Scienowiki:Coffee shop

869pages on
this wiki


Hi. This place is called Community Portal in some other wikis. It is the place to ask questions, which anyone can answer. Keep the questions and answers together by topic with its own sub-heading. Create the sub-heading by typing == before and after it. New topic means new sub-heading. Just edit this page to add to it. The usual way to distinguish your comment from the preceding one is to indent it one space more, done by writing a : at the beginning of the line. Sign and date it at the end by writing four tildes, ~~~~, which will show up as your signature and the date. Preview it before saving the page, as usual. Meet you over a cup of coffee! Paul 22:43, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

who owns this thing?Edit

Can anyone write stuff here? It looks like the founderdude's private trip.Pringle 15:28, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Sure, anyone can edit any page here, just like in any public wiki. I started Scienowiki, but I don't own it. I can't write the whole thing myself! Paul 22:11, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
And now there is a new editor! FZ01

How will this differ?Edit

Hi Paul. How will this differ from wikipedia? If anyone can edit it won't you have the same preponderance of anti-Scientology editors that we have on wikipedia? Won't over-agressive pro-Scientology "cleaners" be disruptive? Do you plan on handling that by heavily moderating the wiki as needed? Doesn't that just make it your wiki? - justanother on wikipedia - please drop me a line when you reply --Justanother 22:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Justan, This wiki is stated to be a wiki about Scientology written by Scientologists. Articles saying Scientology is nonsense are off-topic or vandalism. If someone wants to contribute to an anti-Scientology wiki then they can start one or do what they wish with Wikipedia. I reverted your change to the Pretty Info Box because it was inappropriate: a non-Scientologist does not belong here and so would not rate a Pretty Info Box, and one does not affiliate to the FZ. If an independent Scientologist feels strongly about not being identified as a Freezoner, then that viewpoint could be incorporated, but I don't think it is a big deal. Paul 11:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, call me Justa (grin). OK, fair enough on my question. Though, all due respect, but your revert does sound a bit like it is your wiki. I mean, it says "Everyone can have a pretty info box if they want one." Actually, a non-Scientologist might "belong here" if there are not a critic. Let's say they are a legit researcher, a family member of a Scio, or ??. I guess though by "not belong here" you mean as an editor? Well, perhaps. Maybe they want the pretty box for their userpage. And trust me, I imagine that there are plenty of ex-CoS guys that do not care to be identified as "Freezoner". Do you mean that these "un-identified" scios don't need the box because they don't offer services for $$? Does that matter if they put it on their userpage? Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to be confrontational, I just have an "enquiring mind". I applaude your effort here! --Justanother 21:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey there, I clarified the wording of the PIB. I didn't change it any from my original intention, just added some more words to exclude scenarios I hadn't thought of when I first wrote it but which you just mentioned. I don't want to spend a lot of time discussing hypothetical scenarios. If things happen that need to be addressed, and no-one else addresses them sensibly, then I will. By "not belong here" I did mean as an editor. In terms of "my wiki", I have written maybe 98% of it. If a hundred people add sensible things to it and want to take it in a different direction, then I'm not going to piss into the wind. But if one guy who has written next to nothing wants to hijack it off somewhere else, I am not likely to lie back and kiss all my hard work goodbye. (I don't mean you--I took a look at some of your writing on Wikipedia.) Paul 23:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I am glad you clarified that because I have not done anything here but notice that you need a couple more colors. Regarding wikipedia, your help is welcome as it is kinda an uphill fight for me and a very few others. I imagine that you have tried before over there but you are welcome back! --Justanother 03:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I added one external link on Wikipedia to my trademark page and that is about all I have edited there that I recall. It was because of the uphill struggle there that I started Scienowiki. I doubt if I will edit much there: it is more friendly here, a more efficient use of editing time. I no longer have the need to try and convert everyone to Scn. Paul 10:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally I could care less if anyone converts to Scn. I was just disgusted by the blatent lies, misrepresentations, and bias that I saw there and decided to try to do what I could. For me, it is important to just keep a presence there to provide a friendly face for other Scientologists that might happen by. Funny thing was that, in the process, I kinda recovered myself as I rediscovered what it is that is true for me about Scn and what it is that I objected to about the CoS. I have been interested in critical materials since about 1982 and have seen them all and lots of FZ stuff too. This wikipedia process has helped me work it all out as I was sitting in the midst of my last upset. So that charge has blown and I see very clearly what I perceive the outpoints to be and have made my decisions on moving forward accordingly. --Justanother 16:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have found it very valuable for myself to write articles, either here or on various FZ groups, as the process clarifies things in my own mind. Check out my robot auditor! See you next time. Paul 18:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool, instant soloish creative processing. Nice job! --Justanother 20:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Any way to make changes to one of my user pages not show up on recent changes? Edit

