User talk:BTfromLA/archive

Something you might be interested in...
WP:SCN now has a public watchlist at -- should make it easier to keep an eye on potential end runs... -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * yep, a person should guard real carefully against those "end runs" lest someone learn something you have had no say in, huh? Terryeo 00:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

I did notice that the section is gone. My dispute is with the entire page's tone. After reviewing the Wikipedia policy on NPOV tags, I found out that there does not need to be a consensus of editors to have an NPOV tag, (see WP:NPOVD), bur rather one editor need only be concerned with the neutrality of the article, which not just one of us is, but 3 of us are. For them to just blatantly revert the NPOV tag because they believe otherwise is a horrible disruption of wikipedia. &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  01:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * responded on my talk. &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  01:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

I want to ask you something
I asked a question atTalk:Dianetics and you replied:

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


 * Do you really think your editing technique is a successful model that should be emulated by others? BTfromLA 17:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying BTfromLA, and thank you for informing me on my user page that you had replied to me. I see that once again you have replied to the area I requested your attention about.  Because this is the second (or more) time you have additionally gone on, after replying to my area of question and attempted to correct, manipulate or otherwise modify my editing behaviour to conform with some standard you hold, I will reply to that first.  I don't believe that your asking me for my opinion of my editing technique has the least thing to do with what I am attempting to accomplish, nor do I think that entering into such a discussion with you can be fruitful.  Clearly your opinion has been presented.  I have acknowledged that it has.  I will say this, to read through your whole posting and separate out that which you are stating about my question from that which you happily volenteer about my editing technique requires more patience than would be needed if you had merely responded to my question.  I'll tell you right off, I am not going to get involved with this question.  If you continue to push it, I'll quote you the appropriate Wiki Policies which at one time acknowledge that you have said something, but your something is not appropriate to Wikipedia discussion pages.  If you do feel so strongly as you seem to imply, your recourses are avialable to you, as they are to me. Terryeo 17:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, my response about your editing technique was a reply to your question "why don't you do as I do?" BTfromLA 18:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * About my question which is in the area of: "How should we treat the informations which Hubbard wrote, spoke, stated, claimed or some combination of those." Your position is that Hubbard is "primary source" of the body of information which is Dianetics ?  Is that it? And you are not questioning whether, as published, the books of Dianetics are his words, (spoken, written) and his intention and ideas?  Is that correct?  Terryeo 17:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, your questions seem to want confusion rather than clarity. Far as I can tell, there is no controversy whatsoever about whether Hubbard can be cited in Dianetics and Scientology articles.  Any questions about whether he actually wrote what was published under his name, or whether there are differences between published versions can be dealth with if and as they arise.  BTfromLA 18:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for stating your opinion.Terryeo 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that you understand Hubbard to be "primary source" but only in the area, Dianetics. I think the problem with the edits and counter edits revolve around the question addressed at WP:NOR.  In particular, almost any time I say anything at all, people are saying, "you don't expect me to accept Hubbard's theories, do you?" and I have to say again and again, "no, I don't care what you do or don't consider"  This gets everyone off the track, I believe there has not been an agreement what the key concepts of Dianetics are.  That's step one of "how to deal with theory."  If we can agree to the area of our difficulty, I believe we can work together and arrive at good, stable, readable articles.  What is your reaction to my suggestion, "we are not treating it as a theory and need to?" Terryeo 02:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Terryeo. I've got problems with some of what you've said, but here's a point on which we can agree: let's be clear on what the key concepts of Dianetics are.  Those belong in the article. For starters,  I'd say that "the reactive mind,' "engrams" and "auditing" are among the key concepts.  What else?  BTfromLA 04:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi BTfromLA, I am all for "key concepts" being in the article. But I think there are more basic key concepts than the buzz words just above.  Yes, in DMSMH, those words are used and used often but I think those ideas are built on more basic ideas that would first need to be introduced. before reactive mind comes engram.  before engram comes "memory"  defining what a memory is is a key concept I believe. Because then, Dianetics considers a memory to be a "mental image picture" which has a number of qualities which are found by no other disicipline.  That is, Dianetics more throughly defines the qualities of a memory (what we usually mean when we say memory)... more qualities and parameters than any other disipline.  I think this is key because this is where Dianetics departs all the other views.  What say you?  I'm not perfect after all and at no time meant anything personal about the earlier introduction thing.  lol, I still haven't got my way about that though. Terryeo 07:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so let's add "Mental Image Pictures" to the list of key concpts. And "clear" certainly should be on there.  Anything else?  Bear in mind, we're writing a summary of the highlights of the topic: an encyclopedia article is not comprehensive, the way a book might be.  In other words, some aspects of the subject will always be omitted. And also bear in mind that we're just trying to inform a reader what this subject is: we're not writing an instruction manual.   By the way, did you see my last response to you in the discussion about primary sources?  I think there's potential for a serious misunderstanding there about what primary sources are, and we need to be sure that we all understand this the same way.  As I said on that talk page, please read the short article primary source.  BTfromLA 17:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying and for letting me know on my user page. I will read primary sources again and will read your last response about primary sources.  Yes, I understand these are articles meant to inform rather than full books.  Myself, I wouldn't choose to include an article about engram, but to understand it some ideas need to be introduced.  I don't believe it is necessary to use the jargon, perfectly good english equivalents would do the same job but it would take a couple of sentences because an engram is a specific sort of memory.  And a memory has certain characteristics.  Until the difference between a normal memory and the more rare, engram, how can "engram" make sense?  Hubbard defined 52 perceptics (sound, color, time of day, etc) that any memory contains.  I'm not sure how far to go with this. lol.  Well, I do hope you find the work rewarding and I've generally found your statements on here to be more useful than most anyone else's.  Terryeo 18:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation re Dianetics
I think we need to expose the editing dispute over Dianetics to a wider audience. Terryeo clearly has no intention of following basic editing standards, whether it's because he doesn't agree with them or just doesn't understand them. We should, however, give him the chance to get the views of people who haven't been involved in this dispute and whom he might see as less partial sources of advice than us. I propose to submit a Request for Mediation concerning the Dianetics article. If that fails, an Request for Comment on Terryeo's conduct may be necessary, though I'd prefer that to be only a last resort. Would you be willing to be a party in the initial Request for Mediation? -- ChrisO 19:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, chrisO and I have been dancing around while you have been sweating away in the slave pit BT, Happy breathing space heh ! Terryeo 04:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Hi BTfromLA. I suspect you have touched on the center of the difficulty in one of your comments to me.  I thought I would reply here also.  I do assume that editors edit in good faith.  I believe the Rolling Stones guy created an article in good faith.  But the problem has to do with understanding the subject.  That is what you touched on and what I am replying about.  It is not that I expect anyone to understand, no editor need understand what he is editing.  But it would be nice.  I do hope to make it easy to understand. But the subjects are easily misunderstood.  I am pretty sure that you are neutral and wouldn't mind understanding the subjects of the articles, ChrisO is certain he understands them completely, Feldspar refuses to understand more than he does already, Spirit of Man understands that which he edits, and so on.  I do not oppose other points of view, but I present that Dianetics is not understood by most of the editors.  I suspect they think they understand Dianetics very very well, but when editors refuse to allow "Dianetics is an action" and insist on "Dianetics is a set of ideas" then it tells me that those editors do not understand Dianetics very well.  The only way these articles can make sense is by us editors working together.  I don't know how to bring that about.  Terryeo 18:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that "Dianetics is a theraputic practice" conveys the sense that it is something people actively do, rather than merely read about. Talking about the central practice of auditing, and describing auditing as a two-person method of counseling, also gets at it.  But you have consistently rejected such phrases in favor of completely non-specific lines like "Dianetics is an action."  This makes the article worse, and editors are, in my view, completely justified in being upset with you for making edits against consensus over and over again. The only way you are going to get better information about Dianetics into the article is if you can actually articulate something that the rest of us recognize as good information.  When you, for example, were able to communicate to me the idea that the mind is made up of "mental image pictures," and that this was a key concept in Dianetics which wasn't included in the article, it was easy for me to add it, and nobody has attempted to remove it, as far as I know, because that is a clear and relevant nugget of information.  But that is the exception in my experience of your edits.  I think you would do well to try to think of Dianetics in terms of concepts and rituals: what are those concepts? what are those rituals?  That will result in material that can serve the article--specific facts rather than woozy subjective impressions.  I go back to my suggestions from several months ago--you stand a much better chance of working with the other editors if you can develop your editing ability such that your understandng of what consitutes informative encyclopedic writing is more in line with the rest of us.  There's a POV conflict with other editors here, to be sure, but that is greatly exacerbated by the writing/editing/interpretation of policy problems that you could minimize by some writing practice and perhaps some experience editing wikipedia articles on subjects of interest to you but where you do not see yourself as the expert. BTfromLA 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a useful reply. I appreciate your telling me that example about mental image pictures. Terryeo 13:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * Thank you for a civil reply. Terryeo 12:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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


