re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Wikipedia editor, not Wikileaks... *big* difference there. If you want to contribute as it relates to the AFD currently in progress, I would highly recommend giving the article itself some attention at this point. A number of the sources that are already cited, particularly the Nightline source, need to be fully looked over and mined for information so that the article can be expanded. That way, one can go to the AFD discussion and say, "Hey, I've added all of this wonderful material sourced to [whatever]." I've got the article watchlisted, so do your best, and if it needs refinement, I should see it and be able to refine it. Remember, though, that since this is a biography of a living person (BLP), everything needs to be sourced. Basically, if a BLP article states that the subject picked their nose last Thursday, there needs to be a reliable source stating as much.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige I suggest making an outline starting with all the references already on the article, then for each reference add sub-points of significant things each refs says. Once you've got that, work the significant points into the text of the article, with the refs inline. Improving a poor article is a much better tactic against an AfD than baaawing about dark conspiracies. (Not that there aren't conspiracies, it's just that Wikipedia is overflowing with them.)
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige I wouldn't go all tinfoil on this. I have no reason to think he has some specific bias toward the Scientology cult. If he's involved with any cult at all, it's the deletionist cult, a group which seems to have no other important life activity than to go around Wikipedia deleting other people's articles. This guy has a collection of barnstars that could fill an actual barn, another sign of having no life.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Firstly, thank you for allowing me to post here and to respond to the things you are saying about me. I hope I can help clarify some things, and answer any questions you have. For those that suspect a dark conspiracy, can I invite you to do a little more research. If you look at my editing contributions on Wikipedia, you will little or not attention to Scientology articles before the last few weeks. If you look at those of my previous Wikipedia account "Doc glasgow". You will find that I've been active on Wikipedia for over five years, and have shown no particular interest in Scientology. (Oh there will probably be the odd related article I've touched among the tens of thousands of edits I've made, but there is no pattern and no real involvement). I had absolutely no involvement with the recent Wikipedia arbitration case about Scientology. My point? You may disagree with what I'm doing at Wikipedia, but there is no conspiracy whatsoever. I am not, never have been, and never will be a Scientologist. Indeed I know no Scientologists, and have had, to my knowledge, no contact with any related body or person. If I have any view of Scientology, it would be largely shaped by the British media, which would render it largely negative. (I never could stand Tom Cruise anyway!) If I have an obsession in Wikipedia, it would be with the articles we call "Biographies of Living People" (BLPs) - again look at my contributions for evidence. These are a particular problem because we allow almost anyone to post almost anything about living people - and we don't always spot the biased, distorted, trivia and downright libellous posts we sometimes get. I am a firm believer we should only have articles on those who are highly notable - and only include the best public information from solid unbiased sources. I have, over the years, applied that mantra to all my BLP work, even on the articles of those whose ideologies I personally find repugnant. I've defended the BLPs of Christians, Jews, Scientologists, atheists, fascists, communists, Nobel laureates and (heaven help me) even paedophiles. I'm particularly alert to the danger that Wikipedia can be used by the ideologically motivated to fight their cause by attempting to list all the demerits of opponents and all the plaudits of supporters in articles. This is dangerous because it distorts content even when, and perhaps especially when, the cause is good and the target a scumbag. OK, I hope that explains my motivations. We may disagree about who is "notable", and what constitutes a "good source" - but I trust you'll see where I'm coming from. Oh, and a post to a user talk page may be removed by that user when there have been read. I've not "deleted" anything from my talk page (it is still accessible in the history), I've merely read it and removed it as "finished". Let me know if there are any other question I can answer.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige good for you. Thank your for visiting this insane little corner of the internet that sees a Scientology conspiracy lurking behind every shrub and bush.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Welcome. Thanks for being so very reasonable.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Hi Scott, thanks for coming here. I am the OP and the guy who is posting with his IP on WP. I believe you are being honest in your post. However, I still feel unease about the discussion you deleted on your talk page. This concerned apparent involvement of banned users in your decision to start the project. Not declaring that upfront on the project page and instead deleting discussions probing this, was not a good call, IMO. PS OSA, I am protected by European privacy laws that prohibit you to maintain a file on my IP address. Just so you know.
