User talk:BTfromLA/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Something you might be interested in...

WP:SCN now has a public watchlist at [1] -- should make it easier to keep an eye on potential end runs... -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

yep, a person should guard real carefully against those "end runs" lest someone learn something you have had no say in, huh? Terryeo 00:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About NPOV

Specifically about NPOV as it manifests in the Dianetics article. Untill a subject is introduced it can not be argued. The latest and greatest "One more try" intertwines two points of view, I'll grant that. But don't you see all the discussion on the page from everyone who has done some Dianetics saying, "This article makes no sense, it isn't something that can be followed even by a person knowledgeable in Dianetics" Don't you see that happening? The problem is real, real simple. You seem to be creating an article that says, "Dianetics is a controversial subject ! ! !" Well, that is all right, as far as it goes. But it does not make clear what Dianetics is, do you see the problem? I believe the reason why is simply that Dianetics is never allowed to be introduced because you have to make the article have controversy in every damn line of it ! Terryeo 08:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I see the Dianetics article works better now, thank you BTfromLA. Terryeo 06:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, BTfromLA. I had just completed a note to you folks there when I got your message. I hope I was not out of line doing that. If everything is not OK now, let me know. I appreciate the collaboration and your special efforts. I expect we will be needing to help each other there for the next three or four days. Thanks again, I think you are doing great. I left this message on my talk page too. Spirit of Man 07:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I did notice that the section is gone. My dispute is with the entire page's tone. After reviewing the Wikipedia policy on NPOV tags, I found out that there does not need to be a consensus of editors to have an NPOV tag, (see WP:NPOVD), bur rather one editor need only be concerned with the neutrality of the article, which not just one of us is, but 3 of us are. For them to just blatantly revert the NPOV tag because they believe otherwise is a horrible disruption of wikipedia. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

responded on my talk. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please e-mail me

My two harassers may be quiescent for now, so I've had a little breathing space to consider your question. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I want to ask you something

I asked a question atTalk:Dianetics#original_research_or_a_primary_source_of_information and you replied:

If you are citing Hubbard to describe what he said about Dianetics (e.g., "According to Hubbard's 1950 book, Dianetics is "an exact science."), Hubbard's writings are being used as a primary source, and appropriately so. In the context of Wikipedia articles, Hubbard's writings about Dianetics and Scientology should only be used as a primary source of what Hubbard wrote, not as a "reliable source" about the history or effectiveness of Dianetics or Scientology. Hubbard (and CoS publications) are unreliable sources in this context, because they are heavily partisan. (For the same reason, one would treat pronoucements of the Pope about the meaning and importance of the Catholic church as unreliable unless supported by third party views. This is spelled out in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.). In the case of Hubbard, there is an additional credibility problem, as his claims are not merely agenda-driven, but he and the CoS have been repeatedly shown to engage in fabrication (about Hubbard's war record, for example). I'm not sure where original research comes in here... if you are baldly stating Hubbard's views as fact (e.g., "Dianetics is an exact science.") you are violating NPOV by presenting a widely disputed opinion as fact. I wouldn't call that "original research," though, unless you then proceeded to demonstrate how, through data you've collected, the statement is true.

I apprecite this much of your reply because it addresses what I asked. I believe this is the issue of confusion around which most of the editing and counter editing revolves. I am attempting to resolve the back and forth edits. There is a reason for it. I am confident it has to do with how credible each side views Hubbard's work. If you would be willing to forgo your attempts to "correct" my questioning in this area, and contribute your own views and questions in the area it seems at least possible to me, we might resolve the issues which prompt the back and forth edits.

Terryeo, the part of my response that you seem bothered with was my sincere attempt to help you to achieve your stated goal: finding a way to get beyond the endless editing conflicts and contribute to improved articles. Yes, to some degree the conflicts probably are due to differing perceptions of Hubbard's credibility. But I am convinced that the frustration that you have experienced has a great deal to do with the quality of your written communication, which is often confused and confusing. If you offered clearly written and appropriately encyclopedic information, conflicts over the POV about Hubbard could be resolved with much less exasperation all around. If you are serious about making progress toward better articles, I stand by my list of suggestions.

The area is an emotionally volitile one. How would you feel about treating the CoS as a reliable source in its publication of Hubbard's work? So then it would be treated as partisan, its only area of reliability being its own interests? Then the CoS is primary source for Hubbard's work (reproduces it faithfully, puts it into action faithfully, etc.) and Hubbard is primary source for Dianetics and Scientology? I believe WP:V covers the situation then because WP:V allows that a primary source may be real / true or may be suspect but it doesn't matter. Because secondary sources and tertiary sources make comment on the validity of primary source. Does this procedure make sense to you?

No, this "procedure" makes no sense at all. For one thing, the question of whether a source is "primary," "secondary," "reliable" or otherwise depends entirely on the context in which the source is employed. In other words, the same source can be any of those things in different settings. You also seem to misunderstand what "primary source" means: it has nothing to do with putting anything "into action faithfully." Several editors have expended effort trying to explain these concepts to you, they are already explained fairly clearly on the various wikipedia guideline pages, and you can go to any dictionary or research guide to find more about these terms: I don't know why you refuse to pay attention to all of this information, but it sure seems like that is exactly what you're doing.

As an example, "in Advanced Procedures and Axioms, Hubbard stated 'Dianetics is an exact science.'" .Primary source. But when (some source here) attempted to apply Dianetics they got poor results. .Secondary source. Some Scientologist have noted (the source above) did not fulfill the requirements of exactness Hubbard specified. .tertiary source. How about that procedure? Would that procedure follow what you understand to be appropriate?

Terryeo, I am assuming good faith on your part, but I have to admit that your behavior gives cause for serious doubts about your motives. It often appears that your goal is simply to interfere with editors and sew confusion. If that's the case, I don't want to spend more time responding to you. If that isn't the case, see above.

One more thing, I really don't find your correction procedures either appropriate nor useful. I want to find good and useful articles here. Why don't you do as I do, when something is not per Wiki policy or guideline, simply state the policy or guideline?Terryeo 13:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think your editing technique is a successful model that should be emulated by others? BTfromLA 17:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for replying BTfromLA, and thank you for informing me on my user page that you had replied to me. I see that once again you have replied to the area I requested your attention about. Because this is the second (or more) time you have additionally gone on, after replying to my area of question and attempted to correct, manipulate or otherwise modify my editing behaviour to conform with some standard you hold, I will reply to that first. I don't believe that your asking me for my opinion of my editing technique has the least thing to do with what I am attempting to accomplish, nor do I think that entering into such a discussion with you can be fruitful. Clearly your opinion has been presented. I have acknowledged that it has. I will say this, to read through your whole posting and separate out that which you are stating about my question from that which you happily volenteer about my editing technique requires more patience than would be needed if you had merely responded to my question. I'll tell you right off, I am not going to get involved with this question. If you continue to push it, I'll quote you the appropriate Wiki Policies which at one time acknowledge that you have said something, but your something is not appropriate to Wikipedia discussion pages. If you do feel so strongly as you seem to imply, your recourses are avialable to you, as they are to me. Terryeo 17:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, my response about your editing technique was a reply to your question "why don't you do as I do?" BTfromLA 18:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
About my question which is in the area of: "How should we treat the informations which Hubbard wrote, spoke, stated, claimed or some combination of those." Your position is that Hubbard is "primary source" of the body of information which is Dianetics ? Is that it? And you are not questioning whether, as published, the books of Dianetics are his words, (spoken, written) and his intention and ideas? Is that correct? Terryeo 17:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, your questions seem to want confusion rather than clarity. Far as I can tell, there is no controversy whatsoever about whether Hubbard can be cited in Dianetics and Scientology articles. Any questions about whether he actually wrote what was published under his name, or whether there are differences between published versions can be dealth with if and as they arise. BTfromLA 18:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for stating your opinion.Terryeo 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand that you understand Hubbard to be "primary source" but only in the area, Dianetics. I think the problem with the edits and counter edits revolve around the question addressed at WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories. In particular, almost any time I say anything at all, people are saying, "you don't expect me to accept Hubbard's theories, do you?" and I have to say again and again, "no, I don't care what you do or don't consider" This gets everyone off the track, I believe there has not been an agreement what the key concepts of Dianetics are. That's step one of "how to deal with theory." If we can agree to the area of our difficulty, I believe we can work together and arrive at good, stable, readable articles. What is your reaction to my suggestion, "we are not treating it as a theory and need to?" Terryeo 02:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Terryeo. I've got problems with some of what you've said, but here's a point on which we can agree: let's be clear on what the key concepts of Dianetics are. Those belong in the article. For starters, I'd say that "the reactive mind,' "engrams" and "auditing" are among the key concepts. What else? BTfromLA 04:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi BTfromLA, I am all for "key concepts" being in the article. But I think there are more basic key concepts than the buzz words just above. Yes, in DMSMH, those words are used and used often but I think those ideas are built on more basic ideas that would first need to be introduced. before reactive mind comes engram. before engram comes "memory" defining what a memory is is a key concept I believe. Because then, Dianetics considers a memory to be a "mental image picture" which has a number of qualities which are found by no other disicipline. That is, Dianetics more throughly defines the qualities of a memory (what we usually mean when we say memory)... more qualities and parameters than any other disipline. I think this is key because this is where Dianetics departs all the other views. What say you? I'm not perfect after all and at no time meant anything personal about the earlier introduction thing. lol, I still haven't got my way about that though. Terryeo 07:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, so let's add "Mental Image Pictures" to the list of key concpts. And "clear" certainly should be on there. Anything else? Bear in mind, we're writing a summary of the highlights of the topic: an encyclopedia article is not comprehensive, the way a book might be. In other words, some aspects of the subject will always be omitted. And also bear in mind that we're just trying to inform a reader what this subject is: we're not writing an instruction manual. By the way, did you see my last response to you in the discussion about primary sources? I think there's potential for a serious misunderstanding there about what primary sources are, and we need to be sure that we all understand this the same way. As I said on that talk page, please read the short article primary source. BTfromLA 17:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for replying and for letting me know on my user page. I will read primary sources again and will read your last response about primary sources. Yes, I understand these are articles meant to inform rather than full books. Myself, I wouldn't choose to include an article about engram, but to understand it some ideas need to be introduced. I don't believe it is necessary to use the jargon, perfectly good english equivalents would do the same job but it would take a couple of sentences because an engram is a specific sort of memory. And a memory has certain characteristics. Until the difference between a normal memory and the more rare, engram, how can "engram" make sense? Hubbard defined 52 perceptics (sound, color, time of day, etc) that any memory contains. I'm not sure how far to go with this. lol. Well, I do hope you find the work rewarding and I've generally found your statements on here to be more useful than most anyone else's. Terryeo 18:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation re Dianetics

