User talk:Terryeo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Consensus or Assimilation, make your decision today !. Happy Ho Ho's Archive 1

Contents

Re: Seeking advice

Hi. I replied to you on my talk page. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Terryeo 17:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

templates

When warning vandals, type {{subst: testX}}, with X going from 1 to 4. If the vandal has been warned with test1, test2 and test3/4 and has vandalised again, you can then report him at [[1]], and he will be quickly (15 min in my experience) stopped. There are dozens of templates that can be used in other situations, see [[2]]. This applies to IP adresses too. Yandman 07:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is turning out to be a textbook case in anti-vandalism. When you have warned a vandal, make sure you check their contributions regularly. This one then went one to vandalise your userspace: [[3]], earning himself a somewhat stronger warning. Yandman 08:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your question

From wikipedia talk:Verifiability:

  1. Your remark: 20:07, 22 September 2006
  2. My answer: 06:53, 23 September 2006 (see second point of my answer)
  3. Obviously, you don't like the answer and start a new section on the same topic: 20:55, 24 September 2006 - obviously, also, to make this one of your new never-ending discussion points that only disturb, while from early on it is quite apparent that on average the idea isn't received with enthousiasm.

So, yes, I'm getting tired from your way of proceeding to try bend core policies your way. We all know you have an axe to grind on Scientology, and if you're not attempting to rewrite policies in a way that they would be more favourable to the Scientology way of looking at things, you're at least trying out how much control you can get over wikipedia's core (and other) policies and guidelines. If you can't contribute to Wikipedia's content in the way required by the current policies and guidelines (which in your case has already been proven by ArbCom in the context of Scientology articles), then maybe, it may cross your mind that you don't fit in, or in other words don't have the mindset, for encyclopedia-writing. While for you it appears to be utterly and completely impossible to look at things in another way than through the goggles of Scientology, and that's, I'm sure even if you aren't, the reason why you want the Verifiability/truth distinction out of WP:V. Sorry for the maybe harsh words, next step would be asking to re-open your ArbCom, while the disturbance that was treated in that case obviously only has spread to numerous policy and guideline pages since you were banned from editing Scientology articles. --Francis Schonken 23:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Francis Schonken, it is my personal opinion that policy and guideline are written in a manner that certain critical editors are able to misunderstand and thence present newsgroup cites, personal opinion on personal website cites, and unreliable sources of other means as well. It is my personal opinion that Wikipedia intent would produce good and balanced articles in every instance, and with very little edit warring, personal incivility, etc if only the policies and guidelines were more smoothly written. In the instance of WP:V's verifiability, not truth, we have the core idea which is implied by WP:NPOV, we have it spelled out. Unfortunately, as it is spelled out we have the jarring and emotionally laden "truthtm" juxtaposed right next to it. The statement as it stands can be misunderstood in a variety of ways. The bottom end of the WP:V discussion page tells of some concerns which revolve around the statement. Terryeo 03:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Information

Hi Terryeo, thanks for your note. You're mixing up a number of issues. The words "inform" and "information" carry with them the implication that the material conveyed is correct i.e. is a fact, is about an actual state of affairs. If I say: "Saddam Hussein won the Iraq War," I am not informing you. I am conveying something to you (in this case, a false proposition), but I am not passing information to you, because there is no such thing as "false information." This is an expression that is used a lot, casually, but it's a contradiction. Similarly, if I convey to you an argument, I am also not "informing" you, unless the argument reflects an actual state of affairs. The argument: "Socrates was a man. All men are human. Therefore, Socrates was human" tells you about an actual state of affairs, and therefore counts as "information." But the equally valid argument: "Socrates was a woman. All women are sheep. Therefore, Socrates was a sheep" contains no information; it does not reflect an actual state of affairs.

