User:Antaeus Feldspar/Terryeo

Revision as of 09:25, 15 January 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dianetics&diff=prev&oldid=35267973

Terryeo has already been warned about including disputed claims with no warning that they are disputed, and yet adds this passage to the introduction of an article: "For example, a man with bad knees undergoes Dianetics and he can walk again. Controversy erupts on this point. How can thought have any effect on the man's ability to walk?"


 * Show two diffs where Terryeo had it clearly explained to him that the page he was citing as supporting a rigid Term-Topic-Context order in fact contradicts that order; show diffs of the various times Terryeo repeated the same debunked claim after that

Terryeo misrepresents and misapplies policies and guidelines
Terryeo frequently presents bizarre interpretations of various policies and guidelines in order to justify some edit that he wishes to make, or in order to justify reverting an edit by some other editor and subjecting that editor to harsh criticism for supposedly "violating" the rules. This happens so very frequently, and Terryeo's interpretations are sometimes so bizarre, that it becomes impossible to believe that they are what Terryeo really believes the intent of the rules to be.

Terryeo advocates deletion of Body thetan
18:26, 31 January 2006 In this edit, Terryeo misrepresents multiple policies in order to argue that the article Body thetan should be deleted.


 * Policies about primary sources: "There is no primary, published source available. The Church of Scientology publishes no literature about it, yet it is the Church which originates this idea, according to the secondary sources in the article." Reliable sources states: "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material."    It appears not to

Introductions
Too many instances to count!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dianetics&diff=35119069&oldid=35113556 "Please read Introductions it says, Term. Topic, Context in that order and no other order."

Revision as of 16:55, 18 January 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dianetics&diff=35722086&oldid=35586548

Terryeo once more repeats the false claim that Wikipedia guidelines somewhere state that the only proper form for an article's introduction is "Term, Topic, Context" meaning "1. Term. 2. Topic, 3. Context." This is phrased with disrespect for his fellow editors as "Why is it necessary with you people to point out that simple, straightforeward statemetns like: "Term, Topic, Context" mean 1. Term. 2. Topic, 3. Context." (emphasis added).

NPOV/Deletion policy
-- Terryeo calls for the deletion of an article based on it containing a POV that he does not think should be represented: "But most importantly We should delete this article because the secondary sources cite themselves sources of information which has been contested by the source information, Scientology."

On 11 February 2006, long after he's been made aware that articles should not state significantly disputed claims as facts, Terryeo changes the first sentence of Dianetics from "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind ..." to "Dianetics is a workable theory about the human mind and the actions which implement it." (emphasis added) His edit summary for this change is "changed the first and second sentences to reflect reality."

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
[] -- Even though the context clearly shows that it is "unverifiable speculation" about the future that is meant, Terryeo applies it instead to information provided by sources that he disagrees with.

Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy
[] -- Terryeo stretches the definition of "anarchy" to the point where there is seemingly nothing it could not cover.

Forking
After it has been explained to him several times what "forking" is, Terryeo uses it completely inappropriately at Talk:Engram to describe either the creation of a disambiguation page or the addition of a dictionary definition to a disambiguation page. It is not clear which it is, but neither one has anything to do with forking.

Asked to either use the word correctly, or if he cannot, to stop using it, Terryeo responds forcefully and rudely that "I'll use the word "fork" anytime I choose to." and "I'll use "fork" when I wish and speak the word to whom I wish when I wish to. Do you get it?"

Original research
23:56, 28 April 2006 Terryeo refers to a hard copy of the Martin Gardner book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science as "original research".

Among the added text: "Critics, having little else to criticize, have focused on reasons why a volcano appears on the cover. The publisher of the book apparently feels it sells books."

"Criticism alone is not enough to earn this declare. The list of actions which bring this declare into force include many overt actions, but mere criticsm alone is not enough."

Inconsistent, and double, standards
Terryeo is quick enough to verbally abuse other editors for not meeting his standards, and almost always to accuse them of bad faith, of trying to "prevent Dianetics from being communicated." (See, for a single edit in which Terryeo makes at least four separate accusations that editors are "preventing the subject from being understood" and at least two accusations to specified people that they are doing so deliberately.) However, it is far from clear whether Terryeo actually has an objective set of standards in mind which he follows himself and thinks others should as well; instances of Terryeo actually spelling out what would meet his standards are quite rare -- far outnumbered by Terryeo simply blasting editors for not having met his standards. Also making it hard to believe that Terryeo actually ever intends to let anything other editors do meet his "standards" is the fact that Terryeo has violated some of the very same standards he accused other editors of not meeting.