I think we need to expose the editing dispute over Dianetics to a wider audience. Terryeo clearly has no intention of following basic editing standards, whether it's because he doesn't agree with them or just doesn't understand them. We should, however, give him the chance to get the views of people who haven't been involved in this dispute and whom he might see as less partial sources of advice than us. I propose to submit a Request for Mediation concerning the Dianetics article. If that fails, an Request for Comment on Terryeo's conduct may be necessary, though I'd prefer that to be only a last resort. Would you be willing to be a party in the initial Request for Mediation? -- ChrisO 19:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, chrisO and I have been dancing around while you have been sweating away in the slave pit BT, Happy breathing space heh ! Terryeo 04:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dianetics introduction

Heh, its been a hot time while you've been productive, the things we do to amuse ourselves, huh? I would like to get an introduction in the Dianetics article which makes clear and obvious that Diaentics is something a person does, like baking cakes or playing baseball. But of course an activity has a foundation it rests on. This seems like a simple idea to present but I'm not sure how to present it in the article. "Activity" doesn't sound good to anyone and "practice" seems to reek of "medical practice" or something. Do you have any suggestion? Terryeo 16:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi BTfromLA. I suspect you have touched on the center of the difficulty in one of your comments to me. I thought I would reply here also. I do assume that editors edit in good faith. I believe the Rolling Stones guy created an article in good faith. But the problem has to do with understanding the subject. That is what you touched on and what I am replying about. It is not that I expect anyone to understand, no editor need understand what he is editing. But it would be nice. I do hope to make it easy to understand. But the subjects are easily misunderstood. I am pretty sure that you are neutral and wouldn't mind understanding the subjects of the articles, ChrisO is certain he understands them completely, Feldspar refuses to understand more than he does already, Spirit of Man understands that which he edits, and so on. I do not oppose other points of view, but I present that Dianetics is not understood by most of the editors. I suspect they think they understand Dianetics very very well, but when editors refuse to allow "Dianetics is an action" and insist on "Dianetics is a set of ideas" then it tells me that those editors do not understand Dianetics very well. The only way these articles can make sense is by us editors working together. I don't know how to bring that about. Terryeo 18:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that "Dianetics is a theraputic practice" conveys the sense that it is something people actively do, rather than merely read about. Talking about the central practice of auditing, and describing auditing as a two-person method of counseling, also gets at it. But you have consistently rejected such phrases in favor of completely non-specific lines like "Dianetics is an action." This makes the article worse, and editors are, in my view, completely justified in being upset with you for making edits against consensus over and over again. The only way you are going to get better information about Dianetics into the article is if you can actually articulate something that the rest of us recognize as good information. When you, for example, were able to communicate to me the idea that the mind is made up of "mental image pictures," and that this was a key concept in Dianetics which wasn't included in the article, it was easy for me to add it, and nobody has attempted to remove it, as far as I know, because that is a clear and relevant nugget of information. But that is the exception in my experience of your edits. I think you would do well to try to think of Dianetics in terms of concepts and rituals: what are those concepts? what are those rituals? That will result in material that can serve the article--specific facts rather than woozy subjective impressions. I go back to my suggestions from several months ago--you stand a much better chance of working with the other editors if you can develop your editing ability such that your understandng of what consitutes informative encyclopedic writing is more in line with the rest of us. There's a POV conflict with other editors here, to be sure, but that is greatly exacerbated by the writing/editing/interpretation of policy problems that you could minimize by some writing practice and perhaps some experience editing wikipedia articles on subjects of interest to you but where you do not see yourself as the expert. BTfromLA 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for a useful reply. I appreciate your telling me that example about mental image pictures. Terryeo 13:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hollywood Star Magazine

Just a question. Do you have a copy of the first issue of the Hollywood Star Magazine? I would be interested in the article on Elvis. Did the author mention any sources which prove that Elvis had a sexual relationship with Nick Adams? Onefortyone 23:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you have opportunity

And feel it appropriate, would you have a look at ChrisO's initiated Request for Comment and add a comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Terryeo#Outside_views, but if you don't have opportunity or don't wish to, then that's okay too. Have a good one :) Terryeo 13:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you have replied there, thanks for taking the time to do so.Terryeo 23:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration - Terryeo

Following the recent Request for Comments on Terryeo's conduct, I've submitted the matter to the Arbitration Committee as a Request for Arbitration (see WP:RFAr#Terryeo). You're welcome to add your name as an involved party if you wish. -- ChrisO 20:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anti-concensus

Your edit summary: "Revision as of 12:48, 1 April 2006 BTfromLA (Talk | contribs) (RV another of Terryeo's anti-consensus, POV, ill-written revisions. Terryeo, please stop doing this!)" With that edit summary you re-introduced the top of the article template which is discussed on at Talk:Dianetics, several editors saying they don't think the template should be present and several editors saying nothing and one editor saying they think the template should be there. My edit was not specifically anit-concensus. Then, in addition and without spelling it out you further edited the introductory sentence which has also been talked extensively about and again is not specifically anti-concensus. May I ask you, BTfromLA, since you don't seem to use Dianetics, nor be an interested party, how is it that you are familar enough with the subject to know how the subject should be introduced best, as a practice or as a set of ideas? Terryeo 05:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, as you know, I'm with you about that disambiguation notice--I think it should go, though it isn't worth an edit war. But at least three editors have argued in favor of it, and there no basis for removing it without further discussion. As to the intro sentence, I don't recall adding anything new there.. but, more to the point, there is a VERY clear consensus that the vaguely worded intros you keep inserting are inappropriate and make the article worse--just look at that RfC for heaven's sake. Your other question makes no sense, as in the current intro, it is introduced as both a practice and a set of ideas. BTfromLA 06:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for a civil reply. Terryeo 12:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm curious how the CoS works ..

Hi BTfromLA. I hope you found my reply to your question to me about the Rolling Stones article useful. I notice you have expressed some curiousity about how the CoS works at 451's talk page. I'm perfectly willing to respond to you with what I know. But I'm not going to "manufacture" answers to questions I'm not asked. It isn't a productive activity. Gotta question? Let me try to supply the quesion you imply there but don't state. "Is terryeo working for the CoS?" Is that your question?

My question to Farenheit451 was a followup to his or her comments on the arbitration page. Farenheit, who seems to be a former scientologist, seemed to think that some of your behavior that the rest of us have found so frustrating was due to Cos policy--I wasn't clear whether the implication was that you were working directly for the CoS or merely reporting about your activities here to them, or what. So, if you are willing to shed some light on these issues for me, please do. BTfromLA 16:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, happy to do so. I am not at this time nor have I ever been a member of any staff of any church, mission or organization of any church of scientology nor any of its associated groups. ever. at all. never. not a bit, not a whit and not a jot. Heh. Is that an answer? I am editing because the subjects in this area are not introduced. I understand pefectly well that you, BT, and the other editors who have brought an arbitration against me and whom hope to see ChrisO,s "a lengthy ban" implemented, I know you are editing in good faith. I understand you present into the articles the subjects as you understand. I tell you the subjects are not present. I tell you the subjects are not presented, another manner of saying this same things would be to say, "the subject matter is misstated." I am reminded of the U.S. Army attempting to educate men in Iraq about military action. An Army man would say a paragraph. The listening, trying hard Iraqis would listen hard and understand exactly what they thought he meant. But he meant something else entirely different. This is the situation with the Dianetics and Scientology articles. I'm trying, I believe you and other editors are tryingTerryeo 18:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for clarifying that. So, does not being a staff member mean that you are in no communication whatsoever with CoS staff about Wikipedia? As to the subject matter being misstated--we've gone round and round on this, and you have not made it clear (to me, at any rate) anything that is false in existing introductions. With Dianetics, specifically, it currently starts with "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the human mind and an associated practice for treating mental ailments developed by author L. Ron Hubbard." What is false or misleading about that? BTfromLA 18:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not in communication whatsoever with any CoS staff about Wikipedia. I will try here again about Dianetics. Dianetics is an activity which uses a room and an E-meter as Baseball is an activity which uses a baseball field and a bat. Dianetics is an activity which uses ideas, a quiet room and an indicator as a means for a person to look at their experience. A person then has the opportunity to view how they got balled up, messed up, turned around, temporarily confused and by looking at it again, can see what they missed earlier, when they were under duress or in pain, or were only partly concious because the baseball had hit them in the hand. An activity, the person looks at a memory, realizes that at that moment, pain was all there was in their whole universe but at this moment, now, they have a memory and it is less important. Instead of grabbing at the ball with the ungloved hand, they meant to grab at the ball with their baseball glove but tripped (or something) and they no longer need to be careful of not tripping while wearing a baseball glove. It is an activity. Hope this helps. Terryeo 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I better add this bit, I sometimes talk with various staff persons of various organizations in various ways. I don't do this regularly but once in a while, sure, I talk with people on staff. Wikipedia isn't a big topic but it is possible it might at some time be brought up and discussed. Terryeo 15:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Terryeo. The above is somewhat helpful--based on that, it sounds to me like the sort of "activity" that Dianetics is could be described as "psychological therapy," or a method of therapy for alleviating inappropriate emotional responses to past experiences. "Activity" alone doesn't tell us much--Dianetics and Baseball aren't really in the same category, and a reader would be able to know that if you called Baseball a "team sport" rather than the vaguer term "activity." I'd still appreciate it if you could clarify what is false or misleading about that intro sentence. BTfromLA 02:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a better parallel example would be the Catholic Confessional. Would you call the confessional an "activity?" Or would you call it "a set of ideas with an associated practice?" A priest and a parishoner in a quiet room. One listens, one talks. Is that an activity? How about, "(The confessional / Dianetics) is a practice which is based on a set of ideas?" Dianetics is more structred, has more buzz words, has a more closely defined theory but the practice is similar, two people in communcation, one speaking and the other listening.
Take a look at confessional and confession for examples of how these have been handled at Wikipedia. The confessional is the physical booth in which the confession takes place. Neither topic seem an apt analogy for Dianetics, which is at once a set of claims about the mind, a kind of theraputic practice, and the basis for a large, multi-pronged organization variously described as a social betterment enterprise or a cult. --BTfromLA 18:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Today Dianetics reads:

This article is about the theory and practice termed Dianetics, the secular predecessor of Scientology. For the book by L. Ron Hubbard first published in 1950, see Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the human mind and an associated practice for treating mental ailments .."

