User talk:Spirit of Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi. I only discovered your Dec 29 message on my user page now: I think the wikipedia custom is to leave messages on a user's "talk" page rather than the "user" page, which the user typically controls. Anyway, yes, I was reading the discussion page of that Dianetics article, even before we exchanged views there. BTfromLA 20:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

BTfromLA, thanks. I'm learning the ropes. Feel free to delete anything of mine in your User area. I will use Talk. I was LLH before I set up an account. Spirit of Man 22:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Spirit of Man, your pal Terryeo seems to have gone off the deep end at the Dianetics talk page, declaring that the fact that the root words of Dianetics are in the second sentence rather than the first sentance is a "HUGE problem." And more. Clearly, this attitude is not compatible with collaboration... please take a look, I think he (or she) is damaging your interests in the Scientology-related articles. I hope you can recognize that I've made a sincere attempt to come up with an NPOV approach and to welcome the pro-scientology viewpoint to the editorial mix, but Terryeo is making that really difficult... BTfromLA 06:41, 3 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. Spirit of Man 07:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] New Template Up

I've posted a new template for scientology on a *lot* of articles, and I need feedback on both the template itself, and the articles which are appropriate to have it on, and which articles it should not be on. Ronabop 14:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

In case you were not previously aware, Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks (see WP:NPA). Your edit here appears to me to be in violation of this policy. Please do not try to intimidate other wikipedia editors. This is highly inappropriate. I hope you will consider apologizing to User:wikipediatrix. You might also want to look at WP:AGF. Thanks, --Alhutch 04:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Is everything alright now? Spirit of Man 05:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Spirit of Man

In the DMSMH article, Dianetics:_The_Modern_Science_of_Mental_Health User:ChrisO has cited a confidential Class VIII lecture in his enthusiasm to find some reason, however scant, for the bookcover's picture. WP:CITE says: "Citing sources serves several purposes:To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor." which ChrisO edited to read that, with a note following. I am of the opinion that a cited source should be easily obtainable. Would you leave him a message of your opinion on his talk page? My real problem with this, first, it is important to use good cites so a person can read more if they want to know more. And secondly, The Chruch of Scientology is well known for defending its trademarks. ChrisO might or might not be legally wrong, but it skirts the skirts of difficulty. I have left him a message on his talk page saying I feel it is inappropriate. If 2 people leave him a message then I can initiate this policy: [1] which might cool the situation off without stepping on anyone's toes. But, whether you do or not, have a good one. Terryeo 22:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do - I'd love to see this go to an RFC. ;-) -- ChrisO 22:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I have done so. The link is in its appropriate place on the DMSMH discussion page. BTW ChrisO, do you contribute to Xenu.net ? Terryeo 19:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It has gone. It has come back. ChrisO lost. Confidential Scientology materials may not be cited as sources of information on Wikipedia. The standard involved is the one you would expect. "Published" means, "Published to the public, publically available" and ChrisO's editing WP:CITE to justify his inclusion of that cite has been removed. Here's the link where discussion took place and an administrator acted: here.
One other point, Spirit of Man, at the DMSMH article here we are getting into whether direct quotes of Hubbard are going to be allowed. If Scientology is a "Primary source" of information then we can quote Hubbard. On the other hand, if Hubbard's research is "original research" then we can't quote him but would have to attribute things he said to him, such as, "Hubbard claimed ...." instead of "Hubbard stated ..." I think this is the central point of our continual edit wars and disagreements. Terryeo 13:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to keep you posted on what's happening. The central issue of the back and forth edit wars seems to be around how to present theories. Hubbard's statements such as "Clear is defined to be .." is a theory. That is, the theory that a state of man, Clear, exists at all. Likewise with Dianetics. I'm pretty sure the idea of "mental image picture" is going to be a theory, then engram a theory, then reactive mind a theory, etc. etc. etc. I guess untill we have covered the whole tech dictionary, maybe. heh ! The main talk has been at the Talk:Dianetics page. A consensus of opinion was reached that about Dianetics, Hubbard is a "primary source". This per the wikipedia guideline, WP:NOR#Primary_and_secondary_sources, but about things outside his area of Dianetics / Scientology he isn't necessarily a "primary source" of information. So, that concensus led to discussing WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theorieswhich seems to be where we are now. And it seems to be the central point of disagreement. Hope things are going well with you. Terryeo 03:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Spirit of Man. ChrisO has submitted Dianetics to mediation. From my point of view he did it after he became convinced this his POV (the article shall have nothing but pseudoscience all throughout it) did not rule the talk page.Talk:Dianetics#Mediation The information about it is there. I hope we can all settle on a wiki approved manner to present the information which comprises Dianetics. As the talk page indicates, User:BTfromLA is pretty neutral. But he/she is willing to work toward a consensus of how to present Dianetics to the reader. Terryeo 02:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I already commented at the mediation. Spirit of Man 03:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the mediation talk page. I appreciate that you commented. For a while there I was feeling pretty targeted, thank you for saying something about that. On another topic I am going to give you a personal opinion, just because I can't easily find the relevant policy in my policy letter volumes. I doubt the Church of Scientology or any of its organizations will do a scientific study in response to any group's request or demand for "proof", "proof that Dianetics works". I remember reading a policy letter recently (but can't find it right now) that talked about that. It said something along these lines......'you can never satisfactorly "prove it" to the person demanding proof'. The thing to do is to go on doing what you have successfully done which caused the person to demand proof. The reason I mentioned this, I just don't think the Church will try to prove it, the church's policy tells them to just go on producing instead of attempting to satisfy skeptics. This is my own understanding, please understand. I haven't quoted a policy letter. Thanks for your attention in this matter, have a good one. Terryeo 13:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks glad to help. I appreciate it when someone drops me a line on something I might be interested. You might read my note again on proof, I was not proposing a project to prove to ChrisO. I had been thinking about that myself and I think such a project might do some good. For me if no one else. I have done a few smaller things with study technology and such a Dianetics project might be a possibility. Spirit of Man 00:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Dianetics mediation page is stand alone now at [2] and your participation is invited (at least by me, heh). Terryeo 02:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt and I posted 'my side of the story' on the Dianetics mediation page. [3]

