User talk:Jimbo Wales

Wei Wenhua

For posterity:

• User talk:Jimbo Wales, blanked for 24 hours - 13 January 2008
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Statements of support

Scientology article

Scientology definition page is constantly being vandalized and manipulated by the cult followers. Any time a word "cult" shows up there, it gets erased, Same with simple facts about the workings of this organization. I hope the founder of Wikipedia can somehow protect this article so that it is not misleading or manipulative. If Scientology is not a cult, than what is? Or should we get rid of that word entirely... Any educated person with information about Scientology - it's practices, its workings, manipulations etc know what this cult is about. Let's not kid ourselves here. And the encyclopedia should be about information, knowledge, transparency - not manipulation, deletion of certain facts and informations. Wikipedia is a very well known and popular online encyclopedia, lots of kids read it, it should be informative, not misleading and luring into some cults like Scientology. All the info on this cult is online, all the historical info on religions and cults as well, and in spite of that this particular entry here is constantly evolving into a nice little promo for this brainwashing racket. Some fact should be placed under the definition of Scientology - after all the encyclopedia is about informing, educating people not withholding information, isn't it? Just as this nice sentence on Jimmy's homepage states: "Free knowledge for free minds". Scientology is certainly not free, it keeps it's papers and procedures secretive and the same is going on on its definition page on Wikipedia. Gradually crucial info is being erased by some very active individuals. Kind regards --Pitdog (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As pretty much the only Scientologist currently editing, I have to laugh. The only "very active individual" in the Scientology articles is a prolific critic that is interested in "constantly evolving" the series "into a nice" exposition of his POV and evolving WikiNews "into a nice little promo" for a bunch of Anon cyberterrorists (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prolific POV-pusher moving from Wikipedia to WikiNews). --JustaHulk (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear JustaHulk :) since you are obviously biased here, and as we all know the cults main point is to manipulate the minds of its members, I do not think you should be able to edit the article or being taken seriously. And do not meddle with the facts, you are pretending not to know what has been going on with this particular entry for years on end or you are very new to Wikipedia. Either way you seem to be kinda oblivious to some simple facts. I hope you can educate yourself a little bit, read about this organisation and stop being manipulated by the cult. I wish you the best. --Pitdog (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Pitdog, the self-imposed mind control of ill-informed bigotry is much more likely, more prevalent, and more damaging than any shifts in point-of-view that a Scientologist may experience by virtue of studying Scientology. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please tell my why you are mentioning some ill-informed bigotry. What do you know about me and my knowledge, my experiences? You are biased, if you have an some sense of fair play and justice, you should see that you shouldn't take part in editing an article about something in which you participate, especially a cult which manipulates its members. Read some info I provided above, then discuss. From me: over and out. I am not fair game, I will not further waste time talking to someone, who perhaps is manipulating the public forum. Just have some respect for the readers here and admit: as someone involved in the cult you are not able to make clear judgments about the organization. Your views are certainly not neutral, because you are a Scientologist. Scientology through its primitive mind controlling practices is a very dangerous organization. The "lessons", or auditing those are very old, simple and potentially very harming exercises for a victims psyche. Repetitions, prolonged monotonous sessions, hatred towards sciences like psychiatry, medicine in general - now we an start talking about bigotry ad doing harm to societies, to individuals... Cheers --Pitdog (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not waste space here attempting to disabuse you of your ill-informed and bigoted (not to mention banal) misconceptions. Yes, people that know a subject may have a different opinion of it than those that do not and I guess you could call that "bias". --JustaHulk (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are being offensive, throwing names around. Another typical cult tactic (this particular cult) - attack, fair game. Please explain what is ill informed about simple very well known facts, pick one - secrecy of the cult, money grabbing, all the L,R.Hubbard "teachings" which are basically drunk man' blabberings (or am I mistaken, correct me and show the wisdom of that con man lol). And again lets get back to the main point - where is NPOV if an active member of the cult is editing the page?? Be fair, have some dignity and respect for the readers and do not involve yourself in creating a biased, misinforming Wikipedia entry on Scientology. Have you read the sources I provided? A simple question. Read and understood I mean. --Pitdog (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I am extremely familiar with ALL sides of this issue. And it is your ill-informed, one-sided blatherings that are truly offensive. And readers here will be glad to hear that I am done rising to your trolling. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientology should be ridiculed in accordance with NPOV, because virtually everyone agrees it's ridiculous. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't say things that are unnnecessarily inflammatory, and may offend other editors. --Deskana (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• as Cult is the total cultural aspects of a religion, as they are distinguished from others. In theory its can be applied to all religions equally, what the problem is that "cult" is perceived in the negative when added to a religion as such the use of "cult" should be exercised with caution where the term is used it use should be clearly inline with WP:NPOV. In general respect should be given to the wording of all religious articles and terms that have such extreme negative perceptions should be avoided in the general writing of articles and left to the quotes of experts on the subject. Gnangarra 03:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not difficult to find operative definition of cults by those who have studied the cult phenomenon. In general, they focus on absolutism, deceptive recruiting practices, exorbitant charges, discouragement of thinking for oneself, demonization of critics and those who leave the cult, etc. This is the way the word "cult" is actually used by literate people. By these criteria, Scientology is a cult. All that would be necessary to satisfy the "neutral point of view" criterion would be to say that Scientology has been described by experts in new religious movements (who could be quoted)as a cult. Kevin Langdon (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So can I put some expert quotes on the subject of this cult there? So that the article is not misleading and becomes a bit more informative? Cult implies manipulation, mind control- yes, it is a negative term, that is precisely why it applies to Scientology. If this is not a cult, than what is I ask? Kind regards --Pitdog (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cult doesnt mean "manipulation" "mind control" to use the term to imply such violates WP:NPOV. Scientology is a religion if you have issues with it then editing an article to push your POV is doing exactly what you are complaining about. Something about "let he who is free of sin cast the stone"... Gnangarra 14:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We must be talking about a different word with different definition. So what a cult means in your opinion? The saying about the stone and sin - what it has to do with facts? Being neutral means no manipulation, no withholding information. Pretending that Scientology is not a cult is like pretending that right now theres peace and democracy in Iraq. I see no point in further discussion on this level. Scientology is a cult if you have issues with it that its your right to be misinformed, but why misinform the general public? You mention being objective, and yet the page is being actively edited by a member or members of the cult. Where is objectivity in that? Please do not twist the facts, it is pointless. ". By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." a quote form NPOV article. Regards --Pitdog (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about a very loaded word, with multiple definitions and connotations. Cult can mean any religious sect you don't like. And it doesn't even need to be religious. You could all benefit by reading the Wikipedia article on cults, which is really quite excellent. And by the way, the proposed psychological definition fits the Navy SEALS or the Marine Corps a lot better than it does Scientology. Take people who are young or otherwise mentally vulnerable, then break-em-down, then build-em-up, and the finally use them for whatever purpose you like, is an old, old human process. SBHarris 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The world cult can be used to mean "any religious sect you don't like." However, that's not the neutral or objective definition of cult, and Scientology is a cult that it is ridiculed by virtually all neutral parties. Supporting the treatment of Scientology as a potential "religion" that faces "prejudice" or "persecution" by "anti-Scientologist bigots" is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, and WP:FRINGE. The claim that the neutral definition of cult applies to religions and the Navy SEALS or USMC may be a perfectly logical inference, which may be true. However, it is also original research. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