That's why the sentence: "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments in Wikipedia must be reliably sourced" is more accurate than "Information in Wikipedia must be reliably sourced," because information is a subset of "facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments," and all must be reliably sourced, not just one subset. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A well-formed, true proposition will convey information, and a false one won't. The example you gave "People have red hair" has an invisible (an understood) word. If it's "Some people have red hair" it's true and counts as information. If it's "All people have red hair," it's false and doesn't count as information. So it's not a question of, as you said, "some information may be utterly wholly, demonstrably valid and ... other information might be valid only 2 percent of the time." It's a question of writing clearly so that, if we are trying to convey information, we make sure that what we say is true, because if it isn't, it's not information. The proposition "People have red hair" is incomplete, and we can't judge its truth until we know what the missing word is; it's therefore an example of the kind of sentence we should avoid writing when we're editing articles. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're perhaps confusing the issue of truth/information with the issue of unclear writing. The sentence "Scientology is helpful" is unclear and as such conveys no information. Helpful in what way? Helpful to whom? Once the sentence is properly written, then we can say whether it's true or not (whether it is informative or not). "Scientology is helpful to Terryeo, in the sense that he's happier with it than without it" = true, informative. "Scientology is helpful to the Wikipedia ArbCom in the sense that they're happier with it than without it" = untrue, not informative. The key thing to remember is that for material to count as "information," it must reflect an actual state of affairs. Any examples you find that appear ambiguous are almost certainly to do with unclear writing, so it's a question of unpacking the sentence to find out what the propositions are i.e. what is actually being said/proposed. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You're overlooking that the word "information" has a meaning, and the meaning includes that the material reflect an actual state of affairs in the world. You can't say it means whatever you want it to mean. Just as you can't "inform" someone by telling them an untruth, you can't "know" something that is false. It's not a question of valid or invalid, but of true and false (valid isn't the same as true). SlimVirgin (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
For something to be an object of knowledge, it has to be true (a true and justified belief). If you tell me what you had for breakfast last week, and if what you are saying is correct, and if I have reason to believe you, I can be said to "know" what you had for breakfast, and your statement about what you had for breakfast counts as "information." But on the other hand, if I say I "know" God exists, and if it is later shown that God does, in fact, exist, I still couldn't be said to have "known" it when I said it, because my belief, though it turned out to be true, was not justified i.e. I had no good reason to believe it. Unless of course, I said that I knew it because God himself told me, which would make it true and justified, unless you had reason to believe I was mad and had only imagined God telling me this. In other words, it's complicated. :-)
It's best not to rely on dictionaries for words like this, and if you do, use only the best ones e.g. the full OED, not any of the condensed or online versions. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

May I ask a question about Scientologists and "SPs"?