The problems are Three. First, "practice / activity" or some action should be the first thing presented.
Says who? It is not at all self-evident that the practice should come first, nor is it clear why it really matters which clause comes first--the meaning is basically the same. --BTfromLA 18:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Second, Dianetics does not propose to treat mental ailments, it means to increase the well being of the individual.

If that's true, that's what you should focus on changing: here is an opportunity to improve the qualiy of the information in the article. But don't write "it improves well being" as if it was a fact--"it aims to" or "it claims to" or some such needs to be in there. BTfromLA 18:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Third, the disambiguation disperses a reader's attention and doesn't let him easily find what Dianetics is. The book, Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health is soon referenced in the article and a link to that article supplied, the disambiguation is uneeded and it disperses or spreads the reader's attention so he can't so easily grab the meaning of the word.Terryeo 15:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the disambuation notice is needed, because I think the Dianetics book is a sub-topic of Dianetics rather than a different subject entirely. But several editors think it is useful, so for the time being we have to work with it. I think the redundance is stylistically ugly, but it's not worth going to war over: an interested reader will get the same info, with or without it. If the disamb notice stays, the intro sentences should be rewritten so as not to be so exactly repetitive of the notice. --BTfromLA 18:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for saying. I got what you said. Terryeo 23:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


Now, my turn. What is your profession and what interest or expertise do you have in the Dianetics or Scientology articles? 65.146.30.234 18:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Sorry, I wasn't signed in, signing now. Terryeo 01:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That you, Terryeo? I don't wish to identify my profession here, but I assure you it has nothing to do with Scientology (or with anti-Scientology, or Psychiatry, or anything related). I live in Los Angeles, where Scientology has a highly visible presence. And I have an interest in the post ww-II popular culture that Hubbard was part of (the pulps, etc.). So, I'm curious about that organization, and in general I'm curious about people's beliefs. That's the basis for my interest, plus I enjoy the challenge that Wikipedia presents of NPOV writing about passionately contested topics. I've read a fair bit about Scientology at this point, and I've toured the public displays like the LRH life exhibition, but I am not an expert in the subject nor have I ever claimed to be one. BTfromLA 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I appreciate honesty. I consider your answer to be complete and sufficient, thank you. I'm not a staff member nor any part of any of the Church of Scientology's organization except that I'm "public" to Scientology. I've taken some courses, purchased and did some auditing, done some audting in courses I've taken, applied it in Life, saved a person's life (they later said that, anyway) with Scientology Tech and generally have improved my life a good deal by understanding and applying scientology technology. That ought to give you a feel for my POV. heh. I think it would be accurate if I say that I see the philosophy of it and I understand why "a study of knowledge" is the pathway by which any living person can, if they persue it, come to know they are an immortal, spiritual being. There ! I've finally said it and of course I do not expect anyone to swollow my knowledge any more than anyone can expect me to swollow thiers. Terryeo 01:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to your question on the CoS

It is possible that Terryeo is editing wikipedia without direction of the Office of Special Affairs, but likely there is some liaison. OSA does not like Wikipedia, I know this from the time I was involved with the CoS. They do not want information that is derogatory on the subject or David Miscavige published, even if true. The public relations section of OSA keeps statistics on favorable articles on Scientology and if any that are published are unfavorable, that statistic is penalized. A "handling" program is written with various targets set. So, the strategy is to get rid of Wikipedia editors and admins who write or support derogatory information. If they cannot do that, then conduct protracted edit wars that involve nitpicking, so an edit that is disfavorable to OSA is attacked for citation, then the citation attacked as not being a "reliable source". There are many examples of disruptive editors on the Scientology related articles, the most recent one being JimmyT/UNK. With david miscavige's alteration of the Suppressive Acts policy letter in January 1991, any member of the CoS can be comm ev'd and declared a suppressive person for violating any of the very broad, general ten points of the policy letter "Keeping Scientology Working". So, it is an oxymoron to have someone involved in, what is now a totalitarian group, attempt to edit an encyclopedia in the commons that recognizes and supports free speech.--Fahrenheit451 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no laison, there has never been any laison. I do not work for nor am I associated with as an employee, any church, group, office or other organization. Myself. But, Mr Fahrenheit451, that you would suspect me tells me how you feel about me :) Have a nice day, you hear? BTW. Patter drills are neither chinese drills nor practical drills. While neither of those policies apply to patter drills in any way, I can also point to thousands of other policy letters which do not point to patter drills in any way. In fact, I can't find a single policy letter that does point to patter, nor to patter drills and your TR-101, 102,103,103 and 105 are not TRs and are disallowed. Those TRs were brought into force by someone early as BTBs and were cleaned up and removed from HCOBs. Have a nice day. Terryeo 18:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Those TRs from Dianetics Today were brought up by User:Nuview if you had researched the discussion from the david miscavige talk page. You have a nice day, too.--Fahrenheit451 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You're doing a silly thing there, Fahrenheit451. I'm not connected in any way but by knowledge and experience. I'm not organizationally nor professional connected with the Church and frankly it wouldn't matter if I were. Anyone can edit here, it says so as Wikipedia policy. You edit here don't you? Does that mean that everyone but you is somehow plotting and plotting against you? heh ! of course. not. By the way, what do you do professionally and what is your interest in the Dianetics and Scientology articles? I notice you quote verbatim from an internet source about patter drills. 65.146.30.234 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Opps, sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't signed in. Signing this post of mine now again, now that I'm signed in. Terryeo 01:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Shall I assume the user with the 65.146.30.234 IP address is Terryeo? If so, he is back to personal attacks: "You're doing a silly thing there, Fahrenheit451." and "You edit here don't you? Does that mean that everyone but you is somehow plotting and plotting against you? heh ! of course. not." (non-sequitur remark implying that I think everyone is plotting against me). The question about my profession is irrelevant and my interest is in only certain Scientology articles.--Fahrenheit451 19:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I was forthcoming. I have taken the extra step toward cooperation with other editors. I did that very early and on my user page where my agenda is clearly spelled out. My motivations for editing, my Point of View, that I myself own most of the publications which the Church of Scientology has published and sold, all of this I state upfront. And now, further, I have responded both to you and to BT about my involvement in the organization which is the Church of Scientology. That is, I'm not involved. What will you do now, Fahrenheit451? Will you continue to hold your hidden point of view, your secret itinerary from which you can accuse other editors of bad faith, of working for organizations within the Church of Scientology, from a hidden closet where you accuse other editors of not being honest and forthcoming, of editing with a hidden, secret point of view, harmful to your own presentation of materials? Or, will you do as I did? Will you be forthcoming with what you want the Scientology articles to be presented as? You could you know? You could just say, "Scientology is mostly good but .." or you could just say, "They expelled me" or even, "I have some kind of an MU but don't know what it is." I responded to you. Will you respond to me in return? Terryeo 01:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, it is evident you are giving us false pr now. You are involved in a arbitration because of your repeated violations of wikipedia policies. You are also speaking in generalities with "Will you continue to hold your hidden point of view, your secret itinerary from which you can accuse other editors of bad faith, of working for organizations within the Church of Scientology, from a hidden closet where you accuse other editors of not being honest and forthcoming, of editing with a hidden, secret point of view, harmful to your own presentation of materials?" I think you are falsely accusing and, perhaps, talking about yourself. It looks to me that you have a very malicious fellow, david miscavige, running your organization who has perverted technology and policy. What is more, he has proceeded to get rid of many, many folks who objected to his evil actions. Many people I know of have either resigned, been declared suppressive persons, or even expelled. The truth is that the church of scientology has become the world's largest squirrel group. It is unfortunate that you seem to be a pawn of this group. I hope you see it for what it is someday soon.--Fahrenheit451 02:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I am indeed involved in a arbitration. You posted a question to me here on BT's user page and I responded to you. But then you refused to respond to my question which was really the same question you asked me, which I asked you after I had responded to your question. But you refuse that. Well, okay. If you would like to discuss the above things, my user page would be the place to do it, rather than to chew up BT's user space. I don't agree with any of your evaluation about Miscavaige, about patter drills, about me and there was no need to get into that, you could have just said, "thanks for answering me but I'm not going to answer you." Terryeo 06:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PDF

Goes the the chalkboard and writes "PDF" 100 times. heh. Terryeo 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I guess your time must be really really cramped, huh? I notice in the auditing article you "corrected the POVness" of the article, substituting things like "patient" for clear definitions of the person who is speaking about their mind. Yet, your time must be really cramped because you did not do any discussion about your substitutions. Had you been willing to discuss we might have brought up definions, common definitions of "patient" and "preclear" and compared them and figured out which definition was more accurate, more easily understood as applying to a person who is speaking their mind to a trained listener. Terryeo 17:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, I don't deny that Hubbard used "patient" from about 1950 to about 1952, no arguement at all. I would phrase the information so I didn't need to define a treatment because a treatment implies that a person is at effect, that a person is not doing something for themselves. Example: He cut his own fingernails, he was his own patient. Instead "patient" implies the fellow is somehow the effect of a treatment. And no arguement, Hubbard described things in that manner in 1950 to 1952, maybe a couple of years until 1954. But when it became clear to Hubbard there was more going on, going on when people dredged up their memories, more than would be expected. Well, he quit laying people back on a couch and he quit calling the laid back person the "patient" and calling it all a "treatment" because the guy who was dredging up his memories, he was at cause to something that he was an expert on, his own experience. Terryeo 19:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I wish to discuss with you.

Your editing changes here for which your edit summary states: "BTfromLA (tried to rectify some of the gross POV in the intro--somebody will need to do this for the whole article)"

I wish to get into communication with you in regard to this sort of change in the introduction of an article. I've tried to do this before, too. Not to bore you with redundantcy, but it is my position that a person who knows the subject should introduce the subject. In the case of these articles, such introduction would be best done by a concensus of several persons who knew and had used the subjects. Then, on discussion pages things could be discussed by those familar and those unfamilar toward arriving at a concensus that actually introduces the subject in a manner which the common reader could understand that subject.

I say to you, your edit which you are calling "grossly POV" but which mainly changed the introduction so it would not read in a POV manner, does not introduce the subject. In harsher terms, it mis-states, confuses and belittles the subject.

