Raeft

WikiProject

• You may wish to join the WikiProject Scientology, WP:SCN. You can go there to learn more. Also, there is a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Yours, Smee 05:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

How to create a User Page

You may wish to create a User Page. You can just click on the red "user page" tab uptop, or invariably also click here to edit. There is some interesting information on User Pages at Wikipedia:User page. Here is the list of Userboxes, and this is some Wikipedia information about Userboxes. Yours, Smee 05:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

Talk:Tom Cruise: Unauthorized

• You said: "I meant moreso that I believe the forthcoming legal action, sure to occur, will be interesting and very public, thus making it easily documentable in a fine article." - What specifically do you mean by this? Please elaborate. Thanks. I am curious as to the nature and specific meaning of these obtuse statements, you may not be aware of the Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:No legal threats. Yours, Smee 00:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Oh! My apologies, in the harsh world that can be Wikipedia, I misinterpreted you. I'm sorry. Smee 04:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For the patience you showed in dealing with my confusion/miscommunication - in a most kind and courteous manner. Thank you. Smee 04:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Feel free to add to your user page and/or leave here on the talk page as you see fit, except of course this part itself. Yours, Smee 04:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

WP:SCN

• You may wish to utilize the userbox {{User Scientology project}}, to denote your participation in the project. Yours, Smee 17:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject

• I restructured the Main Page of WP:SCN. Let me know what you think on the talk page. Smee 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject Scientology

Hi. Would you mind please popping over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology#New look discussion and taking another look. While Smee did do a nice job in making it attractive, I feel that it was at the expense of usability. Would you mind please taking a look at both arguments and giving us a fresh opinion. Thanks. --Justanother 23:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have expanded much more upon Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/test, to incorporate lots of suggestions from the talk page of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology. Please let me know what you think of it at this point. If you have further suggestions, I will try to incorporate them as well. Smee 17:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

FYI

Hello Raeft, I feel I should make you aware of further discussion regarding the COFS/CSI LA issue but caution you about adding your opinion. I say this for two reasons, the first is because I started out just like you, not wanting to make any enemies among the Scientologists since everybody should be able to believe what they want, spiritually. (We should not be asked to believe the BS L. Ron Hubbard tried to pass off as his life story however, since history is much more concrete than religious theory). The second is that you mentioned not wanting to deal with accusations and incivility from the pro-CoS elements, and I am almost 99% sure no matter what the resolution of the ban, they will be back. A new IP isn't that hard to obtain.

Please don't take this as me telling you NOT to post, I would never tell anyone what to do since all decsions about your life are yours. It is more of a Rubicon ahead type warning. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Why current block makes sense Anynobody 08:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Would you mind replying here? it helps when I can see the whole conversation on one page. Anynobody 08:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I plan to add my opinion on that page immediately. Actually, Anynobody, I've been galvanized in the past few days. Some unfortunate things have ocurred, but I don't truly care about incivility from the opposing side any more. I now plan to aid in keeping this encyclopedia up and running and making damn sure that the Scientology articles are factually accurate, irregardless of what overly pro-Scientology editors may plan. And you can quote me on that. I've been, and will continue to be, busy with my education. Continuing university and such. But when I find the time, maybe I can help hold back the tide. Thank you for giving me a heads up.

On future issues, a faster reply may be assured if you or other editors utilize my email address. It is darkriftwalker (AT) yahoo (dot) CA . I'm not worried about spam, so I don't mind throwing it up here. Yahoo has a wicked spam filter. I understand fully if anyone is uncomfortable contacting me in that fashion, but it is the most reliable way to do so. Anyway, I'll continue discussion over there. Across this rubicon I go. Be well. Raeft 22:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've left a reply on ANI that I hope addresses your concerns. If you want to reply, there or my talk page is fine. ··coelacan 06:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

All due respect Raeft but you are a bit confused as to which way the tide is running. Scientologists like myself and fair-minded critics of Scientology like User:Wikipediatrix and User:BTfromLA are trying to hold back the tide of critical misrepresentation, violation of the basic principles and of this project, and over-the-top venality by a small group whose life revolves around criticizing Scientology off-wiki. You are welcome to help. (So are you, Anynobody) --Justanother 01:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? Well, the most I can do NOW is be an onlooker. When I decide to edit in earnest, there's a good chance I'm not likely to look at things as "pro" or "anti" Scientology in that regard. I just have a certain knowledge of some things that I feel will be valuable. Once my education is finished for this year, I can begin actually -writing- articles. In all seriousness, I have to doubt the honesty of a claim that anyone who consistently violates policies and edit wars to keep in things in opposition of concensus and reliable sources would still be AROUND, but I'm open to diffs from anyone who wants to show me evidence of editors I should be careful of. Of course, I also read people's talk pages at random, and archived discussions on any article I post on, so in light of everything I've witnessed, I doubt there'll be much I haven't already seen. Raeft 13:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate your contributions, the more neutral voices in a discussion the better it is for everyone especially considering the recently revealed sock puppetry issues. Your posts are so well thought out, if you get the impression the other side is ignoring you sometimes it just means they can't argue.

Don't worry about not being able to edit, life is life after all. A good friend of mine here, Orsini, is busy too (I mention him to prove I really don't begrudge not editing.) I also should explain that I don't really use yahoo or any messaging service, but I'll keep the info in case of an emergency (I can't think of any that could happen, but I can imagine wishing a had another way to contact some editors). Anynobody 00:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You know a person by the company they keep. --Justanother

01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I literally have no idea what that means. Anyway, cheers. Raeft 13:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like guilt by association to me. On the relative "bright side", at least he showed up to make my warning seem more relevant to anyone else who happens to read this.Anynobody 06:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(To Raeft) Sorry, did not mean to be so obscure. Let us just say that Orsini is one cat that has definitely showed his colors to those that cared to notice. More than that I would need to show you diffs. --Justanother 10:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Still sounds like guilt by association. Anynobody 19:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Shane Ruttle Martinez

Actually, you're wrong. Ruttle Martinez isn't even identified as being in the video you're referring to. Furthermore, at no point does it show Ruttle Martinez involved in the actions described by the anonymous contributor. Writing something so off-the-wall would be akin to me posting on your talk page that you fornicated with a horse, because there was a documentary about horse fornication and it involved a man, and since you're a man, it must have been you. I agree with you, talk pages are useful - and should include personal opinions - but they can't be forums for people posting total nonsense which distracts from the formation of an accurate and beneficial article. Frank Pais 20:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello...

Hi. Yes I read it before it got deleted. Thanks for the support.

To stop myself going on and on and on about these issues until I become part of the problem, I have adopted a policy of stating when I have said my last word on the matter. I have done so in this case, so I'm afraid I have nothing more to say here.

So... how 'bout them Cubs, hey?

Hesperian 13:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)