Terryeo, I've long been curious about something, and I hope that I can phrase this in a way that doesn't offend you. My reading about Scientologists leads me to understand that Scientologists are, in general, strongly discouraged by the Church from voluntarily associating with those declared "Suppresive Persons" or "Potential Trouble Sources." I assume that this would especially apply to associations that focus on critical discussions of Scientology. I also assume that this policy would extend to discouraging protracted interaction with those who you believe to be SPs (or PTSs), even if they haven't been officially "declared." You have made it clear that you believe that many of the editors on the Scientology articles at Wikipedia are SPs (see you user page, for example). You have also stated that you are a "public" Scientologist acting independently, not affiliated with any of the Church's agencies that might assign people to "handle" critical material about Scientology that appears on the internet. What I don't understand, then, is how to reconcile the Scientology policies about keeping away from SPs with your regular consorting with people you believe to be SPs here at Wikipedia. Isn't that a Scientology policy violation on your part? BTfromLA 16:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I read your question to be, "aren't you violating Church policy". Is that the question you mean to ask me? Terryeo 16:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
First, thanks for responding and not just deleting the question. Yes, "aren't you violating Church policy?" is a good way to rephrase it. I'll probably have some follow-ups in order to clarify my understanding of your reasoning, which you may be able to anticipate. BTfromLA 17:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The short answer is "no" and the long answer is "no" but requires an understanding of the relationship of Church policy to the individual who declares himself to follow the teachings of the Church.
How about the long answer that specfies your understanding of that relationship? BTfromLA 17:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
"Scientologist" is a self declare. A person may study vast amounts of information and even pay a fee and join the International Church of Scientology (which results in savings over the long term) and not declare themselves to "be a Scientologist". Therefore, because it is a self chosen position, any action taken by such an individual who has declared himself to "be a Scientologist" is an act of his own volition. To be specific, if the Church had declared that "Scientologists shall not eat meat on Fridays" then my complience with that decree would be voluntary because I could declare myself to be a Scientologist on Friday after dinner and change my mind before dinner on the following Friday and then change my mind after I had eaten meat on Friday, to become, once again, a Scientologist. It is a voluntary position. That said, the Church's Suppressive Person technology rarely intrudes into an individual Scientologist's daily action. There have been a very rare handful of people who have (according to the articles but not according to my personal knowledge) been required to disconnect from declared Suppressive Persons. I don't expect such an order to come my way. How things normally work and how they work for me is that I read Church stuff, if it makes sense then I use it. The technology about PTS and Suppressive Persons is helpful because I don't waste my time so easily. Terryeo 17:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused by your response. Are you saying that you decide to stop being a Scientologist and frolic with SPs when you come to Wikipedia, then decide to become a Scientologist again in your off-hours? I don't really think that's what you mean, but it seems to be what that "meat of Friday" analogy suggests. Voluntary though it may be, aren't Scientologists strongly counselled to avoid consorting with SPs and PTSs? BTfromLA 18:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to cause confusion. A person is a father when he begats a child. A person is a "First Babtist" when he is babtized. But a person is a Scientologist when he declares himself to be, and not a Scientologist if he declares himself not to be. There is no act, there is no further or lesser recognition by the Church because a person declares himself to be, or to not be, a Scientologist. So, therefore, I am as free to follow Church policy as you are free to not follow Church policy. I say this to make a short answer, "no" more clear and not to cause confusion. But I think you are not asking about my freedom in following or not following Church policy. The Suppressive Person technology tells you what to expect from an SP and spells out that you're not going to be producing anything that will better mankind by associating with one. A Suppressive Person Declare is something that has never effected anyone I've been around, I've no experience with one. Again, I don't call editing Wikpedia to be an "association" except by a very loose interpretation. PTS tech is another sort of thing though because about 1 person in 5 is likely to be, to some degree and about something, likely to be PTS. The tech tells how to productively deal with that, not how to avoid that. Does this answer respond to your question? Terryeo 18:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
That gets closer. So, is it your belief that the Church of Scientology would find it acceptible for their members to read and post messages at xenu.net? Have you any familiarity with the software some scientologists have been provided that blocks their computer from accessing such sites? BTfromLA 20:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen or known of any direction by the Church to post at Xenu.net or not to post at Xenu.net. I've no information about that, directly. I frankly don't know. In general I would guess the Church would not encourage that, but that's a guess. Terryeo 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I find the idea amusing. Any Scientologist may do any damn thing they wish to. The Church doesn't impose artificial restraints, though the Suppressive Person article might make it sound like the Church does. There might, on rare occassion, be an order issued to someone about disconnection. I don't know that, myself and haven't talked with anyone who knew of such a situation, but that might be possible. For a Scientologist to post as Xenu.net, why not? Its about individuality and an increase in individual freedom. Its not about constraint and not about "keep your fingers out of that pie and don't tred near that slim pit. heh. Terryeo 21:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question BT and interesting responses from Terryeo. My experience is that, like many things in Scn, if it doesn't cause a problem then it isn't a problem. To do elsewise is a Scn no-no called "inspection before the fact". This is why active gays can go up the Bridge; if it isn't a problem then it would not be a problem. It is my experience though that the second time you are late for course or didn't get enough sleep for a session and find yourself routed to ethics then it will become a problem and you will have to "handle or disconnect" and if we are talking declared SPs, my guess is it will be disconnect as a Declared SP's only terminal is an Ethics Officer, usually at a high level like Int. Justice. Terryeo, don't mean to offend but I would be surprised if you were actively in the HGC or the Academy with that attitude that Scn policy is optional. My guess is that you are somewhat offlines. And Terryeo, if you have any question about whether Scn has anything to say about the subject of visiting xenu.net, just ask your local DSA. My real guess, Terryeo, is that you are off the radar.--Justanother 22:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never received a specific direction, order, request or suggestion about where to post or what to post anywhere on the internet. And its not because I'm not in communication. I get promo mail, for example. However, only an idiot, a beanbrain, a moron, or a piece of dogfood would attempt to modify Andreas Heldal-Lund's obvious hardlined, critical - to - freedom - of - religion stance by posting at Xenu.net. Call it "off the radar" if you like, its an amusing term. heh ! Terryeo 12:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey Terryeo, don't get me wrong. I LIKE IT that you are a Scientologist and respect you for taking a stand here. I only make the point that you are flying below the official Scn radar because you are not actively in the Academy or HGC. You can pretty much do as you please so long as you don't enturbulate another Scientologist.--Justanother 12:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't get you wrong and understood what you said and am amused, anyway, by the phrase. Terryeo 16:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the Black people article

