Jump to content

Talk:Scientology and the Internet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.0.149.121 (talk) at 19:03, 21 January 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Quality assessment going forward

Wow, I actually thought coming here the article would be in a lot worse shape. Here are some thoughts:

  1. Go back through and make sure that all references satisfy WP:RS.
  2. Then, go through the cites and re-format all of them with WP:CIT, the References section currently looks choppy and unprofessional.
  3. Then, work on Notable legal actions section. Don't need to remove it, just merge pieces and re-format it to a paragraph discussion / analysis piece that flows easily and is easily comprehended by the lay reader.
  4. Then, step back, and see if it is at all ready for WP:GAC.
  5. If it is not, think about submitting for WP:PR instead, to get some ideas going forward for WP:GAC.

Just my thoughts, Cheers ! Cirt 05:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Scientology vs. the Internet, part XVII

  • Ingram, Matthew (January 18, 2008). "Scientology vs. the Internet, part XVII". Globe and Mail: Ingram 2.0. CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. Retrieved 2008-01-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

From the title, it's certainly relevant. Cirt (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

But how official is that Globe and Mail blog? It can be hard to tell with newspapers. AndroidCat (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon

Hi, it's us, the fellows you hate, right well, there is a major DDoS war against Scientology, along with around the clock prank calls and such. What do we need to do to make it "significant" enough for Wikipedia? Kakama5 (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your little DDOS attack on free speech needs to be mentioned by at least one WP:RS 3rd-party source (e.g. newspaper) before it could even be considered. I doubt it'll be particularly WP:NOTABLE. Wikipedia is not your press agent. (Ah! A spin-off from SA. Not surprising.) AndroidCat (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mr. Obvious Scientologist Wikipedo, I will keep that in mind when we get on Fox News. Kakama5 (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your research is full of fail. AndroidCat (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol so is your religion Kakama5 (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Android Cat is right. --Critical Commentary (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting stuff in non WP:RS sources

Maybe searching through some of this stuff will yield WP:RS/WP:V sources somewhere else:

  1. Not a WP:RS, but interesting, see Digg.com -- Scientology.org is down!. Cirt (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Anon declares war on Church of Scientology. Cirt (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  3. Project Chanology - Project Chanology? Anyone know what this is? I've never heard of it before, seems weird. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I guess anon has to be sued to be important. 99.147.22.195 (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn straight. We will crush them yet. And AndroidCat, this means you. Kakama5 (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil Kakama5, and you really, really need to do some homework... AndroidCat (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you really need to get Tommy to shut his mouth when it comes to videos hitting the Internet, but we should be civil and not bring up all the things about Scientology that we know I suppose. Kakama5 (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOLWUT? 68.0.149.121 (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology_and_the_Internet&oldid=185928664"