Terryeo 17:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I posted my followup to Antaeus and it seems to have gotten deleted. So I reposted it at mediation. I understand he has admitted to "slander" of Dianetics, Scientology and Bridge, but not public persons. I understand ChrisO has agreed that he has the position that no LRH materials may be included on Wiki pages and articles. I got your request to be a principle party, but I am at a loss. This has become totally insane. These people seem to have no concept of right and wrong, harm or foul. I put in a second paragraph to Antaeus asking him to take a personal look at the idea of harm when people give information and do not prepare people. I don't feel I can say these things on the mediation page, it means I have to exclude myself from mediation which requires all parties to agree to mediation. Spirit of Man 20:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your anecdote on the mediation page is touching, but not a valid argument. See appeal to emotion, post hoc ergo propter hoc (relating to the pill), and correlation implies causation. Also, your conclusion (that it is sometimes acceptable to moderate possibly harmful information) cannot be generalized to apply to all circumstances: if it is always acceptable to moderate possibly harmful information, then it's not too hard to imagine a situation where this could cause someone greater harm than if the information were presented straightforwardly, e.g. "Is it safe to jump off this bridge?" "Well, it might be a little dangerous."
Furthermore, what you are advocating is not the moderating possibly harmful information--you're saying we should withold it entirely. And as a side note, I doubt that you'd find many people outside of your religion who would hold that this information is harmful. I can't, myself, think of any other piece of information that is actually harmful to have. Perhaps you can suggest something. Tenebrous 11:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Going to add my opinion here, don't know if it will be helpful. People tend to protect themselves, you could probably give the most innocent child the most horrible information and they would probably recover, for practical purposes in a week or two. Organizations have a right to keep their internal workings from the public eye, within reasonable limits I think. There is always WP:V which encourages us to use refutable publishers rather than strongly POV publications. Terryeo 18:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

we seem to have a mediator making comments in the Dianetics article and reading User:Friday's user page leads me to think we might get somewhere with the article now. Terryeo 18:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions without discussion