That editors of that article refuse to cite an actual DEFINITION of a black person from a RELIABLE source. All my life I've heard that Black means having African ancestry so I find it very strange that this article is giving equal weight to the idea that South Asians/Oceanics are Black. South Asians/Oceanic people are not mentioned in any dictionary or census definition of Black I've ever seen.

Here's what the U.S. census says:

A Black is “ a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.”

Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas. And yet we still have editors insisting that South Asians be given equal weight in the article and be considered Black. These people provide no cited definitions or census classifications to defend their assertions, instead they cherry pick from different sources in different countries for examples of South Asians being labeled Black, often in different languages. But by the same logic, I could argue that the Black Irish are Black. The point is the people editing that article need to be forced to adheare to a coherent sourced authoritative definition of a Black person, or the entire article should just be deleted as POV and unencyclopedic.

Dictionary.com[[4]], the free dictionary online[[5]]., the U.S. census[[6]], and the British census[[7]] all emphasize the idea that Blacks are of African origin-in fact it is against the law for a dark-skinned person of South Asian or Australian origin to claim to be black in the census. An article by the BBC makes a clear distinction between Blacks and the dark skinned people of South Asian ancestry[[8]]. This article about race in biomedicines says “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens)."[[9]]. I really need help getting the editors of that article to stick to a coherent definition, instead of just pushing their own POV. Editingoprah

I agree with most of what you have said but kind of doubt it is "against the law" to claim any darn race you choose on the USA census. But I don't know what laws regulate what a person chooses to respond on other country's census. Terryeo 15:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice comments

I just wanted to say that I've appreciated your contributions on the different rule discussions.

Also, I like your change to Consensus the FeloniousMonk reverted. For whatever reason I can't post on the Talk page for WP:CON, so I thought that I would ask you what you think of the following thought I had. Pardon me if it's a bit long, but I respect your opinion.

I would add the following language "Authentic consensus is developed by involving people on all sides of a controversial issue with the aim of creating a more balanced product. The opposite of consensus occurs when only one point of view is permitted; consequently, WP:NPOV is threatened a factional approach that jeopardizes Wikipedia's credibility. Pravknight 04:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Introducing the term, "Authentic consensus" serves to suggest there might exist "unauthentic consensus" which would not be consensus at all but would be some appearence of consensus. Consensus is defined to be general agreement or concord; harmony (though more than 50% approval could be argued to be consensus). "Authentic consensus" is not defined in dictionarys and I would rather it not be introduced except in a context which requires actual consensus to be disambiguated from the appearence of consensus, or a similar and needed disambiguation. Terryeo 15:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If a member of a minority party makes an edit that conforms with WP:RS or WP:V and the language is disagreeable, make every effort to find a middle ground where you can agree upon the language. Being inclusive of everyone who wishes to participate can help reduce the number of edit wars and maintain WP:CIVIL. Consensus=finding common ground." Pravknight 04:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel think we need an agreed upon definition. The word can mean more than one thing. It can mean "majority" or it can mean "general agreement" or it can mean "harmony". If we are unable to agree upon a definition to base the article on, then we can't expect editors to achieve consensus in other articles, either. It is just TOO much, to assume everyone understands "consensus" exactly the same, we need the article to state specifically, what the article's main idea is. Terryeo 15:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a Masters Degree in Training and Organizational Development, and the one thing our professors always emphasized was working to involve differing viewpoints to make a better product. Groupthink scenarios results in consequences like New Coke, the Challenger disaster, the Vietnam War, and our current situation in Iraq. Only allowing a false consensus of one perspective weakens the whole project.Pravknight 04:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Impressive Terryeo 15:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's an enlightening article on Groupthink from a Human Resources magazine:

Helping Your Staff Avoid 'Groupthink' T T T art_print Printart_email Email 16x16-digg-guy Digg It delicious-small del.icio.us

“Groupthink” does not sound like something you’d want your employees engaging in on a regular basis, does it? Indeed, groupthink is a conformist mindset that interferes with creativity and independent thinking.

Groupthink occurs when your staff is more concerned about securing the approval of others than in challenging their coworkers to come up with breakthrough ideas. Of course, you need those breakthrough ideas for your organization to be successful and to stand apart from the competition.

Here are some tips on how to foster creative conflict:

  • Encourage a culture of difference. Your company’s work environment should nourish healthy debate and differences of opinion. In meetings, ask your employees to express their opinions before you share your own. Tell your staff that you want them to speak up when they disagree or have an idea that is different from others in the group.
    Related Articles
    o Resolving Conflicts on the Team
    o Foster a Culture of Creativity in Your Workplace
    o Dealing with Difficult People
    o Making Headlines
    o IN-HOUSE OR OUTSOURCE?
  • See All Related Articles »
    Watch your signals. If you encounter little dissension in your group, think about your own behavior. Do you in some way convey the message that disagreement is bad? When an employee expresses a differing opinion, do you rake them over the coals? If you are unable to pry your employees out of groupthink malaise, ask a team member you trust for their honest feedback on how you come across to your staff.
    Set some guidelines. Setting forth meeting procedures early on is important in combating groupthink. This includes developing an agenda, a clear template for discussion. It also includes sharing your expectation that all employees will speak candidly and that all opinions are to be heard. Healthy debate about ideas and alternatives should be encouraged, while personal attacks should not be permitted.
    Rebuild the group. During a meeting, the process of coming to a decision is often not an easy one. Dissension and conflict, while healthy, can be a tiring process, and it is the fear of this process that is part of the mechanism of groupthink. One way to counteract this is to come to a decision midway through the meeting, saving the last half for a brainstorming session on different issues. This allows people to come together in a creative, unpressured way, so that the group can reconnect.
    Create an anonymous feedback channel. Allow your staff a way to state their views freely without any worry of reprisal. A suggestion box is one constructive solution. Regularly bring up questions and suggestions from the box at weekly meetings and use them as a springboard for discussion. These suggestions can also be brought up in e-mail dialogues.
    Make sure the conflict stays healthy. Of course you want to avoid groupthink. Just make sure that in the process of fostering creative conflict, the tension among your staff doesn’t become negative or nasty. It’s your responsibility to ensure that there is no personal criticism or harsh words being exchanged. If this is the case, talk with your staff and make sure they understand what a healthy difference of opinion means.

Groups of people can often combine their talents, abilities, and experience to come up with the wisest choices. This is why groups, rather than individuals, usually make major decisions in business. But all this depends on overcoming the tendency to conform and cohere to the group. By learning to avoid groupthink, your business is sure to benefit by tapping into the creativity and ingenuity waiting inside everyone." [10] --Pravknight 04:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me that. Terryeo 15:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks

