User talk:JustaHulk~enwikinews

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Drop it[edit]

You're not getting anywhere with your campaign against Wilhelm/Cirt, and your description of the Wikinews community on Jimmy Wales' talk page is bordering on insulting. Without journalistic credentials or experience on this project I feel you are unqualified to assert what you do. So, please leave the issue alone and let us get on with the job at hand. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not misrepresenting sources[edit]

I'm afraid I'm none to happy with the changes you've made. I exchanged numerous emails with this woman from the Church, they all had "Wikinews Administrator and Community Accredited Reporter" as the footer and on several occasions I introduced myself as a journalist. It was only when I said I'd be quoting her she went "OMG! You can't". This is more likely as a result of her making up things than not being an authorised representative of the Church. If she answers email supplied via a form on their site she should be educated to spot media inquiries and redirect them, not be a clueless idiot who doesn't want to get in trouble.

In any case we do not have a surname, despite asking for one, and the press address she gave me was utterly unresponsive. I must assume that her comments are the closest we'll get to an official statement. If you can tell them to email me (they have my address, several times over) then we'll work from their side of the story. Nobody was misled, and your changes to the article are inappropriate. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I view the entire email exchange, please. Thanks. --JustaHulk 14:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interview[edit]

You've not made it particularly clear what your relationship with the Church of Scientology is, and as I recall from my days on Usenet they used to provide non-staff with "nanny" software to shield them from criticism. This leads me to wonder if you have some involvement, such as being a Volunteer minister or employment with the Office of Special Affairs. As you'd see from the emails I posted I made reasonable attempts to get an official response. In the case that you are a volunteer minister or otherwise involved with the Church could we interview you, or could you persuade someone with an official capacity to speak for the Church to agree to be interviewed? We want to know their position on this and my emails to their "PR" address (several of which I have not posted) have all gone unanswered. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a Volunteer Minister (VM), and a member in good-standing of the Church and of the IAS, if that is of any value to you. A VM is someone, non-ordained (the Church also ordains ministers), that uses Scientology to help other people; it is what Tom Cruise was referring to when he spoke of stopping at car accidents - to, as a VM, tend to the spiritual trauma. I have no other "official" relationship to the Church, and I certainly do not speak on their behalf. I do, though, happen to likely be one of the most knowledgeable people that you will ever meet as regards both sides of the "Scientology/anti-Scientology" issue as I have been involved with Scientology for 30 years and have followed criticism of Scientology for about 27 of those years. I used to post on ARS in the early '90s and go back from time-to-time but that place is a waste of time as they are as set in their opinions as RTC is set in theirs.

On a side note; I must say, Brian, that while you certainly did inform Laetitia that you were a reporter and certainly she should have taken that to heart, I also think that, in your desire to have an "exclusive" right from the Church, you disregarded her repeated explanation that she was not an official voice either. While your enthusiasm is understandable, and even commendable, you should not, as a reporter, allow enthusiasm to cloud good judgement. I tried to correct that in the article but Cirt (naturally) would not allow that and neither would you. So if I appear "ticked off" again at WikiNews, it is for that and the continued "local coverage" as the "Voice of Anonymous".