I don't really have a solution. I am re-doing the Dianetics article about once a day and staying under the 3 times a day thing. My experience with Feldspar is that he goes in spurts of not communicating and then after a fustrating period of time he discusses a little. Mediation didn't work. Feldspar has made mistakes before and been banned but if he doesn't go over 3 reverts in 24 hours and doesn't actually attack anyone I don't know of a method to handle the situation. I am working on getting an opening paragraph that introduces the subject. And working on every instance of "scientists" to be made clear to mean "medical scientists" as per the concensus (not formally agreed to) in the talk page. I keep guarding against the dispersion that umm, creeps into a perfectly good auditing description. Feldspar was once banned for a week for a personal attack, from what I've read. Other than direct actions like that I don't have a handle. He did state his opinion to me to be "Dianetics was a fad in the 50s" and when I attempted to educate him a little he refused any further information. I'm real glad you're around, guy. One alone couldn't balance it. Terryeo 23:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

How the 3 revert rule works, not everyone can do it. I think administrators or higher can do it. But they have to be careful because if they can not justify themselves, then their administrative status is called into question. A person notices an editor doing 4 reverts in 24 hours. good. A person messages an administrator, makes them aware of the situation and requests the person be temporarily blocked. I once got a 24 hour block and could only access my User page during the 24 hours. The policy about that is: Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule (potential to 24 block the guy if he reverts 4 times in 24 hours.
Any editing you do in the first paragraph, especially indicating Dianetics to be some sort of activity rather than "a set of theories and ideas" would be helpful. Terryeo 00:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Viewing those reverts, while they are irritating because there is no creativity to it at all, he is doing only one a day or two at most and the 3 revert rule requires 4 reverts to come into effect. So I don't have a solution. I would love to see any kind of auditing session presented. But I am too unsure how much text constitutes a copyright problem. Terryeo 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, I think we need to take up the unfinished things from the mediation process. I'm thinking of presenting both viewpoints in Dianetics (talk) and confronting the situation there. But I think we should also consider what other avenues might be pursued as things escalate towards a resolution. Is that the first step, or is there a better way to do it? Spirit of Man 21:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the talk page is the place to work. And people are talking about pseudoscience (or not) and it is at least a beginning. On another point, this link is nearly word for word what used to be most of the article. I have argued for hours with cut an paste artists! heh. Terryeo 14:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Ahem. From the bottom of that page: This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia.org - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the wikipedia encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License. Tenebrous 15:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, hahahaha! Is that where Terryeo was getting his accusation of "Where are you cutting and pasting from for the Dianetics and Scientology articles?" [4] That's hilarious; he didn't even bother to look and see that the explanation for why the articles were so similar was right there on the page and perfectly legitimate. Just goes to show why you don't lead off a 'conversation' with "Here's what I know you've been doing!! Now tell me the details!"; you look like a pretty big fool if you've missed an obvious and innocent explanation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hunh. I don't know where Terryeo got his mistaken notion that I "was once banned for a week for a personal attack", but nothing of the sort is true. I can guess at the most likely source of that baseless rumor, a particular user who liked to spout off all sorts of provably false claims about people who didn't agree with him -- he ended up being banned, because it turned out that he was a sockpuppet for a user who had been banned for a year due to, among other things, personal attacks. Goes to show that you can't always believe rumors you read about other people. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:10, 17 March 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 23:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The place you oculd comment if you chose to, Spirit of Man would be: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Terryeo#Outside_views |here]]. [[5]] I read some of the past Rfc. A brief comment would be appriciated. Thank you Terryeo 15:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, thank you. Terryeo 13:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions on my user page. That is a sensible approach. As I read through your suggestions, examples come to mind that would make a good statement. I also like the format you suggested and realize it is more structered and less rambeling than the reply I have stated. I'm probably not going to do it though because I have read through some of the past Rfc. Most of ChrisO's structured "complaints" or whatever those should be called, most of those are trivial. For example, earlier Rfc's often mention "A user has edited his page to remove certain informations". Well, the arbitration finds that trivial even in extreme cases because Wikipeida policy says any user can modify his page any way he wishes to, anytime. Your suggestion is helpful and structed and might be the best way to go. But I probably won't do it based on my understanding of what an arbitration committee looks for. It seems to me they look for outright cursing and intense personal attacks, obvious pushing of one's own POV to all else, and persistant refusal to get along with other editors. I may be in a grey area on all of those, but I don't believe I'm in a black area on any of those.Terryeo 06:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back. Your welcome. I also suggest you consider that you are facing a number of angry people, not just ChrisO. It seems to me they are pumping themselves up on this for some reason. I guess that means your strategy is good. I hope you don't get sent to "Sing-Sing" or something, I'd hate to have to face things alone for a few days here till they get my RfC together. :) Have fun, Spirit of Man 06:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You might take a look at my shot at a minority view at Dianetics (Talk) if you get a sec. Spirit of Man 06:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a good idea, it implies some structure. At [6] ChrisO and myself have made comments. Then Wikipediatrix came along and made a comment. It would appear the arbitration committee is going to accept the situation. If you chose to, I believe it would be appropriate to become part of the situation by making a comment. I realize this involves time spent and I wish I didn't have to bother you. Terryeo 22:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you VERY much :) Terryeo 18:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Evil"?