I have a page called sandbox i am using to construct/deconstruct entries and the frequent changes are cluttering up the recent changes link with irrelevant stuff. Maybe exclude things aside from User: and Usertalk: ??? something like that? possible? ---Slightlyright 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not that I know of. Good for you on noticing. The way I handle such is to never hit "Save Page", just "Show Preview" until I am ready with the final version. If I need to leave it incomplete and go to sleep or something, I cut and paste it to a text file somewhere outside of Scienowiki, and hit the "Cancel" link to the right of the three buttons under the edit box, then when I get back to it next time just paste it back in to the edit box. By the way, if you must copy that Wikipedia article, make sure you re-wikify it! Paul 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
well, I don't imagine it will be recognizable when I am finished with it. Just wanted somewhere to start - the Wikipedia article is little more than an attack piece. ---Slightlyright 23:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough! Sorry for the inspection before the fact. I'll leave you to it. Paul 23:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

changing text colorEdit

I am trying to figure out how to change the text color on a page. Specifically I want to be able to make HCOB citations dark red and bold and HCOPL cites dark green and bold. Is there a simple way to do this? I have looked around on the wikipedia help pages and their help on templates is total mush. Any help? Such citations should appear consitently throughtout this work and we should standardize also a way to visually indicate Clearbird PLs or whatever they are called too IMO. ---Slightlyright 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out. These colors, c00000 and "darkgreen" respectively, render just about perfectly on my screen as the colors I think HCOB cites and HCOPL cites should be; how about on y'alls? ---Slightlyright 20:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Howdy. Remember that this wiki also accepts some HTML so you can do <font color="red"><b>HCOB - Date - Name</b></font> and get this: HCOB - Date - Name. You can fine tune the color by using RGB code instead of the color name. Here is a tutorial that also includes a color picker. Color=3399 (use no "" and that looks too light). --Justanother 20:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Later, I just came over here to favorite it and here you was! Have fun. --Justanother 20:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing Standards and ConventionsEdit

