User talk:Justanother/Grain

Welcome!

Hello, Justanother, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

Welcome (and a warning) from Justanother

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your interest in improving the articles in the Category:Scientology (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology). Just so you know what you will encounter here; there are very few knowledgable Scientologists editing here; a good number of dedicated critics; and a lot of less biased editors that have none-the-less been influenced by misrepresentation of Scientology on the internet and have no positive experience of Scientology to balance that with. I seriously recommend that, before tackling Scientology articles, that you edit in other non-controversial articles that you are knowledgable about until you see how things work here. Also learn to use a watchlist (you can set your preferences up to watch every article you edit in). You may also find this premade watchlist of use to you. Follow the guidelines in the welcome message. Do not add or remove material without citing sources (or lack of sources after a good-faith attempt to find one yourself). Stay polite and never get personal. Do not allow yourself to be drawn into personal battles because someone attacked you first. To not engage in edit wars. Many Scientologist editors have been banned from this site for breaking the rules; don't join them. See my page for general tips and a "hat writeup" (here) that may be helpful even though it is a very rough draft. Feel free to ask me anything. --Justanother 06:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Generated by:

{{subst:welcome}}

== Welcome (and a warning) from Justanother ==

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your interest in improving the articles in the [[:Category:Scientology]] (see also [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology]]). Just so you know what you will encounter here; there are very few knowledgable Scientologists editing here; a good number of dedicated critics; and a lot of less biased editors that have none-the-less been influenced by misrepresentation of Scientology on the internet and have no positive experience of Scientology to balance that with. I '''seriously''' recommend that, before tackling Scientology articles, that you edit in other '''non-controversial''' articles that you are knowledgable about until you see how things work here. Also learn to use a watchlist (you can set your preferences up to watch every article you edit in). You may also find [[Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scientology/publicwatchlist|this]] premade watchlist of use to you. Follow the guidelines in the welcome message. Do not add or remove material without citing sources (or lack of sources after a good-faith attempt to find one yourself). Stay polite and never get personal. Do not allow yourself to be drawn into personal battles because someone attacked you first. To not engage in edit wars. Many Scientologist editors have been banned from this site for breaking the rules; don't join them. See my page for general tips and a "hat writeup" ([[User talk:Justanother/Grain|here]]) that may be helpful even though it is a very rough draft. Feel free to ask me anything. --~~~~

Happy Ho Ho's

Hi Buddy, how is it going? --Justanother 00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Notes

Here is where I will write up my lessons-learned and tips for editing. Until it is finished you can expect it to be in very rough form amounting to little more than random notes to myself. It is subject to change and I may rethink any part of it at any time. i amy leave spelling and typing errors in place until I am ready to correct them (though it irks me and I will likely clean them up).

Other editors: I welcome your input. For now, please add it in the "Input from others" section at the bottom of the page.

BTW, this does not only apply to Scnists editing in Scn but is also for those "on the other side" of the Scn issue and in fact should be useful for anyone edting in a controversial article and once it is finished I will likely post it, with modification, as an essay on that subject.

I am not trained in debating. While one or two of these points may be known "debate techniques" (I imagine the one about keeping your point in front would have to a basic technique of debating), my point is your dealings with other editors should not be a debate. You should be lookg for agreement, for consensus.

Getting close now to having enough raw material to put this together. There is an important point from Handbook for Preclears I thinks. This "zero something or other" of evaluate yourself first. Evaluate your purpose in coming here first. How do you view wikipedia, or rather the idea or potential of wikipedia (you may feel the current state leaves a lot to be desired, that is OK); how do you view other editors, especially those that hold an opposing viewpoint. If you have negative ideas on those you will find it a very hard road indeed as you are coming to play someone else's game with the viewpoint that the game sucks and they are assholes, to be blunt. You will find yourself opposed at every turn, all your edits will be reverted, and you will likely end up banned. If you are coming here as a Scientologist realize that you start under a cloud due to the actions of previous pro-Scn editors. The purpose of this write-up is to help you move out from under that cloud with the minimum of mis-steps. It is based, in part, on my own mis-steps. The wikipedia community follows the same pattern as the general community; about 80% are just here trying to do the best they can in a friendly and fair amnner, about 2.5% are here making trouble, and the other 20% (ha ha it never adds up but probably LRH considered the 2.5% to be part of the 20%, after all he was not a stupid person that couldn't add to 100, he just never spelled that out); the other 20% want to do the right thing but have been badly influenced by the 2.5% and often mimic their actions.

