User talk:XDanielx/Archives/October 2007

Psychiatric Abuse

Hi Daniel, I respect your views so here's my question. Noticed your Keep vote on this AfD. The problem is that the content under this Title may be substantial, but how is it compiled? If the title refers to the Scientology doctrine, then that implies a broad set of non-academic ("religious") allegations of abuse. If the title refers to a term that is used within academic and comparable secondary sources, then the content would be quite narrow. Because the title is so vague, the article is getting a mish-mash of compiled allegations. This is either WP:SYNTH or, by default, the Scientology approach. Even if you don't change your Keep vote, how would we get this article onto an encyclopedic track? Thanks. (I'll post this on AfD) HG | Talk 14:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you. The more I think about it, here's what I think is going on. Since the article title is vague, it risks drawing in both "mainstream" and "fringe" views (in WP policy terms). I've tried to spell this out at the AfD and article Talk. Fringe views should be placed in separate articles (WP:UNDUE), so I don't think DGG's idea would be sufficient. What do you think? HG | Talk 02:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

PS Minor question that came up on the Talk page. I put in sentences about Scientology's approach and linked the Scientology and psychiatry etc articles. Can our internal links adequately serve as references? Or do I need to provide references within the new article?! Couldn't find this in our sources etc guidelines.... Thanks. HG | Talk 02:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It sounds like your saying that the article could be about the mainstream view(s), with an opening note about the Scientology and similar ("fringe") positions. I agree in concept, except that it would be bizarre for us to choose a Scientology term for the title of a mainstream article. That's why we see so many renaming ideas on the AfD. Have you seen this piece? The mainstream criticism belongs there, not in this fork, right? Maybe I'd recommend a vote along the lines of your formulation from long ago... Delete or, failing that, merge mainstream criticisms here and rename this article as the "Scientology view of psychiatric abuse" Thanks! HG | Talk 15:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for the smile! (and if it was you who aligned my user boxes - thanks for that too!) --HarpooneerX 02:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Time image

Hello. I just wanted to let you know I changed the references in the "fair-use rationale" in Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg to "magazine" where it had said "book". This sort of mistake is typical when adapting templates and rationales to particular uses (though there's some slow progress presently being made towards abating this situation of requiring users to give the "rationale for the rationale", so to speak). Having changed the rationale for the rationale for the use of the image, I thought you should be aware that I had changed it, in the event that you wanted your statement in the IfD to match the existing statement on the image page. ... Kenosis 03:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Chelmer Valley High School

Hi, I wonder if you would revisist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelmer Valley High School, please? The article has been rewritten showing the school has been independently judged to be Outstanding with a world record breaking gymnastics team. TerriersFan 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Stiking comment

Nice work on catching that! -Domthedude001 01:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)