Where is the article that sumarizes our conclusions about how things will be presented? For instance, we need to decide if the term 'pc' is to be capitalized throughout or not. Where do such guidelines live? Slightlyright 22:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Help:Capitalization Paul 11:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised this wiki is mostly going unused. Since Wikipedia articles are all free to be used under the GNU license, let's just start cut and pasting them and dragging them over here, and aggressively editing out the lies and red herrings, and adding loads of links to official CoS sites for each topic. Particlebeam 19:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Particlebeam, as long as it is in line with the existing wiki, go for it. I assume you work somewhere in PR (OSAI? ASI?), but that is OK, as long as you stick with the truth, and don't violate the CofS copyrights or get up to any tricks or try to turn Scienowiki into a link farm for the CofS. Truth as in the real deal, and not "truth" as in how certain people at the base would wish things to be seen. We'll see. Paul 22:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
................Oh. Now I'm confused. Judging from your conversation with "Justanother" above, I thought this Wiki's intent was to provide a better alternative to Wikipedia's unfair Scientology coverage (I have nothing to do with Church PR, not sure why you would assume that). So are you saying this is a Wiki for FreeZone people, or what?? Particlebeam 00:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
well... my experience is that if you take a wikipedia scn article and strip all the entheta, bullshit and red herrings, there is not usually anything useful left. There is almost no Scientology in any of the Scientology Articles on Wikipedia.
IMO this is because the majority of editors there believe that Scn is not really a subject, but that it is rather merely controversy about a pseudo-subject. If you go there with knowledge of the subject of Scientology you are branded as having a Pro scn POV which results in your edits being actively removed, belittled or diluted/controverted into uselessness. A favorite tactic is to call anything that scrubs crap out of articles, "whitewashing" and revert the edits out of hand. That said, I still dabble there, though all the ignorance and hatred that is so rampant there bugs me, so I am not as into it as I was for a while. Justanother, though, deserves three cheers for hanging in there and being sane. We need collectively to accept that as we try to instill some order there, that disorder will show up and blow off, I suppose.
But your theory is sound. Grab a wikipedia article and clean it up so it is actually a resource for someone that wants to learn about Scn. Slightlyright 02:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
One problem with the PR antics of the CofS is that they often pervert the "R" by dealing in lies. Although justified by some "greatest good for the greatest number" computation, it does violate Hubbard's PR Series, where he says to deal in truth. Remember that bit? Maybe you even studied it in my courseroom. I don't believe you are a non-Scientologist, Particlebeam. It doesn't matter why. I'm not going to discuss it at length. If you are going to add useful things to this wiki, then go ahead and do so. It would make a change from the usual vandalism here that I assume comes from CofS sources. We won't worry too much about the impossibility of a non-Scientologist making sensible edits to articles on Scientology if the products turn out to be worth keeping. Paul 17:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If using Hubbard's tech on my own (but in a non-squirreling way) simply by reading the books and applying the principles makes me a Scientologist, then OK, I'm a Scientologist. When I call myself a "non-Scientologist" I mean that I am not an actual card-carrying member of any Church, nor have I ever set foot in one, much less been audited. Although I do not feel the need to actively join the CoS in any official capacity at this time in my life, I have absolutely no complaint with the CoS in its present condition. None. If being oppositional to the CoS and its current direction is part of the official theme of this Wiki, I don't think I can get behind that. Oh well. We'll see. Particlebeam 18:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Very little here is overtly condemnatory of the CofS. This isn't a hang-out for critics. Fighting the CofS is a wrong target. Fighting the FZ is a wrong target. We're all really on the same side. If you want to contribute to this wiki, whatever your background, then do so, and your help will be appreciated. Paul 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of CofS to ScienowikiEdit

(Copied from WISE Talk as it is more general in nature)