Which reminds me; a lot of the problem is that netizens see Scn as really weird because they have seen nothing but protrayals of it as really weird. Here is an opportunity to show why intelligent and reasonable people subscribe to Scn. You can do that in two ways, primarily by editing the articles to remove the weirdness, i.e by phrasing Scn principles so that a non-Scn can understand what the principle is (after all, isn't that what wikipedia is all about - promoting understandings), and secondly, by yourself being a great example of how well Scn works or how useful it is; how it can help bring order from chaos, at least in one's own space. What we want to have in the articles is a coherent presentation of Scn and a coherent presentation of the controvery surrounding it. An incoherent presentation of Scn vs. a coherent presention of the other side is just not fair but that is exactly what the internet and media are full of. Take South Park; they say "what Scientologists actually believe" as some whole-track incident that may or may not be addressed on the OT levels and that 95% of Scnists are unaware of (though many probably suppose that incidents like that are on the OT levels and it would not surprise them, in fact they expect it - a point protesters yelling "Xenu" don't seem to get). South Park makes no mention of what Scnists really believe, that you are a spiritual being, that you can improve your state, have better relationships, be more causitive in life to bring about a better life for all.

You can be right.

Unclench

Contribute; Contribute; Contribute. Don't "handle". Contribute.

This is really easy.

Wikipedia does not have to forward popular misconceptions. Nor should it be allowed to. Often the truth is not as sexy but it is the truth.

People are watching

Moral high ground

Take a break from Scn articles. Take lots and lots of breaks (maybe that is just me).

Cool inline tags , and of course type {{lopsided}}, {{or}} and of course {{fact}}

Use "What links here" from the left "toolbox" when on main article pages to find where other bits of OR bias are hidden throughout wikipedia. It is like a treasure hunt. Have fun! The prize is a better wikipedia and everyone wins. Yeah!! Except biased POV-warriors of course, but they are not supposed to win. (Well, in Scientology we actually do think that people really do win when they are prevented from committing wrongful acts like blatent lying. If they can't do that then they might divert their energies towards doing something good. This applies to pro-Scn POV-warriors too, by the way.)

Don't assume bad faith.

Don't assume anything.

Do not expect others to make the correct assumption about something that you are saying if you are not totally specific. Here is a simple example. Do not say "That sort of edit violates the very spirit of wikipedia". You may simpy mean the sort of edit that is POV OR. Another may take it another way and be insulted that perhaps you are implying his edit was stupid, or in bad faith, or whatever. This is, of course, an example of the comm formula in use; intention - attention - communication - duplication - understanding. Make sure that you communicate exactly what you intent to communicate in an unambiguous manner that leaves no room for misduplication. Need to check my comment on Jimbo's page on this topic.

The big biggie WP:NOR. Whatever wikipedia is and whatever rules it has, this is basic. Move from nupedia to wikipedia; from peer-reviewed to verifiable; means absolutely no original research.

Be aware of your "blind spot". OK, I am still not comfortable with pointing at copyvio but I have to be careful because of my POV that a misrepresentation of Scn should not be promoted. So I will accept the compromise and leave the decision to others. In effect, I say that certainly myself and possibly Netslaveone have an agenda so let's leave the decision to editors that do not. I should mention that I am aware of my POV but my POV also includes allowing critics of Scientology to have their say. I am just saying I may have a bit of a "blind spot" here. I edit from my understanding, not my POV, and my understanding of wikipedia policy here is weak so I may be defaulting to my POV a bit

Never ever get personal WP:NPA.

If someone gets personal with you warn them nicely, warn them again, then bump it an official complaint.

Do not bully others and do not allow yourself to be bullied. Use official remedies prudently and omly after attempting to handle the situation less formally. But do use them if warranted.

Don't stalk another editor. This is an easy trap to fall into because you set up your watchlist then see that an editor whose edits you generally disagree with has made an edit. The impulse is to head right over there and "fix it". But that is the exact activity that pisses you off when it is done to you. Better to chose some aspect of the subject to work on and keep working on that until it is done. Make a note to yourself to check the other in a few days; by then it may have already been handled and you have avoided an argument. When you do look at the edit before going to war ask yourself if the edit is really so bad that you must handle it right now or are there other aspects of the subject more in need of you attention. If it important handle it. Move it to the talk page, and let the editor know on his/her own talk page. Discuss it with other editors. If you wait remember that you can, at any time, always look at that editors contribs and check the current state of any article that you are concerned about. There is no hurry. You can be an Eventualist.

It may be helpful to take the viewpoint that inclusion of information by any editor, no matter how slanted you feel that their approach is, is an indication that important or relevant information is missing from the article. Rather than get your panties in a bunch and striking it out why not research and provide the missing information in a nice, complete NPOV manner. Again taking the wind out of any disagreement. Most editors here want to see that nice NPOV approach and will support you where they will not support your deletion. Deletion is lazy; research and good writing take time.

The biggest problem I have found is that consensus is reached, the article looks good. Then one month later someone screws it up in exactly the same way. Arrggh. I wonder if a log of "settled point" can be made as a subpage of the talk page? No, that won't fly.

Don't be afraid to have a POV; just make sure that you edit fairly and verifiably and affort others the same right.

The other option would to be stealthy; to so suppress your POV that no-one sees it in your edits. You would then have to edit the opposing side of your position in nearly the same manner and to the same degree as you would like t edit your own side. I don't think this is likely so I recommend the preceding. You would do this to avoid have your edits opposed as POV-pushing. But I would rather learn and teach you to openly edit properly from your own POV.

Don't try to control. Contribute, instead.

When you go in to edit, don't cut out material that you don't like. Instead find the grain of truth that usually lies inside what you consider a misrepresentation, research that truth, and present it fairly. That effectively takes the wind out of the argument - you are not objecting to the truth, you just want it presented fairly (i.e. what is here is what the source says and if there is a less-biased source use that) and sourced properly.

Don't try to become an admin (sysop) so you "can better handle the off-policy actions of critics" or somesuch. Sysops are people that are, or should be, more interested in wikipedia itself than in particular article(s). They work hard to maintain the system and should not be using their position to further their POV, nor have I encountered any that are doing that though I have seen claims by others of such action. When a sysop does that it detracts from his/her credibility and, I imagine, likely leads to them being "desysoped" if they don't stop. Just contribute and build a reputation as a credible editor and you will do just fine. Sysops will likely respect you as will most editors if you just contribute and treat others kindly.

Which brings us to another point. Apply the best you know of Scn to others here. Use ARC, actually USE it (you know, like in the beginning comm course, find something about the person you can like, find some common reality, and communicate nicely). "Amazingly", it works. When we get mad at critics, make sarcastic comments to them, think they are uninformed and that "we know best" (all things I have myself been guilty of), all we accomplish is making an enemy where one perhaps need not exist, of someone that might otherwise respect your right to edit here. To be honest, I doubt that most editors here even know enough about Scn to be "afraid of it exposing their crimes", the official "reason" for criticism of Scn. I think Scientology has created its own negative image among "netizens" by its own actions, that, in my opinion are NOT Scientology at all but some wierd 3rd dynamic abberation that Scn is currently dramatizing. Scn has been visibly low-toned, out-ARC, and in a games condition in handling crticism and that has hurt the image. Try not to repeat those errors here.

Realize that there is another side to the Scn story. Many people have been harmed by SP declare and disconnection policies, "fair game" harassment, overzealous reges and MAA/Ethics Officers. There is quite a history of "outpoints" in Scientology and little evidence of the Church addressing them in a verifiable manner. I know that they do get addressed often by staff going to cramming or ethics but the disgruntled people, many of them having invested many years and much money in Scn were never handled, were they? The fact that they remain disgruntled is the pudding for that.

Pretend you know nothing about Scientology when writing. I mean you have to split yourself. Imagine that you are an interested, intelligent, impartial (yet sympathetic) interviewer that knows nothing about Scientology and you are interviewing yourself, a person that has a lot of information about Scientology but also a strong believe in the absolute truth of it. Then write from the viewpoint of that interviewer. He doesn't "believe" Scientology but he has all the answers to his questions. So my point is convey the information without conveying your belief; that is what WP:NPOV means. Found a similar concept mainly to make sure that you can vefify what you know Wikipedia:Amnesia test. Also found an essay on Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy.

The community is not so large as it first appears, especially in any given area. It is a smallish group and you come to know each other's views and editing style.

Official PR people should ensure that supporting docs are posted on Scn sites for non-controvesial issues. Supporting docs related to controversial issues must be posted or reported elsewhere also, like something supporting the efficacy of Narconon should be on a .edu or .gov or in the press.

Use your access to Scn materials to provide sources; you can use LRH tapes and any published material as sources along with mags like Advance or Source.

Keep your point in front of every discussion. If you pull something becuase it is not WP:V then state why you pulled it clearly and, if you engage in discussion on the talk page (which I DO recommend you do at least to reiterate why you made the edit), be wary of going off into tangents discussing the substance of the article rather than the WP:V of the what you pulled. I enjoy discussing substance so I do but I always mention the real reason I pulled. You may not want to discuss the substance but should at least reiterate why you pulled.

Preview, proof-read, and proof-read before posting or, better, use a sandbox, also known as a user subpage. You can make one by just putting [[/draft1]] on your userpage while in "edit this page" mode and clicking the red link, draft1. I used draft1 for this example but it can have any name you like. Do NOT forget that first forward slash or you will put the page in the main namespace as a regular article and will have to ask for speedy deletion if you save anything you write. A red link means a page has no content and if you just navigate away without saving any content the page will not be created and there is nothing to delete. Copy the source for the article you want to edit to your sandbox and perfect your edits there. Be careful when going back to the article that you do not inadvertently revert edits subsequent to your copying the page. Once you are more experienced you can forsake the sandbox for smaller edits and edit directly in the article remembering to proof-read thoroughly.

On a similar note, I recommend that you make the body of your edit, add references, and wikify to the degree you care to and then leave it alone even if it has minor errors or you think you can improve it a bit more. Let the other editors see what you have in mind and see how it is received before you spend a lot of time fine-tuning it.

Be a good loser . . . and get used to it (laff). Get over it.

There is a big problem if some obey the rules and others don't. Especially if the ones that disregard the rules use the self-same rules they are spurning to beat their opponents over the head. I am thinking here about the use of POV sites as references. It also ties to the use of copies of RS's that are on POV sites and are referenced as "courtesy links". That is pointing at copyvio and at POV sites; both WP:EL vio. This ties to the laziness of not going to the library and really doing research but instead relying on Google.

Never follow another editor's style of writing in responding if the style is unclear, gramatically bad, etc. Alway present your thoughts in the best fashion you can manage. Don't be clever.

Input from others

External Links go in the ==External Links== section. Not immediately obvious and not obviously stated in the policy pages when I read them. Slightlyright 10:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There's probably not much to add, but here are some suggestions:

• The Auditors Code [[1]] is a vital piece of tech, here as in life.
• Another stable datum from LRH is that the emphasis should be on the subject of Scientology itself, rather than its organisations or personnel (sorry, I don't have the exact reference but it was one of his 'old cuffs' in the Professional Auditors Bulletins). The controversies here are about organisations and personnel, or come from earlier religious and mental practices. No-one's likely to get into a slanging match about such concepts as the ARC triangle or the cycle of action.
• There's no need to use a sexy, journalistic prose style. Emotive writing stirs up emotional responses; I aim for a dry, fact-filled style like a solicitor's brief or a scientific paper. DavidCooke 04:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Some good advice here. I highly recommend giving it a little more structure, though—maybe some topic headings to help break it down. The Jade Knight 12:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia and welcome to my personal Userpage. I am a Scientologist in good standing with the Church of Scientology and have been a Scientologist for over 30 years. I am also "Freezoner-friendly" and, believe it or not, I am pretty "critic-friendly" too. I believe in acting the minister (I was formally the Chaplain at a large Org) and practicing "pan-determinism" (being friendly to all sides rather than taking an entrenched "position" in a debate or contest). I use the pseudonym, "justanother" here because I want to be seen as "just another editor". If you are a Scientologist too and since you have found this page then I imagine that you have visited at least one article in the Scientology Series here and saw my name either in the edit history or on the talk page. Great! I am glad that you have found me. I am here to help. Please say "Hello" to me by making an entry on my talk page. It is easy to do - just click here and remember to "Save page".

The problem

OK, you may have noticed a bit of a problem in the Scientology series articles. First, of course, there is the sheer number of them, over 270 as of May, 2007. I will discuss why that is a problem last. The main problem can be summed up in one sentence.

“ For years, a small group of off-wiki (think alt.religion.scientology) critics of Scientology, along with a few on-wiki fellow travelers, have hijacked the Wikipedia project to the extent of using the Scientology-series articles to forward their biased anti-Scientology sentiments and, despite the efforts of less-biased Wikipedia editors, the Scientology-series articles still reflect that anti-Scientology bias. ”

There, that is one sentence. Bit long ("NPR sentence") but one sentence. I will expand just a bit but before I do; them thar are fightin' words. Best that you just leave them right here and don't go spreadin' 'em 'bout.

The solution

The solution is quite simple and requires only two actions:

1. Make the articles and the critics of Scientology follow the rules here, and
2. Follow the rules yourself and add/rewrite the articles as necessary to remove misrepresentations and undue bias and add well-written material that will bring about understandings of Scientology and Scientologists (hint - name your product) is addition to the understandings of criticism of Scientology and critics that are already well represented in the articles.