May I take a parallel sort of subject as an example, please? If an article were to be about "driving race cars" then who would be the best person create an introduction to such an article? Well, a race car driver, perhaps a known race car driver would be able to tell you about how difficult it is to withstand the G-forces, the endurence, the need for fine physical motions of the wheel and other controls in an environment of high randomity. A race car driver who knew racing cars and how to drive them would make the best presentation. Then, other editors might discuss with him about it, about particular aspects of driving and a good, readable, understandable article could develop. But you would not want a high school, 16 year old driver to write your article about "driving race cars" because the teen ager only knows the theory and has little experience. Thus, the teen ager has no clue about what is important about going around a 3 - G turn with another car drifting with his front wheel just inches from your outside rear fender.

Likewise with your re-write of the Auditing introduction. It simply does not communicate what auditing is. I could, possibly go through it word by word and quote mark by quote mark, but the result is simply, it does not communicate what auditing is. This is not actually a matter of POV, it is a matter of communicating the idea of what auditing is, what actions are taken, the importance of some actions compared to other actions. That you view it as POV, that I can understand. So please, discuss on a discussion page or something, so it can be written in a manner which both makes sense and is not offensive, okay? Terryeo 15:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My response is at [2] BTfromLA 19:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I had really hoped for some co-operative understanding. I should have gotten a clue earlier I guess, after I gave you my best analysis of the Rolling Stones article. Good day. Terryeo 00:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll just tell you outright. I thought we had a little communication going. I've responded honestly to two questions which you have asked me to do. I just feel a little sad now. Terryeo 00:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, I also think we had some communication going, and I took the time to spell out what I think the problems are with the criticisms you were directing toward me and with the editorial alternative you proposed: please note that while I indirectly accused you of "grossly POV" editing (and I'd stand by that), you directly accused me of editing that mis-states, confuses and belittles the subject. I made a sincere attempt to communicate in response. My goal was not to sadden you, and I'm sorry if that was the result. Short of just going along with your preferences, though, I don't know how else you would have me respond. BTfromLA 00:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
To begin with, Auditing is a procedure. The article might present it is a procedure without insisting that it be presented as a "therapy". That is a word that could describe auditing, that is not a completely wrong word to use, but to understand auditing as a therapy would require that a person conceive of the concepts presented in Scientologi 8-8008 which is, I believe very well beyond the scope of a single, introductory paragraph about auditing. A person who makes their living at auditing could talk about how it is a therapy. But as an introductory paragraph I don't feel it is appropriate to present it as a threapy. If a person understand, not knows as a theory, but actually understands there are past moments of literal records which they can not easily view, but which they carry around and inhibits their activity with the world around them, if a person actually understands they might have engrams, then yes, then it could be viewed as a therapy because there is something to treat but until they have that concept how can they think of talking with someone as a therapy, except in the sense of the Catholic Confessional being a therapy (not commonly thought of that way) or in the sense of psychothreapy (I won't even mention what I think of that). Its not appropriate to remove whole pieces of an introduction and substitute your own understanding when you have never educated yourself in it nor used it, without some discussion. I am not trying to slap your wrist, I am attempting to establish that discussion serves Wikipedia better.
Once again, Terryeo, I think you have a very unorthodox interpretation of the task of an encyclopedia. As I just wrote on the other page in response to wikipdiatrix, an encyclopedia classifies and compares. "Auditing is a procedure" is mystifying, when the goal of encyclopedic writing is to clarify. A procedure to do what? To whom? By whom? For the benefit of whom? What are the premises underlying this procedure? How did it originate? What is the history of this procedure? How has it been received by third-party commentators? etc. You seem to say that a mysterious account of the subjective experience of "a person" is a better way to explain this. It might be the way to lure customers or converts (and you notice how many times different editors have responded to your writing as if it seems like promotional copy) but it simply doesn't cut it as encyclopedic writing. Is there some part of what I'm saying that doesn't make sense to you? BTfromLA 01:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but a description of Auditing which does not begin with "auditing is a procedure" is not going to describe it well. By itself there may be some mystery, but combined with other statements it can make sense. While the opposite would be hardly be true. These area are difficult. Anytime we talk about procedures where one person tells another person their thoughts, tells their thoughts freely and without the element of "what should I tell, what should I keep secret", anytime we touch on things like this the area becomes difficult. The part of what you are saying which does not make sense to me is the implication that a person who has not been educated in Auditing and has never used auditing would be better qualified to write an article's introduction to auditing than a person who has frequently and successfully been educated in and used auditing. That might work for "hammering nails" but isn't going to work for "auditing" or "piloting a moon rocket". Terryeo 20:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terryeo selectively editing posts

I've just discovered Terryeo selectively editing a post to him from on his user talk page. [3] While my post to him was not, I admit, perfectly CIVIL (I have not yet found the secret to keeping perfectly calm while someone pretends I'm simple-minded and completely gullible) what he edited out was not merely my rhetorical excesses but my explanation to him of why he could not treat a source that was also available on a "personal website" as if that was the only place it was available. You might want to check and see if he has similarly edited any of your own posts to him. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Feldspar states at the top of his discussion page that he might edit anything on his discussion page. Yet, when Feldspar uses invective langauge on my discussion page, and I remove it, he makes a case of it.Terryeo 00:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, BTfromLA, the answer is no, to your question, "The arb com has issued an injunction against Terryeo editing Dianetics- and Scientology-related articles. Does this ban extend to the talk pages on those articles as well?" here. Allow me to gently point out the issue revovles around what constitutes a valid secondary source, the issue has always revolved around that. Presently the issue is before the arbitration committee who's ruling on that issue is needed because ChrisO was unwilling to have it worked out in Discussion pages. Instead, now it is before a committee who will rule on that. Additional discussion of that issue is happening here and at least some sorts of personal webpages won't be citable and have never been citable and this means better information in our Wikipedia articles. Terryeo 20:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo is still up to disrupting the wikipedia editing process. Here are some documented examples: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo/Proposed_decision --Fahrenheit451 02:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451 still doesn't understand wiki courtesy and can't indent his posts. <colon> I still edit my discussion and user pages per wikipedia policy. I still follow WP:RS which still states: Personal websites can not be used as secondary sources. Which was the issue, I belive, which so disurbed some editors that after months of talk, actual action drove them into disturbed reaction. Terryeo 00:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

This case is closed. Details of the final decision are published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The actual situation

Involves people who are convinced that Scientology is helpful to people. Those people are doing their utmost to prevent the actual information which comprise Scientology, preventing it from being presented. The most casual reader observes the articles present a hostile point of view. I know too, that you are of this attitude. That you are convinced that scientology has been somewhat helpful to some people sometimes. Still, you could behave as a gentelman should. You refuse to. You attempt to force your personal point of view on other people. I do not want your input. Is that clear enough?Terryeo 03:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I understand the part about not wanting my input. But I don't fully understand the rest of it--are you saying that I'm trying to suppress knowledge of scientology? And that the reason I'm doing so is because I believe that scientology helps people?!? If that's what you're saying, I promise you that's completely untrue--I would like the articles to include clear, factual, well-written information and to point the way to good sources for further research, just as with articles on other topics. I'm not trying to obscure or suppress anything--maybe that's something you do, but not me. The other thing I'm confused about is the part where you say I'm not being a gentleman. Let me try to interpret that. Are you saying that if you--or anyone--publically posts inflammatory writings--no matter how misleading, false, crazy, whatever--the civil thing for me to do is to let them pass without comment, to adopt a "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything" philosophy? That's my best guess as to what you mean about the gentlemanly bit--have I got that right? The problem with that view is this: anytime any of us publish opinions, we are partcipating in a conversation--which is to say we are inviting others to consider what we say and to respond in turn. If you don't want a conversation or debate with others, don't publish it... keep it in your diary. You're angry at me because I've taken what you've written seriously, and I've tried to direct your attention to what I percieve as grave flaws in your reasoning. You have always been welcome to address my arguments, and I'm disappointed that you have rarely done so. Believe it or not, my recent posts which you have disparaged as accusatory and lawyerlike are actually motivated by a desire to promote clear thinking and honesty. I hope I've left you with some future food for thought, at least. BTfromLA 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC) (This message was originally posted to Terryeo's user talk page--he immediately deleted it, as he has with many of my posts. Placed here to restore continuity to the discussion.)
You have on several occassions attempted to force my point of view to comply with yours. I understand that you tend to forget that your purpose in communicating is to challenge and then defeat and force complience. I understand that. But you forget that you do, apparently. Terryeo 04:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. I am at a loss to imagine how I have tried to "force compliance." You make it sound as if I've pointed a gun at you and demanded you dive off a bridge. I've tried to persuade you to confront problems with what you've written--evasions, falsehoods, or unsound reasoning. If my tone has been impatient or angry at times, it's because I've felt that your behavior had reached the point of insulting my intelligence and good will. I presume you understand what I was reacting to, even if you don't think my reaction was warranted. If you can point to an example of my attempting to "defeat and force compliance," please do so. I'd also appreciate it if you could let me know whether my interpretations of your first note above were substantially correct. BTfromLA 05:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no "correct" nor any "incorrect". There is communication and there is miscommunication. Terryeo 06:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You present conflicting statements, BTfromLA. On one hand you attempt to communicate about something, though it is not clear to me what you are attempting to communicate about. On the other hand you have stated your "challenge" to me on my discussion page. And as a third presentation, you present [4] wherein you state your understanding of what I condsider WP:NPOV means. You present conflicting statements BT, you are not forthcoming about your motivation for stating them and you have badgered me, attempting to cause me comply with the "BTfromLA is right and Terryeo is wrong" school of thought. Therefore I choose not to communicate with you. I don't need your challenges in order to enjoy a hot cup of coffee, my lawn doesn't need your fertilizer to grow and my understanding of Wikipedia doesn't need your input. Terryeo 19:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have attempted to persuade you that you were wrong in cases where you were in fact wrong, not merely expressing a different opinion--a claimed direct quote either is a quote or it isn't. What's wrong with that? One of the many things that baffles me about you, Terryeo, is that you issue provocative and argumentative statements on a more-or-less daily basis, but you act offended when somebody argues with you in turn, or asks you to support your assertions with evidence. BTfromLA 23:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You have strongly attempted to get me not only banned from editing articles, but banned even from discussions, such as this one. You particularly and specificaly state on Feldspar's talk page that you personally contacted each and every arbitrator in an effort to get all of my communication banned forever from Wikipedia. That, after I responded to you in a friendly and forthcoming manner on issues you asked me about. Yet here you are communicating with me. What's your point? Terryeo 22:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I haven't tried to get you banned from user talkpages like this one. As is so often the case, Terryeo, you are loose with the facts and you end up presenting a falsehood. I did, however, suggest that your ban from editing Scientology-related articles be extended to the talk pages of those articles, since much of the disruptive and counterproductive behavior for which you were banned took place (and continues) on the talk pages. I've stated my case on this elsewhere, and since you have declared that you do not want my "input," I'm a little surprised that you are bringing this up again now. Yes, it's true that I have continued to communicate with you despite my conclusion about your ban. Why? We've been talking a while--why not? For some reason, I still want to offer you every chance to understand what the problem is here, to which you seem oblivious. I gather that you are imagining some conspiratorial plot against you personally and/or against Scientology in general of which I am part. Sorry, no such thing is true. Indeed, I've been trying, for months, to direct your attention to the ways that your problems here result from your flouting basic principals that underly Wikipedia. That's the problem--not the fact that you have good things to say about Scientology. You seem to want to believe that every one of the editors who have been so appalled by your conduct that they actually went to the trouble to sign on to formal protests against it--more than twenty of them--are part of some anti-Scientology cabal. But some part of you must recognize that hypothesis is probably not true. That's the part of you I'm still trying to communicate with. BTfromLA 03:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Ho Ho's