 * My question to Farenheit451 was a followup to his or her comments on the arbitration page. Farenheit, who seems to be a former scientologist, seemed to think that some of your behavior that the rest of us have found so frustrating was due to Cos policy--I wasn't clear whether the implication was that you were working directly for the CoS or merely reporting about your activities here to them, or what.  So, if you are willing to shed some light on these issues for me, please do. BTfromLA 16:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, happy to do so. I am not at this time nor have I ever been a member of any staff of any church, mission or organization of any church of scientology nor any of its associated groups. ever. at all. never. not a bit, not a whit and not a jot.  Heh.  Is that an answer? I am editing because the subjects in this area are not introduced.  I understand pefectly well that you, BT, and the other editors who have brought an arbitration against me and whom hope to see ChrisO,s "a lengthy ban" implemented, I know you are editing in good faith.  I understand you present into the articles the subjects as you understand.  I tell you the subjects are not present.  I tell you the subjects are not presented, another manner of saying this same things would be to say, "the subject matter is misstated."  I am reminded of the U.S. Army attempting to educate men in Iraq about military action.  An Army man would say a paragraph.  The listening, trying hard Iraqis would listen hard and understand exactly what they thought he meant.  But he meant something else entirely different.  This is the situation with the Dianetics and Scientology articles.  I'm trying, I believe you and other editors are tryingTerryeo 18:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, thanks for clarifying that. So, does not being a staff member mean that you are in no communication whatsoever with CoS staff about Wikipedia?  As to the subject matter being misstated--we've gone round and round on this, and you have not made it clear (to me, at any rate) anything that is false in existing introductions.  With Dianetics, specifically, it currently starts with "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the human mind and an associated practice for treating mental ailments developed by author L. Ron Hubbard."  What is false or misleading about that?  BTfromLA 18:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not in communication whatsoever with any CoS staff about Wikipedia. I will try here again about Dianetics. Dianetics is an activity which uses a room and an E-meter as Baseball is an activity which uses a baseball field and a bat.  Dianetics is an activity which uses ideas, a quiet room and an indicator as a means for a person to look at their experience.  A person then has the opportunity to view how they got balled up, messed up, turned around, temporarily confused and by looking at it again, can see what they missed earlier, when they were under duress or in pain, or were only partly concious because the baseball had hit them in the hand. An activity, the person looks at a memory, realizes that at that moment, pain was all there was in their whole universe but at this moment, now, they have a memory and it is less important.  Instead of grabbing at the ball with the ungloved hand, they meant to grab at the ball with their baseball glove but tripped (or something) and they no longer need to be careful of not tripping while wearing a baseball glove.  It is an activity.  Hope this helps. Terryeo 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I better add this bit, I sometimes talk with various staff persons of various organizations in various ways. I don't do this regularly but once in a while, sure, I talk with people on staff.  Wikipedia isn't a big topic but it is possible it might at some time be brought up and discussed. Terryeo 15:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Terryeo. The above is somewhat helpful--based on that, it sounds to me like the sort of "activity" that Dianetics is could be described as "psychological therapy," or a method of therapy for alleviating inappropriate emotional responses to past experiences. "Activity" alone doesn't tell us much--Dianetics and Baseball aren't really in the same category, and a reader would be able to know that if you called Baseball a "team sport" rather than the vaguer term "activity."  I'd still appreciate it if you could clarify what is false or misleading about that intro sentence.  BTfromLA 02:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe a better parallel example would be the Catholic Confessional. Would you call the confessional an "activity?"  Or would you call it "a set of ideas with an associated practice?" A priest and a parishoner in a quiet room.  One listens, one talks.  Is that an activity?  How about, "(The confessional / Dianetics) is a practice which is based on a set of ideas?"  Dianetics is more structred, has more buzz words, has a more closely defined theory but the practice is similar, two people in communcation, one speaking and the other listening.


 * Take a look at confessional and confession for examples of how these have been handled at Wikipedia. The confessional is the physical booth in which the confession takes place.  Neither topic seem an apt analogy for Dianetics, which is at once a set of claims about the mind, a kind of theraputic practice, and the basis for a large, multi-pronged organization variously described as a social betterment enterprise or a cult. --BTfromLA 18:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Today Dianetics reads:

''This article is about the theory and practice termed Dianetics, the secular predecessor of Scientology. For the book by L. Ron Hubbard first published in 1950, see Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.'' "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the human mind and an associated practice for treating mental ailments .."
 * The problems are Three. First, "practice / activity" or some action should be the first thing presented.


 * Says who? It is not at all self-evident that the practice should come first, nor is it clear why it really matters which clause comes first--the meaning is basically the same. --BTfromLA 18:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


 * That you, Terryeo? I don't wish to identify my profession here, but I assure you it has nothing to do with Scientology (or with anti-Scientology, or Psychiatry, or anything related).  I live in Los Angeles, where Scientology has a highly visible presence. And I have an interest in the post ww-II popular culture that Hubbard was part of (the pulps, etc.). So, I'm curious about that organization, and in general I'm curious about people's beliefs. That's the basis for my interest, plus I enjoy the challenge that Wikipedia presents of NPOV writing about  passionately contested topics.  I've read a fair bit about Scientology at this point, and I've toured the public displays like the LRH life exhibition, but I am not an expert in the subject nor have I ever claimed to be one.  BTfromLA 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, I appreciate honesty. I consider your answer to be complete and sufficient, thank you.  I'm not a staff member nor any part of any of the Church of Scientology's organization except that I'm "public" to Scientology. I've taken some courses, purchased and did some auditing, done some audting in courses I've taken, applied it in Life, saved a person's life (they later said that, anyway) with Scientology Tech and generally have improved my life a good deal by understanding and applying scientology technology.  That ought to give you a feel for my POV. heh. I think it would be accurate if I say that I see the philosophy of it and I understand why "a study of knowledge" is the pathway by which any living person can, if they persue it, come to know they are an immortal, spiritual being.  There !  I've finally said it and of course I do not expect anyone to swollow my knowledge any more than anyone can expect me to swollow thiers. Terryeo 01:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer to your question on the CoS
It is possible that Terryeo is editing wikipedia without direction of the Office of Special Affairs, but likely there is some liaison. OSA does not like Wikipedia, I know this from the time I was involved with the CoS. They do not want information that is derogatory on the subject or David Miscavige published, even if true. The public relations section of OSA keeps statistics on favorable articles on Scientology and if any that are published are unfavorable, that statistic is penalized. A "handling" program is written with various targets set. So, the strategy is to get rid of Wikipedia editors and admins who write or support derogatory information. If they cannot do that, then conduct protracted edit wars that involve nitpicking, so an edit that is disfavorable to OSA is attacked for citation, then the citation attacked as not being a "reliable source". There are many examples of disruptive editors on the Scientology related articles, the most recent one being JimmyT/UNK. With david miscavige's alteration of the Suppressive Acts policy letter in January 1991, any member of the CoS can be comm ev'd and declared a suppressive person for violating any of the very broad, general ten points of the policy letter "Keeping Scientology Working". So, it is an oxymoron to have someone involved in, what is now a totalitarian group, attempt to edit an encyclopedia in the commons that recognizes and supports free speech.--Fahrenheit451 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no laison, there has never been any laison. I do not work for nor am I associated with as an employee, any church, group, office or other organization.  Myself.  But, Mr Fahrenheit451, that you would suspect me tells me how you feel about me :)  Have a nice day, you hear?  BTW.  Patter drills are neither chinese drills nor practical drills.  While neither of those policies apply to patter drills in any way, I can also point to thousands of other policy letters which do not point to patter drills in any way.  In fact, I can't find a single policy letter that does point to patter, nor to patter drills and your TR-101, 102,103,103 and 105 are not TRs and are disallowed.  Those TRs were brought into force by someone early as BTBs and were cleaned up and removed from HCOBs.  Have a nice day. Terryeo 18:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


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

Requests for arbitration/Terryeo
Hello,

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


 * My response is at BTfromLA 19:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I had really hoped for some co-operative understanding. I should have gotten a clue earlier I guess, after I gave you my best analysis of the Rolling Stones article.  Good day. Terryeo 00:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll just tell you outright. I thought we had a little communication going.  I've responded honestly to two questions which you have asked me to do.  I just feel a little sad now.  Terryeo 00:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, I also think we had some communication going, and I took the time to spell out what I think the problems are with the criticisms you were directing toward me and with the editorial alternative you proposed: please note that while I indirectly accused you of "grossly POV" editing (and I'd stand by that), you directly accused me of editing that mis-states, confuses and belittles the subject. I made a sincere attempt to communicate in response.  My goal was not to sadden you, and I'm sorry if that was the result. Short of just going along with your preferences, though, I don't know how else you would have me respond.  BTfromLA 00:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To begin with, Auditing is a procedure. The article might present it is a procedure without insisting that it be presented as a "therapy".  That is a word that could describe auditing, that is not a completely wrong word to use, but to understand auditing as a therapy would require that a person conceive of the concepts presented in Scientologi 8-8008 which is, I believe very well beyond the scope of a single, introductory paragraph about auditing.  A person who makes their living at auditing could talk about how it is a therapy.  But as an introductory paragraph I don't feel it is appropriate to present it as a threapy.  If a person understand, not knows as a theory, but actually understands there are past moments of literal records which they can not easily view, but which they carry around and inhibits their activity with the world around them, if a person actually understands they might have engrams, then yes, then it could be viewed as a therapy because there is something to treat but until they have that concept how can they think of talking with someone as a therapy, except in the sense of the Catholic Confessional being a therapy (not commonly thought of that way) or in the sense of psychothreapy (I won't even mention what I think of that).  Its not appropriate to remove whole pieces of an introduction and substitute your own understanding when you have never educated yourself in it nor used it, without some discussion.  I am not trying to slap your wrist, I am attempting to establish that discussion serves Wikipedia better.


