granted" permission for it to be founded. But it's about as believable a story as the one about how he "renounced" his "Ph.D" in "protest" against all the things done by other people who called themselves "Doctor" -- and not because it was about to be exposed as a phony degree Hubbard had purchased from a diploma mill. In fact, that's really sort of the core issue here: you keep referring to what the Church of Scientology claims about Hubbard supposedly not being the founder of the CoS as if it were the truth about whether Hubbard was the founder of the CoS. Surely, if you're describing yourself as a "critic" you know better than to think CoS has never told a falsehood it found useful? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The short of it is still what can be verified. Since 18 Feb 54 many Churches of scientology were founded, dates and cities are listed in "What Is Scientology" book. Did he found them as well? That he founded the First Church can not be substantiated by fact, for solely that reason it can not be noted on Wiki that he did. Olberon 10:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That he was the founder of the Church of Scientology has been found as fact by numerous courts of law. I'm afraid you're mistaken in your idea that "if the Church of Scientology doesn't admit to it, it can't be said". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The adjudications of a court is not necessarily fact. What is needed is a contract that shows his involvement. Probably filed in LA as the first church was founded there. I am sure someone can dig it up. Till then and shown that it does state the involvement of Hubbard it can not positively be stated that he founded the Church. --Olberon 07:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
"In December 1953, he incorporated three new churches — the Church of American Science, the Church of Scientology and the Church of Spiritual Engineering — in Camden, New Jersey. On 18 February 1954, the Church of Scientology of California was incorporated." Bare-Faced Messiah, p.220. Now, the present church might be descended from the California incorporation, but clearly Hubbard's own 1953 New Jersey incorporation was first, and a signal to local Dianetics organizations to convert to churches of Scientology. AndroidCat 12:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The only thing that will conclusively determine that is the original contracts. Miller's book is a subjective written overview of Scientology and Hubbard. What is his source for the claim? It is equally truthworthy as the claim of the Church of Scientology. Locate the contracts and publish them as scannings on the Internet. --Olberon 12:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Do original research and use a primary source? No. Miller's book is a published work and it is presumed that the publisher did fact-checking on obvious matters of public record like incorporations. Can you find any secondary sources that dispute that Hubbard incorporated those three organizations in 1953? AndroidCat 12:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The book What Is Scientology is also a published work. It obviously disputes the claim. --Olberon 14:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You called yourself a "critic" of the Church before - so why are you so eager to accept anything the Church says about itself as absolute truth? Reread what AndroidCat is telling you and try to understand why it supercedes the Church's official position regarding itself. wikipediatrix 14:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Does What Is Scientology? specifically dispute that Hubbard incorporated those organizations in 1953? Or does it simply not mention them? In the latter case, both could agree but the Church felt that it was (to them) an unnecessary detail. Since the Church is a partisan source and its own publisher, it's not automatically the last word. AndroidCat 14:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It disputes the claim that Hubbard founded the Church specifically. It doesn't matter if the Church is a 'partisan' source. It is an official and verified release making it fully valid to quote to. If you write about Scientology matters you have to positively back up the claim made. And it will not suffice to refer to a book written by some person (Miller) that condemns and ridicules everything involving Scientology/Hubbard. It is a highly biased source. And these are not accepted in Wiki! You failed by the way to note the referencing for Miller's claim about these Churches. --Olberon 15:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion of Mr Miller noted. As for sources of the incorporations, well, if you insist.. [1][2]. (Not a usable reference but it might lead to some: [3]) The Church of Scientology one will take a little longer because of the extra noise in the search engines, but I'm sure someone has it. Note that the other incorporations reference the Church of Scientology. Obviously not the one which will be created the next year in California. AndroidCat 15:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
So we have it confirmed by scannings of official documents that the "Church of Spiritual Engineering" & "The Church of American Science" were founded by Hubbard. What we have not seen yet is the contract of the First Church of Scientology in LA. --Olberon 16:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Why bother since the December 1953 Church of Scientology incorporation in New Jersey is the one we want? Meanwhile, while waiting, you can contemplate the Aberree Dianetics/Scientology fanzine for April 1954: [4] [5] AndroidCat 16:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
This is tiring. You ain't got a Church of Scientology incorporation certificate. You got Church of American Science. --Olberon 17:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Check again. I have scans of two of the three New Jersey incorporations by Hubbard that day and they reference the Church of Scientology one, I have a contemporary reference (April 1954) to the three incorporations and the later incorporations in California and Arizona, I have a few published books that list it. Hopefully I'll have scans of the actual incorporation. Meanwhile, you got zot. The official Church story is an obvious misdirection. AndroidCat 18:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I've checked all the links you provided, I haven't seen Church of Scientology, and I haven't seen LA. "Hopefully I'll have scans of the actual incorporation." Alright, then show it. --Olberon 18:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Checked them, you have? CoAS: "Second: The purpose for which this corporation was formed is to act as the Mother Church for propagation of a religious faith known as "Scientology"." [6] CoSE: "2. It proposes to supply its finds generally or supply them specifically to the Church of American Science and the Church of Scientology." [7] The only Church of Scientology at that point is the one being incorporated the same day in New Jersey, otherwise this section of the incorporation would have been invalid. The issue of the Abarree clearly lists the trio of organizations incorporated in New Jersey, and then mentions the California (LA) and Arizona ones and that further state organizations (Mich) will follow, with the Church of American Science as the parent organization for the various state ones. P.S. I'm not looking for the incorporation of the Church of Scientology in California (LA). That happened months later, and if you feel it has something to add, you find it. AndroidCat 20:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Again and last time, get the documents of incorporation for the Church of Scientology (whenever that was) and show them. --Olberon 06:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[8] (14M pdf). AndroidCat 16:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I acknowledge that you have proven your point. It may very well have been so that he did not founded the LA Church on 18 Feb 1954, but this is dating back to Dec 1953. Per this document it can not positively be stated that he founded the subject but not the Church. Thank you for your efforts! --Olberon 19:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Viewing the PDFs, it appears Hubbard set up the "Church of Scientology" in Dec 53, to be a subsidiary, non-profit corperation which could not act on its own, but was detined to act under and be directed by a parent organization. Hubbard introduced "Scientology" about a year and a half earlier in Scientology: Milestone One Several Dianetics groups were operating at that time, He was traveling, lecturing and putting together both the technology and the organization. At that time it probably seemed like a reasonable task to him that he could oversee the development of the technology and the organization(s) which were disseminating it. But the quantities of people involved soon grew rapidly. It is my feeling that Hubbard recognized that he could not do the developmental work AND the organizational work AND act as the anchor point to whom legal process would be served. The reason I mention this is a statement in the corperation document of "The Church of Scientology" (Dec 1953, PDF) which states, "The agent for the same and upon whom process can be served is L. Ron Hubbard, Sr". I suspect the complexity of a LARGE organization with the other factors, made the 1953 corperation untenable. Therefore, because that corperation doesn't apply and isn't used by today's Church, I would say, except for a historical study, this link would better serve "The Church of Scientology was established in 1954." [9] (first line). Terryeo 15:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Except that that incorporation of the Church of Scientology in California was exactly the same as the one in New Jersey under the Church of Spiritual Technology, and probably the later ones in Arizona and elsewhere. Eventually the various corporations were grouped under the California one, but that was just reorganization of the business structure, as was the later folding of CoS California and reorganization under CSI. AndroidCat 15:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You mean under the Church of American Science. Terryeo may have a point. The idea was later on to rather create a network of independent islands of organizations. The question is when exactly the LA Church was considered the Founding church? The first edition of 'What Is Scientology?' in 1978 doesn't seem to know anything about thise first 3 churches. --Olberon 19:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not mismark your edits