???? Maybe we should check xenu.net, it may be scio-speak like RPF, overts/withholds, KRs, R2-45, wall of fire, Incident II, and the r6 implant :) - Glen TC (Stollery) 17:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A google search indicates that Hostess, manufacturer of Twinkies, created a cartoon mascot in the 1970s called "Happy Ho Ho." Perhaps Terryeo identifies with a cartoon spongecake. Whatever the case, he wants to remain cryptic--lately, he seems to be trying to suggest that I'm involved in some dark conspiracy against him, which he connects in some way to "happy ho ho's." Maybe that's the secret password at the Skull and Bones lodge. Didn't search xenu.net--if you learn anything there, please send a report to Captain Cupcake. BTfromLA 18:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey mate

Shame about Antaeus declining the RfA nom, he'd be kick ass, thanks for your support tho, appreciated. Hey, do tell... what's "DevTpedia"??? - Glen TC (Stollery) 16:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you've been following the adventures of Terryeo, you know that some editors familiar with scientology have described a conspicuous aspect of his behavior here--constant demands for attention of various types, including farfetched arguments about policy that do not respond to any genuine problem--as consistant with a scientology policy called "Dev-T" or "Developed Traffic." As I understand it (I'm no expert), the idea is to defeat "enemies" by forcing them to do much unecessary, counterproductive (and costly, where applicable) work. In a recent talk discussion, Antaeus advised Terryeo to start his own wiki, "DevTpedia." In my explanation, it's not funny, but in context, it was. BTfromLA 18:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Dev-T

Frankly, I would prefer to never comment about anyone's understanding of a term. Most particularly, I would strong prefer to never say, "no, you don't understand that word in that context" because it requires an evaluation on my part, a judgement and besides, is a bit crude.

This is one of the things I'm curious about, especially if it reflects scientology teaching. You seem to view "evalute," "judge," and "challenge" as negative terms, and as types of action that should be avoided in the discussions here. Why is that? Is this view widely held by Scientologists? (To me, those terms describe necessary elements in any process of thinking or collaboration.) BTfromLA 22:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the other guy is hammering a nail into the wood to fasten the sheet of plywood to the underlying beams, I can also see he is missing the beam. Well, he is going to figure that out real soon, as soon as his hammered nail goes through the plywood and meets air and he feels no resistance to his hammering. I would prefer not to say, "hey, you are missing the point". Instead I would prefer to point out how he can always hammer his nails so he always hits the underlying beams. I haven't exactly worked out the ethics for myself of watching people mis-use words. In the case of "Developed (counterproductive) Traffic", the term within the context you have been talking about was being used by people who barely understood it or misunderstood it.

Sorry if I'm being dense, but it is still unclear to me what aspect of the term was misunderstood by whom. BTfromLA 22:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It was being used as a method of dispersing the discussion from important points which were being raised. Time and again, editors in the articles refuse to confront the issues raised. I am not going to evaluate why they don't, but they don't. For example, I say, "If Jon Atack achieved OT III, then that should be cited". This is exactly in keeping Wikipedia standards. A long, convoluted discussin ensues that has almost nothing to do with Wikipedia standards. It has to do with personal things, things like "oh, doesn't everyone know that Jon Atack is OT III?" Well, obviously, with 6 and a half billion people on the planet, and only a small percentage of them having ever heard of Scientology and even a smaller percentage having any clue of what OT III means, and even a smaller percentage having ever heard the name, "Jon Atack", not everyone knows that Atack achieved (by his own word) OT III. By the Church's word, Jon Atack never achieved OT III. But all of this has nothing to do with Wikipedia standards which require that a piece of information be citable. Terryeo 16:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, since you keep coming back to this, here's my understanding of why the Jon Atack conversation went as it did:
1. While Wikipedia guidelines entitle editors to demand a citation for any fact, it is also clear that one can over-apply these demands in a way that goes against the spirit of the guidelines and becomes an abuse of process. Somebody's example was "water is wet." I hope you'll agree that it would be ridiculous and disruptive to demand a citation for that. The fact is that all of the articles are full of uncited facts, which are appropriately uncited because they are not controversial, not key to the article, and not details that would logically provide the basis for further research by the reader. So, one must exercise discretion about demands for citation--there should be some real value added by the added citation.
2. Your reputation precedes you--you were banned from directly editing the Scientology articles, largely on grounds that your edits were disruptive and inappropriate. As a result, many editors immediately view your comments with a level of skepticism that they would not bring to the comments of an editor who had demonstrated themself a responsible contributor. Thus, even when you raise a valid point, there's a bit of a "boy who cried wolf" effect. So, if you wish to persuade editors to take your objections seriously, to onus is upon you to make an especially clear and convincing case.
3. As was made obvious by the subsequent discussion, you did not initially make a clear and persuasive case as to why this citation was valuable.
4. It was not self-evident to the other editors that you has raised an "important issue." Indeed, it is my impression that many thought that you were raising a non-issue in order to interfere with information that you personally dislike.
5. Thus, the conversation turned to the question of whether your demand for a more complete citation about the OTIII fact met the threshold to be taken seriously, or whether it was a "water is wet" sort of demand. To some, this question of abuse of process was the real issue you had raised, and people wrote as much. As I recall, you failed to ackowledge or address this issue at all.

Similarly, the are you are talking about "Dev-T" (Developed, nonproductive traffic). The issues were real issues, editors were refusing to confront them. In refusing to confront the issues raised, editors were attacking the discussion as being "Dev-T". Terryeo 16:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. Issues raised should be confronted.
  2. Calling discussion which raises issues and is not confronted "Dev-T" not only refuses to confront the issues, but attacks the editor who has raised the issue, while not exactly a personal attack, it has similar overtones to a personal attack.
  3. If an issue is not a valid issues, why comment on it at all unless you hope to destroy or degrade the editor who is raising the issue?
  4. Clearly and obviously, almost all of the Scientolgy series articles do not present the information which comprises the subject evoked by the article titles. Efforts to cause Suppressive person to present what is meant by the originator of the term and to present the technology which surrounds the term are constantly fought against. The editors which do not understand the term find obscure, unpublished partial quotation which they stick in at radom places. Those don't contribute the basic idea which is simply that a small percentage of people cause an unduly large amount of trouble. Yet any law enforcement agency on the planet can tell you that, any view of any society which incarcerates a few in order that the many can live in peace, freedom and prosperity can tell you that.