 * Once again, Terryeo, I think you have a very unorthodox interpretation of the task of an encyclopedia. As I just wrote on the other page in response to wikipdiatrix, an encyclopedia classifies and compares.  "Auditing is a procedure" is mystifying, when the goal of encyclopedic writing is to clarify.  A procedure to do what?  To whom? By whom? For the benefit of whom? What are the premises underlying this procedure?  How did it originate?  What is the history of this procedure?  How has it been received by third-party commentators?  etc.  You seem to say that a mysterious account of the subjective experience of "a person" is a better way to explain this. It might be the way to lure customers or converts (and you notice how many times different editors have responded to your writing as if it seems like promotional copy) but it simply doesn't cut it as encyclopedic writing.  Is there some part of what I'm saying that doesn't make sense to you?  BTfromLA 01:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a description of Auditing which does not begin with "auditing is a procedure" is not going to describe it well. By itself there may be some mystery, but combined with other statements it can make sense.  While the opposite would be hardly be true.  These area are difficult. Anytime we talk about procedures where one person tells another person their thoughts, tells their thoughts freely and without the element of "what should I tell, what should I keep secret", anytime we touch on things like this the area becomes difficult.  The part of what you are saying which does not make sense to me is the implication that a person who has not been educated in Auditing and has never used auditing would be better qualified to write an article's introduction to auditing than a person who has frequently and successfully been educated in and used auditing. That might work for "hammering nails" but isn't going to work for "auditing" or "piloting a moon rocket". Terryeo 20:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

Terryeo is still up to disrupting the wikipedia editing process. Here are some documented examples: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo/Proposed_decision --Fahrenheit451 02:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fahrenheit451 still doesn't understand wiki courtesy and can't indent his posts. I still edit my discussion and user pages per wikipedia policy.  I still follow WP:RS which still states: Personal websites can not be used as secondary sources.  Which was the issue, I belive, which so disurbed some editors that after months of talk, actual action drove them into disturbed reaction. Terryeo 00:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Terryeo
This case is closed. Details of the final decision are published at the link above.

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

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


 * Terryeo, I understand the part about not wanting my input. But I don't fully understand the rest of it--are you saying that I'm trying to suppress knowledge of scientology?  And that the reason I'm doing so is because I believe that scientology helps people?!? If that's what you're saying, I promise you that's completely untrue--I would like the articles to include clear, factual, well-written information and to point the way to good sources for further research, just as with articles on other topics.  I'm not trying to obscure or suppress anything--maybe that's something you do, but not me. The other thing I'm confused about is the part where you say I'm not being a gentleman.  Let me try to interpret that.  Are you saying that if you--or anyone--publically posts inflammatory writings--no matter how misleading, false, crazy, whatever--the civil thing for me to do is to let them pass without comment, to adopt a "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything" philosophy?  That's my best guess as to what you mean about the gentlemanly bit--have I got that right?  The problem with that view is this: anytime any of us publish opinions, we are partcipating in a conversation--which is to say we are inviting others to consider what we say and to respond in turn. If you don't want a conversation or debate with others, don't publish it... keep it in your diary.  You're angry at me because I've taken what you've written seriously, and I've tried to direct your attention to what I percieve as grave flaws in your reasoning.  You have always been welcome to address my arguments, and I'm disappointed that you have rarely done so. Believe it or not, my recent posts which you have disparaged as accusatory and lawyerlike are actually motivated by a desire to promote clear thinking and honesty.  I hope I've left you with some future food for thought, at least.  BTfromLA 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC) (This message was originally posted to Terryeo's user talk page--he immediately deleted it, as he has with many of my posts. Placed here to restore continuity to the discussion.)


 * You have on several occassions attempted to force my point of view to comply with yours. I understand that you tend to forget that your purpose in communicating is to challenge and then defeat and force complience.  I understand that.  But you forget that you do, apparently. Terryeo 04:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying. I am at a loss to imagine how I have tried to "force compliance."  You make it sound as if I've pointed a gun at you and demanded you dive off a bridge. I've tried to persuade you to confront problems with what you've written--evasions, falsehoods, or unsound reasoning.  If my tone has been impatient or angry at times, it's because I've felt that your behavior had reached the point of insulting my intelligence and good will.  I presume you understand what I was reacting to, even if you don't think my reaction was warranted.  If you can point to an example of my attempting to "defeat and force compliance," please do so.  I'd also appreciate it if you could let me know whether my interpretations of your first note above were substantially correct. BTfromLA 05:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no "correct" nor any "incorrect". There is communication and there is miscommunication.  Terryeo 06:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Yes, I have attempted to persuade you that you were wrong in cases where you were in fact wrong, not merely expressing a different opinion--a claimed direct quote either is a quote or it isn't. What's wrong with that? One of the many things that baffles me about you, Terryeo, is that you issue provocative and argumentative statements on a more-or-less daily basis, but you act offended when somebody argues with you in turn, or asks you to support your assertions with evidence. BTfromLA 23:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You have strongly attempted to get me not only banned from editing articles, but banned even from discussions, such as this one. You particularly and specificaly state on Feldspar's talk page that you personally contacted each and every arbitrator in an effort to get all of my communication banned forever from Wikipedia.  That, after I responded to you in a friendly and forthcoming manner on issues you asked me about.  Yet here you are communicating with me.  What's your point? Terryeo 22:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't tried to get you banned from user talkpages like this one. As is so often the case, Terryeo, you are loose with the facts and you end up presenting a falsehood. I did, however, suggest that your ban from editing Scientology-related articles be extended to the talk pages of those articles, since much of the disruptive and counterproductive behavior for which you were banned took place (and continues) on the talk pages. I've stated my case on this elsewhere, and since you have declared that you do not want my "input," I'm a little surprised that you are bringing this up again now. Yes, it's true that I have continued to communicate with you despite my conclusion about your ban.  Why?  We've been talking a while--why not? For some reason, I still want to offer you every chance to understand what the problem is here, to which you seem oblivious. I gather that you are imagining some conspiratorial plot against you personally and/or against Scientology in general of which I am part. Sorry, no such thing is true.  Indeed, I've been trying, for months, to direct your attention to the ways that your problems here result from your flouting basic principals that underly Wikipedia.  That's the problem--not the fact that you have good things to say about Scientology.  You seem to want to believe that every one of the editors who have been so appalled by your conduct that they actually went to the trouble to sign on to formal protests against it--more than twenty of them--are part of some anti-Scientology cabal.  But some part of you must recognize that hypothesis is probably not true.  That's the part of you  I'm still trying to communicate with. BTfromLA 03:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Happy Ho Ho's
???? Maybe we should check xenu.net, it may be scio-speak like RPF, overts/withholds, KRs, R2-45, wall of fire, Incident II, and the r6 implant :) - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  17:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A google search indicates that Hostess, manufacturer of Twinkies, created a cartoon mascot in the 1970s called "Happy Ho Ho." Perhaps Terryeo identifies with a cartoon spongecake. Whatever the case, he wants to remain cryptic--lately, he seems to be trying to suggest that I'm involved in some dark conspiracy against him, which he connects in some way to "happy ho ho's."  Maybe that's the secret password at the Skull and Bones lodge.  Didn't search xenu.net--if you learn anything there, please send a report to Captain Cupcake. BTfromLA 18:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey mate
Shame about Antaeus declining the RfA nom, he'd be kick ass, thanks for your support tho, appreciated. Hey, do tell... what's "DevTpedia"??? - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  16:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you've been following the adventures of Terryeo, you know that some editors familiar with scientology have described a conspicuous aspect of his behavior here--constant demands for attention of various types, including farfetched arguments about policy that do not respond to any genuine problem--as consistant with a scientology policy called "Dev-T" or "Developed Traffic." As I understand it (I'm no expert), the idea is to defeat "enemies" by forcing them to do much unecessary, counterproductive (and costly, where applicable) work.  In a recent talk discussion, Antaeus advised Terryeo to start his own wiki, "DevTpedia." In my explanation, it's not funny, but in context, it was.  BTfromLA 18:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


 * Terryeo, since you keep coming back to this, here's my understanding of why the Jon Atack conversation went as it did:


 * 1. While Wikipedia guidelines entitle editors to demand a citation for any fact, it is also clear that one can over-apply these demands in a way that goes against the spirit of the guidelines and becomes an abuse of process. Somebody's example was "water is wet."  I hope you'll agree that it would be ridiculous and disruptive to demand a citation for that.  The fact is that all of the articles are full of uncited facts, which are appropriately uncited because they are not controversial, not key to the article, and not details that would logically provide the basis for further research by the reader.  So, one must exercise discretion about demands for citation--there should be some real value added by the added citation.


 * 2. Your reputation precedes you--you were banned from directly editing the Scientology articles, largely on grounds that your edits were disruptive and inappropriate. As a result, many editors immediately view your comments with a level of skepticism that they would not bring to the comments of an editor who had demonstrated themself a responsible contributor. Thus, even when you raise a valid point, there's a bit of a "boy who cried wolf" effect.  So, if you wish to persuade editors to take your objections seriously, to onus is upon you to make an especially clear and convincing case.


 * 3. As was made obvious by the subsequent discussion, you did not initially make a clear and persuasive case as to why this citation was valuable.


 * 4. It was not self-evident to the other editors that you has raised an "important issue." Indeed, it is my impression that many thought that you were raising a non-issue in order to interfere with information that you personally dislike.