Please do not mismark edits as minor when they are not. A minor edit would be something like fixing a typo, fixing a verb that's in the wrong tense, rearranging a confusing sentence so that it reads more clearly -- these things are minor edits. Any edit which significantly changes content, even if it's by as much as one character, is not a minor edit. Adding the disputed claim that Hubbard did not found the Church of Scientology is definitely not a minor edit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Thank you for drawing my attention to this! Olberon 06:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The three-revert rule

Olberon, you need to be careful and make sure you don't violate the three-revert rule. I haven't looked closely enough to see if you've actually reverted the same portion of the article more than three times in twenty-four hours -- but looking at the history of the articles you've been editing, it's clear that you're skating very, very close to the edge. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As I previously clarified, I have attempted to accomodate. A middle way should be available for this "SF writer" and "who founded" disagreement. You are free to intervene and advice as a third party. If you have a good proposal, please share it. I do not intend to enforce MY way, I am in for a middle way that we all can be happy with. Olberon 16:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand this, but you are reacting as if I had commented on the content of your reverts. What I am trying to do is warn you about the three-revert rule, which you must abide by regardless of the relative merits of your preferred content and that favored by others. Please read WP:3RR, because you are responsible for abiding by it if you wish to edit on Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus, please comment on content and refrain from making personal comments. Content is more important. (My statement is not intended to says violating 3RR is ok.) --Nikitchenko 20:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stollery

Thank you for experimenting with the page Suppressive Person on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. 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. - Glen TC (Stollery) 20:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a false warning from Stollery. I reverted him and see no reason to contact him about it since communication has failed due to his constant incivility, see Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard#User:Stollery. And no I am not a sock puppet of Olberon, Terryeo, UNK or anyone! --Nikitchenko 20:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Note: Nikitchenko (talk · contribs) has since admitted to being a sockpuppet of banned user AI (talk · contribs).[10] -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Olberon, I disagree with Stollery. Your edit wasnt experiment. I filed a complaints about him and makes statements on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology, you can join the mediation case since the problem affect your effort in Wikipedia. --Nikitchenko 20:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI: Olberon already blocked at Swedish Wikipedia

User:Olberon has recently been blocked from using Swedish Wikipedia due to a number of attempts to distort articles related to scientology. If you know of any other language editions of Wikipedia where this has happened, that information could be useful to those trying to decide on whether or not he (?) should be blocked in other language editions, or possibly blocked again, should he reappear and try the same again at Swedish WP.