You are notified to stop personally attacking me with false accusations.--Fahrenheit451 17:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA#Remedies states: If you are personally attacked, you should ask the attacker to stop and note this policy. Is it unreasonable to ask you what you are talking about ? I have not personally attacked you. I have not made a false accusation. What are you talking about ? Terryeo 18:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You falsely accused me of uploading a copyrighted high-resolution image at Image_talk:Oec_febc_promo1.png. You know quite well what you have done. Stop your personal attacks. It is a violation of wikipedia policy. --Fahrenheit451 18:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know what you were talking about. On that page you specify what you perceived as a personal attack, you stated: User:Terryeo falsely accuses myself of using a high resolution image and I take this as a personal attack. I was trying to be helpful and stated: A better method of making everything work would be to quote and cite the specific remarks of interest and then cite to the low resolution image. And delete the high resolution image. It seems unfortunate to me that you ignore the solution and focus on something I neither have control of nor have violated policy about. My statement is toward a solution and not toward making you feel attacked. Terryeo 18:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You falsely accuse me of "ignore the solution" when it is your pov solution. I don't appreciate that. If you make the accusation, then define low-resolution and high-resolution. --Fahrenheit451 18:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • IMHO, there is no possible universe in which "Foo has uploaded a high resolution image" can fairly be understood as a personal attack against Foo. TheronJ 18:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the point is that since fair use images must be low-res and not hi-res, the accusation boils down to that an editor is being falsely accused of violating Wikipedia policy, and international copyright policy as well. wikipediatrix 19:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you ask the person who accused me of a personal attack, User:Fahrenheit451 ? It is my understanding his / her accusation is about a personal attack. That is what is stated above in the edit summary, "nice comments" by User:Fahrenheit451 here, the start of it. Terryeo 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

An interesting edit about images occurs here. Terryeo 18:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And your point of stating that is specifically what?--Fahrenheit451 18:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

On one hand you specifically state that I violated WP:NPA which is a fairly serious accusation. You state: You are notified to stop personally attacking me. Your accusation appears to involve my (intended) helpful comment on the image discussion page about high resolution images. On the other hand you appeal to Mr. Wales in an attempt to make your high resolution image acceptable to Wikipedia. Your efforts, User:Fahrenheit451, might be better directed toward modifying Wikipedia to suit your style, rather than toward me. Terryeo 18:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you falsely accuse me uploading a copyrighted high resolution image. Your comment was not helpful, but rather misdirected. It appears to me that YOU have been attempting to modify "Wikipedia to suit your style". 72 dpi is low resolution and again, you falsely accuse me of attempting to "your high resolution image acceptable to Wikipedia." False accusations can be personal attacks. And yes, it is serious. So stop them. --Fahrenheit451 19:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My talk has been in response to your accusation that I made a personal attack against you, User:Fahrenheit451. I did not make a personal attack, though you seem certain that I did. Terryeo 19:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we can discuss as editors, but you must understand that this is not the place for a jihad.--Fahrenheit451 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I understand that. Terryeo 19:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Editors of what? Terryeo's banned from editing Scientology-related content, so he really doesn't have a dog in this fight. wikipediatrix 19:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Nothing much to it. Wikipedia policy and guideline. Terryeo 03:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Another personal attack

Just found this.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scientology#Is_this_a_joke.3F Another example of hostile, false accusatory remarks.--Fahrenheit451 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC) "I understand User:Fahrenheit451, your demonstrated expertise in editing WP:RS (20 edits in 24 hours), your demonstrated expertise on its discussion page (attempted to place the article into an RfC was it?), and the smooth manner in which you got along with all the editors there spell out your familiarity with the guildline. Here is a recent edit on that talk page which addresses your concerns, [10] Terryeo 16:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)"

  • You just found a comment that Terry made to you a month and a half ago, on a page that you edit almost every day? TheronJ 17:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, Fahrenheit451, I don't understand what motivates you to consider almost every word I say to be a personal attack. We are all working toward an encyclopedia that serves mankind (our readers). I've no interest in any kind of punitive action, no interest in your personal involvment with or without Scientology or the Church of Scientology, no interest or connection with anyone who knows you or who has ever known you. Not only do I not have any information, but I don't seek any information in that area. <shrug> I do have an interest in Wikipedia conforming to the direction which will insure it not only survives, but prospers. This means appropriate references, low resolution images (where appropriate), an avoidence of potential legal hassles and well written, well referenced articles. Terryeo 01:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy of response:

Honestly, Fahrenheit451, I don't understand what motivates you to consider almost every word I say to be a personal attack.