 * 5. Thus, the conversation turned to the question of whether your demand for a more complete citation about the OTIII fact met the threshold to be taken seriously, or whether it was a "water is wet" sort of demand. To some, this question of abuse of process was the real issue you had raised, and people wrote as much.  As I recall, you failed to ackowledge or address this issue at all.

Similarly, the are you are talking about "Dev-T" (Developed, nonproductive traffic). The issues were real issues, editors were refusing to confront them. In refusing to confront the issues raised, editors were attacking the discussion as being "Dev-T". Terryeo 16:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Terryeo 16:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Issues raised should be confronted.
 * 2) Calling discussion which raises issues and is not confronted "Dev-T" not only refuses to confront the issues, but attacks the editor who has raised the issue, while not exactly a personal attack, it has similar overtones to a personal attack.
 * 3) If an issue is not a valid issues, why comment on it at all unless you hope to destroy or degrade the editor who is raising the issue?
 * 4) Clearly and obviously, almost all of the Scientolgy series articles do not present the information which comprises the subject evoked by the article titles.  Efforts to cause Suppressive person to present what is meant by the originator of the term and to present the technology which surrounds the term are constantly fought against.  The editors which do not understand the term find obscure, unpublished partial quotation which they stick in at radom places.  Those don't contribute the basic idea which is simply that a small percentage of people cause an unduly large amount of trouble. Yet any law enforcement agency on the planet can tell you that, any view of any society which incarcerates a few in order that the many can live in peace, freedom and prosperity can tell you that.


 * I hope my above comments address the rest of these remarks--I can revist them upon request. I must say that your claims about "presenting the subject" ring false to me.  "Suppressive Person," is hardly limited to idenfying a small "criminal class" that the local constabulary needs to slap in the hoosgow, as your summary above suggests.  In practice, based on the info I've seen at any rate, the focus is overwhelmingly placed on people who are labelled "enemies" of Scientology, who cause trouble for scientology.  If you downplay that most conspicuous of facts, you misrepresent the subject.  (Indeed, you've labelled a bunch of the wikipedia editors here as SPs, on grounds that the vast bulk of society would not recognize as remotely criminal or contrary to "peace, freedom and prosperity."  BTfromLA 22:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you state what I state is not factual nor accurate but "my claim". Well.
 * I have told you in simple clear detail the use of suppressive person technology within the Church.
 * You don't view what I have said to apply.
 * Good day. Terryeo 06:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Come on, Terryeo, I wrote you a long and sincere response in an attempt to communicate--there's no reason for you to get offended and charge off. If I misrepresented something, tell me what.  Are you saying that "Suppressive Person" is NOT applied to those who interfere with Scientology, but is most often used to address those who "suppress" individuals, organizations or ideals that have no connection to Scientology? And I should add the word "claim" to that list above of terms that you seem to find very disagreeable for reasons I don't comprehend.  BTfromLA 08:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * Thanks for your further response. We've wandered pretty far from the issue I was trying to discuss--whether there is something in the philosophy of Scientology that promotes ideas about the handling of information that are at odds with what most non-scientologists see as the concept of editing an encyclopedia. Before I reply to the above SP stuff, can we go back and talk about some of what you skipped over earlier?  Do you have any response to the other things I wrote above, in response to you first post?  BTfromLA 20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We have wandered and I have contributed to the wandering. I don't have further to say at this time. Terryeo 21:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, you are sometimes very difficult to communicate with. I guess you'd prefer I stop trying. For what it's worth, here's a response to the question that you pose above--"why would anyone attack it?"


 * 1. First off, criticism is not the same as a fundamental attack on an institution. Criticism of the policies of the US government, for example, does not equate to an attack on the US government.  Criticism can be a means by which people endeavor to make things better.
 * You separate criticsm from attack. good. Terryeo 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. Consider whether your theory that attacks come from a desire to stop others from being helped applies in other situations. It would seem that if your SP idea is true, that would mean that Scientology's attacks on psychiatry stem from a desire to prevent people from being helped.  Is that the case?
 * ok.   .  Nope, attacks come from people who attempt to stop help from reaching other people.  Terryeo 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 3. The people who publicly criticize scientology seem to come from several different angles--independent journalists, jurists, internet free speech advocates, and former members of the church, including high-ranking longtime members, some of whom worked directly with Hubbard. From my perspective, it seems logical to presume that the motivation of these critics is not the same in every case.  It also appears to me that, however misguided you might believe them to be, it is probable that many of them are motivated by enirely honorable goals, such as a desire to keep people from being victimized. BTfromLA 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A critic is a person who purports to know a subject. Knowledge treds before criticsm.  Trashmouthed statements like appear in ChrisO's referenced book by Ruth in the Suppressive person article, statements that say, "Scientology says that people are descended from thetans" isn't criticsm.  It isn't based on knowledge but is based on misinformed misunderstanding, and then presented as knowledgeable criticsm.  It is my position that all or nearly all of the criticsm that can be read about Scientology come from misunderstanding. It is further my understanding that attacks directed at Scientology come from a fear that people might be helped by Scientology.  Terryeo 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. The question was meant to be rhetorical because, you see, the Church is presenting its products to the public.  The public is free to ignore or purchase its goods and services.  There is nothing going on except what appears on the surface.  It has defended itself vigorously, I won't argue that.  When its copyrights are violated, it defends itself.  When it doesn't get the same tax breaks as other institutions of its kind it defends itself.  When parishoners leave it with stolen documents and attempt to publish those documents it legally defends itself.  And this is legal, laws of the land defence, laws put in place by popular opinion and agreed on.  Terryeo 09:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly, many people who have looked into the matter have come away believing that there is and has been a lot of stuff beyond "what appears on the surface," if by that you mean what the Church of Scientology says about itself. But once again I find myself asking, Terryeo, why don't you respond to any of my particular comments?  BTfromLA 14:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The people who have "looked into the matter" which you reference have not looked into the matter. They have looked at something, they have not understood something, on that misunderstanding they talked with someone, as you are talking with me, and they formed further misunderstandings.  You see the effort we are both making toward being understood by the other.  It isn't so easy, but we both try.  The moment we get into a word (Dev-T or any other) a word that we don't both understand well, we run into problems piled on problems.

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

Touretzky's study tech site
Replied to you on my user page about that. Terryeo 22:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Your personal attack
You stated: ''Terryeo continues to amplify his claims about the bad faith of Wikipedia with regards to Scientology...'. That is a personal attack because:
 * I have never made any claim that Wikipedia exhibited bad faith in any regard. More specifically I have frequently expressed confidence in Wikipedia's policies.  In particular it has always been my opinion, and I have often stated so, that Wikipedia's "widely published" will result in good, reliable articles. Terryeo 19:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Further, though I have never claimed any bad faith about Wikipedia in the past, I did not claim any bad faith at your cited example, either. (the personal attack editing difference) Your statement is brashly untrue. Because it states I have claimed what you state I claim, it is a personal attack.  That you chase your first, untrue, personal attack with a second stated opinion which you have often expressed does not excuse your personal attack.  Please stop your personal attacks. Terryeo 19:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, while you might want to argue with my interpretation of your actions, there is absolutely nothing in my comments that even faintly approach the status of a personal attack. Evidently you do not understand the concept of personal attack--please read the appropriate policy WP:NPA.  BTfromLA 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have spelled out how your statement is a personal attack. You don't understand that you have made a personal attack and you have said so.  Nonetheless, my words that appear spell out specificaly what your personal attack was and why it was a personal attack.  I have read WP:NPA.  It appears that you are unable to understand.  Terryeo 20:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, you did not supply any evidence whatever that I engaged in a personal attack. And, indeed, there was no personal attack.  It's hard to believe you read that guideline and came away thinking this situation somehow fit the criteria... if you can show me where there's something in there that describes my "crime," please do.  And please feel free to solicit the opinion of a third party on this. A personal attack needs to be an attack or threat directed at you, personally.  Using civil language to characterize your actions as an editor is not a personal attack.  BTfromLA 21:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

It seems that any criticism of Terryeo's actions are considered a "personal attack" by him, but, for example, he makes a personal attack on me at Talk:David_Miscavige "It surely must appear to everyone, as it does to me, that User:Fahrenheit451 is attempting to present into this Miscavige artile, every bit of controversy possible in every area possible, as a sort of erudite attack against Miscavige. Of course, we understand that motivation, but nonetheless, there are many examples of articles about noteable peope who are alive today. Let us work toward a presentation as good as any other noteable person, still alive. Terryeo 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)" and that is just fine with him. --Fahrenheit451 02:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you are posting that one around here and there, F. Asking for opinions, asking if it is a personal  attack.  :)  Yet you refuse to communicate with me about the situtation after I have attempted to open a communication channel with you on your user page :)  Terryeo 20:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

Response and message
I posted a response to your question. Terryeo 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Re: 2 cents
In regard and response to your post, which you told me that there was no need to reply to feel there is some possible positive reply to make.
 * I say I make POV edits, I say this on the basis that it is impossible not to make POV edits because everyone over the age of 3 months has their own POV. Anti-Scientology editors whom run their own personal anti-Scientology websites are obviously making POV edits.
 * There is a crucial difference between having a point of view--everyone does--and editing to promote your point of view. Editors here pledge to present issues from a "neutral" point of view in the articles they edit, not a pro or con one, and they try to edit in such a way that all sides will recognize that their arguments ahave been presented fairly. It never works perfectly, and sometimes it fails miserably, but that's the goal.  Somebody who edits wikipedia with the expressed goal of advocating for point of view other than the neutral one in the articles doesn't belong here.


