User talk:Dcottle561

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 18:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 18:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

answering an question

Hello Dave, my name is Terry. I read your question and understand it. The short answer is, there is no certain method by which any edit will stand but there are rules of editor conduct which are usually obeyed by most of the editors most of the time. Still, there are no guarentees and any editor could, conceiveably, go to any article are simply remove all of its content. One elements of it is, your work is not lost and gone, each edit is saved (barring a server crash which is uncommon), and can be viewed as it was created by clicking the "History" tab which is at the top of each article and talk page. Then of course you get a list of the edits made, their date and creator which can be viewed individually. "diff" is an interesting and enlightening fuction available at "history".

A fuller answer to the question would be, Wiki articles are collaberations of editors. I've found that the finest, most polished edit will be perfectly clear to me. But to another editor will appear as a very poor edit, even though properly composed, properly cited and so on. Discussion pages are used, normally, to iron out the differences of opinion, to state why a particular paragraph and piece of information is important to the article, sometimes to discuss the reasons and reasoning behind an edit. In general in the Dianetics and Scientology articles, I find a few who understand the subjects to be as the written word presents them to be, and a few who are less willing to understand the subjects. It frankly baffles me why some editors who don't know the subjects at all, edit, but Wikipedia treats them exactly the same as an editor who is expert in the subject. WP:V tells us the threshold for including information into an article, that is, verifiability. That Wiki Policy also leads to how to provide verifications.

You are free to edit this and your user page in any manner you wish to. Delete what I have written, make the page yours. Play with it all, have a little fun, rub some elbows and so on. There is only one kind of information which shouldn't be delted from one's talk page (this is a User Talk Page) and that is an official looking warning template which warns of personal attacks or something. Those are pretty rare on Talk Pages, anyway. Myself, I'm real glad to find an editor who knows the subjects (in whatever depth) on and editing :) And a caution I want to mention, don't be too free with your email address. Anyone can access this page right here (or mine too) and get any information it contains and use it however they like. I've seen my wikipedia username put next to some pretty aweful things on random webpages. So I don't put up my email and take some pains to be sure and safe about that. But we can email each other. On the left of a User's page is an opportunity to Email the user. I'm starting to ramble, ask away and welcome. But I'm not in real high regard on Wikipedia (HEH) and my edits are often reverted to an earlier edited ariticle. Sign your postings with ~~~~, it comes out with name and date.Terryeo 19:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Dcottle561- I've also read your concerns that you left on Terryeo's talk page about why people are reverting you. Perhaps I can help you make the most of Wikipedia and the most of your time here. Controversial subjects like Scientology and Dianetics are watched by literally hundreds of editors. Many have spent countless hours researching the material and sourcing their material, and many of these people are wary when others seem to undermine their work here. I understand that you, as a Scientologist, likely feel that you are uniquely qualified to comment on the subject. Terryeo thinks that he is more knowledgeable about Scientology because he has chosen the religion of Scientology as his own. However, this is a logical fallacy. One's knowledge of the subject of Scientology is not necessarily correlated to one's acceptence or membership in the Church of Scientology. Personal knowledge only gets you so far, and on Wikipedia, in controversial articles, in means almost zilch. As odd as it may seem, the standard for inclusion in an article is verifiability and not truth. Wikipedia is not in a position to judge your Original Research and determine whether or not you are presenting the "Truth". However we are in a position to check whether you are adding material that is properly cited.

Also, you should take advantage of the Talk pages, especially for the controversial articles, but really for any of them. And always fill in the edit summary when you make an edit. Wikipedia uses a process called consensus building to create good articles. This process isn't easily defined, but it does mean that you will be expected to explain your edits , additions, and deletions to the articles you edit. Once you see your edits are reverted, you should go to the talk page for the article and argue your case about why your edits should stand. If you are capable of convincing others of your correctness, then you will develop consensus and then you will notice that your edits will have a good chance of staying in the articles.

I know that it is frustrating on Wikipedia when you are editing from the "wrong side" of consensus, but I can tell you from experience that you will be most successful and most satisfied with your experience if you use discussion on the talk pages, rather than engaging in edit wars. (I'm not accusing of anything, I'm speaking from my experience here). Vivaldi (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Your editing/whitewashing

You are persisting in deleting large amounts of properly sourced material that is potentially unflattering to Scientology, and replacing it with mostly unsourced POV-laden pro-Scientology cheerleading. Some of your material is actually potentially usable, but when you remove large amounts of legitimate information that other editors have worked on, and do so without discussion, it will be reverted. Rather than waste everyone's time (including yours), why not discuss on each article's talk page why you wish to remove these datum? wikipediatrix 23:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Criminon

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Criminon article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! -Will Beback 23:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Also note his similar behavior on Narconon and other related articles. Several editors have tried to engage him in talk-page discussion but he seemingly refuses. wikipediatrix 23:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted another copyvio edit to Narconon. --Davidstrauss 19:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

??

Hello! Saw you left a message on my User page... (for future reference, you're supposed to leave messages on my talk page, not my User page)... You said you didn't know how to discuss edits for articles: click the "discussion" tab on any given article and you'll be at that article's discussion page. If you have any specific questions, let me know and I can walk you through 'em.

While I have your attention: I reverted the Utah information from Narconon again because the way you had it is very misleading... you're leaving out that it was written by FASE, a known Scientology front. You're also leaving out that as soon as Utah realized Narconon, Criminon, Scientology and FASE were all the same thing, they dropped the program immediately. wikipediatrix 01:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please learn wiki markup

Your additions to the Scientology medical claims article are interesting but poorly formatted. Please see Wikipedia's help for more information on properly formatting your additions. --Davidstrauss 20:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing the page's formatting. --Davidstrauss 22:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Slow down, Tiger

You're making radical edits to the Medical claims in Scientology doctrine page. That's fine. What's not fine is that you're removing quality existing work and replacing it with paraphrased (or directly copied!) information from official Scientology sites. I've reverted to a version of the article that is after most of your additions but before you replaced the introductory paragraph. --Davidstrauss 22:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirected user page

Why is the user talk page of user:Dcottle561 redirected here? If you'dlike to change your username, please see Wikipedia:Changing username. Unless there's some explanation I'll move the page back. -Will Beback 23:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have replied...

to your comments on my user talk page about the description of the E-meter on the Medical claims in Scientology doctrine page, and also your incidental comments about body thetans. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki formatting

when you want to mark something with the {{citation needed}} template, you put it between a double pair of curly brackets, not square brackets. And if you are linking to an external URL, you use just a single pair of square brackets, rather than the double square brackets you'd use to link internally to another Wikipedia page. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Matthew caldwell

A tag has been placed on Matthew caldwell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)