Talk:Church of Spiritual Technology

Template war

This is the silliest edit war I've seen in a while. Knock yourselves out, kids. Cleduc 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have calmed down for a bit, from the peak of a bunch of add/delete/adds, to where concerns about size, location, appropriateness (etc.) are being hashed out. Ronabop 04:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL Terryeo 18:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OMG LOL!! Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard! THERE IS NO SUCH THING OR ANYTHING CLOSE TO THAT. The steel tablets exist and thats all. They were put there by RTC. anonymous addition by 86.140.102.129 (talk · contribs)

There's an intersting response to the organization, Church of Spritual Technology at: [1]

Meade Emory and Special Directors

I do not understand this insistence on describing Meade Emory as an officer of the Church of Spiritual Technology beyond the fact that it makes it easier to promote IRS-related conspiracy theories. Meade Emory was an incorporator, but has no corporate position within the organisation whatsoever. Never did. The Special Directors - the non-Scientologist lawyers that get people going "huh?" - are Sherman and Steven Lenske, and Lawrence Heller. This is all explained very thoroughly in the Church of Spiritual Technology's articles of incorporation. Does anyone have a link? Zed 16:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zed. I looked at that article which is non-peer reviewed and unreferenced. It represents the author's take on things, but could not be used as a wikipedia reference. --Fahrenheit451 16:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which article you're referring to, as my modifications only extend to introducing new text without making any specific reference to outside articles. I *want* to include several references in regard to the Church of Spiritual Technology's copyright ownership, options over the Scientology trademarks and precise legal rights, as well as the rights and obligations of the Special Directors, but I'm not sure if such things exist online in a form suitable for reference by wikipedia. I have textfiles of some of the necessary documentation on my own computer, but I think that violates wikipedia's rules in some way if I include them directly in the article, doesn't it? Zed 16:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I see the miscommunication. That line above referencing an outside article wasn't written by me. --Zed 16:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

contradictory unsourced statements

First the article says: "The CST is unusual in that it has no members or clergy, which is allowed under California law." (No source given)

But then it goes on to say: "CST is the holder of the copyrights and licenses their use." and: "The CST oversees the Scientology scriptural archiving project, which aims to preserve the works of Hubbard on stainless steel tablets and encased in titanium capsules in specially constructed vaults throughout the world."

Hmmmmmm. So, if the CST has no members, who in the CST is doing these things? Highfructosecornsyrup 05:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Michel Snoek NWO link removed

Please mind the link [2] you removed complies with WP EL guideline and is relevant. I don't want to engage a gentleman like you over the 3RR rule as I am sure you can demonstrate fairness. Jpierreg 09:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this in the appropriate definition, not in my user page.

I will continue to remove this link, since 1) it is about some NWO conspiracy, and 2) does not seem to contribute anything useful, thus does not comply with WP:EL, see Nr. 11 and 13: About 11: Is Michael Snoek "a recognized authority" (either by scientologists, or by scientology critics)? Who is this guy??? About 13: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject" - The NWO conspiracy is indeed only indirectly related to CoST.

You have the burden to prove that this link is useful. --Tilman 12:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me ! I discussed this on your discussion page to warn you there is a maximum of 3 revert rules (3RR rule) within a set of time if this was to keep going on. But did you check HOW you are behaving ?? And not only in this article [3] you are the only one I have seen behaving in such a way so far!

As a suggestion you might want to review WP:CIVIL. Jpierreg 20:50, 16 January 2007 (GMT)

I know the 3Rrule and did not break it. However there are also rules against putting up off-topic, poor quality weblinks. And reverting this is not being uncivil. Have a nice day. --Tilman 05:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OR issues

This article uses a massive amount of PDF files as references, all of them uploaded and added by the same user. Might be OR. Shutterbug (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that "a massive amount of pdf files were used as references" and which were "added by the same user" is no indication whatsoever for *original research*. Why don't you point out the specific pdf files in question?

I removed your tag. It did not even address the "issue" properly. Cheers. Martin Ottmann (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)