 * You state about my motivation, you view that my edits might not be toward readable articles, but might instead by done with the intention of causing upset, turmoil and difficulty. "Dev-T" is the term you use.  I deny that, right here.


 * Good. I am operating under the assumption that you are ediing in good faith.  But I hope that you understand why people might think otherwise, based on your actions.


 * In recent weeks my edits have revolved around a single point. That point is Reliable sources.  I realize it might be difficult to see, but this has been the whole of my work in recent weeks and was a portion of why I was banned from editing.


 * OK.


 * I have always considered that NPOV and its resultant V, as long as OR is excluded, will result in readable information. I have always known that if personal opinion is freely placed into these articles, the result will be no better than a google newgroup.  Actually implementing WP:NPOV as spelled out by WP:V and further and more specifically hammered flat into rules by WP:RS will result in readable articles.


 * You and I seem to interpret these policies differently and have a differnt relationship to rules. You like them a lot more than I do.  That's fine--you're hardly alone in that.  To paraphrase something I wrote elsewhere, I think we should aim for readable, concise, factually accurate articles written in a neutral voice.  In other words, I think it is usually a better question to ask whether a given contribution improves the article according to those aims than to ask "does this violate a stated guideline?"


 * This is not the situation today. This has not been the situation at all.  Personal opinion from google groups, and from other sources creep into the articles.  Without attacking anyone, I will give you an example.  User:ChrisO is known on the internet as having created many erudite sounding essays.  They appear at xenu.net, solitary trees, his own personal website (anti-narconon) and other anti-scientology websites.  He posts frequently to the google groups anti-scientology usergroup.  None of his words are published by a reliable source.  But his opinions creep into the articles in a variety of ways, presented as secondary sources of information, as if he were a published author.  He is not published by a reliable source.  Newspapers don't quote him.  Publishers don't publish books which contain his opinions.  Governments do not ask him to testify before them about Scientology.  Therefore, his opinions should not be any part of any Sceintology article.  But, if his words are published by a reliable source then his words could be included.  I hope you see what I am talking about because I don't state this to inflame anyone, nor to attack anyone, but to make clear the effort I am making here.  I would hope to reduce any confusion.  I simply want Wikipedia to work.  This means following WP:V, this means when a concensus of editors create a guideline, WP:RS, then that guideline is followed unless editors who refuse to follow that guideline are willing to talk about their need for an exception on that guideline's discussion page.  How clear can I be?  I know the information and when someone says "my thetan doesn't wear combat boots" it is immediately clear to me, the person doesn't understand the meaning of the word "thetan".


 * There are problems with readability, bias and sourcing in many of the Scientology aricles, I agree: they could certainly be improved. I don't fully agree with your characterizations of the situation above, and since we've been over a lot of that stuff before, plus you may be entering into some kind of treaty with ChrisO if TheronJ has his or her way, I'll let the rest of it pass without comment, unless you want me to repond to something in particular.


 * Now, I have finished saying what is necessary. I said that my effort is toward readable articles, I mean to achieve it by having only reliable sources in articles. I'll say why my effort is necessary (as I see it). Scientology exists.  It has grown.  It has a little substance right now.  To understand it,  there is a necessity which is not commonly understood and that necessity is this.  The written word must be understood, that is, a reader can't go past a misunderstood word and expect to grasp the subject.  The knowledge of the subject is indemonstrable.  It is real knowledge but it is indemonstrable.  Newton's falling spheres experiments which led to the law of gravity can be duplicated today.  But after a person examines a thought, the significance of that thought changes for that person.  So any knowledge arrived at can never again be demonstrated with exactly the situation which was present before he examined the thought.  Scientology is indemonstrable knowledge.  And this is completely contrary to western science. It leads to difficulties and the slightest misunderstanding causes it to not be understood at all.  Thus, I am working toward reliable sources.  Anyway, thanks for an opportunity to state the situation as simply as I can. Terryeo 17:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I always appreciate a forthright statement of your position. I would add, to what you (and Hubbard) say, that not only must one understand the meaning of words, one most equally focus on the meaning of sentences, and paragraphs, to grasp any subject.  BTfromLA 02:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. Terryeo 10:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * I read the sentence as having two distinct clauses. The first part, "all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source," specifies which viewpoints we consider: i.e., only those who have been published by reliable (secondary, for the most part) sources.  (It also says that we only need to deal with "significant" ones--a distinction that is explained later in the paragraph).


