User talk:JDPhD

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, JDPhD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark symbols

Hello JDPhD, I've noticed that you've added Trademark symbols ("®") to several pages, including Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Scientology, and Dianetics. I've removed the symbols per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), which states, "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." As I don't believe there is any necessity in these four subjects to distinguish between the trademarked and non-trademarked terms, I don't think the "®" symbols will need to be added back onto the pages. Comrade^4·2 19:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coitus reservatus

Hi! Your edits made be suspicious at first, so I reverted them. But now I've looked into them more, they look more plausible, particularly as you are a new user. If you are committed to these edits, please re-revert (you can do this in one go), and I apologise in advance. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it all back myself to save you the bother (except a cliché). Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee thanks S.B.S., I was going to say how do you do this 're-revert' business? And then as if by magic... it happened. Thanks, I appreciate it. I really sweated it out in doing that major editing of this particular article. Enjoy!JDPhD (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a general point: you can reduce the amount of hassle you get here by turning your name blue. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burton reference

Your recent edit to Richard Francis Burton appears to be a reference to a primary source and not a secondary which would be required in this instance (for clarification see:WP:PSTS.) Is this from the introduction? Can you supply an excerpt so the citation can be scrutinized? Thanks ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ref is from an introduction by Charles Fowkes. It goes something like this:

"In Karachi, Burton was asked by Napier to report on the brothels frequented by the army" (they were afraid of syphillis) ... "the General was deeply shocked to learn that three of the brothels catered for homosexuals." A report was ordered to be written down so that the brothels could be closed. "The report could not have been more comprehensive or, ultimately, less confidential.' "Richard Burton had already met the doctor and orientalist John Steinhaeuser who shared his interest in exotic erotology. Perhaps it was this shared passion for the bizarre which prompted him to fill the report with so much detail on the practices of the eunuchs and the boys, and the demands made by clients. Perhaps it was. "The army had never been the right place for Richard Burton. The army knew it and he knew it - and now the army thought it knew something else about him..." JDPhD (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology

Given that an editor has previously reverted your recent edit, and to avoid an edit-war, I suggest you propose this insertion on the article talk page before adding it so that a consensus can be reached. I'm not an expert, but this addition seems contentious and would appear to warrant some discussion prior to its addition. Thanks, --Rodhull andemu 23:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of primary sources and WP:OR/WP:SYN

It appears that you are utilizing citations to primary sources in several instances on various articles in a manner which is not in accordance with WP:OR/WP:SYN. Please be mindful of this. It is best not to cite a primary source and compare it yourself to something in order to bring forth a conclusion, but rather to cite a secondary source that makes the same conclusion itself. Cirt (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology & Exteriorization

OK, you've put it back, but how does it relate to Hubbard? Did he draw on it for this ideas, and if so, where is this stated? Otherwise it's just another piece of irrelevant mumbo-jumbo. Forgive me if I think that WP is not a place for unconnected essays. It has to be relevant to the topic at hand, but so far it seems to fall foul of WP:UNDUE. --Rodhull andemu 20:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand (I think), but also I think the connection needs to be made clear to the reader. I'm not an expert on Scientology but this appears to be detail for the main article and I'm wondering if it couldn't find a place in a connected article. "How pivotal is it to the whole concept of Sc?" and "does the reader need to know this information at this level?" are what I'd ask. Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 21:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edits to Scientology

Hello, JDPhD. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Scientology. Thank you. --Rodhull andemu 19:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repaired link. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your latest edit. Firstly, it's unsupported by citations; secondly, you linked to a documents which is almost certainly the copyright of the CofS, and we cannot do that. I note that you did not participate in the previous discussion and would remind you that the Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation. I advise you to discuss this latest addition on the talk page before restoring it, and that it is generally regarded as disruptive editing not to engage in discussion. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 21:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Wikileak but I suspect it's not part of the Wikimedia Foundation, who would be legally responsible for breaches of copyright. However, it is clear Wikipedia policy not to link to documents in toto where the copyright belongs to someone else, as it clearly does here. This is why we remove links to YouTube as a matter of course. To follow a link to WP:AN, it is usually fine just to click on the Wikilink (as just prior to here). I'll be honest, your use of sources is beginning to be worrying, and you should be aware that the ArbCom has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation. This means that any administrator can ban disruptive editors from those articles, enforcing with blocks if necessary. For now I will assume good faith, but I am not the only editor to question the validity of the sources you've cited. Have a good weekend. --Rodhull andemu 22:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Scientology-related pages