Hi, Spirit. You raised the issue at Talk:Dianetics of whether I think anything in Dianetics is "evil". Since that's a value judgment on my part, and since I don't think any editor's value judgments (as opposed to other kinds of judgments) are that relevant to the article or the editing process, but I thought it was worth discussing the issue with you anyways, I thought it would be appropriate to do it here instead.

I do indeed feel that, judged by almost any moral standard, the things that were done to Paulette Cooper were evil. For members of a belief system which holds that psychiatry "injure[s], maim[s] and destroy[s] people in the guise of help", and that mental institutions are little more than torture chambers, to draw up a plan whose aim is explicitly stated as "To get P.C incarcerated in a mental institution ..." is evil in any value system which adheres to Hillel the Elder's well-formulated "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man."

Now you might assume from what I just said -- that what Scientologists willingly did to Paulette Cooper was evil -- that I must think, as a consequence of that, "Scientologists are evil." It might surprise to realize that I don't think that at all. On the contrary, I think that many Scientologists actually got into Scientology because they were good, and they thought that Scientology would give them the opportunity and the capacity to do even more good for the world. Even those who were acting from enlightened self-interest -- those who weren't saying "How can I make the world a better place?" but "How can I make things better for myself, without making things worse for the rest of the world?" -- that's not morally objectionable.

But, having good intentions behind an act doesn't make that act automatically good. It is so sadly possible for someone who really, sincerely wants to do only good things in the world to get confused -- or to be deceived by others -- into doing things which are morally just wrong. The fact that this can happen has bothered me from a very early age, and so nearly all my life, I have been studying, trying to figure out, how do people who have good intentions get deceived, either by others or by the situation itself, into doing things that are so wrong?

That is why I am so opposed to Scientology: before I had even heard of Scientology I had acquired a lot of knowledge of how good people get tricked into doing bad things. When I learned about Scientology and started learning its doctrines I realized that they are almost tailor-made to trick good people into doing bad things on behalf of bad leaders. You might be thinking that I must hate Scientologists, but the truth is I feel sad for them, because there is no doubt in my mind that they've been swindled -- not just out of their money, but out of their integrity.

Assuming you haven't stopped reading in anger by this point, you may be wondering "how can he possibly say that the doctrines of my belief system are set up to swindle me out of my integrity and make me do bad things??" Well, I'll answer that. Quite simply, it's a con technique known as the "bait and switch": a con artist promises something (the "bait") in exchange for what he wants from the victim, and then delivers something else, other than what he promised (this is the "switch".) With Scientology, the bait is all the amazing things that Hubbard promised were waiting on the other side of the Bridge: 'a world without insanity, without criminals and without war'; being 'at cause over' matter, energy, space and time; cures for just about every single ailment that ever plagued mankind up to and including death -- the question isn't "are these good things?" because clearly they are! The real question is "Can Dianetics/Scientology ever deliver on all those big promises?" How am I supposed to believe that Scientology will ever bring us a world without criminals when the history of the CoS is filled with Scientologists committing crimes themselves, frequently for the purpose of perpetuating Scientology?