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

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

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

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

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

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

Terryeo's ban
Does Terryeo's ban on editing Scientology-related articles include inserting Scientology ideas into non-Scientology articles? I was quite disturbed by this post in which User:Justanother seems to be suggesting that they begin gradually altering the Psychiatry article to subtly reflect their own POV. wikipediatrix 20:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The community's interactions never cease to rouse my amusement. lol. Terryeo 21:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi BT. Strange that you should think that I am doing anything sneaky ("sneak around his ban") when I openly post my comment to terryeo on his talk page that I well know is monitored by wikipediatrix and others. I think you will grant that I am NOT stupid. I imagine he has email but I never tried so I don't know. Had I desired to be sneaky I would have gone that route, no? Odd that you think it speaks to my credibility that I mention to him that I find that the history of pyschiatry is whitewashed on these pages and that he might want to address that. And because Scientology happens to think that psychiatry has a dubious history, how does that make editing the history of psychiatry a "Scientology article". Either he makes legitimate edits or he does not. Frankly, I think that stretching the terms of his ban does us all a disservice. Better would be to give him his rope and see if he has learned anything. Don't you think? --Justanother 22:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ps How am I "teaming" with terryeo. We share a common interest and I communicated to him of an article that he might like to edit. How is that "teaming". Are you "teaming" with wikipediatrix and Anteaus? pps How is exposing psychiatry's sordid past POV? Either they have one or they don't; how is that POV? If that is POV then exposing the excesses of Scientology here is POV but I don't make that claim, do you? --Justanother 22:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict--sorry if this seems a bit out of order] Thanks for the reply, Justanother. By "sneak" I meant finding a way for Terryeo to introduce Scientology-related content into Wikipedia articles, despite his ban. Obviously, you were not sneaking in the sense of trying to hide your communication, and if the reference to sneaking offends, I withdraw it... "sneaking" isn't the point, and I apologize for the distraction.  Before you arrived on the scene, I was adamant about giving Terryeo chances, chances and more chances to become a productive editor, and made many attempts (as did others) to patiently explain why his actions were meeting with such disapproval by other editors and to suggest ways that he might be able to more effectively bring his perspective to bear on the articles. For the most part, he's shown himself to be incorrigible.  Whether he is driven by a conscious commitment to intentional "Dev-T" disruption of accurate information about Scientology on Wikipedia, or whether his behavior is merely an artifact of blind zealotry or gross editorial incompetence, it's been almost a year of regular editing, and he shows little evidence of engaging in intellectually coherant good-faith editing with regard to any subject that touches on Scientology.  And I think Psychiatry clearly is Scientology-related in this context, don't you?  While I understand your impulse to make common cause with a fellow scientologist, I hope you can see why I think your choice to link up with a well known bad actor subverts your efforts to incorporate a Scientologist's perspective into the editorial mix here, efforts that I support.  BTfromLA 23:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Re sneaking, apology accepted. Re terryeo, I don't know about "him"; sometimes his comments are extremely cogent and sometime they are, shall we say, not (sorry if that offends). I do not know his editing history, I only know him from his comments on the talk pages. There I find him, as I mention, inconsistent in some respects, maybe because he deals differently with the various editors and in the various venues. So I perhaps do not have so low an opinion of him as you do; perhaps if I had walked in your shoes I would. I only know him as a Scientologist that tried to edit here and got banned. That is not much of a condemnation to me because I, perhaps more than anyone, know what effort is required to successfully edit here as an "admitted" Scientologist. I give terryeo credit for hanging in and still being here. I do not know what his motivation is; until shown otherwise I will continue to assume that it is the same as mine, to present Scientology fairly to the world. In that we have "common cause" and "are on the same team". If that makes me guilty by association and damages my credibility, then so be it. On the other point, as Scientologists we condemn the real "pseudoscience of the mind", psychiatry, and as some editors might feel it is important to expose the "sordid underbelly" of Scientology, so do we feel it is important to shine that same light on psychiatry. Good to know you do not object. Can terryeo do it? Not my call; I was merely pointing out that it hadn't been done and that perhaps he might want to. If he can't do it under his ban, then OK. He would be the one to make that call. --Justanother 23:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * RE: Terryeo's history, I suggest you read through the various editors' statements at this RfC and  Terryeo's subsequent arbitration.  It'll give you a sense of the diverse ways in which he was found to be acting inappropriately, and the comments are hardly limited to editors who have some anti-Scientology chip on their shoulder.  BTfromLA 00:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I will take your word for his history prior to my meeting him, after all he was banned from the articles. I can assume that he stepped out of line despite repeated warnings. He is "serving his time" so I will not beat that horse. Whether he can learn and change is something that might interest us; Scientology being fundamentally based on the concept that everything about a man is mutable, based on no more nor less than his postulates or considerations, except for his core nature as a spiritual being. Personally, I would prefer to not treat people based on past behavior but rather on ongoing behavior, especially if his worst crime is excesses as a wikipedia editor, no matter how annoying they were at the time. He has already been punished for those. No need to make him pariah. --Justanother 00:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While I'm all for giving someone a fresh start without prejudice after they've paid their debt to society, part of the value of those links is that they shed light on Terryeo's ongoing behavior on talk pages and policy pages. And they may help you to better understand the climate in the scientology articles that Terryeo helped to create.  I have no reason to treat Terryeo here except as a Wikipedia editor;  personally, I've enjoyed some of my exchanges with him and I wish him well in life.  But as a Wikipedia editor, I've pretty much lost hope that he will mutate into a competent one during this lifetime, and I think the evidence for my conclusion is very strong. I think your inference that I'm unjustly trying to saddle him with pariah status is itself very unjust.  BTfromLA 01:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To the degree that I thought he was being outcast, I got that from the concept that I had hurt my credibility by associating with him. I would think that such a fear would be reserved for associating with an outcast or a criminal. It was my very association with him and my treating him as an equal that seemed to have endangered my credibility. I think that we call people that we warn others against associating with "pariah". I did not mean to hurt your feelings as I have had nothing but good dealings with you. I take issue that my credibility is harmed by dealing with him in an aboveboard manner. Here is the line; "Enlisting Terryeo to sneak around his ban (indeed, teaming with Terryeo at all) undermines his credibility". We have already put "sneak" to bed so we are left with the idea that my suggestion that he might enjoy editing the history of psychiatry is "enlisting" and "teaming with" him. It is not but what would be so wrong if it were? If he can, within his understanding of his ban, edit that article in a manner that will bear scrutiny then I encourage him to do so. Why should I not? I even gave him some advice to aid him in that. Again, why would I not? Being challenged on that is where I get the idea that he is outcast. If I overstated it a bit it might be because you are challenging the credibility I worked hard to build and I think that is truly "unjust". --Justanother 01:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In my view, Terryeo, in his role as a representative of Scientology at Wikipedia, has made your task here far more difficult than it would be had he never become involved. If you took the time to look into it, I'm confident you'd see what I mean; you probably have some sense from what you have seen on the talk pages, both in terms of Terryeo's behavior and the distrust that he arouses among many editors who have dealt with him in the past. I certainly have no objection to your associating with Terryeo or treating him as an equal--of course not. My concern was specifically about your suggesting that he introduce a Scientology POV into articles.  Terryeo has been banned from editing Scientology-related articles, and as far as I can see, the ban was for very good reason, and he has produced little evidence to suggest that he has rectified his approach to editing, and considerable evidence to the contrary. Clear enough?--I hope we can move off this point soon. BTfromLA 02:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can wrap it up. I still take issue that I could damage my credibility by saying what I did to terryeo. Our credibility is established primarily by our edits and how we deal with others over those edits. To use my communication to terryeo on his talk page over a common interest to call my credibility into question is unfair and did not need to be brought up, IMO. To say more will dilute my point so I will not. --Justanother 03:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think we understand each other.  BTfromLA 04:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hail Ralph! --Justanother 04:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wish I could get this much discussion over something important. --Justanother 04:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If BTfromLA and I were part of a cult called "Ralphism" that held that all dentists were holographic entities from the planet Googone, sent here to wage intergalactic war against our saviour Ralph (a sentient head of Lettuce), I think it would be just as troubling if I suggested to him that we start subtly and slowly editing the dentistry article to address our own POV's perceived "whitewashing" of the secret history of dentistry, yes? wikipediatrix 22:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, but what if the history is neither secret nor difficult to document. What if the history is simply their history and it is not addressed here. A person's motivation for editing does not matter. We all have motivation. You want to bar terryeo from a non-banned article because you don't like his motivation? Why not look at his edits? Either they are WP:NPOV and WP:V or they are not. Either terryeo can handle it or he can't. If he can't that will soon be evident. Assuming he even desires to edit there. I was simply making a point to him that the history is just not there. Do you think that actual and verifiable history should be left out? ps I have Goo Gone on the workbench next to me, great stuff. --Justanother 22:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This may be difficult for you to wrap your head around, but unlike Terryeo, I do NOT edit from a POV or a motivation. I am not anti-Scientology, believe it or not. I'll keep an open mind (and eye) on what you consider to be relevant additions to the history section of the Psychiatry article, but my only concern is that information be properly sourced and weighted. (and yes, Goo Gone rules, I agree) wikipediatrix 22:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I am pretty good at wrapping my head around things. And I have noticed some nice edits you made recently and was going to mention them to you but was afraid you might think I was patronizing you. But I would probably classify you as one of the editors I refer to in another post; trying to do the best you can and be fair with material that makes little sense to you. Would you edit string theory from that POV (and yes, that is a POV)? Of course not. If I may, you edit Scientology by default, i.e. since no-one else seems to be doing it. I don't know why you edit Scientology articles and neither do I know how much you have contributed to them. I would be curious to know the why, however. --Justanother 23:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody is objecting to introducing well-sourced info about the history of atrocities that have been performed in the name of mental health in the appropriate articles in a proportionately appropriate manner. The question is whether Terryeo, banned from editing Scientology-related articles, should be the one to do it.  I'd say no--in the context of his ban, it counts as Scientology-related content.  If CCHR wants to send somebody else in to take on the psychiatry articles, fine.  Hail Ralph.  BTfromLA 23:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that is terryeo's call, not mine. Whether he is interested in editing there, whether he thinks it would violate his ban, whether he wants to argue the point. Hail Xenu! --Justanother 23:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding your prior comment: on the contrary, I own - and have read - almost every Scientology/Dianetics book there is (plus many recorded lectures) and I understand Scientology and Dianetics extremely well - more so, in fact, than anyone I've met who professes to be a Scientologist. (I actually met a Scientologist once who had been in the Church for a decade yet could not function in a discussion about the details of the Tone Scale or the Bridge to Total Freedom chart.) So the idea that the "material makes little sense" to me is a nice attempt at condescention, but it won't wash. BT's talk page isn't the place, but if you want to continue this line of thought elsewhere we can. wikipediatrix 23:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you see, I can't do anything right (smile). Sorry, I was not intending to be condescending. I came up with that description based on how much of the material here strikes me. If it is not true of you then I apologize for including you. OK, I won't discuss it further here; perhaps elsewhere, later. --Justanother 00:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a representative
I've said that I don't represent anyone and don't represent any organization. I edit without the approval of any organization and, as far as I know, without the knowledge of any organization. The reason I state this again is because of these two comments in the foregoing discussion.
 * In my view, Terryeo, in his role as a representative of Scientology at Wikipedia ... BTfromLA, 30 October 2006
 * If CCHR wants to send somebody else in to take on the psychiatry articles, fine. Hail Ralph. BTfromLA, 29 October 2006 Terryeo 18:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


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

While I may have taken that one to be the amorphous, "we all represent what we espouse", I seem to recall thinking that you were hinting at an official capacity. But I really did not give it much thought at the time. --Justanother 18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If there was a hint at official blessing, I suppose it was in the mention of "Dev-T." This has been an ongoing debate re: Terryeo--the extent to which his distractions and confusions at Wikipedia are deliberately planned.  But he's consistently maintained he has no connection with OSA or any such, and I see no reason to challenge that claim. And I did mean the earlier statement in exactly the "we represent what we espouse" manner in which you took it.  Terryeo often sounds an alarm when any term is applied to him or his statements--he objects to being characterized as making a claim or holding a belief or offering an argument, etc.  You can see how this, itself, could be interpreted as "Dev-T" BTfromLA 19:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okey-Dokey. I decided very early on that, for me, it would save a lot of "Dev-T" if I just got the "what is your POV, what is your agenda" questions out of the way. If, by now, anyone that is interested in my POV does not know exactly what it is (as well as I can pin it down myself) then they need only ask. Regarding my agenda, it seems to be gelling as I don't like to see Scn misrepresented and I think that deliberate misrepresentation by critics has carried over to here, often by well-meaning editors using material from critical sites and discounting material from CoS sites. While that might be correct for reporting on the misdeeds, I think that if we want to describe a touch assist we should first look at source materials, CoS materials. Then, a criticism of the assist can be offered if the criticism is notable. --Justanother 19:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm off to work... I'll try to look in and make a further comment this evening. BTfromLA 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Later. One example I know is still around is the "screaming at the ashtray" thing (TR-8). That is total misrepresentation of an exercise that makes a lot of sense (learning that intention in communication is NOT a function of volume). I will fix that one one day soon. --Justanother 19:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Calming Influence?
Perhaps I was a calming influence on him (laff). . . --Justanother 15:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Re your question. I don't have a simple answer because I have mixed feelings about "dead-agenting". Certainly if someone is out to destroy you and will publicly use lies and misrepresentation to further that end it seems fair to me to publicly expose their character and their motivation. Don't you think?  Isn't that exactly what they claim to be doing as regards Scientology; exposing its character and motivation?. And what if the dead-agenting site has more respect for the truth than the critics?


 * However, I think that the site makes no distinction between those that would use lies to damage Scientology and those that would not. I have said elsewhere that I too find objectionable actions like reverse picketing and leafleting. I think that Scientologists would be upset if, after picketing a "psych convention", they found themselves picketed and leafleted at their homes and businesses. So when OSA does that to critics they are doing something that they would not want to experience; the definition of an overt act (crime or misdemeanor).