OK, this article is an example of what I'm talking about. It's the Wikipedia article which I've transferred over here and given a trim. I removed outdated info (the Hubbard College site no longer exists), false info (placing wanted ads is not a "controversial tactic"), and misleading info (the whole "Dentistry" rant is malarkey). Particlebeam 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All right. You can get away with that one. :) I wince a bit at all the links to CofS sites but we'll see, we'll see. (Shouldn't it be "businesses" in a couple of places?) Paul 19:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You're still confusing me. Why wouldn't we have plenty of links to CoS sites on a Scientology wiki? Why would you wince at them? You expressed concern before about not infringing on CoS trademarks and copyrights, so isn't one of the best ways to make sure they're appeased in that department is to provide links to their own pages about any given subject that we choose to delve into in detail here? If this article makes you wince and grudgingly have to let me "get away with" this one, then we definitely seem to be at cross purposes here. Particlebeam 20:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
"Scientology" is not synonymous with "The CofS". The main page of this wiki gives the two main meanings of the word, namely the subject as organized by LRH, and the official CofS organizations and their customers. But there are a large number of people who consider themselves Scientologists, who make use of the tech, who wish to have nothing further to do with the CofS and who object to false "spin" put on some aspects of the subject by the CofS. I do not wish to present the view that the _subject_ of Scn is inseparable from the _Church_ of Scn, as it is not. It is easy not to infringe on copyrights and trademarks: don't submit copyrighted work without permission. And there is up-to-date info on CofS trademarks in this wiki. There is no need to try and appease anyone regarding them.
I assume anyone providing a link on anything is doing so mainly to promote the site linked to. That assumption is not always 100% accurate, but I would say it is close. The purpose of this wiki is in regard to Scn, not in regard to the CofS. If someone wants to find out about the CofS's official sites on WISE, it doesn't require any great insight to go to Google and enter search terms like "WISE" and "Scientology". We are indeed at cross purposes if your main concern is to promote the CofS. That isn't the purpose of this wiki at all. Paul 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I see. This should probably be made a lot clearer on the front page of the Wiki, then, because it's taken several back-and-forth posts to get you to state what you have just stated. I misinterpreted the front page's statement that this Wiki is "not a public relations agency" as meaning that the tone here wouldn't concern it itself necessarily with being polite - meaning that, unlike official Church sites, we would feel free to be as critical of the critics as we want to be. I see now that I couldn't have been more wrong. And as long as the CoS and RTC hold the copyrights and trademarks, they are inseparable from Scientology in any way that I find meaningful.
Also, you're certainly correct that this information is easily Googled and obtained, so then one might ask what is the point anyway? What information would ideally be provided here that wouldn't be easily Googled and obtained? Not trying to be argumentative, just genuinely astonished at the response I've gotten here. Particlebeam 21:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
PB, you are sounding exactly like an OSA op. I'm not going to discuss things forever with you--go and tie up some critics' time on ars or OCMB or somewhere. I need to work on my Robot TRs 0-4 course :), which is now over 50% done. Now, _that_ is something that is astonishing. It might be hard to believe, but I've been trying to wave a white flag here. I do not mind if the CofS edits this wiki providing the articles are honest and do not especially promote the CofS. You know--stuff above 2.0 on the tone scale and not 1.1. If you don't like my attitude, then don't come here. The Net's a big place. Paul 22:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Bah! y'all are not at cross purposes. This site is a resource for people that want to learn about Scientology without all the lies, obfuscation and entheta on Wikipedia. Paul is just grumpy about the CofS, as are many folks. But everyone that writes here is respectful of the technology of Scn to greater or lesser degrees. I will admit to being a bit shocked when Paul told me some things about how the tech was wrong (gasp!) on one minor point. But then I got to chuckling about it when I realized how deeply KSW was ingrained in me. The truth is there are freezoners and active CofS and inactive CofS and others here. We are not always going to be in 100% lockstep on everything. But the tech is amazing. The tech should be learnable by those that seek it. There is no place currently on the web where it can be learned. This can become an invaluable resource for professional auditors in and out of the church.
I personally am convinced that if LRH had lived to see the internet as it is now, he would have put all the tech out there for people to see and use. Face it - NOTHING SELLS SCIENTOLOGY LIKE THE TECH. The blathering ABOUT the tech, pro or con, is just sound and fury. The tech is what converts people. The tech is what excites them and helps them. Can you imagine what he would have thought about being able to hyperlink to the definition of every word in a given issue? EVERY definition a simple click away??? Maybe a companion application that records your word chains and helps with student points? Click on the term 'floating needle' and SEE A SHORT VIDEO OF A FLOATING NEEDLE!!! Have a question about how to run a certain procedure? One click... watch a model session. LRH would have been astounded with what could be done. Look, having the data in bound books is a barrier to study, albeit a small one. Having to look up a word in a hulking dictionary as thick as your thigh is a barrier to study. HTTP and the hyperlink eliminate these barriers. LRH would have embraced them with eager eyes and a racing heart. What was his intent? What was his purpose? I believe his intent was exactly what he said it was: To help his fellow man. I really believe that. And that is my purpose here - to help my fellow man. So dig in and write, my friend. Hyperlink your ass off. Create. Create. Create. More pages with each revolution of the earth.
Cross purposes? Bullshit! If your purpose is to assist your fellow man by helping them learn scientology... then WELCOME! That is what we are here to do too. And your help is acceptable to us. ---Slightlyright 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the tech should be freely available on the Net (legally, not from some Russian server). The only reasons for not making it so are commercial ones, since it already exists in electronic form (INCOMM's SIR application, for instance). The logistics of putting all the non-confidential stuff online and available for download are relatively minor. It would be very hard to make a convincing case for the top management of the CofS being interested in clearing the planet while making the tech all but impossible to use anymore. Many individual staff members still are, but they don't make the rules. And despite the theory, LRH doesn't make the rules either.
I wouldn't want to see a link to a video of an F/N. I would like to see a link to videos of fifty different F/Ns. Real ones, not computer-generated ones. Real ones across a broad range as they naturally occur in session, not a lone, solitary "real" one as decreed by an admin overlord whose word is senior to LRH's. Videos cannot be added to Scienowiki as there is a conflict with the GNU License, but there is no problem in linking to off-site Flash movies, for instance.
There are places to learn the tech online, SR. Apart from Clearbird's Road to Clear comprising pretty much everything up to Clear, and the Prometheus Reports covering R6EW to New OT IV, there's my Robot TRs 0-4 drills, my Problems of Work Correspondence Course, and my three checksheets on R3X and the equivalent of OT2 and OT3 which link to the Prometheus write-ups. I agree there aren't a wealth of CofS places to learn the tech online, not that I know of anyway. So one has to put up with all the squirrel stuff instead :).
I do see that the Scn Handbook is online. That's a good start. Paul 13:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename a template for me? Edit