That statement is an outright falsehood.--Fahrenheit451 03:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

We are all working toward an encyclopedia that serves mankind (our readers). I've no interest in any kind of punitive action, no interest in your personal involvment with or without Scientology or the Church of Scientology, no interest or connection with anyone who knows you or who has ever known you. Not only do I not have any information, but I don't seek any information in that area. <shrug> I do have an interest in Wikipedia conforming to the direction which will insure it not only survives, but prospers. This means appropriate references, low resolution images (where appropriate), an avoidence of potential legal hassles and well written, well referenced articles. I've placed this on here and on my discussion page where you post to me, as a response to you. Terryeo 01:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it has been established among professionals in the field that 72 dpi is low resolution. Obviously, whoever wrote the code for the image upload pages was operating on faulty data. Again, your accusations were false. --Fahrenheit451 03:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
What accusation ? I quoted the copyright notice and noted the difference between it and the statement placed to the link which said "high resolution image". Terryeo 03:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, the image was NOT high resolution. You failed to check it. I suggest you go back to the discussion if your memory has lapsed on what you stated there.--Fahrenheit451 05:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep commenting to me? That discussion is taking place on the appropriate policy page. Terryeo 07:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The image was on the page. The link read, "high resolution image..." the copyright notice specifically forbids a "high resolution image" You corrected the situation while accusing me of a personal attack, and a false statement and refused to talk with me about the situation. <shrug> I've tried to cool the situation off. Have a nice day. Terryeo 02:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I did nothing to correct the image. It was 72 dpi low resolution and always was. You falsely stated the image was high resolution without even examining the resolution.--Fahrenheit451 03:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The image was deleted, its talk page deleted, your statements, my statements and all the rest have been deleted. Terryeo 23:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the connection...

from your original message here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fourchannel

I don't see the connection. Scientists have used mathematics and measurements to deduce the age of the Universe. The measurements are highly accurate, yet not perfectly accurate. So therefore, scientists say that there is a 1% statistical probability that out calculations are _wrong_ . I changed the word "confidence" to "error" because I believe "error" is the intended meaning. This has nothing to do with Scientology, if the quote had come from an article on Astronomy it would have been

1.) Just as incorrect (in my opinion) 2.) I would have made the exact same change

It's not like I'm trying to brand my own flavor of 'Sciencetm'...I was making a change to what I thought to be a factual error, regardless of what article it came from. Fourchannel 19:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, Science and Religion differ widely in many beliefs. I find it funny in that Science and Religion rarely disagree on topics that Humans percieve through their 5 senses. No one doubts that there are different colors in the rainbow, or that both rain and the oceans are both made up of the same material: water. Once we leave the world that we can directly percieve, and enter into the abstractions of our higher level thinking, or our sophisticated technology, do differences start to emerge =D Fourchannel 23:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a good one

Just took a peek at Psychiatry#History. Curiously what you, I, or CCHR might call the "history of psychiatry" is not presented AT ALL. I am sure that such history can be well documented and there are lots of neat old drawings and pictures to go with it. Of course, the "man is mud" crew will want to relegate it all to "anti-psychiatry" and get it out of the main article but, guess what, if it is documented history it is NOT anti-pschiatry. Man, could someone do some good there. Know anybody (hint hint, like you?). Just be real careful to take it easy and slow and with a very NPOV tone and lots of references to non-CCHR materials. By the way; age of the universe; funny thing, but who says this is the first universe?. I betcha no cosmologist will deny that this may just be another of a long, long string of universes. So who cares how old it is, that doesn't prove anything. These guys are so locked into this Scientism thing that they have strait-jacketed their own minds. --Justanother 18:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, please take a look at my post on Justanother's user page re: the above and your editing ban. BTfromLA 21:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
"Fan Club?" What on earth are you talking about? BTfromLA 21:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
"Fan Club" is Wikipedese, a term taken from Hollywood where every star (and many people of far less than star status) have their "fan club" which follows them around when they go shopping, to the gym, when they walk their dog, etc. The result of being well enough known to have developed a "fan club" results in, as you can imagine, a certain loss of freedom of motion for the actor / actress. A "fan club" being both, you see, a blessing and a curse. Terryeo 21:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I replied on BT's page. Never a dull moment (:-D --Justanother 22:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

re: The Charms...

Hi Terryeo, you did good figuring out which article Q'rama was asking about; I had tried some variations, but didn't think to include "The". I wanted to say "hi" because we've been hitting the same forums recently and your name keeps popping up on my watchlist. Good luck, and I'll see you in the trenches :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What I did, Doc, I went to the user's page and clicked "User contributions" to find where he had recently contributed and found that page that way. Terryeo 20:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh do I feel dumb! Of course I know how to check User Contribs, and I do so routinely. I can't imagine why I didn't think of it in this case. Bah! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Aims

Hi Terryeo, if you want to make the point about articles with aims/goals please make the links to them so we can follow your reasoning. Thanks --Justanother 01:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, if I was not clear. I mean to wikipedia articles that have the aim/goal prominent. That would carry the most weight in this discussion. --Justanother 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, Justanother, I understand now. As a small point of information, on talk pages <ref>anything here</ref> doesn't work the same as within article pages. Probably you've noticed that. Thanks for the good word. Terryeo 20:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, right, I noticed that about the ref tag. I was not trying to provide the ref, I just copied from the article and left it there. --Justanother 20:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Bit harsh

Hi. Sorry, if I was a bit harsh there but if I do not deal with you as I would with anyone else and "call 'em likes I sees 'em" then my credibility suffers, if only in my own eyes. I expect the same from you as regards me. --Justanother 17:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No Problem Terryeo 17:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to you on my talk page

BTfromLA 18:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your removal of information at WP:PAIN

Huh? It should be self-evident that I removed the section by looking at the edit; the summary is explanation of why. Boards such as WP:PAIN and WP:AIV tend to be pretty quick-moving, so reports which appear to be stale or old are removed very frequently. If you disagree, it's a simple enough matter to either restore the section or make another report. Not worth quibbling over, really -- the idea with that particular removal was "looks like everybody lost interest, and the board is crowded," so if people are still interested, they're free to repost. Luna Santin 22:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Aspects of reliability topics

You mentioned some aspects of reliability on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Discussion. I added them to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/rewrite, crediting you in my edit summary, but I wasn't exactly sure how to explain / justify them, and they were eventually removed. If you think they are important and not covered by the other topics listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/rewrite#Aspects_of_reliability, consider relisting them with justifications. List follows:

  • Declared legal liability (sometimes by implication)
  • Degree of establishment
  • Established history (track record)

Thanks!
Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for a comment

Hello Terryeo. Do you have a comment to make in regard to the information at this link? --Modemac 14:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me to comment on your site, Modemac. I think the link reflects misunderstanding and misinformation. Terryeo 14:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

I have indefinitely blocked you for your intimidation and harassment of ChrisO and David Touretzky. Phil Sandifer 17:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. I am often asked to comment on a web page. You see such an example in the next above section. I asked because I was curious if the information on the web page is accurate or not. My question is politely phrased. What "intimidation" are you talking about? What "harassment" are you talking about? I asked a polite question. Terryeo 18:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me expand my statement. Touretzky has information which is frequently referenced to by Wikipedia. It is quite common to see Touretzky's sites referenced, often several times in a single article. Some editors have referred to him as "an expert" about Scientology. Yet there is this other information about him. Is it true information, or is it false information or is it somewhere in between ? If it is true (as the site makes it sound) then it might not be appropriate to consider Touretzky to be an expert. If it is false, it can be dismissed. I seek to understand the situation. So, in a manner similar to my having been asked a number of times about a number of information, I asked him about a web page. How is a question an intimidation or a harassment? Terryeo 18:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Since you were no longer allowed to edit Scientology-related articles, the matter should have been no concern of yours anyway. Talk pages are not chat rooms, they're for editors who can edit the articles to discuss edits to said articles. wikipediatrix 18:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/r/User_talk%7ETerryeo_1d27.html"