|Wikimedia Commons has media related to User:Anynobody.|
|Wikisource has original text related to this article:|
23:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
But it's 16:01 01 October where I live.
- 1 About me
- 1.1 What I have done here worth mentioning
- 1.2 About how I interact with other editors
- 1.3 About my interest in L. Ron Hubbard
- 1.4 and the article Church of Scientology
- 1.5 Recognition/awards
- 1.6 The smartest ways to use Wikipedia, aka advice
- 1.8 Useful Rules
- 1.9 Flawed Rules
- 1.10 Useful, but Flawed Rule
- 2 Templates
- 3 Other Tools
- 4 References
What I have done here worth mentioning
As of 04:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC) my more popular images are:
About how I interact with other editors
About my interest in L. Ron Hubbard
I feel a brief explanation of why I'm editing this article may help other editors understand what I think it should be. A little over six months ago I happened into the article, read it, and some of the sources listed. (See my blurb above about how I use Wikipedia for research.) I noticed that both sides of the argument were incorrect about various aspects of his career in the United States Navy which could be proven with proper sources, thus making said article more accurate.
It happens that Scientology sources tend to be skewed in favor of Hubbard, and the non-CoS sources are tilted against him more often than not. Of the non-CoS sources some just want the truth to be told, others are out to destroy Hubbard and his creation. The people out to show the CoS as the greatest evil spawned from the brain of a monster are just as biased as those who refuse to believe anything which goes against his assertions.
I don't think he was as terrible as some would have us believe, but I do know from government and private sources that he was certainly not the friend of mankind he claimed to be. The choice we have is to A) use the CoS' POV B) use the anti-CoS POV, or C) simply report the facts available in valid sources.
and the article Church of Scientology
I understand our neutral POV rule to work in relation to subjects such as the CoS begins with the type of source used. Divided among three types; subject, critic, and media. Subject sources are those from the subject itself, critic sources are obviously those from critics of the subject while media would be news/books/tv etc. This was the article before I started editing, it literally ignored at least two controversial subjects and over 10 sources like TIME, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times.
I've received some, but I don't like to brag about my accomplishments. (The descriptions of work done above are meant to be a sign that I am somewhat productive.) This doesn't mean I don't support the recognition program here; to the contrary I've actually designed a few awards too. I don't know why but recognition through awards hasn't really ever been my cup of tea. I do appreciate feedback though, be it positive or negative. Obviously I prefer the former, however the latter is important too.
The smartest ways to use Wikipedia, aka advice 
Since an article is really only as good as its sources, one must remember this while doing any kind of research here. A good article will have many references from reputable sources  If the source is available online, definitely look at it to gauge for yourself whether you believe the site. This is especially important for students using Wikipedia for a research project/paper because a student must ask themselves if their teacher would believe the site in question. I predict that more than a few students have already learned that the hard way. Be wary of statements with the words:  after it. These statements are in dispute and another editor has asked for a source to back up the assertion being made. This can also be explained here: Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer:
Not everyone knows what you mean
Being a multinational project there is a good chance you will be misunderstood, don't be surprised when it happens and try to be calm if someone thinks you've attacked them and they are in turn attacking you. |}
(1 Common sense should be used here, if an amateur writes a report with irrefutable references and evidence which contradicts a report written by a professional would be one example of an exception)
- Wikimedia sister projects - How to link articles to other Wiki projects.
- Wikipedia:Article size - When creating content for many computers, who's emphasis is universal accessibility, it's best to assume that most users have older or less capable technology available. One aspect of this is the size of Wikipedia articles. Larger articles take a longer time to load, so whenever possible article sizes should be kept small.
- Wikipedia:Summary Style - Is a related guideline which is the way articles can be kept small without sacrificing the amount of information Wikipedia offers.
- Wikipedia: Ignore All Rules - Is a good concept, carried out in a highly flawed way. Since there is no determination when ignoring the rules helps Wikipedia, or situations where one should, individual editors may decide this is the only policy they need to know.
- Wikipedia: what it is not - One aspect is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be an indiscriminate depository of random info. Category:porn stars, Category: Star Trek, Category:High schools in the United States and Category:Shipwrecks show that to be incorrect.
Useful, but Flawed Rule
- Wikipedia: Be bold - Don't be afraid to try out an edit before discussing it on the talk page. If your edit is reverted, then you know it should be discussed on the talk page.
[[Image:Example.png|thumb|right|Example image caption]]
- This is what a reference looks like, preferably with links to the actual source itself whenever possible. This is what a linked source looks like