Terryeo 16:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope my above comments address the rest of these remarks--I can revist them upon request. I must say that your claims about "presenting the subject" ring false to me. "Suppressive Person," is hardly limited to idenfying a small "criminal class" that the local constabulary needs to slap in the hoosgow, as your summary above suggests. In practice, based on the info I've seen at any rate, the focus is overwhelmingly placed on people who are labelled "enemies" of Scientology, who cause trouble for scientology. If you downplay that most conspicuous of facts, you misrepresent the subject. (Indeed, you've labelled a bunch of the wikipedia editors here as SPs, on grounds that the vast bulk of society would not recognize as remotely criminal or contrary to "peace, freedom and prosperity." BTfromLA 22:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Now you state what I state is not factual nor accurate but "my claim". Well.
I have told you in simple clear detail the use of suppressive person technology within the Church.
You don't view what I have said to apply.
Good day. Terryeo 06:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Come on, Terryeo, I wrote you a long and sincere response in an attempt to communicate--there's no reason for you to get offended and charge off. If I misrepresented something, tell me what. Are you saying that "Suppressive Person" is NOT applied to those who interfere with Scientology, but is most often used to address those who "suppress" individuals, organizations or ideals that have no connection to Scientology? And I should add the word "claim" to that list above of terms that you seem to find very disagreeable for reasons I don't comprehend. BTfromLA 08:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The only think I can think of saying is re-stating what I have already said. The bottom line, basic, well known fact is that a small percentage of people cause more than their percentage of trouble. Well, the Church delivers 2 products. Education in courses and auditing. Those are often called "Scientology technology". If something happens so those can not proceed, it becomes an ethics matter. Suppressive person information is a part of the ethic information. It applies in Churches exactly as it applies in the general population and no differently. I'm making enough statements here so you're going to disbelieve all of it and call it all a "claim" so hey, I'll just quit right here. Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 09:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Suppressive person is an idea. Almost everyone who reads the idea first thinks, "oh good gosh, maybe I am a suppressive person". It is human nature that we wonder about ourselves and who amongst us has not, at one time or another, suppressed someone to some degree? A man might tell his wife to shut up, or a wife, her husband. A parent might be slightly supressive to their children, "no, you can't go to the party Friday night". An employee to an underling, etc. etc. But if you have wondered if you are a suppressive person, you are not a suppressive person. Because a suppressive person does not wonder about themselves, a suppressive person has all they emotional data they need about themselves and they are using it. There is a good deal to it and the Church uses it. But it doesn't use it to punish, it doesn't use it to isolate, it doesn't use it to separate, though at first it might appear that way. The Church uses suppressive person information (or technology, if you will) to open the doorway to delivery of its services. The Church applies suppressive person technology so that technical deliver of education and processing can happen. Without suppressive person tecnology applied, the Church would be clogged with supppressive people who make little gains in processing, who can't graduate its course and become auditors, who would cause disruption in many, many ways. The Church, you see, provides a place and manner which people may, if they wish to, study and practice Scientology. Why would anyone attack it? Well, suppressive people attack it because it is helpful. If you understand the urge of a suppressive person is to prevent people from being helped, you have understood a great deal. Terryeo 20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your further response. We've wandered pretty far from the issue I was trying to discuss--whether there is something in the philosophy of Scientology that promotes ideas about the handling of information that are at odds with what most non-scientologists see as the concept of editing an encyclopedia. Before I reply to the above SP stuff, can we go back and talk about some of what you skipped over earlier? Do you have any response to the other things I wrote above, in response to you first post? BTfromLA 20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
We have wandered and I have contributed to the wandering. I don't have further to say at this time. Terryeo 21:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, you are sometimes very difficult to communicate with. I guess you'd prefer I stop trying. For what it's worth, here's a response to the question that you pose above--"why would anyone attack it?"
1. First off, criticism is not the same as a fundamental attack on an institution. Criticism of the policies of the US government, for example, does not equate to an attack on the US government. Criticism can be a means by which people endeavor to make things better.
You separate criticsm from attack. good. Terryeo 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Consider whether your theory that attacks come from a desire to stop others from being helped applies in other situations. It would seem that if your SP idea is true, that would mean that Scientology's attacks on psychiatry stem from a desire to prevent people from being helped. Is that the case?
ok. <consider><consider><consider>. Nope, attacks come from people who attempt to stop help from reaching other people. Terryeo 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
3. The people who publicly criticize scientology seem to come from several different angles--independent journalists, jurists, internet free speech advocates, and former members of the church, including high-ranking longtime members, some of whom worked directly with Hubbard. From my perspective, it seems logical to presume that the motivation of these critics is not the same in every case. It also appears to me that, however misguided you might believe them to be, it is probable that many of them are motivated by enirely honorable goals, such as a desire to keep people from being victimized. BTfromLA 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
A critic is a person who purports to know a subject. Knowledge treds before criticsm. Trashmouthed statements like appear in ChrisO's referenced book by Ruth in the Suppressive person article, statements that say, "Scientology says that people are descended from thetans" isn't criticsm. It isn't based on knowledge but is based on misinformed misunderstanding, and then presented as knowledgeable criticsm. It is my position that all or nearly all of the criticsm that can be read about Scientology come from misunderstanding. It is further my understanding that attacks directed at Scientology come from a fear that people might be helped by Scientology. Terryeo 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I see. The question was meant to be rhetorical because, you see, the Church is presenting its products to the public. The public is free to ignore or purchase its goods and services. There is nothing going on except what appears on the surface. It has defended itself vigorously, I won't argue that. When its copyrights are violated, it defends itself. When it doesn't get the same tax breaks as other institutions of its kind it defends itself. When parishoners leave it with stolen documents and attempt to publish those documents it legally defends itself. And this is legal, laws of the land defence, laws put in place by popular opinion and agreed on. Terryeo 09:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, many people who have looked into the matter have come away believing that there is and has been a lot of stuff beyond "what appears on the surface," if by that you mean what the Church of Scientology says about itself. But once again I find myself asking, Terryeo, why don't you respond to any of my particular comments? BTfromLA 14:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The people who have "looked into the matter" which you reference have not looked into the matter. They have looked at something, they have not understood something, on that misunderstanding they talked with someone, as you are talking with me, and they formed further misunderstandings. You see the effort we are both making toward being understood by the other. It isn't so easy, but we both try. The moment we get into a word (Dev-T or any other) a word that we don't both understand well, we run into problems piled on problems.

Scientology is nothing but Dianetics extended. Dianetics is nothing but a refined Catholic Confessional. A guy feels a little guilty because he yelled at his wife. He goes to the priest and confesses. Dianetics has exact procedures, exact questions the auditor asks and so on, which handle the situation 100% so the guy no longer feels guilty. But more, too, the guy comes to understand, by his own efforts, the things he is doing and not doing which are causing his marriage difficulties. This is HELP. Dianetics is simply a refined Catholic Confessional. And Scientology is simply an extension of it to include anything the person confesses, even if it isn't of the current lifetime. People find this HELPFUL. Yeah, there is a lot of specialized words. Terryeo 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Touretzky's study tech site

Replied to you on my user page about that. Terryeo 22:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Another reply. And references with quoted statements which might be used in the article we were talking about. Terryeo 07:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Dakota

I don't see any evidence that he's acting in bad faith, do you? - actually, yes, I do, because the Nick Adams article has a looooong history of contentious edting over Adams's sexuality, and this "new editor" now comes in claiming to be the person that the "Adams was gay" faction were quoting, now trying to claim that since he's the person they were quoting, the material should be kept because it's him. He's also repeatedly inserting his name and his copyright tag into the article, and refuses to stop doing so. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What does giving him the benefit of the doubt mean? Letting him post non-GFDL copyrighted material in articles? Letting him keep putting his name into articles? Moving his User page to article space? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your personal attack

You stated: Terryeo continues to amplify his claims about the bad faith of Wikipedia with regards to Scientology...'. [5] That is a personal attack because:

  • I have never made any claim that Wikipedia exhibited bad faith in any regard. More specifically I have frequently expressed confidence in Wikipedia's policies. In particular it has always been my opinion, and I have often stated so, that Wikipedia's "widely published" will result in good, reliable articles. Terryeo 19:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Further, though I have never claimed any bad faith about Wikipedia in the past, I did not claim any bad faith at your cited example, either. (the personal attack editing difference) Your statement is brashly untrue. Because it states I have claimed what you state I claim, it is a personal attack. That you chase your first, untrue, personal attack with a second stated opinion which you have often expressed does not excuse your personal attack. Please stop your personal attacks. Terryeo 19:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, while you might want to argue with my interpretation of your actions, there is absolutely nothing in my comments that even faintly approach the status of a personal attack. Evidently you do not understand the concept of personal attack--please read the appropriate policy WP:NPA. BTfromLA 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have spelled out how your statement is a personal attack. You don't understand that you have made a personal attack and you have said so. Nonetheless, my words that appear spell out specificaly what your personal attack was and why it was a personal attack. I have read WP:NPA. It appears that you are unable to understand. Terryeo 20:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, you did not supply any evidence whatever that I engaged in a personal attack. And, indeed, there was no personal attack. It's hard to believe you read that guideline and came away thinking this situation somehow fit the criteria... if you can show me where there's something in there that describes my "crime," please do. And please feel free to solicit the opinion of a third party on this. A personal attack needs to be an attack or threat directed at you, personally. Using civil language to characterize your actions as an editor is not a personal attack. BTfromLA 21:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I never made a "claim about the bad faith of Wikipedia" your statement is untrue. Your statement is a personal attack, not because your statement is untrue, but because it states an exhibition of bad faith. Please stop your personal attacks. Terryeo 22:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that any criticism of Terryeo's actions are considered a "personal attack" by him, but, for example, he makes a personal attack on me at Talk:David_Miscavige#.22Chinese_School.22 "It surely must appear to everyone, as it does to me, that User:Fahrenheit451 is attempting to present into this Miscavige artile, every bit of controversy possible in every area possible, as a sort of erudite attack against Miscavige. Of course, we understand that motivation, but nonetheless, there are many examples of articles about noteable peope who are alive today. Let us work toward a presentation as good as any other noteable person, still alive. Terryeo 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)" and that is just fine with him. --Fahrenheit451 02:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you are posting that one around here and there, F. Asking for opinions, asking if it is a personal attack.  :) Yet you refuse to communicate with me about the situtation after I have attempted to open a communication channel with you on your user page :) Terryeo 20:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Knock it off Terryeo, you pretend to hold out an olive branch, then you attack me. It would be uncivil for me to tell you to go to hell, so I will just ignore your trolling.--Fahrenheit451 16:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that he doesn't grasp the concept of "personal." I'm weary of wrangling over this, though, hence I archived the discussion. BTfromLA 02:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rand situation

I think you meant your comment for AOluwatoyin, not me. -- LGagnon 00:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken. As a long-time contributor to that article, I think "hornet's nest" is an understatement; more often than not, the term "war zone" would be more appropriate. -- LGagnon 00:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response and message

I posted a response to your question. [6] Terryeo 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology and beliefs

Done.--Justanother 21:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 2 cents

In regard and response to your post, [7] which you told me that there was no need to reply to feel there is some possible positive reply to make.