Finally, there is no filtering software for Scientologists. That is just another anti-Scientologist myth. There was something offered about 10 years ago and I imagine that some installed it at the time but 10 years in internet/computer time is an eon and, when I recently asked an Ethics Officer at my org about it, he did not even know what I was talking about. That is the real problem, Brian, unknowing individuals believe anything a Scientology critic says while discounting completely most of what the Church of Scientology says. Why? They are both equally self-serving and you should be skeptical of both. --JustaHulk 22:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear JustaHulk: I hope you don't mind me butting in here. I am not a *critic* of Scientology but am a former Sea Org staff member who routed out; I used to work at INCOMM. I can tell you that the Internet Filter Program (IFP) is, sadly, alive and well, because I worked on the development of the Windows XP version of the new incarnation of software. The old one was a custom implementation of the Cybersitter engine which was rather buggy and crude, but the new one is a more advanced socket-level affair with API hooks to the operating system. I have no idea whether it is still distributed to public Scientologists or not but I personally suspect that it is only installed on Sea Org machines these days and is not broadly distributed. Still, it is very much in current usage, and "blacklists" of critical websites continue to be maintained by OSA. --81.96.184.204 23:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP. Your comments are certainly welcome. Brian was specifically asking about filters for non-staff, the idea being I guess that "rank-and-file" Scientologists like myself are somehow not allowed to look at the internet. That is not the case. I am not surprised that Church-owned computers are filtered. My own network in my "wog job" has a filter that often filters out critical websites as "occult" or even occasionally as "hate speech". It is not so odd that the Church filters out critical sites on their own computers, that is their right. The filtering software from about 10 years ago was on the same CD as the cookie-cutter website-making program, the "Scientology Online" program or some such. I may even have the CD somewhere. That is what critics refer to and it is old news but the critics continue to push it. --JustaHulk 03:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An editor and administrator from Wikipedia has contacted me off-wiki to highlight that you, JustaHulk, have given wildly conflicting stories about your history with Scientology and were the subject of an arbitration case on Wikipedia. On that basis I would have to advise you that you have a serious conflict of interest when it comes to Scientology articles and should as a consequence raise your concerns on the talk page instead of making edits to them. I have emailed one of the arbitrators from Wikipedia to get further background on this case. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Brian, as a reporter, you might want to let me know what those "wildly conflicting stories" I have allegedly given, are. And as far as being "the subject of an arbitration case on Wikipedia", yes . . . except it was about my being harassed! So whoever that admin was, they are, to be blunt, feeding you a load of shit. I certainly hope that you, as a reporter, are not in the habit of believing every bit of crap you are fed. Because, as I just mentioned in a previous post, crap seems to be the preferred diet of critics of Scientology. ps. As a reporter, it would behoove you to check your sources before going "public" with them. And this is public, you know. If you want private, use my Wikipedia e-mail link (or here as I just enabled it here too). --JustaHulk 14:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, my caution about believing everything you are fed and publicly indicating such was more to save you embarrassment than me. I have nothing to hide about my Wikipedia editing nor my Scientology involvement. I am, in fact, proud of both. --JustaHulk 18:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me get this straight? You've lied to either Wikinews or the en.WP ArbCom and you're proud of it? You've trolled Jimmy Wales' talk page with disparaging comments about this project, and you're proud of it? Or is it more a case of "you're paid for it"? --Brian McNeil / talk 15:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen your posts on a.r.s. You've admitted an involvement with Scientology yet persist in trying to edit these articles. If you do not want to stop this disruption bring an arbcom case. I will not - as an involved party - be able to participate in the decision making but I would happily call for you being banned as a "general pest" and "non contributory nuisance". --Brian McNeil / talk 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's it? I've "admitted an involvement with Scientology" on ARS? That is my "lied to either Wikinews or the en.WP ArbCom"; that is my "wildly conflicting stories". Are you really this unable to admit a mistake?? Yes, I "admitted an involvement with Scientology". I AM A SCIENTOLOGIST. Notice my top-secret Wikipedia user page. w:User:JustaHulk which redirects to my older page. Look at the bottom - where it says "Categories: Scientologist Wikipedians". This really laughable - I wonder if anyone is watching this page? No matter. Go ahead and call for my ban - that will look really good. And after all my recent productive edits at Wikinews international report: "Anonymous" holds anti-Scientology protests in numerous locations globally? I was just starting to get interested in helping out here. --JustaHulk 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews international report: "Anonymous" holds over 250 anti-Scientology protests worldwide[edit]

Please do not removed sourced, true information from articles. That is considered vandalism. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions[edit]

Here is a section where you could contribute to the project. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brian. Though I would still liek you to retract your earlier charges against me. I am not editing much but I always can add a question or two. --JustaHulk - (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It kinda seems the case you're a Scientologist and have a bias, but I'm delighted to see you contributing constructively on our interview questions. There's also an upcoming interview with Tory Christman which you'll find a link to on WN:SOON. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I have a bias. We all have biases. The point is do we let our bias influence our editing. Do you really think I would have lasted 1-1/2 years and almost 10K edits on Wikipedia if I have any history at all of violating that precept. Don't you think there are lots of people that would have loved to see me slip up and get banned? I just wish more critics of Scientology could manage that as well as I do, i.e. not letting their bias influence their editing. Some do, but not all. And still waiting for you to retract the unfounded charges. --JustaHulk - (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering you're now editing constructively and appear to have stopped trolling Jimmy Wales' page on Wikipedia, I'll retract anything offensive I've said. However, at one point I was wondering how to bring an Arbcom case due to you dissing the project over on Wikipedia. We're a tight-knit community here on Wikinews and don't take kindly to being mocked in the manner you did.
By editing in pro-CoS questions into our interviews you're showing you can contribute constructively. That's great and shows that what may have been a knee-jerk reaction on my part was inappropriate. However, I would say leave Cirt alone for the moment. Jimmy Wales has emailed me directly about some of the comments you've made and we want to get the Church's side of the story as he has advised. They are unresponsive when emailed and this is most frustrating. My neighbour, who is a reporter for one of the Belgian national papers, has commented that he too cannot get an official response to things like the actions of 'Anonymous'. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unfortunately I cannot help you with "the Church's side of the story" beyond saying that (in my totally not official opinion) the Church's side of the story would likely be that they are involved with helping people and intend to continue doing that. I do not see the Church lending its name to either Anonymous or Jeff Jacobson by taking part in WikiNews interviews. I would suggest to the Church, however, that they treat WikiNews with the courtesy extended to any press outlet and if the Church has a press release or statement on the protests then they should send it to WikiNews as they do with other media. So if the Church notes my post here, then that is my suggestion. --JustaHulk - (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked for 31 hours for incivility, harassment, and edit-warring. Ral315 (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. If I thought there were much sanity here I would appeal this. But I know better. --JustaHulk - (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked at the article again and see that all the know-nothing, unsourced, and clearly mistaken suppositions that I went to the trouble of correcting have been restored. And I have been blocked. Laff. Welcome to ED's poorer cousin! --JustaHulk - (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey DragonFire1024