And yes, I understand the principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics". I understand that this is the answer to the question of "how can people draw up a plan to put a woman into a place where they think she'll be lobotomized; how can they report 'she's talking suicide, wouldn't this be great for Scientology?' and still think they're the good guys?" I understand that according to Scientology doctrines established by Hubbard, it's perfectly acceptable "to hurt someone in a just cause." I understand that the "reality" which Hubbard established for Scientologists is that they are working to save the planet, and that is a cause so just that anything else, no matter how vile an act it is, is acceptable -- because it's being done for a greater good for a greater number of dynamics. I understand all this but I also understand that if L. Ron Hubbard is not the Friend of Mankind but an amoral swindler, then everyone who is following his advice "never be afraid to hurt someone in a just cause" is hurting people pointlessly for an evil cause. Everyone who is saying "well, what I'm doing now would be evil if I was doing it for myself, but I'm doing it so that the planet can be cleared" is really just doing it for nothing, because "clearing the planet" was another in a long series of pulp science-fiction tales. If a psychiatrist told you everything that Hubbard did -- that all you had to do was follow his doctrines and it'd fix all your ills and save the planet and eliminate insanity and crime and war -- you wouldn't trust him for a minute, let alone go along with a plan that said "Let's falsify charges against this woman so that she'll go to jail or fall into the hands of torturers. Why? Because it's for the greater good." -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, thank you for taking the time to clarify your position in this level of detail. I hope you have come to understand that I appreciate what you have said and understand your view of, "how good people get tricked into doing bad things" that you have spent so much time to develope. I understand that you hold Hubbard personally responsible for any evil things in Dianetics and Scientology. I hope you also understand, I ment no personal attack as Tenebrous has outlined in Dianetics (talk) and above. I think we can agree you have a view and although I understand it, I also consider that view to be a misconception. I have accurately described the situation (you believe there is an evil in Dianetics, and I have said THAT is a misconception. This is not about you personally, it is about your view of Dianetics.) and there never was a personal attack here. Please advise Tenebrous of your view of this situation. I have asked him to remove his claim of personal attack and I would like him to remove his representation of that from this page. Spirit of Man 03:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
NPA notice is gone. Tenebrous 13:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I accept that you say you meant no personal attack. I hope that you understand, though, that the most natural way to interpret your phrasing was to interpret "your evil misconception" as "your misconception, which is itself evil", which is what made it appear to be a personal attack. Since you say that you didn't mean it that way, however, I will accept that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't think this was a good idea

I don't think this was a good idea. If someone disagrees strongly enough to revert a change, it's time to discuss it, not just put it back the way it was. Your plea of "don't start an edit war" is surprising to me. Reverting something once if you strongly disagree is alright. Undoing someone else's revert of your change is less alright- that's how edit wars start. Friday (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Friday, Thank you for your comment. I had been discussing this section for some time in two sections in Discussion. Each time it had been deleted summarily without citation, without previous discussion. It contains four citations and the deletion contained none. Per Wiki policy anyone can revert uncited edits. This editor was new to the discussion and had not discussed. I haven't checked to see if she discussed yet after the fact, sometimes she inserts a Pronouncement without discussion. Take a look at the extensive discussion and my citations and tell me what you would do. Spirit of Man 15:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I checked the Discussion history and that editor did not discuss after my entry or her deletion edit. Spirit of Man 15:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. At this point, I'd suggest you just not edit Dianetics or related articles, because it looks to me like you have difficulty being neutral about this subject. Or, if you really must edit them, you should follow the one revert rule. You've got multiple editors disagreeing with you on several points, and you're still editing by "brute force". Keep in mind that this article is fairly mature, so major changes should probably be discussed ahead of time. Friday (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I think we need to talk. You seem to be giving suggestions in much the same way as a respected friend, but I don't know you. You keep saying things, like "I don't think this is a good idea." I don't have any perspective to know how you mean this. You refer to things in a caring way, but seem to be unaware of extensive previous discussions and then recommend to me to discuss first. Now you bring the question of the difficulty of being neutral. I don't know what your view is, but mine is that WP:NPOV and WP:V are not being honored when citations are deleted to support the cause of OR by a number of people. I feel that a line needs to be drawn to define what NPOV means on this article and subarticles. I think both sides, minority and majority view should be presented and let the reader decide. I have defined a minority view in Discussion. To my knowledge you have not expressed to me that you respect the minority view or any view at all other than OR by the majority shall prevail over Wiki policy. If this is not your view, what is it? Spirit of Man 18:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to be anybody's friend (or enemy). I'm here to work on making a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. I am aware of the discussions - the dianetics talk page is bit of a train wreck. There are some very long comments on there that have little to do with the article- this is counterproductive. It looks to me like it's been going this way for a while. There's still discussion of stuff on there that I remember seeing discussed previously and should have been easy to agree on. I understand you're trying to improve the articles, same as everyone else, but I think your edits are often making it worse, not better. If someone disagrees with your edit strongly enough to revert it, it's not a good idea to just put it back the way it was. Maybe you think it's biased writing to say the Dianetics is widely regarded as psuedoscientific, but it's simply the majority view. Based on some of the edits you've tried to make, I think your strong personal opinions are getting in the way of you seeing what is or isn't neutral, encyclopedic writing. Friday (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag on Dianetics

