User talk:Shutterbug/Archive3

If you are looking for old talks: I archived them here and here. After 19 August 2007 sections older than 7 days will be automatically archived to User talk:Shutterbug/Archive/Archive-Jun2025. Sections without timestamps will not be archived.

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandal edits to 'Freedom Magazine' that were done by RookZero. S. M. Sullivan 02:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MEDCAB case involving you

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation

Dear Shutterbug/Archive3: 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! 21:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-14 Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia

Please provide your opinion and input in the Mediation Cabal Case. Alpta 19:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not your enemy

Dude, I'm not your enemy, and don't want to edit war with you, but this is getting absurd. You've been so confrontational, and even in cases where I completely agree with you, you've shown very bad form indeed. Would it kill you to talk about these issues, first? --GoodDamon 17:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you are right. I'll chill. Shutterbug 18:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's much appreciated. --GoodDamon 18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to mention, I saw your change here and that is, in my opinion, a very good edit indeed. Instead of deleting it or applying any POV to it, you took away an obvious POV generalization and made it a "nothing but the facts, ma'am" statement. Excellent. --GoodDamon 22:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I bet that it won't stay. Too many predators around, but never give up. Shutterbug 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamic C

You get scurvy if you don't get enough Vitamin C. When you edited the "Silent birth and infant care" section of Scientology, it read like this is something that's contentious. It's not. It also read like you were belittling PubMed publications as coming from just "one group of health practitioners," when PubMed articles are made up of well-vetted citations from the most respected -- and largest -- health organizations in the world. Again, I'm not your enemy, but you've *got* to stop doing that. --GoodDamon 19:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You, if happen to be Foobaz as well, got to stop generalizing individual incidents. The ref describes one incident and that's it. No further facts available. Ten thousands of Scientology kids or even more have been brought up following this nutrition advice (and it does not even say that no other food should be used) and one kid had trouble and got better when being given Vitamin C and other nutrition (as the PubMed text says)? Give me a break. you did not even note the contradictory information that the "case" is a) two years old (more than one year older than Barley is advised to be given) and b) not a boy but a girl. The sickness of Wikipedia propaganda is that individual cases and single statements are used to generalize and make it valid for everyone and everything. That is slimy propaganda, the one putting it in there a liar and it has no place here. Shutterbug 21:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm not Foobaz, and that's a rather bizarre accusation. You have no reason to attack me, and I'm not sure why you're doing it, I just wish you'd stop. I *still* don't have a beef with you, I *still* am not your enemy, and I *still* even agree with some of your edits. I'm just going to pretend you never made that accusation, and hope you will do likewise. :)

Now then, on to the topic at hand. The reference in question is to a case of one person, yes (and you, not I, mistakenly identified the child as a boy). But Vitamin C deficiency is known to cause scurvy, and the link supports that, as well as Wikipedia's own article about scurvy. You would be hard-pressed to find any pediatric health expert that recommends a diet lacking in Vitamin C, which is in all infant formulas -- except Hubbard's -- and in natural breast milk.

All that said, you do have a point. The source, by itself, is probably not enough to cover the statement as it stands. However, some simple rewording would probably solve the problem completely. I'm giving it a go. --GoodDamon 22:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tks. I changed it super slightly. Check it out. Shutterbug 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3RR report

By my count you are also responsible for a 3RR violation within, or just over the 24 hours. Just be aware that the behaviour of everyone on an article gets reviewed when its reported at 3RR and many admins simply block everyone concerned. I'm protecting the article otherwise you would have been included in any blocks I issued. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Yes, I am somewhat part of this round of RR'ing. Thanks for protecting the article. It should be under watch... Shutterbug 19:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonious editing

You might look at the Harmonious Editing Club. My philosophy is that the editor who walks away from an edit war is the winner. Your goal in a debate is the change minds: your opponents or the observers. By walking away you have a good chance of winning some of the observers over to your point of view. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, if you don't mind my butting in, what you suggest would indeed be true if we were talking about two ordinary people arguing over pop stars or Keynesian economics or computing Pi to the 8808th place. But we're not. We're talking about two organized sets of people with definite hardcore agendas - one is a group of overzealous anti-Scientologist crusaders who are all part of a small subculture of crude "Scientology is Evil" websites that all link to one another. The other are the Scientologists themselves, who are actually far less organized and single-minded in their mission - they don't even agree with each other half the time because some are Freezoners and some are just ordinary public Scientologists not far up the Bridge.

Until the Scientology articles are wrested from the clammy grips of both sides and the majority of editors are those who don't have a dog in this fight at all, there ARE no "winners". It's hard to walk away from an edit war when that means allowing an article to stand containing lies or half-truths, and nothing is done about it. I can show diffs to literally dozens of good-faith attempts to elicit talk-page discussion about various edits, that went completely unanswered and ignored by the Usual Gang of So-and-So's.

The fact that Scientology is such an extremely convoluted and complicated subject works to the advantage of the Scn-haters because the average observer is overwhelmed by it all and usually just stays on the sidelines.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying all of this justifies edit warring.... but I understand. wikipediatrix 19:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]