User talk:Su-Jada

Hi! Good to see some more free minds around here! Welcome and keep up the good work! COFS 01:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement!Su-Jada 01:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for your great edits on Scientology. You chose a piece of nerve-wrecking work. Do you have background data on Scientology? COFS 22:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks COFS. I know you've had your hands full trying to get the articles to reflect balance. I have been lurking around Wikipedia for quite some time. It just got to a point recently I could no longer countenance the lack of academic responsibility I saw. Yes. I've studied a great deal of material on the subject of Scientology, and I like to consider myself well informed on the subject, while always willing to learn more.

Cool. Don't forget to sign with four tildes. And if you want stay in the know what is happening I want to recommend this to you. COFS 05:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the instructions

At the top of the arbitration evidence page are instructions that you seem to have missed. Please read those and consider moving your inappropriately positioned comments to the talk page. Another editor started deleting them, so I ask them to revert those deletions. Jehochman ^Hablar 03:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments have been moved to the talk page. Su-Jada is advised to read and understand the rules of evidence commentary.--Fahrenheit451 04:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Please note this one here. You are mentioned. COFS 22:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman and the David Miscavige article

Greetings from a fellow Scientologist! I've been watching the exchange between you and Tilman regarding his use of questionable references in the David Miscavige article. You make an excellent case that the use of Atack's and Miller's books are not RS since they are POV (plus they seem to qualify as Primary Sources). I don't think you're going to get anywhere trying to convince Tilman to stop his reverts; may I suggest using some dispute resolution?HubcapD 22:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HubcapD I think you're right. I'll study up on what to do on dispute resolution, and meanwhile I'll continue to revert their vandalism, as they are violating WP:BLP by continually reverting my edits and adding back in questionably sources, misquoted hearsay in this article. Thanks for the moral support!Su-Jada 16:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see they dinged you for 3RR :(. Here's the page that goes over dispute resolution. Also, have you read Justanother's hat write-up? I found it to be very helpful.HubcapD 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR violation

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi has agreed to lift this block for the time being, so both you and Tilman can continue to discuss the situation on the article's talk page. I have protected the article from editing; if the edit warring continues after the protection is lifted, blocks will follow. So please take this time to reach an agreement. Kafziel ^Talk 18:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended page protection for 24 hours, to give you a chance to discuss the problem. I want to stress to you that tomorrow, when the protection ends, Tilman is quite likely to revert your edits. If you haven't tried to justify yourself by then, and you show up and revert him again, you will be blocked immediately. Kafziel ^Talk 17:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I talked with User:Justanother about this situation. He directed me to this page: WP:BLPN. That seems like a good place to get the question of whther these books are RS handled.HubcapD 04:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lerma AfD

You only did the first of the three steps in nominating an article for deletion... just letting you know, since you seem to have gone on to other edits. wikipediatrix 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the Dianetics page!

I checked out your edits to the page today. Very good work!HubcapD 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Su-Jada 02:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MEDCAb case involving you

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation

Dear Su-Jada: Hello, my name is Arknascar44; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-31 David Miscavige

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, Arky ^¡Hablar! 21:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OT Levels section on Scientology navtemplate

I know it might seem superfluous; but there was a good reason behind it being added; there being a number of links that did not fit perfectly into any existing section to the satisifaction of all editors. --Krsont 05:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to comment here, although I won't revert your edit, Su-Jada. The edits were designed to take the Xenu article out of the controversies section and define it more properly as an OT level belief, which we thought would be a more neutral place for it, since it suitably establishes several facts in a neutral way:

That Xenu and the space opera are not believed by the majority of Scientologists
That for those who do believe it, it's learned of at the OT levels
That while it has some inherent controversies, it shouldn't itself be classified as a controversy

Please tell us if we're wrong, here. And if we are, please tell us how you would classify the OT beliefs versus the beliefs of the majority of Scientologists. --GoodDamon 13:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GoodDamon and Krsont and I really appreciate your attempting to make the subject more neutral in its presentation and I follow your line of reasoning. Although you have gone to pains to establish the three points you mention above, and although I can't really speak for the majority of Scientologists, I can absolutely state that any Scientologist reading anything about OT III on the Net would classify it not as beliefs and practices but as controversy. To begin with, any information on the Net on OT III and other OT levels has been very badly altered, and it is uniformly "quoted" in an attempt to discredit Scientology and Scientologists and is therefore used to create controversy and not to discuss the beliefs and practices of the religion. Just as one example, the section on Xenu in the Scientology article uses, as its graphic, a cartoon image from a TV show from 20 years ago,and where I have tried to have this removed as having no encyclopedic value whatsoever it gets added back in as soon as I do so. Clearly no one can state that a TV show's "depiction" is factual, reliable or valid. Hence controversy. I hope I answered your question. Su-Jada 23:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was the best reasoning I've seen for this stance yet. I'm happy to leave it in the controversies section.