Paul, can you please rename template:Cite web to template:cite web I screwed it up. Thx.---Slightlyright 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, maybe. Is this something you don't know how to do, SR, or something that only an Administrator can do? I don't particularly want to spend an hour brushing up on how to use templates in this wiki if it is something you can do yourself! Paul 11:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
mmmm. Good question, I assumed renaming a page was an administrator only thing but maybe it isn't. At any rate, I dunno howda do it. ---Slightlyright 01:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
You can just make up a new page with the correct name. You will not be able to delete the old page, but I can do that easily. Paul 12:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
kk, cool. ---Slightlyright 22:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


Hey guys, Scienowiki is not a CofS site. It is the CofS that is abusive, not the subject itself. I've been out on the street for the past four monthly protests, protesting against the CofS. Please don't vandalize this site. :) Paul 19:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

PR Puff PiecesEdit

One of my original intentions with Scienowiki was for it to be factual. This was all fine until I decided to allow articles about individuals delivering services. My naïve expectation was that people would simply put in a factual summary of their business and leave it at that. Fat chance. Now the wiki is just hosting PR puff pieces for FZers that look like something out of a CofS mailing. I'm inclined to just delete such articles totally beyond leaving name, contact information, and services stated to be delivered. What are others' views about this? Paul 16:40, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

The Freezone has so much in common with the CO$ that they will always do such puff pieces if they can get away with it. Deletion might deter as might pointing out what is wrong with Freezoners. I don't believe in any type of Scientology but I hope this website can get people away from the seriously abusive Church of $cientology. Often freezoners used to be abusive before they left the Church of $cientology but either they reform partially or they realize they can't get with so much. I shortened the Pierre Ethier article because I've seen a video of him and I know he's bad tempered so I'm worried about his section of the Freezone. You know the Freezone better than I do, if you find stuff that you know praises an abusive part of the Freezone please delete or amend it. Proxima Centauri 05:24, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Advertisement | Your ad here

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki