User talk:Raymond Hill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

[edit] Scientology

Placed answer on my talk page.--Nomen Nescio 18:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Have copied your comment to the talk page of scientology. Seems to me others might want to discuss too. Please continue at that location. Thanks.--Nomen Nescio 21:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

cool, thanks for the acknowledgement Terryeo 00:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Raymond, check my comments here. Sysrpl 19:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] engram

Povmec, you placed this comment in the engram article. It is not cited. It implies you know what you are talking about and therefore, people should simply take your word for the statement. Quit removing good information to replace it with original research with no verification mentioned. It is against Wiki Policy. Here is what you inserted and it has no citation to it:

The term engram has been pseudoscientifically recycled in fringe practices such as Dianetics, NLP and EST.

Get a clue, if you want to state that the word "engram" is used by EST, NLP or Dianetics then you are going to need to provide some verification. My main arguement is not whether "engram" is used in 10,000 ways by 10,000 groups, but that it has a particular and specific meaning in Dianetics. I intend that meaning be present.Terryeo 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, why would you not wish to see "engram" used by Dianetics? The word is going to be all over the Dianetics article, it is very very basic in use and concept, necessary to understand before anyone uses Dianetics. It is a memory. There is some slight difference whether the memory has or doesn't have a physical body manifestation. There is no other difference. Dianetics doesn't care, it doesn't posit, it pays no attention to whether a body has changed or has not changed as a result of a memory. What is your issue with including this very,very straightforeward but slightly specialized definition of "engram" that Diantics uses? Terryeo 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind whether or not Dianetics uses the term engram. It is important though to note that Dianetics has no scientific basis as of now, and thus their definition of engram is thus different from the original use. Keep in mind also that engrams are really define as body thetans at higher level of Scientology, a religion, nothing to do with science. Povmec 05:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

At LAST! you are talking ! We do need to resolve this somehow. It is perfectly okay with me whatever your opinion of Dianetics is. Call it witchcraft, I don't care. What I do care about is the definition that is placed in the Engram article re: Dianetics. You are dispersing and not defining. I say "Dianetics uses the word like this" and you say, "Dianetics is witchcraft" I say, "Dianetics uses the word to mean this" and you say, "Dianetics is pseudoscience." Your opinion (which is original research unless cited) is perfectly okay, whatever it is. That is not the issue to be addressed on the Engram article. I started with a small, one line, 10 word sentence. Because you can not tolerate, "Dianetics uses the word to mean memory, but doesn't posit a physical change" then you seem !compelled! to toss in additional information about Dianetics. Why would additional information about Dianetics be needed there? Terryeo 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Engram

With all due respects, I would prefer an independant neutral source to take care of this issue. Thank you. Povmec 17:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Povmec: Why of course, if that is your preference, I shall respect that; I'll assign someone else from the Mediation Cabal to handle this. I would never, of course, use mediation to expound my point of view, but indeed I can perfectly understand your concerns in this regard. All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Dianetics

Alas ! Once again it appears we have a conflict of sorts. The Dianetics article does not (my opinion) introduce Dianetics. But when I edit the introduction to introduce Dianetics per Wikipedia:Introductions you revert my edits to an earlier page which does not (my opinion) introduce Dianetics. Would it be possible to establish communication about this matter ? Terryeo 15:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

HELLO? ANYONE HOME? Can we talk? BTW, that's a good cite, that psychology cite.Terryeo 06:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Engram disambig

Just a very minor point - usually lists of articles in disambigs are placed alphabetically, not in order of mainstream/non-mainstream usage. I won't revert, but I just thought you might wish to know for future as per the Manual of Style. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually took time to go around and look at other disambiguations, and I saw that the alphabetical order that I noticed you used didn't seem to be a rule. I thought the most common definitions should appear first as they are the most likely to be what the reader is looking for. Povmec 05:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a point, so I've helpfully put a common dictionary definition into the disambiguation because, of course, it is the most common definition :) Terryeo 15:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule, Engram

Hello there Povmec: I just thought I would remind you about the WP:3RR policy, which states that no editor may revert an article in whole or in part more than three times in twenty-four hours. Also, I would be really grateful if you would please try not to edit war with Terryeo - I have never seen edit warring to be productive, and I think collaborative discussion rather than reversion would be a far better way of deciding this matter. Thank you, and all the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas, I didn't and wasn't planning to break the three revert rule. That is why last time I chose to ask for a mediator. I may chose to do so this time too. Regards. Povmec 22:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Povmec: I am most sincerely sorry; I merely pointed it out since you'd made three reverts, and I didn't want you to get blocked because you didn't know about the 3RR. As for mediation - would you like me to assign someone else from the Mediation Cabal to this matter? If so, please do ask me and I'll have someone assigned as soon as possible; I was under the impression that the case had been closed, although perhaps I misunderstood you. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Scientology controversy

Alas, first engram, then Dianetics, now Scientology controversy. A sentence in there states the Church of Scientology sought sympathy by taking out advertisements about the holocaust. The sentence is not cited. Therefore it is not to appear in a wiki article. If it has a source of information which states something like: "The church of scientology, seeking sympathy from readers ...." then the statement should appear. Per WP:CITE I have twice removed it and twice you have reverted it Pomec. You have refused to communicate with me about the engram article, snuck it off to arbitration without communication though I attempted in several ways to communicate with you. Then, you refuse to talk with me about reverting the dianetics edits, now the Scientology Controversy edits. Do you not see how it might be a tiny bit helpful to communicate in these areas before 3 edits back and forth for several days? Before submissions to arbitration? What is the problem? No citation, no inclusioins. That's Wiki NPOV. Terryeo 17:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Fact 1: I reverted once. Fact 2: I agreed with you for the "The church of scientology, seeking sympathy from readers ....", as seen on the talk page of Scientology controversy, and proposed another wording. Povmec 18:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Engram (copied from NicholasTurnbull's talk page)

Okay, I'll leave the disambiuation page, engram, as it is then. Povmec has made the point about reducing external links and I agree, its policy after all. But how would you all feel about a wiktionary link to "engram" if it were defined there? Terryeo 13:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, there is no need to put anything else on the disambiguation page, it is there to redirect the user to one of the three definitions. Adding a short definition at the top would defeat the purpose of not misleading the reader, as it would imply that this short definition applies to all three items in the disambiguation. Refer to other typical disambiguation pages, their purposes are strictly for disambiguation, nothing else. Povmec 15:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I see so much difference between the 4 uses of engram that it would make sense to me for a reader to see that the several specialties which use the word all use it in ways differing from the commonly known, dictionary meaning. But, while I feel it appropriate, I don't expect you to feel as I do. I feel you are mistaken in this matter. Terryeo 15:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I see three uses for the word, not four. The definitions you provided are actually redundant to the first item in the disambiguation list, I didn't and still don't see the point of that redundancy. I will invite you to visit Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages), and the many disambiguation pages Category:Disambiguation. Povmec 15:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually you won't invite me. You submited it to arbitration and are stuck with the result. I view four and have feelings which I have stated above. :) Terryeo 16:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not submitted for abritration. I said "I may..." if the issue persists. And even if something is submitted for arbitration, I believe that a reasonable discussion can still go on, as maybe an agreement can be reached despite the arbitration. Povmec 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!Terryeo 18:46, 17 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 19:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I doubt Terryeo would see me as less partial, since I already requested for mediation in the past concerning the Engram article, in which I clearly stated my position that for me Dianetics is a pseudoscience, and that it was wrong to mislead the reader into believing the opposite, by somehow associating the Dianetics' engram with the mainstream definition. I would accept to be a party for the opinion that Dianetics has not scientific basis though, if this is what you are asking me. Raymond Hill 05:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I will strongly contest every verification that is unpublished, but my action should not be necessary. Your good editing should only present published, good sources which are unimpeachable. Why would anyone tred on the skirts of impeachability? What do you gain? Frankly everyone is talking fine in Talk:Dianetics and you guys are missing the point to try to bypass the opportunity to convince others of your good intent. By refusing to actually communicate you show yourselves up to be one of two, either too snobby to talk with real people, or, alternatively, sneaks who are not able to communicate with other people. We can talk about these issues. We can agree to include or not include stuff from Dianetics books. Why are you two refusing to talk about what is bugging you, are you afraid your point of view is going to be changed if you actually tell what you think? Terryeo 06:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Man is basically good

POVMEC, thank you for the link to the Assume Good Faith policy, it is a hard policy to always apply especially considering editors who choose not to or cannot display good faith such as: vandalism or: presenting stolen documents and arguing verifiability while modifying policy to support off-policy decisions. --JimmyT 05:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A very well educated "green" user

Hi Raymond (POVmec), how did you learn so much about Wikipedia when your discussion page shows that only about 27 comments have been made to you? I have more than you yet you know more than me. Talk about not fair. BTW what does POVMEC stand for? I'm guessing it is POV Mech. Bye. --JimmyT 05:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether I know more than you is pure speculation, and actually irrelevant. I was just reminding you to be cautious with your comments, as you can't take them away from wikipedia database. As for the "POV Mech" joke (I tried Mech Warrior PC game a long time ago), well frankly, I found it funny (although I am not sure it was meant as a joke.) Really, I'm primarily French-speaking, and this Povmec nick is meaningful only in French, and it's actually demeaning. Raymond Hill 05:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Alight, thanks for the response. I see you are a nice person, although you seem to have a strong POV against Scientology for some reason. The POV Mech wasn't a joke, I really thought that was what it was. Povmec is a demeaning word, or me asking you is demeaning? I'm sorry for be demeaning, I was just curious and will call you Raymond from now. Cheers. --JimmyT 04:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] chance of getting into communication with you?

I see you cited a confidential document on the MEST article. Any chance of getting into communication with you about that sort of contested verification? You probably know the legal status of the document. Do you intend to bring Wikipedia into the "Church of Scientology vs. xxxxx (wikipedia?)" arena? I mean, we got a good thing going here on wikipedia, why not follow WP:V and use unimpeachable sources? What gain is there in doing as you have done in the MEST article? Terryeo 06:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comments - Terryeo

I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thetan

I suggest you discuss things on the Thetan talk page before you revert. --JimmyT 13:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I did, I'm just a slow writer. Raymond Hill 13:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

Raymond you may be interested in the personal attacks made against you here ^POW! 15:01, 22 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] Xenu.net

Regarding your post to me on my discussion page, thank you for communicating. You said: "The web site itself is not the source, it just happened to host the referenced material. You're not manifesting intellectual honesty in claiming the web site is the source." and I understand that is the actual, valid case. The man does not author and source the information on his website. According to several helpful editors, the man accepts contributions of information from a number of persons, including some who edit here on Wikipedia. No arguement. So how is it that Wikipedia guidelines forbid a Personal Website to be used as a secondary source of information? Well, it has to do with the quality of information. On a personal website might be an Authenthic Copy of a document, complete down to a smudge mark which appears on the original copy but which is excluded from public copies. At the same time, any information of any quality at all might appear on such a site. The Xenu site can equally well post, "Hubbard said the moon is made of green cheese" or can equally well post, "80,000 Priests were involved with little green aliens" or simply anything at all. A personal website has no standard which it must meet. Therefore, personal websites are forbidden from being used as secondary sources. WP:RS Terryeo 14:55, 22 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. [1] 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)

Yep, I did that. As many editors do and as Feldspar himself says he will do, under conditions he specifies on his User Discussion Page, I edit my User discussion page intead of archiving it. I removed Feldspar's posting to me for reasons which I spell out. I've also received advise, rather than delete the language which I object to (verged on personal attack and at the very least wasn't wholly civil) I should simply delete the whole of the message. So I guess I'll go with that method. In any event, when Feldspar later posted a civil message I replied to it. About your notification on my page, Raymond? Thanks for letting me know. If you wish to discuss the basis of my stating what I did, I'll be glad to. On the other hand, the statement was etheral. It was on the servers and then, after the person it had been directed to had recovered from a crude wiki administrator attack, that administrator permanenetly removed it. You've a point though, nothing is served by mentioning it. BTW, have you seen the efforts people have been making at WP:RS in regard to keeping the holy grail of Clambake.org in the Scientology articles? Fahrenheit451 did 27 edits of the guideline. Terryeo 17:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Essay

Raymond, no problems regarding the essay. Glad you liked it! -- ChrisO 16:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for gross and repeated violation of personal attack parole

(my portion of discussion copied from Terryeo's talk page, which was swiftly deleted)

Terryeo, about your comment to Antaeus, I read it as an hostile comment, and this certainly is supported by your past behavior here (and by this section on your current user page). Of course, playing the victim is way easier than getting an insight into why you are having problems with so many different people here at wikipedia. Now, take a pause, and genuinely and sincerely analyze your past behavior, especially what has been reported to the arbitration committee, point by point. Emotional attachment to any belief system shouldn't supersede personal integrity and intellectual honesty, otherwise the result is to get you in the position you are in now on wikipedia. Raymond Hill 19:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Cheers Raymond, and sorry for the extra work, I know you have plenty to do. It was just a general call for reality maintenance on the NLP article. The U.S. Empire has manage to ban us. No Dogs or Chinese allowed there any more. All the best. HongKongMasterofSci 05:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks also