May I respectfully submit that this is not the proper place to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of Scientology? Nor is the proper place anywhere on Wikipedia, or any of its sister projects. All users with strong points of view about a subject, be they approval or disapproval, are advised to be particularly cautious when editing articles about that subject, lest they unknowingly introduce bias. - Chardish (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So do you think that an article on the Flat Earth Society should make no mention of the fact that it's a scientific consensus that they're completely wrong? Kevin Langdon (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is actually very very simple. Chardish is 100% correct. And anyone who says that NPOV demands that we call Scientology a cult has really completely, utterly and totally missed the point of NPOV as dramatically as possible. On any controversial issue, Wikipedia must not take a stand. It is certainly fine (and necessary for NPOV) to discuss that reputable sources have raised the question of whether Scientology is a cult. It may also be fine, depending on what the source says, to say that the source has "alleged" or "claimed" that it is. Or that many commentators have. Or whatever might be the case. But Wikipedia itself can have no opinion on the matter one way or the other.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not so black-and-white as it may appear. Is O.J. Simpson a murderer? Common sense says he is. Are we not to be allowed to draw obvious conclusions? Clearly, the Scientology article needs to be protected from self-serving edits by Scientologists. Kevin Langdon (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Every article needs to be protected from self-serving edits by every and anyone. "Common sense" can only be included if it is referenced by a reliable third party source. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim agreed with Chardish's remarks above, which are pretty reasonable. The way Jim phrased it was a bit odd, but since he agreed with Chardish, I wouldn't try to read into it. Also, to clarify: My original comment above was facetious, lol. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not oddly phrased at all. At the risk of, etc. Jimbo is agreeing with Chardish regarding the responsibilities of editors, esp. editors with strong POVs and Jimbo is also commenting on a different though related point of what Wikipedia articles should look like as regards appearing to take a position themselves as opposed to clearly setting out the positions of the various sides based on reputable sources. Now that is oddly worded! --JustaHulk (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Native Son