If I may ask, what has been altered in the OT material on the net? My understanding -- and please, correct me if I'm wrong -- is that the OT material, specifically OT III, was directly scanned in from source material, and also entered into court records. We also have L. Ron Hubbard's recorded lectures on the subject. If all these things are substantially inaccurate and altered, it seems to me a simple matter to point out exactly how and where. I've seen lots of statements to the effect that "the material is altered" and "Xenu isn't a big part of it." But I've never seen anyone delve into the specifics of what is correct and what isn't, and what's considered a big part of it and what isn't. From the outside, the only things I know about OT III are the Xenu story and the training one receives to get rid of body thetans. If there's more, then there's a lot of article correction to do. --GoodDamon 17:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GoodDamonand sorry for taking so long to get back to you. OT III material has been taken out of context and altered in importance. Both are methods to confuse and denigrate. In the early days of Christianity the concept of transubstantiation was altered by those who feared the new religious movement and rumors were spread that these peaceful people were actually practicing cannibalism. Had it not been for that, would the atrocities against the early Christians have taken place? I am not about to engage in a discussion of what aspects of OT III that appear on the Net are and are not accurate. It is a very firm tenet of Scientologists that these materials not be made available to anyone who has achieved the state of Clear and earlier OT Levels, and even then must only be administered to those of proven ethical standards by those authorized to do so.Su-Jada 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for your forthrightness. I must say I find that very frustrating, though... I don't know of any other religion that hides core teachings from its followers that way, and from an academic perspective it makes it very hard to research it. I once mentioned to Justanother that it makes for arguments where one person tells the other he's wrong, but can't tell him why or how. We're stuck, then, with the Fishman Affidavit as the only reliable source on the contents of OT III, and we're basically going to have to assume it's the entirety of it. --GoodDamon 17:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand what you're saying, GoodDamon and for anyone really interested in learning about Scientology, Hubbard's research into the capabilities of the spiritual being, what he describes as the "whole track," including incidents that occurred many millions of years ago, a project to make these materials available has just been completed and anyone can read the books and listen to the lectures. Bridge Publications recently published new editions of 18 basic Scientology and Dianetics books,and Golden Era Productions has released something like 250 recorded lectures by Hubbard. A description of these materials is available at http://bpi.goldenageofknowledge.net/Su-Jada 18:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that include everything? Including the OT levels? Because frankly, that would be a gold mine for research. In the spirit of honesty, I should tell you I'm not interested in Scientology in any way but as a point of academic interest. I'm a writer, and find contemporary beliefs absolutely fascinating, but I myself am strictly agnostic. But if the Church has chosen to release all information about Scientology for the curious, like me, that would be absolutely fan-freakin'-tastic! --GoodDamon 19:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job

Just wanted to say hi. Very nice job. I see you had some reverts issues, well just keep editing. ;-) Love You Bravehartbear (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Bravehartbear (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

It would be best to avoid usage of primary sources and self-referential sources, in describing the history of an organization specifically from those sources. Better to rely on secondary, WP:RS/WP:V sources. -- I saw that you cited the St. Petersburg Times in one instance - this is what I am referring to by secondary sources. When discussing the history of an organization/individual directly affiliated with that organization we can use primary sources in some instances, but in general for the majority of the references used, best to rely mainly on secondary source material, not primary. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Freewinds, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology

Please do this within process. The current version has achieved consensus after many debates, and the appropriate venue for changing that consensus is the Talk page, not the article itself. I'd remind you that the Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation, and sanctions may be applied to any editor who in the opinion of an Administrator, is disruptive. The history is the main reason why there is an inline editor's note in the lead. I repeat; Talk page, please. --Rodhull andemu 23:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Scientology, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Please do not remove sourced content from articles. DigitalC (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology arbitration

Per the request of arbitrator Roger Davies (talk), this notice is to inform you of the current arbitration case concerning Scientology, which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. You are receiving this notification because you were one of the users listed in the new evidence presented by Cirt.

For Roger Davies and the Arbitration Committee
Daniel (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology arbitration

This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

Banned : John254 (talk · contribs) (Community Ban), Justallofthem (talk · contribs)
Topic-banned : CSI LA (talk · contribs), Grrrilla (talk · contribs), Makoshack (talk · contribs), Proximodiz (talk · contribs), Su-Jada (talk · contribs), TaborG (talk · contribs), Jack Russell Terrier (talk · contribs), Jpierreg (talk · contribs), Maureen D (talk · contribs), OngoingHow (talk · contribs), Seelltey (talk · contribs), Tturrisi (talk · contribs), Voxpopulis (talk · contribs), AndroidCat (talk · contribs), Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs), Anynobody (talk · contribs), Derflipper (talk · contribs), Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs), Orsini (talk · contribs), Shrampes (talk · contribs), Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), Tilman (talk · contribs), The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs), Touretzky (talk · contribs)
To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*, Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs)
Other restrictions :
- Jossi (talk · contribs) gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
- ChrisO (talk · contribs) is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
- Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]