User talk:Helen Wu~enwiki

Hi all!

Hello!

I noticed your edit to Dianetics; I hope you won't mind if I offer some advice on how to shape your efforts on Wikipedia so that they are most effective.

• The ideal I try to keep in mind for Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects, like Dianetics and related articles, is that they should ideally describe "what intelligent people believe on the subject" and "why an intelligent person might believe it." For instance, in reference to your edit to Dianetics, an intelligent person might indeed believe that Dianetics and Scientology have made a significant contribution to the New Age movement in part because Drs. Ankerburg and Weldon say so. However, when the reader has no idea who Dr. Ankerburg and Dr. Weldon are, it isn't clear why someone would take that opinion as a significant one. ("intelligent" doesn't mean "always right", of course -- frequently people believe something due to flawed logic or misreported facts, but it can still be worth mentioning that those factors played a role in those beliefs.)

• Selecting the right placement is important. With articles related to Dianetics and Scientology, this is especially tricky; there are a great many articles and the interconnections between them are sometimes hard to keep track of. Being aware of which articles are in Category:Scientology and its subcategories will help a lot in making sure your contribution goes to the right place right away.

There's more, but that's probably enough for right now. Hope to see more of you! -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful advice Antaeus. Yes I guess my interest has landed me in the deep end of Wikipedia. My main interest is in misattribution of psychology in self-help/self-development movements. Scientology/Dianetics is an interesting one, and because of its fairly long history I am also interested in its influence on other subjects (including pop psychology and other psuedosciences). Its quite a "successful" organization, and from my own studies I've found its influence to be quite broad. I will search which subcategories my findings are most suitable for. Sincerely Helen Wu 04:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

I saw your edit, which was really not a bad edit, in the Dianetics article and think it is an interesting contribution. I'm referring to: Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon state that Hubbard, through Scientology and Dianetics, have made a significant contribution to the New Age movement. If I may suggest. It might stand in the article if it had an attribution. If it had, per WP:CITE, some indication of having been published. You know, its not that anyone is doubting that information, but information needs to have been published to the public. So a newspaper or a book attribution would be appropriate. In Dianetics or possibly in Scientology (maybe better in Scientology, but that is just an opinion) it would be a good piece of information. Put the information into the article as you did and then immediately follow the period at the end with <ref>Book name, publisher, maybe page number</ref>. Just like you read it, the no wiki that you read when editing is called "markup" and I put it in so you could read the <ref> how to reference </ref> Terryeo 00:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, in this particular instance, happens to be telling more or less the truth: the quality of an attribution can make a big difference on whether other editors accept it. In this particular case, I'd also recommend including more detail. It can mean a great many things to say someone "made a significant contribution to the New Age movement"; it could mean "their doctrines influenced a great many other New Age belief systems", or "their aggressive propagandizing encouraged others to do the same" or something else altogether. It's hard to tell from just the statement that they made a significant contribution. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Antaeus. I was on the verge of being dissuaded from editing by pressure from Terryeo. You have given me reason to redouble my efforts. Helen Wu 07:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

NLP

Meatpuppetry is as against policy as sockpuppetry. Meatpuppets are people who join a discussion in order to influence it and do nothing else on the encyclopedia. Generally, they don't edit any other article. It's as disruptive as sockpuppetry because it falsely shows more extensive support than what actually exists. So even if these people were just in the same club, it's just as against policy and the arbcom decision than if it was all one user. So in the end, it doesn't matter. And no we aren't going to block all of Hong Kong and China. All of these folks are posting from the SAME university and those are the people who are being blocked. This is not censorship. If those folks had followed policy and not all gotten together to try to influence the article...say if they had picked one or two people to post and that was it...then we wouldn't be having this discussion. These are folks who came here to influence the NLP article and that's all they were here for. We don't and will not condone that. If the pro side had used sockpuppets, they would've been given the same treatment. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you try to treat me like a small asian woman. Don't try to lie to me. You tell me how was the article influenced? Was it by the editors or by the facts? The science editors were oftentimes lesser than the antiscience editors. But the science was still there. The influence was facts only. [1] NLP followers tried to influence with pressure constantly. Disruptive is when an antiscience editor makes lots of questions to the science ones to waste time or cause conflict. You banning science editors may not be censorship but it definitely will happen to lead to censorship. I know a fact that the science editors were not all from the same university. So don’t give me your lie. You failed to support the facts, and now the censorship is going to happen. If I try to edit on the NLP article, then how do I control other editors from Hong Kong? I suggest something, then two more suggest, then I am banned? You suggested a stupid idea. Stop with your excuses. You convince nobody. You should have your next job to ban all critical realist editors on the scientology article to give the scientologists a chance to do their promoting and cover ups. Then you give your same stupid excuses. You warned me off, and I will wait till other non-Hong Kong editors say how stupid and confusing your NLP enhanced article is. Then I'll give full support with all the sources the NLP followers deleted. In the meantime just take your excuses somewhere else and let me edit other articles. Helen Wu 04:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt much I say will make any difference. However, here to clarify is why the HK sockfarm / sceptics place was banned:

Wikipedia has rules and policies. Those rules govern, inter alia all personal conduct, and approaches to articles. Because of the nature of the internet, they also govern when and how a user may be removed for suspected accounts, or for multiple editors working together in a manner that blocks proper functioning of Wikipedia, even if by chance they are different individuals sharing computers. You may not like this, but each place has its rules, and those were spelled out over a very long period of time, and at many levels. They were spelled out by numerous individuals, personally and on the article, by mediation, by arbitration, by mentorship, and ultimately, by removal.

The users named have been blocked not because of a sudden desire by a number of editors and mediators (most of whom had no prior interest in NLP) to take a side. In fact they were not formally removed until the mediators tired of their knowing improper conduct, after many months of work by 3rd parties who feel their time was wasted. That's how life goes: - in a communal work, no individual is indispensible, and those who do not learn, tend to ultimately discover this. I'm told it's a bit of a shock. They were removed because, simply put, they did not learn how to write in accordance with an encyclopedic style. they were removed for "warfare", vandalism, invention of false facts, deletion of valid sourced material, persistent cognitive inability to comprehend WP:NPOV and a dozen other standards, breaches of sockpuppet policy first notified to them over 8 months ago and not rectified in that time, running of one of the largest sockpuppet/meatpuppet groups of 2005 (WP:SOCK refers), and virulent personal attacks. Most of these things had little to do with the content they were writing.

(Incidentally, several of them were the same individual, not just the same computer. That's been confirmed a number of ways. No I don't plan to clarify, just to say, "do you think this is the first time it's happened here"? Again, ask Headley)

Anyhow, it's done. This is written, on the off chance there are genuine individuals who wonder why the bans happened. Now you know. FT2 (Talk) 13:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FT2 I have seen your edits. You are an NLP follower. You are worse than Woohokitty. You both should be nowhere near the NLP article. FT2, you and Comaze should be banned like Terryeo for making hundreds of hours of extra work and sly conflict. Your excuses are extreme and one sided. The NLP followers obviously did lots of "warfare", vandalism, invention of false facts, deletion of valid sourced material, persistent cognitive inability to comprehend WP:NPOV and a dozen other standards. You are one of them. Tell me where in this version of the article [2] there is any false facts, vandalism or deletion of valid source material? You are trying to delete it yourself and vandalism is what the NLP followers do when they get frustrated with the facts that don’t promote NLP. You are also as unconvincing as Woohokitty. I didn’t ask for your desperate one sided excuses or threats. You certainly don’t want me editing on the NLP article. That is because you are an NLP follower. Helen Wu 04:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)