 * I think it is important to distinquish between someone that claims to be an "expert" and someone that is a critic. I think experts should be fair game (oohhh, that term) for discrediting but that critics should not be attacked for criticizing. It is perhaps not a clear line between the two but I think that OSA does not think there is any line at all. --Justanother 19:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I don't agree that "publicly exposing their character and motivation" is an appropriate first response to the charges of critics (or "experts"). If their claims are false, the appropriate response is to rationally demonstrate their claims to be false.  It may also be appropriate to offer information that provides a credible alternative interpretation of the same facts that the critics are citing, or to provide additional relevant information that the critical accounts omit.  I think that the tendency of Scientology spokespeople to shift attention from the question at hand to ad hominem attacks on the critics is one of the chief reasons that Scientology is so widely viewed with suspicion. The fact that the personal attacks coming from Scientologists are often gross distortions of the truth (I think this is true of religiousfreedomwatch) makes matters worse still. The public is left with the overall impression that the critical claims are unanswerable and that Scientologists are some combination of dishonest and crazy.  I don't really understand the distinction you are making between experts and critics--if somebody claims to be an expert and is not one, then their qualifications, or lack of them, would be an appropriate target of criticism.  But, even assuming Dave Touretzky is in the "claimed expert" category, misrepresenting materials that he reproduces on his website that advocates free speech as his personal endorsement of terrorism, etc., is plainly dishonest, irresponsible, and off-point. I've seen no evidence of the dead-agenting sites having more respect for the truth than the critics, and considerable evidence to the contrary, if by "critics," you mean the investigative reporters for Time, LA Times, BBC, ABC, Rolling Stone, etc..  BTfromLA 00:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I am sure that we are not in disagreement to a marked degree. I have already said there is stuff I am uncomfortable with. I am not a representative of Scientology nor an apologist. I do think that we should be careful of over-generalization. I very much like Hubbard's definition of sanity: the ability to recognize differences and similarities. And I very much agree with his n-valued logic (or gradient scales). One can be gradiently more sane or less sane on a given subject. I think that there is plenty of room for more sanity all around on this subject. Not all issues are the same; they do not all warrant response nor the same response. Not all critics are the same; they do not warrant response or the same response. Roteness, such as we might see in an inappropriate response or failure to respond, is simply that, roteness or unthinking response.
 * I never said that dead-agenting should be a first response. What I say is that if someone is publicly presenting something as "truth" as opposed to as their opinion then they are fair game for an evaluation of their credibility as a witness. I think Jesse Prince is a good example here; even the judge in the Lisa case considered him bogus. Should he be quoted as a Scientology "ex-insider" or "expert" with no caveat or challenge at all? If he would set himself up publicly as such then I think it appropriate that he be "dead-agented" publicly. Now would you say that instead the church should seriously respond to every claim he dreams up? That is wacky; all that would do is give him more forum and he would follow with another and another and another. What did you do with Terryeo? Did you continue to waste time with him ("rationally demonstrate [his] claims to be false") or did you get him banned (dead-agented)? I did not say that one should perform character assassination; one should address the person's credibility in the area they are claiming to speak the truth about. As I recall, that is what LRH defined dead-agenting to be; providing hard materials that prove that the person is wrong or lying and then they would not be believed on the subject. He did not define dead-agenting as character assassination. So my point here is that dead-agenting does not equal character assassination; that is something different and I don't know that to be LRH tech so when that is practiced it is "older technology" (i.e. humanoid). True dead-agenting is actually pretty much what you describe as the rational response; you just don't do it over and over and over. This by LRH is right here in wikipedia "The technique of proving utterances false is called "DEAD AGENTING". So, do I support character assassination - no. Do I support dead-agenting - yes, where appropriate. --Justanother 04:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the reply. I hope my response above didn't seem inflammatory--it came across a little more combative than I had intended.  Anyway, I find parts of your latest post confusing... it may come down to my having a different understanding of "dead agenting" than you do.  Unfortunately, I don't know much about the Jesse Prince situation, so I can't address that example in any depth: as I recall from reading a little about him, Prince was a Scientology higher-up, 2nd or 3rd on command in RTC, right?  I also seem to recall reading that once he went public about his experiences inside the RTC, Scientology sent investigators after him who discovered he was growing one potted marijuana plant, and managed to get him brought up on drug charges.  I've googled a bit for the judge who found him "bogus," but I didn't find it.  Maybe there was some sound basis for impugning his credibility, but the fact that he planted a marijuana seed doesn't address that at all, in my view.  And the fact--assuming it is a fact--that he was a top exec in the organization does make him a fairly powerful witness, whose claims deserve a serious response.  As to my own behavior re: Terryeo--I did indeed spend a lot of time trying to demonstrate to Terryeo where he was acting in error, and to suggest ways that he could become a productive contributor.  If need be, I could search through the archives and find you several long, patient, point-by-point messages of that nature which I posted in response to his edits and comments (as time went on, alas, my patience waned).  There is a case to be made that I wasted my time by doing that--certainly, Terryeo wasn't very responsive to my education campaign.  As to his ban, I did not "get him banned," though I did pipe up from time to time with my objections to what I saw as chronically disruptive and counter-productive behavior, and do I think the ban was ultimately correct.  But I don't see how raising objections to his behavior on wikipedia constitutes "dead-agenting" in the slightest.  Let's leave Terryeo behind and talk about a hypothetical wikipedian, editorX.  If I can show that editorX is has been inserting false information in articles, disregarding established consensus that disagrees with his POV, engaging in personal attacks and other policy violations, all of these criticisms strike me as entirely pertinent to the question of whether editorX can be accepted as a member of the community who work on this project.  Right?  On the other hand, let's say I start looking for personal "dirt" on editorX: I find out his real name and where he works, I discover if he's ever been arrested, fired from a job, had troubles with the tax man, grown a marijuana plant, treated an ex-wife poorly, etc., and I start to bring that info in as a way to discredit his edits, I would be doing what I understand "dead-agenting" to be--finding a way to smear or shame the person, in the hopes that will somehow reduce the force of their statements or intimidate them into silence.  While you are correct to say that each case is a bit different, and one must respond differently to different contexts, it is hard for me to imagine any situation in which presenting personal "skeletons" that do not have a direct relationship to the issues under discussion is called for (e.g., I say you stole my money, you respond that I was once a communist).  Of course, if somebody is dreaming up fantastic false claims, they need not all be addressed, but is that really the case here?  If somebody is consistently lying, it should be possible to demonstrate that some of what they are saying is baseless, and this will indeed show them to have little credibility on the subject.  But from what I've gathered, Scientology often goes right to the attack on a percieved critic's character, completly jumping over the step of addressing the issue that the critic has raised. Have I got that wrong? I understand you are neither an apologist nor a spokessperson for the Church of Scientology, but I hope you understand why I'm putting these questions to you--personally, I would find it very difficult to reconcile the "attack the attacker" approach to criticism with my own well-intentioned commitment to an organization, and I'm trying to understand how a committed Scientologist thinks about this.BTfromLA 18:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the confusion about dead-agenting. This very much reminds me of the confusion over fair game. Character assassination is NOT dead-agenting just as harassment of critics is not "fair game policy". What happens here is that individual Scientologists or even groups of Scientologists or even management of Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard engages in objectionable "humanoid" activities and then critics try to paint those activities as being what Scientology is or part of the tech or whatever. But they are not; if anything they are violations of the tech. Certainly one can use a knowledge of Scientology to harm another just as one can use a knowledge of mechanical engineering to build a gun or of carpentry to build a gallows. A better illustration of my point would be using a knowledge of auto mechanics to sabotage a person's car so the brakes fail at high speed. It is a perversion. I am not talking about character assassination here or about harassment. That is not a perversion of Scientology, that is "good old humanoid behavior". I am talking about trying to introvert a critic by screaming "what are your crimes" at him. That is a perversion of Scientology. Black Scientology or Black Dianetics is what Hubbard termed it. The purpose of Dianetics and Scientology is more of the good stuff; more understanding, more intelligence, more communication, more ability, more life, you name it. If Scientology technology is deliberately perverted to cause less good stuff we would call that Black Scientology and it would be a bad thing. But character assassination is not Black Scientology. Nor is character assassination dead agenting. It simply is what it is, an objectionable (to me) tactic. Dead-agenting is exactly what you yourself might consider the appropriate response to someone telling lies about you. It is proving the lies to be lies and the person to be a liar; thus handling any future lies from the same source. What you are considering to be "dead-agenting" would perhaps be called "Black PR" in Scientology. Similar to Black Dianetics or Black Scientology, it would be a perversion of PR technology to evil ends. That Scientology has a name for it does not make it "Scientology"; if done using Scientology PR principles it would be a perversion.