Terryeo says the volcano tie is "original research"
16:01, 14 January 2006 "you are doing original research, stating your own opinions without any verification and then stating a lot of information about volcanoes that Scientology has mentioned."

23:13, 18 January 2006 "cut the redundant "his" in the first sentence. Removed original research non-sequitar to this article to paste on the discussion page. ~ "

23:21, 18 January 2006 "Pasted the original research, "what the volcano means" here for discussion. ~ " "There is a volcano on the cover. Someone sees huge significance in it. They have posted their conclusion of its significance in the article. ALAS ! Wikipedia policy, NO Original Research does not allow that perfectly wonderful, original research to be stated."

09:53, 19 January 2006 ""The volcano refers to..." is uncited and original research, see WP:NPOV ~ "

Terryeo indicates that a published source would satisfy him
23:31, 18 January 2006 "You must find a published source and quote them to be able to say: "the volcano is on the cover because ..." ~ " "why don't you find some skinny little opinion published by some big, brave, macho man who says, "Dianetics books have a volcano on the cover because ..." and post that here?"

23:42, 18 January 2006 "... you will have to publish your opinion in a newspaper or a book or in some method or manner. Then, after that, you can have a friend quote you and cite the publication ... But until it is published and the source cited, it is origninal research by an individual editor and can not appear in Wikipedia articles." (emphasis added)

23:21, 18 January 2006 "whomever is so convinced in regards to the volcano and the following discussion pasted here, will have to find someone who has the same conclusion they do, someone who has published their opinion ..."

13:54, 19 January 2006 "Why the volcano is there is uncited. Find a published source that tells why. ~ "

13:59, 19 January 2006 "What you are doing is what psychology calls "free association" and what Wikipedia calls "Original Research." Having found some datum about volcanoes and the church of scientology you begin to free associate. You spill your guts. However, fortunately, wikipedia has policy which states: No Original Research ... When you find a source of published information that states why there is a volcano on the cover, then we can put in the article along with where it came from."

Terryeo refuses to accept that there was ever court testimony about Xenu
18:43, 23 January 2006 "You state, "testifying in court" but you don't say a word of what was testitifed. Why should anyone believe you? You don't provide any citation that it ever happened."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dianetics:_The_Modern_Science_of_Mental_Health&diff=prev&oldid=36403844 20:55, 23 January 2006] Terryeo is provided with an excerpt from McShane's testimony.

Published sources are provided
02:36, 21 January 2006 Chris provides a published source for cover connection: Bent Corydon

12:23, 28 January 2006 ChrisO adds two newspaper sources for the Xenu story

22:20, 28 January 2006 Terryeo removes one of the newspaper sources, claiming: "Removed the second link which doesn't mention anything about the volcano / cover scenario."
 * Newspaper sources were added to verify the Xenu story.
 * Terryeo also changes the wording in the paragraph to read that "A newspaper report and a critic of Scientology" claim that there is a volcano/cover connection. This is five days after Terryeo has been presented with trial testimony in which Warren McShane testifies to the cover connection.
 * Terryeo is wrong about either article not making the volcano/cover connection:
 * New Haven Advocate (the link Terryeo removed): "Scientology's real dogma is that we are all suffering from the traumatic memories of aliens, called thetans, who were murdered on Earth millions of years ago by the evil overlord Xenu, who trapped them in a volcano and then blew them up with nuclear weapons (hence the volcano reference on the cover of Dianetics)."
 * San Francisco Chronicle: "'It can cost you $360,000 to reach the upper levels of this space opera,' said Bunker. 'They teach that 75 million years ago the Earth was known as Teegeeack, part of a 90- planet federation ruled over by the evil overlord Xenu, who solved overpopulation by stuffing us into volcanoes and blowing us up with hydrogen bombs. That's why there's an exploding volcano on the cover of Dianetics.'"