Re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Jesse Prince: A Church's Lethal Contract December 1, 2003, David S. Touretzky, Razor Magazine Church behavior? May 26, 2001, Editorial, St. Petersburg Times Church critic trailed, arrested May 19, 2001, Deborah O'Neil, St. Petersburg Times Diana author names Tom Cruise as 'World Number Two in Scientology' January 7, 2008, James Tapper, Daily Mail How Scientology turned its biggest critic July 7, 2002, Deborah O'Neil, St. Petersburg Times How much oddity can one town take? February 6, 2000, Thomas C. Tobin, St. Petersburg Times Man's film a veiled look at Scientology August 2, 2001, Robert Farley, St. Petersburg Times Scientology critic won't face retrial May 26, 2001, Deborah O'Neil, St. Petersburg Times Scientology is a key player in marijuana case May 24, 2001, Deborah O'Neil, St. Petersburg Times Scientology link to drug case keeps jurors from reaching verdict May 25, 2001, Associated Press, Florida Times-Union Testimony: Church of Scientology spurred critic's arrest May 23, 2001, David Sommer, Tampa Tribune And BTW, in the US, a hung jury with no retrial is an acquittal. Bah, what did Gandalf say when he was forced to light a fire after a failed mountain-pass attempt? "Might as well farking-well light my ass on fire for those with eyes to see..."
Re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Och! Banned users from which side? Can anyone join in with their grudges? I've got a little list. (And if anyone has a copy of private Arbcom communications during the last Arbcom edict, from which various admins were carefully excluded, remember that Wikileaks might be your friend.)
Re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige I just "remembered" that I'm the author of those pages. I don't have much time at the moment so I did something simple to make sure that scn is worse off than a moment ago. Added in TWTH page: In a published US embassy cable, Ursula Caberta, the Director of the Working Group on Scientology (created by the the Hamburg State Parliament to address all "destructive groups" which endanger society), obtained a booklet that contained the Hamburg mayor's photograph and signature, yet was actually a publication from Scientology's "The Way to Happiness Foundation." She contended that "Scientology regularly used misleading methods to fool individuals into joining and said that such booklets had been distributed to other German cities. For someone unfamiliar with Scientology publications, the booklet looked very much like information brochures from the City of Hamburg."[25] Validity of secular claim The Way to Happiness is described by the foundation as "a non-religious moral code, based entirely on common sense, which is having profound effects around the world". Beit-Hallahmi have performed an extensive search in the history of religions, and still cannot find one single case in which a religion was publicly propagating a secular version of its ethical system. To illustrate the uniqueness of the booklet, he gave the following analogy: "How about a secular, improved version of the Ten Commandments?".[31] The text uses key words and concepts taken directly from Scientology beliefs. For example, "survival" is the fundamental point of life, and you can be truly happy if you become the "cause" of your own actions. More importantly, the book emphasizes repeatedly that the truth is "what is true for you." Protagoras has the same relativistic view[32], which is proven to be self-defeating by Socrates.
Re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Brilliant post faggot. You just made sure TWTH got added to the articles of concern list due to NPOV problems. Well, Scott, since you seem to be reading this, my personal opinion would be that the first paragraph is a valid concern to add to the page (given the source is a government entity), but not so much for the second and the third paragraph.
Holy crap Scott, you are such a farking whiner! You're busy up to your neck in Scientology issues, but meanwhile you're claiming that you're an uninvolved editor. BULLSHIT! Grow a pair, seriously.
WikipediaReview Editor Scott Mac continues to bleat that he's "uninvolved" in spite of drinking deep from the WR kool-aid about how uninvolved they are. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...=historysubmit&diff=412507233&oldid=412499480