Why did you misquote Hubbard? You have:

War, famine, agony and disease has been the lot of Man and Man has been what has made Earth a Hell—and if you were looking for Hell and found Earth, it would certainly serve.

But the source says:

The bank-agreement has been what has made Earth a Hell—and if you were looking for Hell and found Earth, it would certainly serve. War, famine, agony and disease has been the lot of Man. Right now the great governments of Earth have developed the means of frying every man, woman and child on the planet. That is bank. That is the result of Collective Thought Agreement.

What in the world is up with that? Quotes are quotes - not some (mis)interpretation of what the speaker might mean. Weird. I will bring it up tomorrow. --JustaHulk - (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I lowered the block to 24 hours from when the first block was set as it is the first time you have been blocked so I think 24 hours is reasonable. --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 06:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, Anonymous fellow. --JustaHulk - (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I hate more than Scientologists...[edit]

...are the ignorant people who seem to enjoy attacking it. I'll be honest, I think your religion is a scam with patent nonsense as its doctrine...but hey, I'm a Christian and w:Transubstantiation is no better. Claiming that your viewpoints are invalid because of Fair Game is like claiming my viewpoints are invalid because of the Spanish Inquisition. Anyways, just wanted to let you know that I appreciate seeing your voice in the Scientology debates at least as much as I enjoy seeing the "established users" arguing against you. For the sake of Scientology and for the sake of WikiNews, I hope you don't become discouraged and give up. Sherurcij 18:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I really don't have any problem with what people think about Scientology. To be honest, it is not something that is easily comprehensible to the uninitiated. You might not be surprised to know that I am very open in my private life about being a Scientologist (which private life has little to do with Scientology and is more about my career and being a dad) and Scientology is often the topic of the first in-depth conversation I have with people. I have yet to meet anyone that did not 1) understand it, 2) respect it, and 3) get something out of it when I explain it to them in person. There is just so much truth and applicability in Scientology that it never ceases to impress me. Of course, you will not get any of that from critics that focus only on shortcomings, shortcomings that exist in any humanoid group and some of which claimed shortcomings are outright lies. Thanks for the vote of support. --JustaHulk - (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not let the actions of some users put you off[edit]

Hi JustaHulk,

Thanks for your contributions to Wikinews. I am saddened to hear that some users are criticizing you because of you beliefs. I have warned some of these users and I hope that the actions by these users do not discourage you from editing this site. Your contributions have been helpful in maintaining a neutral point of view, and as a result, lessening the belief that this site is a promoter of Anonymous. I hope you will enjoy contributing to Wikinews. Please remember that the majority of out users do not think you are a murderer.

Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) (Note I have no link with the organization anonymous) 19:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question[edit]

Are you interested in contributing to Wikinews or debating Scientology and getting into pointless arguments? At the moment it seems to be the latter. Unless this changes I may consider blocking you in an attempt to minimise the disruption that you have been causing. Contributors are being distracted from actually writing articles by becoming involved in long winded discussions with you. I'm not prepared to do this so don't expect me to feel compelled to reply to any comments addressed to me. Adambro - (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adambro, JustaHulk has made many useful contributions (eg.corrections).The most recent discussion was not started by him and he stayed reasonably calm considering it has been implied that he has been helping to organize murders. --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) (Note I have no link with the organization anonymous) 20:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed[edit]

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called JustaHulk. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name JustaHulk~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed[edit]

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

06:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JustaHulk~enwikinews&oldid=3431916"