Olberon's SV-WP talk page (in Swedish)

Interesting. An anonymous input! Use arguments not hearsay and Fair Game. The intent here is obvious. Not quilty as charged by the way. --Olberon 16:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hearsay? I provided ample evidence. Just check out the link.
You respond anonymously. Although I think I know who you are. You have no evidence. Using 'already' in the title of the chapter is insinuating and a personal attack. No wonder you are anonymous. --Olberon 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
No evidence of what? This? /Grillo 04:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
No evidence for "a number of attempts to distort articles related to scientology". --Olberon 06:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Will this suffice? And by the way, Olberon has spammed every admin and several non-admins with threats about that we have been "registered" and "judged"... Typical scientologists. /Grillo 15:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Personal attack! No back up for accusations, is twisting my actual words and is referring to pages in another language. Fair Game in practice. --Olberon 16:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
My final word: LOL /Grillo 16:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A couple comments on the Scientology pages

Olberon, I don't mean this as a criticism, just a suggestion, and hope you take it as such. I don't think threatening to file complaints is going to be helpful -- it just tends to make people defensive. If you think that people are engaged in vandalism, just explain why and ask them to stop, and then, if you really think you need to file some kind of complaint, just do so. But the threat, IMHO, is just going to get everyone off on the wrong foot.

Thanks, and I look forward to working with you more on the encyclopedia,TheronJ 14:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first encounter of this kind with Futurix, and for that matter with Wikipediatrix. I am not threatening, I am informing him. I quote the relevant issues. It is really not the first time this person just does as he pleases and push his POV in some article. Futurix and I are already on the wrong foot, I have filed a complaint before. --Olberon 14:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Olberon, Hi. Sorry, just getting back. I don't stop by much. Can I help you? Spirit of Man 02:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Just stopped by to see what is up. Spirit of Man 01:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciate the comment

Thank you for your comments at [11] . Terryeo 12:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChrisO#Being_harassed_by_Terryeo_again. --Olberon 19:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit summaries

Your behavior of writing edit summaries that present productive behavior as vandalism must stop immediately. You've been warned before. --Davidstrauss 00:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hubbard nym Frederick Engelhardt

Check the September 2006 issue of Asimov's where Robert Silverberg says that Frederick Engelhardt was indeed a pseudonym of Hubbard. (So you can add in the ones that William J. Widder missed.) AndroidCat 00:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illiterates

As you wrote in this edit right here: "It is fully ignored here what user Tilman and Wikipediatrix have been doing, their claims, their arguments, their behaviour etc.. It is also fully ignored that in fact these Scientology articles REMAIN TO LINK TO A WHOLE VARIETY OF CRITICAL 'PERSONAL' SITES!!! Instead I am attacked by user Modemac whose own opinion and track of posting in regards to Scientology is documented on his contributions and talkpage. I for sure am amongst illiterates that run a propaganda of their personal likes and dislikes."

I must say, this is the funniest comment directed towards me that I've seen in quite a while. Thanks.  :) (Although, I thought J&D was an alter-is?) --Modemac 14:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said I am amongst illiterates. Any fool can edit any page around here or leave comments.--Olberon 17:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Over and out? Ignored arguments?

Your personal interpretations and evaluations nor mine for that matter do not bear any value whatsoever. The issue is not about Scientology but the non-public person Barbara Schwarz. The issue is that you have to abide by Wiki rules. Your responses and avoidance of the arguments brought forward by me have been noted. Over and out. --Olberon (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that you have to abide by Wiki rules. Well, duh! (If I was breaking Wiki rules I'd of just added a section about her to Scientology despite there being no source.) ...the non-public person Barbara Schwarz. You are incorrect, she is a public person, by filing public requests for information, initiating pro se litigation (also public), and been interviewed for stories in newspapers and other media. Also which arguments have I been avoiding? (Your point about OJ Simpson?) Anynobody 01:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reported

Hi. Please see this. I am sorry to have to do this and I urge you to self-revert your last edit to the Scientology article. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't respond to intimidation which I perceive that this is. I have the right as an editor to revert. That is not synonym with edit-warring. --Olberon (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, too, but the kind of en masse reversion you performed is just plain rude. If we posit that my intention in my edit was to improve the article then you are violating WP:AGF by flatly reverting it. If it were your intention also to improve the article then you might make a considered edit or a change in my edit. As BTfromLA did. Your bulk reversion indicated to me that your purpose was not to improve the article but to practice obstructionism for whatever reason. --JustaHulk (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You have no argument. You bulk deleted and completely disregarded queries of several on the discussionpage on that article. Therefore your effort was to actually damage the article. See, because of these ego-minded approaches of various I quit Wiki a while ago. Silly games. --Olberon (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)