Since you are the second most famous native son of Alabama, Forest Gump being the first, are there any streets (buildings? state constitutional amendments?) named after you? Huntsville(Madison)? , Tuscaloosa?, that other school? --mitrebox (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? You're joking, right? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Name somebody from Alabama more famous than Jimmy? There are no presidents. So that only leaves Ruben Studdard? He was born in Germany --mitrebox (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible candidates are Helen Keller, Hank Aaron, Harper Lee, Joe Lewis, Willie Mays, and Rosa Parks, for a start. And that's just off the top of my head. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And there's also George Wallace.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I'm more alarmed that you list Forest Gump as being the most famous than I am at your assertion that Jimmy is the second-most. At least Jimmy is real, and justly famous. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

People KNOW Forrest Gump. Helen Keller? "Oh the blind chick on the quarter", Rosa Parks? You mean the OutKast song?, Hank Aaron? that dude whose record was broken by steroid BB, and people are more likely to know Attaicus Finch than Harper Lee.--mitrebox (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Forest Gump isn't even a native son of Alabama any more than Tom sawyer is a native son of Mississippi, and I find it extraordinary that anyone would think otherwise. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom sawyer is from Missouri. (hey whats this? why I think its some of that Extraordinary that going around)--mitrebox (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

La la la. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I, being born in Alabama, find the Forrest Gump sentiment prevalent. I usually tell such people about our "law" keeping women barefoot until they are 15, and am frequently met with, "really?"  :-) 63.3.15.129 (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

When I travel I always get the "but you don't have an accent" statement. I retort with "Well we only do that for the tourists..." Then breaking into the most exaggerated drawl ".. not so much for their entertainment, but to keep them from sticking around too long."--mitrebox (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Mitrebox, is that joke CC licensed? ...cause I shore do wanna use it... ;-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, I think thats one of very few jokes I ever came up with on my own. And I tell you what... I'd sure be mighty proud if anyone ever used it to get a laugh.--mitrebox (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well when I heard Jimbo on the radio he certainly sounded like he had a strong accent, but perhaps that is merely my British ears. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Midwestern ears hear no accent after listening to him speak for an hour. MilesAgain (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hugo Black, most influential Alabamian of the 20th century. NoSeptember 05:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to Wikimedia Foundation

Recently, Korean Wikipedia comunity decide upon Fair use.

Korea Wikipedia approve to use "Fair use works".

According to Wikimedia Licensing policy Resolution Article 6,

"The Foundation resolves to assist all project communities who wish to develop an EDP with their process of developing it." (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy)

On the basis of Wikimedia Licensing policy Resolution Article 6, the Korean Wikipedia Comunity request Wikimedia Foundation to assist to make Korean Wikipedian EDP. -- WonYong^Talk 00:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's wrong. Korean Wikipedia didn't approve fair use. It was polling without consensus. --Ficell (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I write other opinion at following. (See: Today, I am blocked) -- WonYong^Talk 04:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, Objectivity, and Objectivism.

According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ, NPOV says nothing of objectivity. "Rather, the policy is simply that we should describe disputes, not engage in them."

Yes, but shouldn't we describe disputes objectively? See here. [1]

You're an Objectivist and the idea of critical thinking and objectivity seems to be implied by Wikipedia policy, but it's hidden behind the euphemisms, "fair and equal assessment", "fairly and without bias" and "fair, analytical description." (See here)

Is Wikipedia policy or philosophy compatible with either factual relativism or nihilism?