Hello Spirit of Man. It appears that you and Davidstrauss/Wikipediatrix/Vivaldi are having a difference in opinion about the content of the Dianetics article. I'd ask that if you feel that the article in anyway holds a bias, that you please add the {{npov}} tag to it. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to recruit people to do your controversial (and oft-reverted) edits for you. It defeats the spirit of the 3RR. The intention of the 3RR is preventing anyone from flexing too much power before having to discuss the issue. You flexed your power. You got reverted a few times. It's gone to discussion. Please don't put anymore "Pssst! Add the NPOV template back on Dianetics for me." notes on user talk pages. This is an issue for Talk:Dianetics now. --Davidstrauss 07:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Regards Swatjester. Thank you for your suggestion. I don't know that I understand what that means? Does it flag attention to someone that can help on Wiki? As you may know a mediation was requested by ChrisO against Terryeo, another Scientologist, that was dropped and ChrisO has now requested an RfC on Terryeo. These actions describe basically the same issues that you have been touching on. In addition, I had initiated a Discussion Section on the pseudoscience treatment of the article with the intention of trying to establish a more reasonable approach than summary deletions of Dianetic citations. Tenebrous circumvented most of this discussion by calling for a consensus Poll, that merely confirmed the concensus was supportive of the pseudoscience treatment which has been summary deletions for any citing of facts to the contrary. That Poll shows about 9 members supportive of deletions of pretty much everything Terryeo or I edit, and 4 not so extreme. Edits by the other two, Ronabob and BTfromLA who are not knowledgeble of Dianetics tend to stay in the article without deletion. Thanks for your intervention, I hope some good comes of it. Spirit of Man 05:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It does two different things. First, it automatically flags and categorizes the article into a list of "non-neutral" articles. There are editors who go through that list of non-neutral articles and attempt to bring neutrality to them. The second thing it does is puts a warning message on the actual article itself saying "The neutrality of this article is disputed" and advises editors to discuss it on the article talk page. It seems you think that Chriso and Tenebrous, as well as others are trying to push their point of view on this article. The best way to bring attention to that is to add the {{npov}} template to the top of the article (the very top). ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 09:02, 20 March 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] Galvanic Skin Response

Hello Spirit of Man. at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dianetics&curid=8260&diff=48774248&oldid=48768937#Prototype_intros} you make some statements which seem to communicate well with the other editors and I am glad to see that happen. It is possible that by my earlier statement I imply too much about the sweat on the skin making some difference in a meter's reading. That you are able to communicate the idea of the meter is important. However, I have to point out your statement: "The dead body has no resistence contribution from mental stress. The same is true for a living male Clear." would disallow any metering of those persons who are clear and are doing OT levels because no person will do any OT level, male or female, if they have not gone clear. Therefor, it is necessarily true that a person doing the OT levels gets reads on an E-meter and does it by the presence of mental mass or as the article is using the term, "mental stress."

