Talk:Xenu/Archive 2

message: :Our anons inserted this material in the middle of a sentence, and how seriously they took it is shown by the fact that the end of their insert made no sense whatever when the poor, bewildered, violated sentence resumed.  Here it is for anyone who feels like mining it for any actual usable material. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just got an email from the person in question and have given hopefully useful advice (check the talk page, formatting counts, create a login 'cos anons don't get no respect, the detail should probably go in Fishman Affidavit). I'm just going to go into Xenu and mention Arnie put it up first (on a.r.s), not Dr Dave (though his was the first website) - David Gerard 13:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judge Leonie Brinkema's opinion 

message: Thanks to whoever fixed the article and removed the star wars and ritalin stuff.
Said edits have been restored in a more appropriate location.
Notta Pangloss 16:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Wars and Ritalin 

message: Readers of this article may be interested to know that there's a related article discussing the background to the Xenu story at Space opera in Scientology doctrine. The article has now been submitted for consideration as a featured article - if you'd like to comment on it please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space opera in Scientology doctrine. -- ChrisO 10:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Space opera in Scientology doctrine]] 

message: The editor who initiated the recent AfD decided to list this article on RfC after the vote was over and overwhelmingly rejected his complaint. I don't see the point in listing it, but, hey, I saw it and came here to be yet another voice to add to the unanimous (! very rare on Wikipedia!) voice of consensus on the AfD discussion telling AI that there is no problem with this article. When 23 people say it's fine and only 1 (who happens to be someone with a history of extremely POV edits) say it's not, it's pretty safe to say that the one person is completely out of step and easily ignored. DreamGuy 06:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: AI has since been banned from Wikipedia for legal threats, and banned from Scientology-related articles anyway. CoS editors are fine on Wikipedia (we have several), but disruptive and antisocial editors of any type aren't - David Gerard 15:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: Can someone explain how they publicized Xenu so I can fix that paragraph?--HistoricalPisces 17:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They didn't ... but just about every media article about them around the time (June/July 2005) mentioned the story of Xenu. Most using direct quotes from this article! - David Gerard 15:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a stretch to me to mention Katie Holmes in this article.  66.213.119.98 18:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only just. It was specifically about all the press they were doing to promote the romance being instead filled with Xenu Xenu Xenu - David Gerard 14:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I've taken Katie out now, for what it's worth, and spawned a new section. It really was ALMOST ALL press coverage of Cruise at the time. It's odd the "popular culture" stuff can be marked as starting so clearly at a particular time, but this is just fine - David Gerard 14:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaaand I just noticed someone else did it first. Just shuffled it back into place. I've added a para on the Marvel Comics villain Xemnu, and I'm looking more closely into that one - David Gerard 16:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruise and Holmes 

message: This sounds suspiciously like Highlander 2.  Was the movie based on this account? - Tεxτurε 22:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a horrible thought - David Gerard 22:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Highlander 2 was a horrible movie. - Tεxτurε 22:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highlander 2 

message: I looked over the article for stuff to slim down, but it's really pretty low-fat and tightly written. I did shift the bits from Have You Lived Before This Life? to Space opera in Scientology doctrine. Anyone else see things that could or should be moved? - David Gerard 22:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is quite long but I'm not sure what could be removed. It's all of interest. If we need to remove - or move - anything, maybe it could be the stuff about Incident I under "Xenu in Scientology doctrine", and parts of "The influence of OT III on Scientology". I'm not sure where to move that stuff though. Maybe some parts could be moved to the Operating Thetan article, which is much shorter. (Entheta 23:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm. But the detail should probably stay here, since this is more a subarticle of that ... Oh heck, it's all good! - David Gerard 23:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slimming this down?