  • I say I make POV edits, I say this on the basis that it is impossible not to make POV edits because everyone over the age of 3 months has their own POV. Anti-Scientology editors whom run their own personal anti-Scientology websites are obviously making POV edits.
There is a crucial difference between having a point of view--everyone does--and editing to promote your point of view. Editors here pledge to present issues from a "neutral" point of view in the articles they edit, not a pro or con one, and they try to edit in such a way that all sides will recognize that their arguments ahave been presented fairly. It never works perfectly, and sometimes it fails miserably, but that's the goal. Somebody who edits wikipedia with the expressed goal of advocating for point of view other than the neutral one in the articles doesn't belong here.
  • You state about my motivation, you view that my edits might not be toward readable articles, but might instead by done with the intention of causing upset, turmoil and difficulty. "Dev-T" is the term you use. I deny that, right here.
Good. I am operating under the assumption that you are ediing in good faith. But I hope that you understand why people might think otherwise, based on your actions.
  • In recent weeks my edits have revolved around a single point. That point is Reliable sources. I realize it might be difficult to see, but this has been the whole of my work in recent weeks and was a portion of why I was banned from editing.
OK.
  • I have always considered that NPOV and its resultant V, as long as OR is excluded, will result in readable information. I have always known that if personal opinion is freely placed into these articles, the result will be no better than a google newgroup. Actually implementing WP:NPOV as spelled out by WP:V and further and more specifically hammered flat into rules by WP:RS will result in readable articles.
You and I seem to interpret these policies differently and have a differnt relationship to rules. You like them a lot more than I do. That's fine--you're hardly alone in that. To paraphrase something I wrote elsewhere, I think we should aim for readable, concise, factually accurate articles written in a neutral voice. In other words, I think it is usually a better question to ask whether a given contribution improves the article according to those aims than to ask "does this violate a stated guideline?"
  • This is not the situation today. This has not been the situation at all. Personal opinion from google groups, and from other sources creep into the articles. Without attacking anyone, I will give you an example. User:ChrisO is known on the internet as having created many erudite sounding essays. They appear at xenu.net, solitary trees, his own personal website (anti-narconon) and other anti-scientology websites. He posts frequently to the google groups anti-scientology usergroup. None of his words are published by a reliable source. But his opinions creep into the articles in a variety of ways, presented as secondary sources of information, as if he were a published author. He is not published by a reliable source. Newspapers don't quote him. Publishers don't publish books which contain his opinions. Governments do not ask him to testify before them about Scientology. Therefore, his opinions should not be any part of any Sceintology article. But, if his words are published by a reliable source then his words could be included. I hope you see what I am talking about because I don't state this to inflame anyone, nor to attack anyone, but to make clear the effort I am making here. I would hope to reduce any confusion. I simply want Wikipedia to work. This means following WP:V, this means when a concensus of editors create a guideline, WP:RS, then that guideline is followed unless editors who refuse to follow that guideline are willing to talk about their need for an exception on that guideline's discussion page. How clear can I be? I know the information and when someone says "my thetan doesn't wear combat boots" it is immediately clear to me, the person doesn't understand the meaning of the word "thetan".
There are problems with readability, bias and sourcing in many of the Scientology aricles, I agree: they could certainly be improved. I don't fully agree with your characterizations of the situation above, and since we've been over a lot of that stuff before, plus you may be entering into some kind of treaty with ChrisO if TheronJ has his or her way, I'll let the rest of it pass without comment, unless you want me to repond to something in particular.
  • Now, I have finished saying what is necessary. I said that my effort is toward readable articles, I mean to achieve it by having only reliable sources in articles. I'll say why my effort is necessary (as I see it). Scientology exists. It has grown. It has a little substance right now. To understand it, there is a necessity which is not commonly understood and that necessity is this. The written word must be understood, that is, a reader can't go past a misunderstood word and expect to grasp the subject. The knowledge of the subject is indemonstrable. It is real knowledge but it is indemonstrable. Newton's falling spheres experiments which led to the law of gravity can be duplicated today. But after a person examines a thought, the significance of that thought changes for that person. So any knowledge arrived at can never again be demonstrated with exactly the situation which was present before he examined the thought. Scientology is indemonstrable knowledge. And this is completely contrary to western science. It leads to difficulties and the slightest misunderstanding causes it to not be understood at all. Thus, I am working toward reliable sources. Anyway, thanks for an opportunity to state the situation as simply as I can. Terryeo 17:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I always appreciate a forthright statement of your position. I would add, to what you (and Hubbard) say, that not only must one understand the meaning of words, one most equally focus on the meaning of sentences, and paragraphs, to grasp any subject. BTfromLA 02:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Terryeo 10:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regarding portitional

The policy says "article[s] should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." So the question is, how does one assess prominence? That is not the same as "widely published." BTfromLA

Might, we discuss this situation? The reason I would talk about it with you, the phrase, should do so in proportion to the prominence of each references back to, articles should fairly represent viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source.

Therefore, we take all of the viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source. We sort them into (+) and (-) and (neutral) (or some catagories of POV) and we then come up with a proportion of prominence of each. For example, if we have 1000 publications by (+) and 1000 publications by (-) and 1000 publications which are obviously neutral, we have a tie and all 3 points of view are then presented as being equal. That's how I read that. How do you read that? Terryeo 21:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the sentence as having two distinct clauses. The first part, "all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source," specifies which viewpoints we consider: i.e., only those who have been published by reliable (secondary, for the most part) sources. (It also says that we only need to deal with "significant" ones--a distinction that is explained later in the paragraph).
The second part says that those viewpoints should be represented "in proportion to the prominence of each." How we arrive at a proportion of "prominence" is not specified. As I read it, the implication is that, after determining which views are held by a "significant" number of "reliable sources," we should attempt to glean the proportion of authoritative, third-party experts who hold one view relative to another. So, first, there is the question of who constitutes an "expert." How many separate experts have published arguments in favor of a particular view would be one factor, but it can't be reduced to that--if, for example, 99.999% of evolutionary biologists accept the basic concepts of Darwinian evolution, it doesn't follow that we would find 10,000 articles by different scientists for every one with a dissenting view. Widely accepted views don't require endless, redundant, written defenses. So, how many different authors express a view is one factor, but not the whole story. Sales of books has almost nothing to do with it, far as I can see. Ultimately, this is another of those questions that falls back on the editors' collective judgement of who gets called authoritative and how one determines the prominence of a given view among that group. There is bias built in to the "NPOV" system at this point, but the alternative is to completely give up the idea of Wikipedia being, itself, a reliable source. BTfromLA 08:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
right, so, since you hold the opinion that I'm a bad actor as long as I type anything on Wikipedia, I guess any reply I make would not be productive. Terryeo 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have never attacked Yandman

Still, Terryeo continues to attack Yandman on the grounds You have misstated what I have put on the page. I have never attacked Yandman. Terryeo 16:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terryeo chronology

Not that it's that interesting, but I guess AF is right that Yandman posted the first complaint, as a subparagraph to Terry's previous enforcement note.[8] I didn't notice Yandman's post and posted a new enforcement note 6 minutes later.[9]. Thatcher131 then fixed both of our posts.[10].

Neither Yandman nor I specifically notified Terry of our postings, although in Yandman's case, he had attempted to ask Terry about the anonymous editing at least two times, without success. TheronJ 17:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terryeo

Thanks for the link - I sincerely hope he can reform but I fear after seeing his now extensive block log this may be impossible. The major diff between that page and the deleted subpage was he named the specific users he was attacking - his userpage although again clearly attacks "editors" does not mention them specifically so I guess he can (barely) get away with it. Amazes me he still sees no error on his part, especially after having it pointed out to him time and time again (sigh) - Glen 20:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] archive of November 13, 2006

[edit] reply to your question on my user page

Knowing how these things go, I've replied on my user page in an effort to keep all of the discussion in one place, heh. Terryeo 16:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terryeo's ban