Hi JDPhD. I've noticed lately that you've been adding a lot of references to the Scientology pages using primary sources (e.g., books and material published by the Church of Scientology and/or L. Ron Hubbard.) One that surprised me quite a bit was this edit adding a reference to Hubbard's "Clear Body Clear Mind" to support a statement of fact. That's a pretty egregious violation of WP:RS, and I reverted it. We really have to avoid using any of Hubbard's own material or material written by the Church of Scientology for any of our references, and I urge you to avoid doing so in the future. Thank you. --Good Damon 16:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Niacin

Hi JD,

L. Ron Hubbard is not a reliable source of information on the pharmacology of Niacin, so I have reverted your edit to that page. --Slashme (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

I reverted your edits here [1] per the criteria in WP:OR. Providing reliable third party sources and not primary ones will help you to operate within the Wikipedia guidelines. For further clarification please see: WP:PRIMARY.~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samael Aun Weor

It appears you are expanding this article using synthesis and primary sources. Both of these violate Wikipedia's policy against original research. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Area 51

I reverted an addition you made to the external links section of Area 51. It appeared to be unsupported conjecture. If you feel that the link has validity, take your reasoning to the Area 51 talk page. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to Youtube

Hi. You'll remember that I advised you in June here that in general linking to these videos is a breach of copyright which the Wikimedia Foundation, and therefore Wikipedia, takes very seriously because of the possible legal consequences. I see you've recently added such links again, and they have been removed. The Arthur Conan Doyle one may be OK, because IIRC copyright in film persists for 70 years after the death of the film maker, but we would have to be sure that this is the case. As for the others, please stop adding any links to copyrighted material, otherwise a block will surely follow. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 15:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== FINAL LINES ==
[Part I]978-0-446-58119-6 Professor Plum (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology edits

Hi JDPhD, could you have a look at this? Cheers, Jayen 466 03:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. But I still can't see a reference to the two German court cases re the Orwell quote in the indicated sources – could you help me out? Jayen 466 19:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Cheers, Jayen 466 00:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JDPhD, thanks for the added sources; but could you pls replace any "ibid." citations with the full publication title? Sooner or late, it invariably happens that someone else inserts something or deletes something, and then it is no longer clear which source the "ibid." refers to. Cheers! Jayen 466 19:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand article

The whole article and others related to Ayn Rand are awaiting a ruling by Arbcom at the moment. All active editors are holding back from editing pending that ruling. It would be very helpful if you would hold back pending that resolution. You should also discuss the changes on the talk page as its not obvious that all of these quotations should just be inserted/ --Snowded TALK 23:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing, and some suggestions

Hello JDPhD. While I appreciate that you are adding supporting references to Scientology, I have some suggestions:

Legal documents are considered, for our purposes, primary sources. For example, the source you added in this edit.
For Scientology articles, it is not permissible to source directly to official Scientology materials, as you did here (once again, primary sources).
The website that you linked to here is a Wikipedia mirror. It points to a (now nonexistent) copy of an article from Wikipedia, and is thus a circular reference. Usually these are easily identifiable, but if you are in doubt, check it against this list.
Although it is not required that you use the updated citation template syntax, it is preferred that you do. You don't need to use all of the fields, but as long as you include enough to identify the book by, it should be fine (I usually include first, last, title, publisher, pages, and isbn). For example, most books follow this general layout:

<ref>{{cite book|last=Melton|first=J. Gordon|authorlink=J. Gordon Melton|title=The Church of Scientology|publisher=Signature Press|year=2000|location=Salt Lake City|pages=59–60|isbn=1-56085-139-2}}</ref>

Feel free to drop me a message if you need any more help with the citation template. ←Spidern → 00:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and Ayn Rand

See WP:NPOV. It is not appropriate to refer to Plato as a "communist mystic" or talk about "anti-mind materialists". TallNapoleon (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

Just stopping by to express my profuse thanks for your referencing efforts at Ayn Rand. Keep up the great work! Regards, Skomorokh 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at Gurdjieff

Hey buddy, I want you to be more careful while editing this article. Keep in mind that all of your material must be sourced. If you're going to provide a source, try to quote it instead of just pasting it after your own narration. Also, avoid using subjective language.Yeago (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff in those last two edits.Yeago (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, very good stuff. More quotes please!Yeago (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Bertrand Aristide

I reverted an addition you made to Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The relevance of the claim that Aristide used prescribed psychotropic medication is unclear, and referring to the use of prescription drugs as "bad" does not conform to WP:NPOV. In addition, the former-CIA director's opinion of Bill Clinton's opinion of Aristide is of questionable pertinence and value to the entry. Further, you provide no context for your allegation that, "Aristide had a few people murdered". If you disagree with these reversions, I recommended bringing it up for discussion on the talk page and clarifying your source for these claims (Are they all from the one reference you provided? How does the book Why America Slept: The Reasons Behind Our Failure to Prevent 9/11 relate to Aristide?). Pastanecklace (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagram

Hello JDPhD! I put your visual down, because there is no visual artist who created that gif or exhibition in a museum where this was shown. So I think it is better not sown in the section "Visual arts". Thank you. --Fishbone16 (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Manson

You added quite a bit of content to the article today. Thanks for your interest. However, I removed part of this because it puts far too much weight on Scientology as it applies to Manson and far outweighs the content needed to merely mention his short term dabbling in the subject. We have the sourced statement that he was interested. We have the sourced statement that Bruce Davis was involved. We don't need the personal history of a relatively non-notable person that was involved in Scientology in prison with Manson, nor do we need a statement by someone who was bunked with someone else who isn't relevant to the tale of the Manson family saga. We don't even know precisely who Raul Morales is, nor does that matter. None of the persons mentioned in some of that are related in any way to the Manson family and their history is not relevant to what occurred. That is just too much tangential history to include here. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

You have been previously warned about your edits on the topic of Scientology [3]. Please avoid adding unsourced material and material sourced to primary sources on this topic, as you have done here [4]. Especially with an article like Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health -- there should simply be no need to utilize primary sources when there is an over abundance of secondary source coverage. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[5] = this edit was blatantly copyvio from the cited source. Please do not do this again. -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I have previously warned you about this here. Just so you are in no doubt about the sanctions that may be imposed, I'll point you at this, and you are sailing close to the wind in failing to clarify that the words are not ours, but those of the cited source. In view of the contentious nature of this topic and your history and previous warnings, you may take this as your last warning in this regard before the ArbCom sanctions are implemented. Rodhull andemu 22:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aleister Crowley

That seems a little bit sensationalistic for a Wikipedia article. --John (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samael Aun Weor

In February, you added some references to books published by Icon Group International. Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are copied from Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 20:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution to "The Gospel of Wealth" by Andrew Carnegie

I apologize for gutting your "Laissez Faire" section, but it was clear you didn't actually read the essay. Carnegie clearly states about halfway through that he supports aggressive, progressive estate taxes to prevent wealth from being passed down family lines to undeserving and potentially spoilable dependents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.51.144 (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology again

I see from this edit that you haven't taken my final warning in April to heart. Accordingly, you are blocked for one week and topic-banned from all Scientology-related articles, broadly construed, for three months thereafter. This is in accordance with this ARBCOM decision, and the block especially for linking wholesale to a copyrighted document. Please see here if you wish to appeal this block. Rodhull andemu 22:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]