I can't help but think that a lack of regard for reason and logic in policy encourages collectivism. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never thought of it as Wikipedia's job to prefer either individualism or collectivism, objectivity or subjectivity. My understanding is that the job is just to try to describe and explain, reliably, the different philosophies and the arguments that have been made for each, and let people decide for themselves what's best for them. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Tthere is no such thing as "Wikipedia" apart from individual editors. See M:Wikindividualism.

When you say "reliably," this again seems like a euphemism and begs the question Is it reliable to have a conscious disregard for individual critical thinking, reason, and objectivity when verifying neutral sources? Is gonzo journalism compatible with NPOV? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with a specific article? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No. That seems like an accusation of bad-faith, so I was about to say, "Assume good faith." But for the moment I will assume the assumption of good faith and simply say, "Thank you for offering to help me." Since you're a helpful person, you could start by helping the person above with the problems they're facing on Trinitarianism. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Toolbar

I started developing a full-fledged toolbar for Wikipedia. I don't normally go for toolbars since they're so invasive, but this one isn't, and with all the time I spend on Wikipedia it's a nice convenience. I think this has the potential to be a good promotional arm of Wikipedia, if it's developed right -- the same way as the Yahoo and Google toolbars promote use of those sites. I was wondering about possibly getting the developers involved. I'm only a beginner at this and can't develop it to its full potential on my own. Please check it out and let me know what you think. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:40, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Today, I am blocked.

I am korean wikipedian. I use it 4 years.

Today, I am recommaned to admin by other user. and I am bolcked permenatly.

I don't agree it. I don't break the rule.

How to solve this problem?

I've said to the Korean wiki admins dictatorship.

They recommand thier people to admin.

And, someone who said to admin's mistake is blocked. they have many supporters. all attack one user. one user fight soly. And finally, admin blocked him because major users want.

I am the MOST famous fair-use suppoter in kowiki.

All admins disagree fair use. All.

Recently, fair-use policy is passed. this is 3rd poll.

before 1st poll, many people discussed it.

I request 1st poll at 2006 year. disapprove.

I collact fiar use agree users. Finally, agree users are more than disgree users.

I request 2st poll at 2007 year. disapprove. agree number=disagree number. According to the korean constitutional spirit, yes=no is dissapproved.

other user request 3rd poll at 2007 year Dec. Finally, approved, recently.

And they disagree the 3rd poll's result.

And today, fianlly I am blocked permenatly. :(

I think that all korean admins are blocked. Their power miss use are too much.

But, I think that this opinion is not approved. no admins? oops. They have many fans.

I understand. :(

GOODBYE. -- WonYong^Talk 04:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be trolling anymore. you never can be helped out of ko.wp. i am really sorry to owner of this talk page but Jimbo Wales is your god but not wikimedia's --ToePeu퇴프 14:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiNews is a crack "harlot" (someone didn't like my term)

TMZ has the latest on Wikinews and its 'News' flashes.(Wikinews left, Lindsy Lonhan right)

WikiNews is for sale to any POV-pusher with a dime and the time. The admins and editors over there pimp her out for the lulz. They have allowed our own “woefully ignorant of the subject area” (not my words) Anti-Scientologist User:Cirt to turn her into the “official voice of Anonymous”; our own little Anti-Scientology News. We get an article a day, usually a “Featured Story”, on the latest YouTube posting and the latest who’s pwning who of this barely notable effort.

You know, I could really care less if some group of /l/osers (i.e. Anonymous) wants to go after the Church of Scientology. The Church of Scientology is a big boy and can take care of itself. I don’t even really care much about what degree of success they may have in making trouble for the Church of Scientology. Scientology is just a bunch of people doing something they believe in to better themselves and others and no amount of DDoS attacks or “Honk If You Hate Scientology” signs is going to change that or even impact it one whit.

