User talk:GoodDamon

User Talk Contribs Sandbox

Damon Kaswell article Hi there! Just replying to your comment on the AfD for your article; all I did was complete the nomination procedure. Because anonymous users can't create articles, the person who nominated the article for deletion wasn't able to create the AfD discussion, so all I've done is to create it for them. It is the same person who's been editing the Wordos page, but it's not me. Tevildo 00:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Scientology's relation to psychotropic substances Hi! Here you write, that Scientology does not completely reject psychotropic substances (as far as I understand you correctly - I am not a native speaker). I try to mention this in the german article, because it currently says there, that Scientology strictly rejects any use of psychotropic substances. But they dont like my contribution, because I cannot provide a scientific source. Can you provide such a source for me, please? Bye Arne --Homer Landskirty 2007-07-21T11:17:41 (UTC) I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood. I wasn't very familiar with the Church of Scientology's stance on psychotropic drugs. I was actually asking one of the other editors about it. Since then, I've been told that Scientology rejects all psychotropic substances without any exceptions. --GoodDamon 20:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Ohoh... Thank you for explaining it to me... :-) --Homer Landskirty 07:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC) September WPOR Collaboration of the Week First off, great job to all WikiProject Oregon folks for last week’s List of Oregon State Parks work. We pounded out six new state park articles: Sarah Helmick, Bald Peak, Bob Straub, Sumpter Valley Gold Dredge, Tumalo, and Peter Skene Ogden. Plus numerous other edits to improve the existing articles. As a reward, we are introducing the COTW award {{WPOR COTW award}}, and this time it goes to User:Woodstein52 for starting three of the articles. On to this week. We are back to the usual two Top importance Stubs: Sunstone and Oregon, My Oregon. Both are stub pluses, so it shouldn’t take much to upgrade them both. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Good day! Aboutmovies 22:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC) WPOR Collaboration: 09172007 All righty WPOR ladies and gentleman, great job last week with our state song and gemstone. I have bumped them up to Start class. I haven’t looked at the contributions, so the COTW award will be later. This week’s articles are Darlene Hooley, by special request, and another Top stub, our very own state rock, the Thunderegg. Yes, apparently we have a state rock and state gemstone. No word on whether there is a state stone too. Hooley basically needs some sources to make it to the next level. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. In the words of Beaver Joe, whoop! Aboutmovies 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC) comments appreciated Your comments are appreciated except when it turns out that your criticism against me personally is based on some bias and not because you actually know what you are talking about. You did not even read the PubMed publication, but deleted my contribution based on the fact that it was me editing in there. Get real. Shutterbug 21:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC) I think I've pretty firmly established that the reversions were for, essentially, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think you're right that the wording needed to change, but you were doing it by needlessly disparaging the PubMed citation -- which I did read, by the way. --GoodDamon 22:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Ok, let's get this peace pipe going (or I have to throw away a certain book I bought Friday). What's your purpose for those articles? Shutterbug 21:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC) I just like Wikipedia, dude. At the moment, I'm also pretty fascinated with the topic of Scientology from an academic standpoint, but I think both "sides" of the debates here in Wiki-Land could use some other, less invested folks. At first, I was frankly worried about getting involved -- it looked like people were editing with daggers in there! -- but I've come around to the idea that I can be a voice of moderation. You've done a bunch of small edits today that I disagreed with, and a couple big ones that I'll definitely defend. I'm my own man, and I hope to maintain a neutral editing stance that will probably annoy everyone. :) --GoodDamon 22:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. Hope you like the book. You jumped from mostly being a lurker straight into the snake pit, that's quite courageous. I guess I'll see you around then.(I ended up working on the weekend, so I had no chance to start reading the book yet). Shutterbug 23:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Well, that's how I end up involved with everything I do. I fiddled with computers off and on as a kid, and then suddenly jumped into running my own BBS. I toyed with the notion of writing for years, then decided one day to make it a career. I lurked on other peoples' blogs for a long time, then one day wrote a bunch of entries in my own. I lurked all over Wikipedia for a long time, refusing even to create my own account. I guess I'm just funny that way. --GoodDamon 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Fall WPOR COTW Welcome to autumn and the weekly COTW news. Great job to those who helped out with last week’s articles: Darlene Hooley & Thunderegg. Both made great improvements. This week, something a little different. With fall upon us, the photo ops are going to be harder to get, so we have a photo request fulfillment drive. Take a look at the requested pictures for Oregon category or the graphics subproject for what’s needed. Then go take a picture, or search online for a free picture to upload (US gov sites are great and there are links available from the above links). If you fill a request, be sure to remove the request template from the article’s talk page. Our other item is another red link removal drive, this time on the flagship Oregon article. Like the state parks red link drive, try to coordinate on the talk page. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 02:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks! Thanks for keeping Wikipedia clean! Gtorell 20:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC) My pleasure. :) --GoodDamon 20:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC) RE:User Page Hi there, would you mind if I steal borrow a bunch of the code you wrote for your user pages? I really like the way you organized your user details, and thought I might give it a go. --GoodDamon 18:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Sure that's fine. (Could you leave a small note at the bottom of the page about me designing it, like 'Thanks to Rugby471 for the User Page idea' or something like that, it can be really small (like in <small> tags) Thanks!) > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 18:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Sure, absolutely. And thanks! --GoodDamon 18:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC) ( PS: could you notify me when you are done, I am interested to see how it looks :-) ) > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 09:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Week 1 October WP:ORE COTW I know everyone has been waiting anxiously for this week’s COTW, so here they are: Barlow Road and Columbia River Plateau. Both are almost Start class, just some formatting and referencing, plus a little expansion and they will be there! As to last week, it is difficult to track the items we were working on, but I know some pictures were added and at least three red links were removed from Oregon, so thank you to all those who participated. The award winner will be GoodDamon for their creation of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute article. We have now worked through all the Top class stubs and are into the High class stubs. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Happy editing, and remember if you see a downed power line, don’t pick it up. Aboutmovies 20:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Friendly clarification Hello there, I'm concerned that you feel my describing the situation on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard with Lermanet/Misou as a double standard was intended to imply bad faith on anyone's part. I've found that it's best not to mention one or two editors specifically if several others are also doing the same thing, those identified tend to point to those who were not and say "How come you didn't mention so and so?" I was actually just pointing out that each "side" has a double standard when it comes to those sites, when in reality if using one site is unacceptable then they both (probably) are for the same reasons. Anynobody 05:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying that. I think my main concern is that there's so much accusation on all sides that even using the term "double standard" is inviting trouble. --GoodDamon 16:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC) It's an understandable concern, I honestly used to try avoiding pointing out any errors directly. The problem I encountered was that nothing seemed to get resolved that way, and moreover I even found this approach to cause misunderstanding. In this case, no matter what I say, certain editors are going to assume the worst; The only thing I can do is be honest and direct. Which brings me back to another reason I abandoned the less assertive approach; by following the rules when editing an article like L. Ron Hubbard one is bound to stir up accusations from either side anyway. I could've sworn I've seen your name in some pro-CoS posts mentioned as an "anti-Scientologist" for doing nothing more than following policies and guidelines. Since they say the sources should speak for themselves, and most (if not all) WP:RS sources don't have much positive to say about Hubbard; Simply following the rules will get one called a bigot by passionate Scientologists. It occurred to me avoiding such accusations was about as likely as avoiding getting wet while swimming. I'm not saying you should change your ways, I actually hope it works for you better than it did me on this subject. I am saying that accusations are inevitable. Anynobody 03:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC) I did get one or two such accusations from Shutterbug, but s/he seemed to back off when I pointed out how neutral my edits and stance really are. I don't agree with either "side" very much. --GoodDamon 16:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Nor do I, after all I got involved to correct the errors on both sides about Hubbard's Naval career. Among other things, I wish anti-COS editors would stop using the Penthouse interview by Hubbard's bitter son. I don't get any credit with the pro-COS faction for that, because the truth aligns even less with what they say about what he did in the navy and elsewhere. Anynobody 23:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Hi Abody. Might I point out to you that "recruitment" is a no-no? Pretty slippery here already. See you. Shutterbug 05:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC) PS:Damon, never mind, this is insider babble. Stay what you are, tks. Shutterbug 05:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC) UserPage I like it ! Next thing I would do is play around with the background colours. Oh and by the way, you can remove the notice at the bottom about me. I misinterpreted how you were going to use the code, you have made it distinctly different and your own. > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 18:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Glad you like it. I'll do more work on it when I've got the time. :) --GoodDamon 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)