Hi Raymond. Yes I did catch that St. Pete Times article and cited it yesterday.--Fahrenheit451 17:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuview

Well, he's been told over and over and over again that he simply cannot remove well-sourced information because he doesn't choose to believe it himself, but he just keeps on doing it. Is it getting to the point where we have to RfC? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We can already gather a list of his bad faith edits and see what we get. I see you have warned him already, so this warning along with the list of edits maybe will be taken seriously enough this time. Raymond Hill 13:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a list of his bad faith edits, I will send it to you later. Raymond Hill 13:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation request

Hi, I recieved a mediation cabal request from Lerix regarding your removal of some of his links. It would be much appreciated if you could clarify the situation on the discussion page here.--02barryc 22:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

Your post on 1 September 2006 to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#unreliable radio talk show seems to say that you placed material in the R2-45 article on the basis of a quote you read, supposedly from Maclean's, which you read on a Usenet posting. Usenet postings are unreliable, so I request that you remove the material from the article until such time as you have a copy of the relevant Maclean's magazine in you hands and read the material from that reliable source. --Gerry Ashton 16:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just so that you understand, Mr. Hill

User:ChrisO states that I have personally attacked you. He stated so on my user page, he stated so on the clerk's user page (Tony) and he stated so on the administrator's notice board. No one else read my post about your citation (to the Maclean's article) as a personal attack and I did not make a personal attack. Just so you understand, okay?

However, I can not consider any posting to a piece of information which was transmitted via newsgroup to be a reliable piece of information. Obviously every person who posts to anti-scientology newsgroups is motivated by an urge toward causing Scientology to appear in a bad way. Obviously. I do understand that you consider it trival to the information posted, but I consider it important to the information posted. I understand you can consider such information trusthworthy and whole. I do not. I am not attempting to convince you of my point of view and I don't really expect you could convince me of yours.
In regard to your using your personal website as a source of reference, secondary source of reference within a wikipedia article. I don't believe it is appropriate. This is not a personal attack, but I am stating I do not feel it is appropriate for any person to use their personal website as a secondary source of information in almost any situation. But most especially not in any area of contention, such as religion or politics. I consider that you have made a mistake in doing so. Still, you are not the only person who does so. I have seen, for example, User:ChrisO cite his own posted newsgroup messages. Again, to state a situation exists is not a personal attack. If a concensus of editors allows that any person may freely cite their personal website as secondary sources then I'll go along with that, too.

Terryeo 18:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, in your comment you stated "thus increasing his personal website traffic" which is an innuendo that the motivation for my edit was driven by a desire to increase traffic. I can see this to be questionable, and I don't mind explaining. But note that my answer to you was before I saw your summary edit, which is a clear accusation, not an innuendo: "one additional point about Raymond Hill's use of Wikipedia to increase his personal website traffic." Summary edits are permanent, they can't be changed. Therefore it was entirely appropriate for ChrisO to see a personal attack in your comments. Please, refrain from using my good natured answer to you as an argument to discredit ChrisO's actions: you did actually mischaracterized my edit as a selfish act of increasing web traffic.
Note that the conclusion seems to be that the Maclean's article is probably valid, but we just can't trust the usenet transcript. I find it interesting that the cite would not have been disputed if I didn't mention where I found it. Antaeus and BTfromLA brought interesting arguments ^{[2], [3]} which I think needs to be explored further. Raymond Hill 19:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Hill wrote "note that the conclusion seems to be that the Maclean's article is probably valid, but we just can't trust the usenet transcript." I believe that conclusion was formed at a time when it was presumed that Mr. Hill had actually read the Maclean's article, and had merely provided a link so that those who don't have access to old issues of Maclean's could read a less reliable version. But thanks to Mr. Hill's candor we now know that none of the editors involved has ever seen the Maclean's article. Maybe Maclean's never ran an article on this subject. Maybe it's just another Internet myth. Mr. Hill should remove the material from the article until he obtains the appropriate issue of Maclean's and verifies the article. --Gerry Ashton 21:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference as you requested before I posted my answer to Terryeo above. The faulty reference was currently associated with the following sentence: «While representatives of the Church of Scientology have publicly acknowledged that "Auditing Process R2-45" refers to "someone being killed and [their spirit] leaving the body", they insist that it was presented as a "jest" or "joke" by Hubbard.» I believe this sentence doesn't need to be removed, as there is another reliable source which has not been disputed so far. Are you saying that this sentence should be removed? If so, I disagree. Raymond Hill 22:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/y/User_talk%7ERaymond_Hill_bdd1.html"