Talk:Raëlian Church

message: Since when is this cult "atheist"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.142.24.242 (talk • contribs) 
_______
Answer to the person's question:
Raelian Sites:
http://www.thereisnogod.info
http://www.thereisnogod.info/English/Giordano.php
http://www.sowoman.org/
http://www.clitoraid.org/
eric_bolou's photos
Because they believe that the universe wasn't created but has always existed, Raelians are not deist.
Kmarinas86 00:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "atheist"?

message: I said in the history section:
  If you add the NPOV back state give at least 2 paragraphs explaining why in the dicussion section BEFORE you add the tag. I have changed the grammar. I added more critical sections. I need reasons!
So I haven't type two paragraphs in the history section.  But I have put many new paragraphs in the article.  Maybe we can call those "my reasons"?  Thanks.Kmarinas86 03:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: i heared that rael the french cult leader asking always his follower to donate money to him 1% of the income of his follower " the vectim" to his direct bank account
:This information is riduclous firstly, by saying "asking always ____" when is physically impossible to keeping asking the same thing all the time, secondly, asking is simply asking, not a obligation, perhaps not even a recommendation for certain individuals in particular...Kmarinas86 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One knows that just because they heard so?  It is stated as such, just as I can "state" or even "admit" that Bush is a former socialist from Argentina even when many people will know that's not true.  The thing with this is that for some of the uninitiated, the first thing they think is the thing they believe and whatever else they see that counters that idea they will think of as wrong.Kmarinas86 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll take the bet. ;).  For the people just seeing this, here's the link http://www.google.com/search?q=%22If+almost+all+applicants+will+be+accepted+as+Angels%22 at first glance, the phrases "RAEL's Angel Order" and "Dear Angels" already sounds ridiclous.  Rael wouldn't call it "RAEL's Angel Order", it's called the "Order of Angels", duh.  Also see: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22gold+ribbon%22+rael+OR+raelian (I found no verification of any connection between the "Order of Angels" and the phrase "gold ribbon".)  May I point out this, the third option, "choosen", is not even a real word.  It does not even make sense as a listed choice!Kmarinas86 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: May 57 a.H. is May 2003.Kmarinas86 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Per the philosophy of Raelians, It is NOT disrespectful to refuse intimate contacts.  "You're welcome to come and you're welcome to go" as Rael says.  Besides, in the case of the very effeminate Elohim, what exactly are they going to do to such people of they don't comply?  There are no jails (and obviously no death penalty) on the Elohim planet according to Rael.Kmarinas86 02:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Whatever.  Raelians marriages are not eternal contracts, they can divorce of course (and they do this without the chain of guilt, contempt, etc.).Kmarinas86 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Utterly ridiculous.  In reality, there is no such "important day of history" as the one implied by this statement.  This text was probably written by some whatever who believes that such a day would be the day that Raelians commit suicide - that ain't happening however.  That's ridiculous!Kmarinas86 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is easy to imagine how some of the article may have been edited into what would otherwise be a legitmate letter.  In fact, what one could do is take what is above and add a new message at the beginning of the letter saying many slanderous and ridiculous claims about Metro bus services, then send it somewhere else on the internet claiming it to be the original - and have some few individuals believe that it is so.  There is absoutely no possible way for proof of the authencity of this text to be available on the web.  Even if it existed on some site such as this, it is easy to concieve that it was not the original.Kmarinas86 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In the previous comments I have made, I was responding to the possible inneundo of the statements, not the actual intended meaning of those statements, whatever that might be.Kmarinas86 10:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: NoKmarinas86 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, not 60 "thoutand" not even 60 thousand, try again =PKmarinas86 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, there no such thing as "golden ribbon". It's made up.Kmarinas86 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It helps a human =PKmarinas86 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps.Kmarinas86 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Which school? They taught science? He did? oF course he did.. wtf.. LAMeR? Correlation is a false cause. Quitting entertainment is not the same as failing, and he is still a singer and entertainer in any case http://www.messagefromthedesigners.org/download.php/e107_plugins/raelmeetfriends/e107_plugins/faq/e107_plugins/vstore/e107_plugins/raelscience_menu/e107_plugins/links_page/rael_content/e107_plugins/raeladdresses_menu/e107_plugins/raelmeetfriends/e107_plugins/raelseminar_menu/e107_plugins/raeltv_menu/e107_plugins/raelscience_menu/rael_content/rael_summary.php?list.32, stop thinking in 1970s man that is so lame ya LAMAR =P.  And wtf, he was an actual racecar driver who won some medals, how can one fail to be a racecar driver by being one - explain that?  You're other statements appear to have "as much" universal support as your last one.  "Regards"Kmarinas86 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heared stuff

message: ===(cur) (last)  18:24, 15 November 2006 Sfacets (Talk | contribs) (Peacock terms)===
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
*The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
*Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
*As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
*As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
*Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**many people have
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment). 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 17:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated Peer Review

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
*The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
*Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
*As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
*As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
*Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**many people have
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment). 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 17:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (cur) (last)  18:24, 15 November 2006 Sfacets (Talk | contribs) (Peacock terms)

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.
*When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
*Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 17:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (cur) (last)  12:12, 20 November 2006 Kmarinas86 (Talk | contribs)

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.
*When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (cur) (last)  22:17, 25 November 2006 Kmarinas86 (Talk | contribs)

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (cur) (last)  14:08, 4 January 2007 Kmarinas86 (Talk | contribs)

message: Why are so many sources provided under the 'demographics' section (and elsewhere)? I invite the user who added them (Kmarinas86?) to chose only those which are relevant, since the reference section is really geting out of hand, and is affecting navigation. Sfacets 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A) Wikipedia is not a reliable source. B) Deciding whether a groups meets a certain criteria is usually original research. It's better to simply report what others have decided. -Will Beback · † · 06:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, it describes the Raelians.  It also describes Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Sunnis... I think it's more accurate to say that while it describes cults, it also describes religions that are not cults.69.64.3.68 11:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: although, all of the quotes are from the same person. hasn't anyone besides Susan J. Palmer written about them? It seems it would make a more well-balanced article.  --67.164.14.118 05:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Susan J. Palmer

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
*Well written:The reality is the prose is clunky, like it was translated from some other language using a bot and dropped here.  (Examples:"According to the History of Raëlism, in December 13, 1973 began the upbringing for what would become the Raëlian Church," and "Starting from that year, the International Raelian Movement was spreading the word about the contents in the first two Raëlian books concerning what they believe to be a restoration of meaning of biblical text, an update on the future of the Christian Church,[1] and the philosophy and directives Yahweh Elohim taught Rael in second set of CE-5 encounters," and "Each day begins with a meditation mainly at around 9:00 A.m. local time," and "Raelians have typed multiple tort claims concerning extortion, breach of contract, replevin, conversion, gross negligence, false light invasion of privacy, defamation, and tortuous interference in business affairs.") A major rewrite is required here.
:First rewrite attempt complete. Covered?Kmarinas86 05:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got rid of some of these. Covered?Kmarinas86 05:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Got rid of the Raëlian defense about orgies.  Got rid of the replevin sentence.  Got rid those sentences too. Covered?Kmarinas86 05:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA Review

message: Kmarinas86, You have still not fixed the problems with this article and I am failing it again.  Please seek a peer review, or some one who can assist you in making the edits necessary for this to meet the criteria.  Take some time to get it right. Argos'Dad 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does deleting the problematic sentences constitute leaving the problem sentences there?  Be more specific.  Did I create new problems in the process by deleting information?  Which information?  Are you doubting that I could have done enough edits in one hour?  How does this account for the fact that the lead is no longer as convoluted - ok maybe 10% less convoluted.  Anyway, I know I did take some time, at least one hour to focus solely on what you mentioned.  I need specifics to go beyond that.  I feel that I have edited criticism sections somewhat to address the issue.  This had led to a transformation of the criticism section as I added material concerning the views of the Catholic Church.  I deleted several sentences of pro-Raëlian Church material.  Nevertheless, I will take your advice and send this to review since they may have more time to address the specifics.Kmarinas86 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the GA Review, I did not list every single line and edit that would need to be made to bring this article to the level of a Good Article.  I see that you responded to each of the examples I gave and so I am confident you would benefit from a peer review that will give you more specific feedback and advice. Take the time to improve this article and perhaps invite others to provide some other perspectives to balance the POV and the article could be a GA. Cheers! Argos'Dad 01:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for communicating with speed! =DKmarinas86 01:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the article is not yet ready for GA status.  There are several issues; to start, there are still typos and spelling problems.  The most blatant is facism, which is correctly spelled fascism. Majoreditor 14:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the spelling problems using Microsoft Word.  Sorry for the "facism".  I also turned all passive sentences into active sentences - except for "Many are seduced by it all." which comes from a blockquote.  Passive sentences are now 1% of the article.Kmarinas86 16:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third GA Review

message: When reviewing this article for GA, please take advantage of the On hold option.  I do not like it when it is failed before I have time to make the adjustments to the article.  Other Wikipedians appear to benefit from it.☺▬█ ♪♪♫  I M Kmarinas86  U O 2¢  04:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On hold

message: I should ask for this article's failed good article nomination to be reviewed, as there is no basis for the claim that there are image tag problems, especially as of now since all the images in the article are in Wikipedia Commons, except the one in the infobox and picture of Raelian symbols.☺▬█ ♪♪♫  I M Kmarinas86  U O 2¢  18:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]]

message: Apologies for the delay - we are dealing with a backlog at the moment!  I will be reviewing this article, and will post a review in the next 24 hours or so.  One thing that you can work on are the references that point to Google News Archive search results, which violate WP:CITE in that the results are transient - it is also unlikely to be a suitable reference to anything.  But as I say, I will review the article thoroughly and post a review shortly.  Any questions throughout this process should be posted to my talk page .  Best wishes --Fritzpoll 00:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, a few things in my real life caught up with me, and I didn't get back here to do the review.  I'll sort this out by Monday. --Fritzpoll 17:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: From what I understand, Taiwanese aborigines is now a Featured Article and was listed as a good article when the lead was about the same size.  However, I know that GA can be failed for not "summarizing" the article in the lead, and sometime that translates into "the lead is too long".  Please keep in mind that the lead of Taiwanese aborigines is longer, thus the lead length of the Raëlian Church article is not a good reason to fail it for GA.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86  U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 20:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead, GA, and FA 

message: usually an adjective like this, with 'pro', implies there is an 'anti'. What are some of the 'anti-sex' organizations compared with which the Raelian Church is 'pro-sex'?142.68.43.14 01:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "pro-sex organization"? 

message: How come is it that the quicker I respond and fix some of the problems, the higher the standard is raised.  Come on people, this is not Featured Articles.  I've done this several times now.  I am certain that this article is not recieving fair treatment.  Here is the consensus on what makes a good article:
1. It is well written. In this respect:
:(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and
:(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.Although the entire Manual of Style should be followed, it is not completely necessary at this level.
For point 1, I believe that I have beaten the heck out of the previous version.  Most complaints surrounding prose are by those, who somehow, can't understand what I am saying.  The last problems with MoS concerned that the lead did not summarize the article.  What was so stupid about that is that edits that I made to the lead while waiting "years" for a review were probably reason why it was rejected.  Everytime that happens, I am like "wtf".
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
:(a) provides references to sources used; 
:(b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles;Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard references at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, common knowledge, or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced. Articles whose topics fall under the guideline on scientific citations should adhere to the guideline.It is generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability; however, most sources should be reliable. and
:(c) contains no original research.
As for point 2, if anyone complains about it, I say "holy $hit".  The article has 72 citations right now, and it uses a variety of sources, both primary, hard reference, and third party.  That is three times more than the average GA.
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
:(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics to be listed. and
:(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
Point 3 concerns the broadness of the article.  The subject, Raelian Church, is about its organization, activities, a few of its beliefs, and its criticism.  Since it is about the church, putting too much emphasis on the beliefs constitutes undue weight.  But for a "Raëlianism" article, this would be ok.
4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
As for point 4?  The only problems that I believe still exist are individual words and people's opinions on whether everything in the article is balanced or not.  I believe the latter is extremely contentious, but luckily, this article is better off then the Scientology article when it comes to this.  According to the first reviwer, this should be fixable within the on hold period, but given the contentious nature of the problem, I cannot easily guess all the words which need replacing.  I would be dismayed to see this rejected before all that is need to fix this is pointed out, since the only way this problem would be fixed would be for others to review the article, since the source of the perceived disharmony is peculiar to each individual, and no, I can't read your mind.  According to the next reviewer, the content from other articles should incorporated.  I hope that doesn't mean all other articles related to Raelism!  But if that is done, it will have to be called "Raëlianism" since it would incorporate both the organization and its beliefs.
5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
I don't see anyone seriously questioning point 5 - stability - since I am practically only one to make major changes to the article.  But the last time this article "failed" on stability was because the exceptions of the above rule were not taken into account.  In other words, a flawed review.  Please do not make the same mistake.
6. Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly. A lack of images does not disqualify an article from Good Article status.
If anyone has a problem with point 6, I say  "holy $hit".  The images are almost all from Wikimedia Commons, with the exception of the image with three logos, each within the 200px requirement.  I cannot understand a person who would reject the article, this time, on those grounds.  The last time this happened is final time it needs to happen.  The images used this time are simply acceptable.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86  U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 06:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it true that if I work harder on this article, then higher the standards are imposed?  Not fair.

message: "I had never heard of Raelians before, and I found reading about them fascinating."
"The language does, indeed have a lot of problems, but I think the major - and much more daunting - problem is one of organization."
I think Raëlianism takes care of the issue of organization once and for all.  Hell, if that is not enough merging of the articles, I am going to have to go home.  I hope this means the language is even easier to deal with than birth pangs of having to create new article with an organization to suit the purpose of satifsying the demands of review.  But the on hold period simply will have to be extended beyond 48 hours.  It has nothing to do with my lack of participation, but the fact that reviewing other peoples work is a generous and probably distracting activity, and the first reviewer associated with this on hold period did not finish his or her review.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86  U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 06:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: English! English! English! English! English! English!

message: The comprehensive Raëlianism article was redirected to Raëlism because it was a huge content fork.  There wont be any GA award for the Raëlian Church article because it is not "comprehensive" enough.  What the **** is that?  Someone please tell me I'm wrong.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86  U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 18:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF

message: This article is on hold as a good article nomination. This is how the article, as of  , , compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: 
*Major problem, the prose is not clear. I'm making edits as I go along, but some things I don't understand so can't clarify.
:*"provocation is how the Raëlian Church retains their most allied members" - I don't understand what "provocation" means in this context and how is an "allied member" different from a "member"?
:*"hierarchal inner body" - what is an "inner body"?
:*What is a "guide"?
:*Spell out the levels and their names, a table or list would do this well.
:*"After winning four elections" What elections? This is the first I have read about elections.
:*he is critical of their commitment to defend Raël's life with their own bodies" Do you mean "sceptical"?
:*"Outliers appear when charting the dates of membership estimates." I don't understand this. Dates are by definition a linear series, how can you have outliers when you have only one variable? This also appears to be original research as it has no reference.
:*"In response, Raëlians guides gave their students ten thousand condoms." The word "Their" is unclear. Does this refer to the Raëlians guides' students or the students in the catholic schools?
:*"The Belgian Raelian Movement later lost their law suit against french psychiatrist Jean-Marie Abgrall." If this lawsuit is notable, you need to explain what it was about. If it is not notable, remove this sentence. Why is this in the paragraph on the Belgian pedophiles? Is it related to their sexual abuse convictions?
::*This still isn't clear "Just a few years later, in January 15, 1995, a Belgian court convicted two Raëlian guides for having sexual intercourse with children, and French psychiatrist Jean-Marie Abgrall won a suit against the local Raëlian Movement." Are these events connected? If not, what was the suit about? and why is it mentioned in this paragraph?
:*"Soon after the Canadian media success and sympathy," Saying "success and sympathy" gives an appearance of bias, just give the date.
:*"that restricts voting privileges to those people who are ten percent more intelligent than average" - Please check I understood this correctly when I reworded it.
:*"Claude Vorhilon then closed the seminars at the hotel with a conference which two hundred thirty attended." Does this mean he stopped the seminars immediately, or that he ended the seminars with a conference, as originally planned? 
:* As a general note, events that have happened in the past should be discussed in the past tense.
:*"Despite the media coverage of Clonaid, the government of France classifies the Raelian Movement as a secte" Do you mean "despite" or "due to"?
:*"Fifty had their first Raëlian seminar in one of the Las Vegas Raëlian seminars, attended by a total of 180 people." Do you mean "in a seminar attended by a total of 180 people, fifty were attending for the first time."? If so, why is this relevant?
:2. Factually accurate?: 
:*Yes
:3. Broad in coverage?: 
:*Yes
:4. Neutral point of view?: 
:*Yes
:5. Article stability? 
:*Very!
:6. Images?:
:*OK
I'm putting it on hold, while these clarifications are dealt with. Shouldn't take long. Tim Vickers 17:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: The prose has deteriorated significantly in the few hours since GA passing; I suggest a revert to the GA version.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion taken.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86  U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 03:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert suggested 

message: *References 7, 11, and 26 are non-existent. LaraLove 05:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues with the article