Does Terryeo's ban on editing Scientology-related articles include inserting Scientology ideas into non-Scientology articles? I was quite disturbed by this post in which User:Justanother seems to be suggesting that they begin gradually altering the Psychiatry article to subtly reflect their own POV. wikipediatrix 20:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The community's interactions never cease to rouse my amusement. lol. Terryeo 21:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi BT. Strange that you should think that I am doing anything sneaky ("sneak around his ban") when I openly post my comment to terryeo on his talk page that I well know is monitored by wikipediatrix and others. I think you will grant that I am NOT stupid. I imagine he has email but I never tried so I don't know. Had I desired to be sneaky I would have gone that route, no? Odd that you think it speaks to my credibility that I mention to him that I find that the history of pyschiatry is whitewashed on these pages and that he might want to address that. And because Scientology happens to think that psychiatry has a dubious history, how does that make editing the history of psychiatry a "Scientology article". Either he makes legitimate edits or he does not. Frankly, I think that stretching the terms of his ban does us all a disservice. Better would be to give him his rope and see if he has learned anything. Don't you think? --Justanother 22:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
ps How am I "teaming" with terryeo. We share a common interest and I communicated to him of an article that he might like to edit. How is that "teaming". Are you "teaming" with wikipediatrix and Anteaus? pps How is exposing psychiatry's sordid past POV? Either they have one or they don't; how is that POV? If that is POV then exposing the excesses of Scientology here is POV but I don't make that claim, do you? --Justanother 22:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit conflict--sorry if this seems a bit out of order] Thanks for the reply, Justanother. By "sneak" I meant finding a way for Terryeo to introduce Scientology-related content into Wikipedia articles, despite his ban. Obviously, you were not sneaking in the sense of trying to hide your communication, and if the reference to sneaking offends, I withdraw it... "sneaking" isn't the point, and I apologize for the distraction. Before you arrived on the scene, I was adamant about giving Terryeo chances, chances and more chances to become a productive editor, and made many attempts (as did others) to patiently explain why his actions were meeting with such disapproval by other editors and to suggest ways that he might be able to more effectively bring his perspective to bear on the articles. For the most part, he's shown himself to be incorrigible. Whether he is driven by a conscious commitment to intentional "Dev-T" disruption of accurate information about Scientology on Wikipedia, or whether his behavior is merely an artifact of blind zealotry or gross editorial incompetence, it's been almost a year of regular editing, and he shows little evidence of engaging in intellectually coherant good-faith editing with regard to any subject that touches on Scientology. And I think Psychiatry clearly is Scientology-related in this context, don't you? While I understand your impulse to make common cause with a fellow scientologist, I hope you can see why I think your choice to link up with a well known bad actor subverts your efforts to incorporate a Scientologist's perspective into the editorial mix here, efforts that I support. BTfromLA 23:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Re sneaking, apology accepted. Re terryeo, I don't know about "him"; sometimes his comments are extremely cogent and sometime they are, shall we say, not (sorry if that offends). I do not know his editing history, I only know him from his comments on the talk pages. There I find him, as I mention, inconsistent in some respects, maybe because he deals differently with the various editors and in the various venues. So I perhaps do not have so low an opinion of him as you do; perhaps if I had walked in your shoes I would. I only know him as a Scientologist that tried to edit here and got banned. That is not much of a condemnation to me because I, perhaps more than anyone, know what effort is required to successfully edit here as an "admitted" Scientologist. I give terryeo credit for hanging in and still being here. I do not know what his motivation is; until shown otherwise I will continue to assume that it is the same as mine, to present Scientology fairly to the world. In that we have "common cause" and "are on the same team". If that makes me guilty by association and damages my credibility, then so be it. On the other point, as Scientologists we condemn the real "pseudoscience of the mind", psychiatry, and as some editors might feel it is important to expose the "sordid underbelly" of Scientology, so do we feel it is important to shine that same light on psychiatry. Good to know you do not object. Can terryeo do it? Not my call; I was merely pointing out that it hadn't been done and that perhaps he might want to. If he can't do it under his ban, then OK. He would be the one to make that call. --Justanother 23:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
RE: Terryeo's history, I suggest you read through the various editors' statements at this RfC and Terryeo's subsequent arbitration. It'll give you a sense of the diverse ways in which he was found to be acting inappropriately, and the comments are hardly limited to editors who have some anti-Scientology chip on their shoulder. BTfromLA 00:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I will take your word for his history prior to my meeting him, after all he was banned from the articles. I can assume that he stepped out of line despite repeated warnings. He is "serving his time" so I will not beat that horse. Whether he can learn and change is something that might interest us; Scientology being fundamentally based on the concept that everything about a man is mutable, based on no more nor less than his postulates or considerations, except for his core nature as a spiritual being. Personally, I would prefer to not treat people based on past behavior but rather on ongoing behavior, especially if his worst crime is excesses as a wikipedia editor, no matter how annoying they were at the time. He has already been punished for those. No need to make him pariah. --Justanother 00:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
While I'm all for giving someone a fresh start without prejudice after they've paid their debt to society, part of the value of those links is that they shed light on Terryeo's ongoing behavior on talk pages and policy pages. And they may help you to better understand the climate in the scientology articles that Terryeo helped to create. I have no reason to treat Terryeo here except as a Wikipedia editor; personally, I've enjoyed some of my exchanges with him and I wish him well in life. But as a Wikipedia editor, I've pretty much lost hope that he will mutate into a competent one during this lifetime, and I think the evidence for my conclusion is very strong. I think your inference that I'm unjustly trying to saddle him with pariah status is itself very unjust. BTfromLA 01:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
To the degree that I thought he was being outcast, I got that from the concept that I had hurt my credibility by associating with him. I would think that such a fear would be reserved for associating with an outcast or a criminal. It was my very association with him and my treating him as an equal that seemed to have endangered my credibility. I think that we call people that we warn others against associating with "pariah". I did not mean to hurt your feelings as I have had nothing but good dealings with you. I take issue that my credibility is harmed by dealing with him in an aboveboard manner. Here is the line; "Enlisting Terryeo to sneak around his ban (indeed, teaming with Terryeo at all) undermines his credibility". We have already put "sneak" to bed so we are left with the idea that my suggestion that he might enjoy editing the history of psychiatry is "enlisting" and "teaming with" him. It is not but what would be so wrong if it were? If he can, within his understanding of his ban, edit that article in a manner that will bear scrutiny then I encourage him to do so. Why should I not? I even gave him some advice to aid him in that. Again, why would I not? Being challenged on that is where I get the idea that he is outcast. If I overstated it a bit it might be because you are challenging the credibility I worked hard to build and I think that is truly "unjust". --Justanother 01:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
In my view, Terryeo, in his role as a representative of Scientology at Wikipedia, has made your task here far more difficult than it would be had he never become involved. If you took the time to look into it, I'm confident you'd see what I mean; you probably have some sense from what you have seen on the talk pages, both in terms of Terryeo's behavior and the distrust that he arouses among many editors who have dealt with him in the past. I certainly have no objection to your associating with Terryeo or treating him as an equal--of course not. My concern was specifically about your suggesting that he introduce a Scientology POV into articles. Terryeo has been banned from editing Scientology-related articles, and as far as I can see, the ban was for very good reason, and he has produced little evidence to suggest that he has rectified his approach to editing, and considerable evidence to the contrary. Clear enough?--I hope we can move off this point soon. BTfromLA 02:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, we can wrap it up. I still take issue that I could damage my credibility by saying what I did to terryeo. Our credibility is established primarily by our edits and how we deal with others over those edits. To use my communication to terryeo on his talk page over a common interest to call my credibility into question is unfair and did not need to be brought up, IMO. To say more will dilute my point so I will not. --Justanother 03:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think we understand each other. BTfromLA 04:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hail Ralph! --Justanother 04:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Wish I could get this much discussion over something important. --Justanother 04:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If BTfromLA and I were part of a cult called "Ralphism" that held that all dentists were holographic entities from the planet Googone, sent here to wage intergalactic war against our saviour Ralph (a sentient head of Lettuce), I think it would be just as troubling if I suggested to him that we start subtly and slowly editing the dentistry article to address our own POV's perceived "whitewashing" of the secret history of dentistry, yes? wikipediatrix 22:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, but what if the history is neither secret nor difficult to document. What if the history is simply their history and it is not addressed here. A person's motivation for editing does not matter. We all have motivation. You want to bar terryeo from a non-banned article because you don't like his motivation? Why not look at his edits? Either they are WP:NPOV and WP:V or they are not. Either terryeo can handle it or he can't. If he can't that will soon be evident. Assuming he even desires to edit there. I was simply making a point to him that the history is just not there. Do you think that actual and verifiable history should be left out? ps I have Goo Gone on the workbench next to me, great stuff. --Justanother 22:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This may be difficult for you to wrap your head around, but unlike Terryeo, I do NOT edit from a POV or a motivation. I am not anti-Scientology, believe it or not. I'll keep an open mind (and eye) on what you consider to be relevant additions to the history section of the Psychiatry article, but my only concern is that information be properly sourced and weighted. (and yes, Goo Gone rules, I agree) wikipediatrix 22:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I am pretty good at wrapping my head around things. And I have noticed some nice edits you made recently and was going to mention them to you but was afraid you might think I was patronizing you. But I would probably classify you as one of the editors I refer to in another post; trying to do the best you can and be fair with material that makes little sense to you. Would you edit string theory from that POV (and yes, that is a POV)? Of course not. If I may, you edit Scientology by default, i.e. since no-one else seems to be doing it. I don't know why you edit Scientology articles and neither do I know how much you have contributed to them. I would be curious to know the why, however. --Justanother 23:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is objecting to introducing well-sourced info about the history of atrocities that have been performed in the name of mental health in the appropriate articles in a proportionately appropriate manner. The question is whether Terryeo, banned from editing Scientology-related articles, should be the one to do it. I'd say no--in the context of his ban, it counts as Scientology-related content. If CCHR wants to send somebody else in to take on the psychiatry articles, fine. Hail Ralph. BTfromLA 23:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, that is terryeo's call, not mine. Whether he is interested in editing there, whether he thinks it would violate his ban, whether he wants to argue the point. Hail Xenu! --Justanother 23:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your prior comment: on the contrary, I own - and have read - almost every Scientology/Dianetics book there is (plus many recorded lectures) and I understand Scientology and Dianetics extremely well - more so, in fact, than anyone I've met who professes to be a Scientologist. (I actually met a Scientologist once who had been in the Church for a decade yet could not function in a discussion about the details of the Tone Scale or the Bridge to Total Freedom chart.) So the idea that the "material makes little sense" to me is a nice attempt at condescention, but it won't wash. BT's talk page isn't the place, but if you want to continue this line of thought elsewhere we can. wikipediatrix 23:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Now you see, I can't do anything right (smile). Sorry, I was not intending to be condescending. I came up with that description based on how much of the material here strikes me. If it is not true of you then I apologize for including you. OK, I won't discuss it further here; perhaps elsewhere, later. --Justanother 00:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a representative

I've said that I don't represent anyone and don't represent any organization. I edit without the approval of any organization and, as far as I know, without the knowledge of any organization. The reason I state this again is because of these two comments in the foregoing discussion.

  • In my view, Terryeo, in his role as a representative of Scientology at Wikipedia ... BTfromLA, 30 October 2006
  • If CCHR wants to send somebody else in to take on the psychiatry articles, fine. Hail Ralph. BTfromLA, 29 October 2006 Terryeo 18:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You represent Scientology to the extent that you present yourself here as a Scientologist. In other words, you represent Scientology by being an active example of a committed Scientologist. Being a representative of Scientology in that sense does not imply that you are an official agent of the church of scientology. I doubt that anyone (but you, I guess) took my remarks otherwise: you can ask Justanother, whom I was addressing, if he was confused about my intended meaning. By the way, Wikipedia has a high enough profile that I think it's a safe bet that Scientology muckety-mucks are aware of your presence here, don't you? BTfromLA 18:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I had no problem with the CCHR one, BT was clear to me, he meant if CCHR wants to send someone in that person could have a chance to screw up (joke) but you, terryeo, can't try. I am not familiar with the other. --Justanother 18:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding, BT. Thank you further for stating that you were aware that I did not represent an organization. And I see that Justanother understood what BT was saying, also. In regards to what Scientology muckety-mucks are aware of, well, I simply have no information about that at all. Terryeo 18:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Justanother, here's the full "representative" line Terryeo was concerned about, perhaps you'll remember it: "In my view, Terryeo, in his role as a representative of Scientology at Wikipedia, has made your task here far more difficult than it would be had he never become involved." BTfromLA 18:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, of course. I should say that I, for one, would bristle a bit at being termed "a representative of Scientology at Wikipedia" (not that anyone has called me one) because, to many, Scn and CoS are synonymous. I prefer simply "a Scientologist". I DO consider that my behavior here should reflect well on Scientology as a workable philosophy but that should be true of anyone, their behavior should reflect well on what they support or affirm. --Justanother 18:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

While I may have taken that one to be the amorphous, "we all represent what we espouse", I seem to recall thinking that you were hinting at an official capacity. But I really did not give it much thought at the time. --Justanother 18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If there was a hint at official blessing, I suppose it was in the mention of "Dev-T." This has been an ongoing debate re: Terryeo--the extent to which his distractions and confusions at Wikipedia are deliberately planned. But he's consistently maintained he has no connection with OSA or any such, and I see no reason to challenge that claim. And I did mean the earlier statement in exactly the "we represent what we espouse" manner in which you took it. Terryeo often sounds an alarm when any term is applied to him or his statements--he objects to being characterized as making a claim or holding a belief or offering an argument, etc. You can see how this, itself, could be interpreted as "Dev-T" BTfromLA 19:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Okey-Dokey. I decided very early on that, for me, it would save a lot of "Dev-T" if I just got the "what is your POV, what is your agenda" questions out of the way. If, by now, anyone that is interested in my POV does not know exactly what it is (as well as I can pin it down myself) then they need only ask. Regarding my agenda, it seems to be gelling as I don't like to see Scn misrepresented and I think that deliberate misrepresentation by critics has carried over to here, often by well-meaning editors using material from critical sites and discounting material from CoS sites. While that might be correct for reporting on the misdeeds, I think that if we want to describe a touch assist we should first look at source materials, CoS materials. Then, a criticism of the assist can be offered if the criticism is notable. --Justanother 19:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm off to work... I'll try to look in and make a further comment this evening. BTfromLA 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Later. One example I know is still around is the "screaming at the ashtray" thing (TR-8). That is total misrepresentation of an exercise that makes a lot of sense (learning that intention in communication is NOT a function of volume). I will fix that one one day soon. --Justanother 19:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terryeo permablocked

I've just permablocked Terryeo. Wandering by WP:ANI and verifying that the situation is as I described might be helpful. Phil Sandifer 17:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Slightlyright

Too early for a CheckUser at this time, but User:Slightlyright is the latest Scientology gallery duck to pop up. Apparently originally posting as 24.18.239.151, starting about 4 hours after Terryeo's final post. May have nothing to do with Terryeo at all, but this brand-new user has jumped in swinging, well-versed in Wikipedia terminology and on the major attack towards me. See this. wikipediatrix 17:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/t/f/User_talk%7EBTfromLA_archive_ef31.html"