The male Clear read is 12,500 ohms. A Clear still gets all the usual meter reads due to any mental stress present. A Clear might be clear only on the first dynamic. All the other dynamics will read. The Clear himself can read. Anything that appears on the first may also read. I'm not sure what needs clarifying, but will stay tuned. I just ment to clarify that we are talking about resistance. 12,500 ohms for the male clear. When he has mental stress, such as the handling of OT phenonmenon, then it reads. When he postulates or does other things it reads. Spirit of Man 01:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The other statement you make there which is accurate in the manner you make it, "The e-meter is based on resistance, not current. It measures resistance, not current" is certainly true. But, the measurement of resistance is due to the current which is flowing from the chemical activity of the battery within the E-meter, through the leads and through the PC's body at the moment of measurement. That current is amplified and is directed through the needle's electromagnetic winding, reacting with the permanent magnets which surround it and thereby causes an electromagnetic reaction which presents itself as a direct mechanical readout of the quantity of eletromagnetic reaction on the dial before the auditor. Resistance is read on the dial, that resistance is the direct result of the quantity of current flowing through the PC. Terryeo 01:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what you said tends to confuse things with skin conductivity. We are not talking about skin-conductivity with the e-meter. I think the mis-conception by readers and other editors has to do with GSR and currents. It is true a battery provides a fixed voltage to a circuit. The current level is modulated by the variable resistance present and the indicating current makes the needle move. If we or you talk about about current it looks like GSR and skin conductivity, and continues that misconception. GSR does use modulating currents in the body or from the body. Do you agree it will be less confusing if we emphasize the resistance measured rather than currents internal to the meter that do not contribute to understanding and do not distinguish clearly the differences from GSR? By discussing these internal currents that have nothing to do with resistance, it confuses rather than clarifies. Spirit of Man 01:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it is probably less confusing to talk about resistance and variations in resistance than to talk about current and variations in current. A human body has variations in resistance. I agree, its a better approach than using current as a beginning place. Terryeo 06:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. How are things going with arbitration? Spirit of Man 04:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I feel it is going very well. There are some problems, not least of which was that I found myself unable to state in just a few words, the problem which took the situation to the highest authority normally available on Wikipedia. However, I finally managed, I think, to spell out the actual difficulty while the people who brought the arbitration did not. Instead they used their space to present many differences of edits which, they feel, illustrates their viewpoint that my editing is non-productive and disturbing. I do the best I can, I don't mean to be disruptive or disrespectful. Terryeo 15:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Within a few minutes of my posting that, I was notified by the arbitration committee that I am blocked from editing in the Dianetics and Scientology areas. The idea being that my edits are disruptive, the committee will not tolerate my editing until some dispute resolution happens. Well, that's okay with me, I have stated my case. WP:RS is being worked over by Fahrenheit451 and Vivaldi, at that talk page Xenu.net is being directly addressed (as Clambake.org) and an experienced editor in the area of guidelines has directly stated it is a personal site and unacceptable as a secondary source. I think that site has been the main difficulty. Other personal websites, less polished but equally strong of opinion will likewise not be able to be cited, I think. Happy Ho Ho's. heh. Terryeo 16:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Sources

Here is an interesting read where an experienced guideline editor makes the statement that clambake.org may not be used as a secondary source of reliable information. Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 15:39, 24 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 16:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hope you're okay...

I was a little ill at the end of April when I saw your note about falsifiability, which is why I couldn't respond right away. I'm still interested in discussing the subject with you, but I see you've been gone for some time. I hope all is well with you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, everything is fine. I just haven't been doing much on Wiki for while. How can I help you? Spirit of Man 00:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you're still up for talking about falsifiability, we can discuss that, but mostly I got worried when I saw that you'd been gone for such a long time with no "I'm taking a wiki-break" notice or the like. I hoped it wasn't something bad that took you away suddenly, and I'm glad to hear that everything's okay. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article 'Suppression Person'

I saw that you were involved in happenings regarding Terryeo. You seem to know a bit about the subject as well. You may wish to join our dispute in this article Suppressive Person.

Applicable information is found in discussion #21, #17 (and various other) on Discussion page: Suppressive Person --Olberon 14:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm inviting an email

I've found Wikinfo [7] has an interesting editing policy which includes an editor registration prerequisite. Terryeo 15:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/i/User_talk%7ESpirit_of_Man_0d84.html"