Language boxes |
|
22:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
But it's 15:15 03 July where I live.
Anynobody (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs)
Anyeverybody (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs)
Created:
Sylvia Seegrist a
did you know? article.
May 2007
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidate:
Improved:
Diamond (gemstone) into a
did you know? article.
Flight 19
into a
good article.
Significant contributions:
|
As of 04:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC) my more popular images are:
I feel a brief explanation of why I'm editing this article may help other editors understand what I think it should be. A little over six months ago I happened into the article, read it, and some of the sources listed. (See my blurb above about how I use Wikipedia for research.) I noticed that both sides of the argument were incorrect about various aspects of his career in the United States Navy which could be proven with proper sources, thus making said article more accurate.
It happens that Scientology sources tend to be skewed in favor of Hubbard, and the non-CoS sources are tilted against him more often than not. Of the non-CoS sources some just want the truth to be told, others are out to destroy Hubbard and his creation. The people out to show the CoS as the greatest evil spawned from the brain of a monster are just as biased as those who refuse to believe anything which goes against his assertions.
I don't think he was as terrible as some would have us believe, but I do know from government and private sources that he was certainly not the friend of mankind he claimed to be. The choice we have is to A) use the CoS' POV B) use the anti-CoS POV, or C) simply report the facts available in valid sources.
I understand our neutral POV rule to work in relation to subjects such as the CoS begins with the type of source used. Divided among three types; subject, critic, and media. Subject sources are those from the subject itself, critic sources are obviously those from critics of the subject while media would be news/books/tv etc. This was the article before I started editing, it literally ignored at least two controversial subjects and over 10 sources like TIME, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times.
I've received some, but I don't like to brag about my accomplishments. (The descriptions of work done above are meant to be a sign that I am somewhat productive.) This doesn't mean I don't support the recognition program here; to the contrary I've actually designed a few awards too.
I don't know why but recognition through awards hasn't really ever been my cup of tea. I do appreciate feedback though, be it positive or negative. Obviously I prefer the former, however the latter is important too.
Since an article is really only as good as its sources, one must remember this while doing any kind of research here. A good article will have many references from reputable sources
[1] If the source is available online, definitely look at it to gauge for yourself whether you believe the site. This is especially important for students using Wikipedia for a research project/paper because a student must ask themselves if their teacher would believe the site in question. I predict that more than a few students have already learned that the hard way. Be wary of statements with the words: [
citation needed] after it. These statements are in dispute and another editor has asked for a source to back up the assertion being made. This can also be explained here:
Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer:
|
|
Not everyone knows what you mean Being a multinational project there is a good chance you will be misunderstood, don't be surprised when it happens and try to be calm if someone thinks you've attacked them and they are in turn attacking you. |}
|
---|
Policies,
guidelines,
essays, and proposals are underlined
|
|
|
(1 Common sense should be used here, if an amateur writes a report with irrefutable references and evidence which contradicts a report written by a professional would be one example of an exception)
Lists: |
|
[[Image:Example.png|thumb|right|Example image caption]]
Language boxes |
|
22:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
But it's 15:15 03 July where I live.
Anynobody (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs)
Anyeverybody (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs)
Created:
Sylvia Seegrist a
did you know? article.
May 2007
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidate:
Improved:
Diamond (gemstone) into a
did you know? article.
Flight 19
into a
good article.
Significant contributions:
|
As of 04:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC) my more popular images are:
I feel a brief explanation of why I'm editing this article may help other editors understand what I think it should be. A little over six months ago I happened into the article, read it, and some of the sources listed. (See my blurb above about how I use Wikipedia for research.) I noticed that both sides of the argument were incorrect about various aspects of his career in the United States Navy which could be proven with proper sources, thus making said article more accurate.
It happens that Scientology sources tend to be skewed in favor of Hubbard, and the non-CoS sources are tilted against him more often than not. Of the non-CoS sources some just want the truth to be told, others are out to destroy Hubbard and his creation. The people out to show the CoS as the greatest evil spawned from the brain of a monster are just as biased as those who refuse to believe anything which goes against his assertions.
I don't think he was as terrible as some would have us believe, but I do know from government and private sources that he was certainly not the friend of mankind he claimed to be. The choice we have is to A) use the CoS' POV B) use the anti-CoS POV, or C) simply report the facts available in valid sources.
I understand our neutral POV rule to work in relation to subjects such as the CoS begins with the type of source used. Divided among three types; subject, critic, and media. Subject sources are those from the subject itself, critic sources are obviously those from critics of the subject while media would be news/books/tv etc. This was the article before I started editing, it literally ignored at least two controversial subjects and over 10 sources like TIME, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times.
I've received some, but I don't like to brag about my accomplishments. (The descriptions of work done above are meant to be a sign that I am somewhat productive.) This doesn't mean I don't support the recognition program here; to the contrary I've actually designed a few awards too.
I don't know why but recognition through awards hasn't really ever been my cup of tea. I do appreciate feedback though, be it positive or negative. Obviously I prefer the former, however the latter is important too.
Since an article is really only as good as its sources, one must remember this while doing any kind of research here. A good article will have many references from reputable sources
[1] If the source is available online, definitely look at it to gauge for yourself whether you believe the site. This is especially important for students using Wikipedia for a research project/paper because a student must ask themselves if their teacher would believe the site in question. I predict that more than a few students have already learned that the hard way. Be wary of statements with the words: [
citation needed] after it. These statements are in dispute and another editor has asked for a source to back up the assertion being made. This can also be explained here:
Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer:
|
|
Not everyone knows what you mean Being a multinational project there is a good chance you will be misunderstood, don't be surprised when it happens and try to be calm if someone thinks you've attacked them and they are in turn attacking you. |}
|
---|
Policies,
guidelines,
essays, and proposals are underlined
|
|
|
(1 Common sense should be used here, if an amateur writes a report with irrefutable references and evidence which contradicts a report written by a professional would be one example of an exception)
Lists: |
|
[[Image:Example.png|thumb|right|Example image caption]]