At this point, Terryeo clearly knows that many critics share and state the belief that the volcano on the cover refers to the Xenu story, whether one is named and cited or a dozen, and he clearly knows that it is not just newspapers and critics, in any number, but also Scientology's own witness Warren McShane. Is it possible that one could seriously argue that this level of rigidity -- surpressing information known to be true, simply because no citation yet exists in the article -- is an appropriate one for Wikipedia? It is theoretically possible, though one would have to ask why this individual is trying to degrade the text to match the citations, rather than trying to improve the citations. But such an argument can only be believed sincere coming from someone who is applying the same standard of rigidity to his or her own edits -- which we will see Terryeo does not.
 * 23:10, 28 January 2006 Terryeo changes the wording again, claiming "corrected to "a critic" which seems to be how many are named and cited."
 * 20:40, 28 January 2006 "One critic states his opinion of why the volcano is on the cover. not "critics" but one critic.)"

12:25, 28 January 2006 Fine - in that case, I've cited media sources which make the same claim, properly attributed of course. -- ChrisO 12:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

 -- note, Corydon reference had been used by at least 21 January, as shown by Spirit of Man

Terryeo rejects the published source because it is not Bridge Publication
08:55, 28 January 2006 "Who put the volcano on the cover? Well, Bridge Publications put the volcano on the cover. Do you have a source of information from Bridge Publications ? No, what you keep citing is rumors and stuff, implications and slander, information scraped from the alleys and not "unimpeachable sources" of information why the volcano is on the cover."

Terryeo inserts his own original research
09:33, 15 February 2006 "Critics, having little else to criticize, have focused on reasons why a volcano appears on the cover. The publisher of the book apparently feels it sells books." (emphasis added)

Terryeo violates WP:POINT
Terryeo demands a citation for a quote from a Church of Scientology International website. Googling the quotation brings up a CSI website that contains the exact quote as the second hit of the search. ,

Terryeo adds 17 instances of fact to Dianetics, 13 of them in the first two paragraphs -- five of them within a single sentence. Many of these are extremely basic statements that Terryeo knows to be true, and even statements which Terryeo has personally affirmed, such as "Hubbard characterized Dianetics as a revolutionary scientifically-developed alternative to conventional psychotherapyfact and psychiatry.fact" and "... many practitioners of Scientology testify that they have found Dianetics techniques to be personally effective,fact".

WP:CITE
Terryeo removes a citation from the LA Times about information contained in voter registration records and inserts a fact template. He gives no indication of why he thinks the LA Times is not a sufficient reputable source for the claim or what he would consider a source reputable enough for the claim.

"the people who are currently editing pay no attention to the discussion page"
Talk:Engram (Dianetics)

"I cited their misperformance"
Talk:Clear (Scientology)

Unjustified deletions
Terryeo removes most of the article with the edit summary "removed false, uncited information." While some of the material may meet this description, other portions are information that Terryeo has himself in the past admitted to be true.

Personal insults
"Get a clue you beanbrain, ChrisO himself said it was a confidential church document and attempted to demonstrate how he was better than anyone else because he could read it and a church member couldn't. It is an unpublished document. You are wrong to support its dissemination. Beanbrain. Dogfood. Idiot. Terryeo 05:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)" (emphasis added)

"Post it or suck your .............thumb. [...] You are free to read it, free to edit as anyone else is, free to fulfill your claims or free to suck your .......... thumb."

Unsorted
17:08, 25 January 2006 Terryeo removes the very citation that he himself requested.

15:59, 27 January 2006 Terryeo's edit summary: "The link to a "smear site" doesn't have a word in it about Applied Scholastics. Removed it." Terryeo's edit doesn't just remove a link, it removes all the following sentences:


 * [Hubbard's] only academic qualification was a PhD from Sequoia University, a now defunct diploma mill, although he occasionally claimed to have degrees in engineering or nuclear physics.


 * [Hubbard's] teaching experience in a secular context was limited to teaching English for a month in Guam while his father was stationed there.


 * The "Study Technology" has never been the subject of a peer reviewed study. As such, most non-Scientologist educators dismiss it outright.

Even if Terryeo's reasons for removing the link were valid, it wouldn't justify removing everything else he removed. However, not even his link removal is valid: The link may not mention Applied Scholastics, but it verifies that even today the Church of Scientology is still incorrectly claiming that Hubbard was a Ph.D, and a nuclear physicist. Terryeo repeats this link removal.