Nah, what frosts my ass is that this group, this one right here; a group that I respect, a group that really really should know better, allows a propagandist (and, at 5000-6000 edits per month, likely a full-time paid propagandist) to take over one of their projects. Now you know how I really feel. Oh, and if someone would be so kind as to inform Cirt that he is mentioned here, it would be nice. He has expressly asked me to not post to his page. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For Sale! I'm going to search my couch cushions for change, gotta outbid that one Ron Paul supporter out there.--mitrebox (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo: This has been discussed at length. Please see multiple comments from Admins and editors that weighed in on this and found no fault with my editing/article writing, both Admins from Wikipedia, and Admins from Wikinews. I think no matter if 100 Admins weigh in and say that my actions are appropriate, JustaHulk (talk · contribs) may simply continue to disruptively push the issue in any location that he can. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, please also note that I did not write the second Wikinews article cited above by User:Justanother/User:JustaHulk. That was actually started by a new user to Wikinews, and then worked on by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs), an Admin on Wikinews. Cirt (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"First of all, let's get one thing straight, crack is cheap. I make too much money to ever smoke crack." - Whitney Houston to Diane Sawyer. Also David Shankbone to JustaHulk. --David Shankbone 17:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We're talkin' cheap here. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the Crack whore statement, as long as we're going to be using coarse language, might I ask if Wikinews is a recreational drug user? My question is: does wikinews use drugs specifically to enable certain sex acts, namely anal sex [2]? Is there a godwins law for crack whores?--mitrebox (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so that's what Fair Game looks like in our little wikiworld. Thanks for the demonstration! >;-o) RichardF (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah. This is what a fair-minded but pissed-off editor looks like in our little wikiworld. Thanks for the bigotry. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

RichardF (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think this is "Fair Game", then you can waddle over and join the "woefully ignorant of the subject area". --JustaHulk (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"I'm getting angry... You don't want to see what I look like... when I'm angry."
-Bruce Banner

See WP:No angry mastodons. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well. I was given this name for a reason. But I am fine now, thank you. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Colorful [3] but on a serious note, there was a AN/I thread about a known pov pusher migrating to WikiNews a few days ago, so there is some basis to the argument. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot tell a lie. T'was I started that thread. It has gotten worse. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, Cirt has contributed 5 featured articles, 4 featured portals, 17 good articles, and 17 Did you know? entries. I would be glad to pitch in by creating a new article on a subject where Scientologists take pride, and submitting it for DYK. Please contact me at my user talk to provide sources. Let's keep this a positive atmosphere: if an editor is making outstanding contributions that earn community accolades as neutral and balanced, then please make that an incentive to raise the bar on your own contributions. With respect, Durova^Charge! 21:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova, we shouldn't react to anti-Scientology POV pushing by supporting pro-Scientology POV pushing to "balance" it. That's not WP:NPOV. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that, whatever else I may have been accused of, rightly or wrongly, "pro-Scientology POV pushing" is generally not one of them. I am one fair-minded S.O.B. --JustaHulk (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, it isn't appropriate to cast aspersions upon the neutrality of work that consistently passes FAC and GAC. Nor is it appropriate to characterize my offer as POV-pushing. Please assume good faith and bear in mind that every religion has strong points and weak points. Durova^Charge! 23:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

By flaming and shouting expletives about a rampant anti-Scientology cabal that secretly controls Wikinews behind the scenes, I think JustaHulk has pretty firmly established his own bad faith. In response to his remarks, you suggested that we publish and feature an article on Wikinews on "a subject where Scientologists take pride" in order to "keep this a positive atmosphere". ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If JustaHulk wants to create a WikiNews article, he's entirely free to do so, and Durova is free to help him - that is the point of WikiNews, after all. As long as the resulting article complies with WikiNews' policies, then it could be used. I personally don't agree with JustaHulk's accusations (I don't see anything wrong with Cirt's editing in this area), but if he thinks there's some systemic imbalance that he can correct by creating an article for WikiNews, well, more power to him. Terraxos (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

At about the same time Zenwhat posted this here I posted to Zenwhat's user talk. To summarize, someday an editor may become active who consistently writes featured articles and good articles about Catholic sex scandals. If each of those articles meets community approval as treating its subject with fair and neutral balance, then the editor really can't be labeled a POV-pusher. The effect I hope that would have would be to inspire other editors to improve material on topics where fair and balanced coverage would shed a better light on the organization. There's a wikiproject for saints' biographies, for instance, and I don't see anything inherently objectionable about that. The difference from a netural editing perspective is that one religion is older and more established than the other. The spirit of my offer is to focus on content, not the contributor. Durova^Charge! 00:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone that claims that anti-Scientology sentiment is not rampant on the 'net, on Wikipedia, and on WikiNews, is either unbelievably misinformed or delusional. I make the same point over and over again but it continues to be misunderstood. The point is that, on Wikipedia, despite rampant anti-Scientology sentiment, we also have a vast number of influential and fair-minded editors that can hold someone like the editor I mention in check. And let me make this very clear. This editor is by no means your run-of-the-mill POV-pusher. This is a very professional effort, averaging at least 5000-6000 edits per month, paying his dues, and trying like mad to stay out of the spotlight - the spotlight I have a tendency to wield. Yes, Durova, he pays his dues, and I have no problem with his efforts in FAC and GAC where everything he does is scrutinized and he toes the line. I can point at plenty of examples in less-travelled articles where his "freedom of expression" is more evident. But you know, I can take care of those myself when I find them. So he and I had a pretty easy peace there for quite a while. What blew that peace out of the water was this WikiNews thing. The problem there is, to put it in the kindest terms, simply not enough eyes, not enough editors, and no-one that seems able to say. "err Cirt, we have had an article a day on this for almost a week now, I think we may be overdoing it just a bit." Let's take a look at my predictive abilities:

Wilhelm (i.e. Cirt) will most happily write you a new article every time the "group" makes another YouTube announcement and/or every time another two or three media outlets make a brief mention, ignoring the fact that the media outlets are different each time and are not each one overplaying this and ignoring the fact that each media outlet is pretty much repeating the same info you have already covered. Let's see if Xenu is guiding my ouija board. --JustaHulk 12:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that looks about right. Am I really the only one that thinks that WikiNews might want to exert some editorial self-control??? That maybe it is not in the best interests of anyone but critics of Scientology to give so much coverage, in what would like to be an influential medium, to a bunch of troublemakers? Am I really the only one? Or is it just because it is Scientology that the trouble-makers are targeting and who really likes Scientology anyway. Is that it? --JustaHulk (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No. NPOV reporting on a controversial topic is not POV pushing. It's reporting. What I find objectionable is your systematic attempts to stifle freedom of the press. Does anyone else here concur with JustaHulk's accusations and tactics? I haven't noticed any support for this diatribe. RichardF (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

99% of all human existence doesn't care about Scientology or anti-Scientology. Looking at the Anymouse vs Regime game it looks like the same guy is playing everybody. Reminiscent of an old 2000 video game Deus Ex Invisible war, some of the language I saw is identical to ingame propaganda videos. Hilarious really--mitrebox (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

99%? What you mean there are 60 million followers? Methinks not. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

JustaHulk, twice now you've proposed that Cirt is a "paid propagandist". Do you have anything more than an edit count to support that very serious accusation? Durova^Charge! 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cirt is a brilliant contributer on Wikinews. And because of his help, Wikinews saw the biggest ratings ever. He follows policy and as stated before, anyone can write anything, if it follows policy. More than one article one a subject or whatever is not POV. Its called reporting. And whatever someone sees as news, and again, follows policy, then its published. So whether you like Scientology or not makes no difference to me, but its not going to stop articles unless you can prove to us your accusations. You have harassed me, Wikinews, Wikipedia, and now Mr. Wales. If you have no proof, then stop the harassment. period. DragonFire1024 (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

DragonFire1024, you sure "harass" easy. I would wager that Jimbo is made of sterner stuff and I sure as hell don't think my posting my concerns could possibly "harass" Wikipedia or WikiNews - that would take, IDK, maybe lawyers? Anywho, I am done tilting at this particular windmill and have posted my final comment on the matter here (not a rickroll, though that would be in keeping with the topic). Cheers. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to remain anonymous on Wikipedia?

It just seems contradictory to me, considering how this site's users are supposed to be held to standards like "assuming good faith," and "maintaining neutral point-of-view." I don't want to be a bootlicker, and I don't want to accrue bootlickers of my own, but I don't know how to contribute successfully and avoid that, when every Tom, Dick, and Harry can see my IP address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.67.68 (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The biggest flaw of Wikipedia is that it's too easy to be anonymous (or at least to have the feeling of anonymity). If Wikipedia required people to register with verifiable e-mail addresses (i.e. non-free) and edit using their real names the user experience would be greatly improved. Sunlight, after all, is the best disinfectant. 68.117.211.187 (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You could try registering. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

POV article about Jehovah's Witnesses

Hello, Jimbo. I run my eyes through the articles about Jehovah's Witnesses, but some articles report as biased manner of critics. Especially Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses is taken over biased opinions of critics and Watchtower publications is quated conviniently by critcs. I think this article was formed to smare JW. How do you think of this? 125.193.23.145 (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)