Tory has tried to clarify the difference between Black PR and dead-agenting here. She claims that the dead agent packs are full of lies. If so that would be another perversion. They are supposed to be full of truth that disproves lies. Most Scientologists would never see a "dead-agent pack"; at least before the internet (laff). They would be managed by the local GO, now OSA, rep and shown to a person that was being badly affected by lies about Scientology. I think I saw some many years ago and they seemed OK to me. --Justanother 00:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So would you say that that the following, from the Scientology controversy article, is false or misleading?: "In the 1970s, Hubbard continued to codify the policy of "attacking the attacker" and assigned a term to it that is used frequently within Scientology: "dead agenting." Used as a verb, "dead agenting" is described by Hubbard as a technique for countering negative accusations against Scientology by diverting the critical statements and making counter-accusations against the accuser (in other words, "attack the attacker")." In my (admittedly limited) experience looking into Scientology, it sure rings true: "diverting the critical statements and making counter-accusations against the accuser" is a consistent pattern from those who speak for Scientology, and to an extent rarely seen from any other organization. BTfromLA 15:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, it is false and misleading. What is being described there is not "Scientology", not "dead-agenting". The term is not even "used frequently within Scientology"; Scientology is about improvement amd almost all Scientologists concern themselves solely with improving conditions across their dynamics. The term "dead-agent" has a very specialized meaning that most Scientologists have no intersection with and many, if not most, probably do not even know what it means for simply having never encountered it. Another thing to understand about Scientologists is they are VERY careful about using the terms of Scientology correctly, word-clearing each one. Only the critics bastardize the terms of Scientology and try to apply them to activites that they do not define; thus attaching a clearly objectionable activity to a valid Scientology concept. It is quite a neat little trick. Quite a neat little trick.


 * Dead-agent means to supply TRUTH to counter LIES. That is its only meaning in Scientology. That is how it should be defined here. If character assassination and ad hominem attacks are used then that is not Scientology; at best stretch I guess it could be someone's misunderstanding of Scientology but why bother. It simply is what it is, an activity that was invented long before L. Ron Hubbard. Go ahead and report the Church's history there too; just don't call it Scientology because it is not. --Justanother 17:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Clowns
Just to mention that my edit summary was an attempt at a joke. Not aimed at anyone at all, no-how, especially you. I am often at a lose for what to put in talk page edit summaries but I know that it is good to put something or else you look bad here. --Justanother 05:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, no insult taken, but I do appreciate your effort to make sure that there was no misunderstanding. BTfromLA 06:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to Kent
Just found this. You may find it interesting as a well-written piece in the same Marburg Journal of Religion. I like the line: "Kent's bias is betrayed by his refusal to differentiate." It is a point about critics that I have also made in different words. I should also mention that it seems to be a correct application of "dead-agent" policy. Do you find it objectionable on that basis? --Justanother 18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you are asking me--what basis? I'm not prepared to critically analyze Leisa Goodman's claims (though I suspect a number of ex-Sea Org members would take exception to her characterization of the RPF as "a voluntary programme"), nor do I have time at the moment to read through Kent's entire piece, which appears to present a great deal of material that Goodman allows to pass without comment.  To the extent that Goodman's response is factually credible and that her response confines itself to issues directly relevant to Kent's claims, I have no objection at all.  If you are saying that is what "correct" dead-agenting is, then you're still left with the consistent pattern of "incorrect" responses to critics, whatever you want to call it.  Even if the term "dead agent" is being mis-applied, the larger issue is that history of systematically "countering negative accusations against Scientology by diverting the critical statements and making counter-accusations against the accuser." Responding to perceived "enemies" with threats, intimidation, harrassing lawsuits, name-calling, investigations of their personal lives, publicising long past "crimes" or embarrassing episodes, making wild counter-charges, etc. is one of the most conspicious (and, to me, troubling) aspects of Scientology--even if it has nothing to do with the way Scientology is experienced by most Scientologists.  That smarmy stuff continues today, at least to the extent of the "religiousfreedomwatch" website,  and it strikes me, as an outside observer, as dishonest, antisocial behavior that appears to be deeply embedded in Scientology as an organization.   I hope I haven't digressed too far from the area you were hoping I'd address.  BTfromLA 07:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I offered the piece as 1) a good counter to Kent and just a well-written counter by Scn in general; 2) a rewording of some of the more general points about critics and about Scientology that I often make; and 3) an example of the proper application of "dead-agent" technology. I offered it for the first reasons and then realized that it was quite fortuitous as we have been discussing the mis-naming of objectionable actions as dead-agenting. I realized that it was very specifically written to "dead-agent" Kent and exactly follows the dead-agent format including the inclusion of "true data about Scientology" to fill the void left after discrediting the false data. I realized that it may be helpful for you to see that actual instance of dead-agenting. We are very much in agreement, I think, about objectionable actions; I would like to see the CoS publicly renounce some of the more egregious activities such as intimidation by hired PI's, counter-picketing critics' homes, etc. Miscavige publicly renounced the action's of Mary Sue's GO, now it is time for him to take responsiblity for OSA. Regarding embedded; it may be; but I do not think it has to be. The general idea here is that if OSA and others see Scientology's situation as a "game" (i.e. an uptone version of a battle) then they may gleefully throw themselves into the spirit of the game and go overboard with "capers" (SO/OSA-speak for something roughly analogous to what a black-hat hacker would call an exploit in the computer world, a really cool and somewhat naughty thing that you managed to pull off, counting coup in a sense). Scientology is "supposed" to be above all that; it is supposed to be "senior" to the game; it is supposed to be pan-determined (taking responsibility for all parties involved with ultimate ARC - the "Love Thy Enemy" thing). LRH makes the point that the only times that Scn has gotten into trouble, it has been through a failure to employ its own technology. To the degree that Scn is in trouble now, I see that as the case. Scientology has NOT been acting the auditor, it has been acting the combatant. --Justanother 14:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. You are a better man than I; I have been neglecting my responsibilities more than a bit. --Justanother 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind wish. Same to you. The more I hang around here, the more I see what the problem is. IMO, there are very few editors here interested enough in developing NPOV and informative articles on Scn to actually work in that direction, you being one of exceptions. Most active editors on Scn are interested mainly in forwarding their POV which consists largely of upset against some, or even a pattern of, egregious activities on the part of Hubbard/CoS and of misunderstandings about what Scn really is and how it is practiced (not to mention rabid atheists and general religion-bashers). Since Scn is generally ridiculed and disliked among netizens, and since wikipedia editors and staff are a subset of netizens, the behavior of critics in perpetuating misinformation is tolerated, even protected. I do not know the history of Scientologists here but I would bet that not all of them have been OSA ringers. Many, I am sure, have just been people like myself that happened along and said, "Hmmmm, this is weird. Not true at all. No problem, I'll fix it" and ran up against the same wall of entrenched critics that I did. I imagine that most either found it too daunting or were driven to excesses that got them banned. Wikipediatrix is an interesting case study. I kinda wonder if she was really a doctoral student doing a paper on "Entrenched bias on wikipedia". As wikipediatrix, the seeming critic, she could import misinformation, copyright violation, unsourced and misinterpreted material with perfect impunity. As HighFructoseCornSyrup, the seeming Scientologist, she tried to simply remove a bit of what she says she realized had no place here and hit the wall. Of course that she was clearly a sockpuppet did not help. But she was agressive but not overagressive and did not violate other rules here. Her parting statement shows a depth of understanding that she never, to me at least, exhibited in her wikipediatrix identity. For myself, there is nothing true about Scientology that I have any trouble seeing here from those aforementioned egregious activities to our beliefs in the "supernatural" potentialities of the human spirit or the plausibilty of extra-terrestial pre-Earth past lives. I just want it true, not misrepresented and ridiculed. Happy Holidays! --Justanother 23:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello
I don't know you so I won't let register whatever it is you were saying if you were to just push your way into an argument and tell me something like that. 'wikinazi' like 'soup nazi' is just a way to describe someones behavior, and that being the basis for me using it. I have every right to use a word like that, it is not an insult but rather a title, and what really is the problem is someone's behavior and if someone is behaving a certain way I have every right to say something against it.. Johnpedia 09:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

All too often, or once? And who said ""you must be an insecure bozo with a shrivelled penis to make such a stupid edit.""? I would never say something like that24.69.67.173 11:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your lawn
Reminds me of the movie Monster House. Your comments are always welcome. --Justanother 14:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfC
Hi. Haven't seen you round. Would you please do me a favor and pop over to Talk:Scientology and celebrities and let us know what you think? Thanks --Justanother 15:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject updates

 * I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status.  You could give input on the project's talk page...  Smee 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Also, a Userbox for project members, User Scientology project   Smee 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi
Thanks for your comment. In my opinion the whole series on Scientology is a great example of a failure of the WP process. I will continue to try to improve the articles. I will try to treat everyone with respect and listen to what they have to say. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 20:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Guys! While I have you both here, please let me point out one thing I am addressing, especially as regards Smee. I posted the below to Smee at Talk:Clouds Blur the Rainbow:


 * For me, I will look at it if someone else AfD's the article. I do not lightly AfD things and only if I feel conversant with all sides of the issue. Smee, apropos of what we talking about over on the template page, let me take this opportunity to link What Wikipedia is not which specifically prohibits "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind". If I see such in the Scn articles I will take all action needed to remove it. It won't be hard to remove, just a waste of time. --Justanother 20:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Justanother, I'm out of the loop these days, and I'm really not sure what your point is here: is this related to the discussion with Steve, or about the template, or a disruptive user, or what? Can you fill me in?... it'll be a while before I can sort through those talk page discussions.  BTfromLA 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a good example User talk:Bishonen. BTW, if you want that 3rd party job mentioned there, it is open and I would be agreeable to your helping and would appreciate it. --Justanother 20:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying BT. He rejected your kind offer and promptly deleted my polite request that he reconsider. Unless he comes up with an acceptable alternative 3rd party soon then I am going to take your effort as a good faith effort to resolve. Would you second a User RfC on his behavior, assuming that I can show you diffs to prove a pattern. Since you spoke to him he continued his WP:DE at David Gaiman disputing a simple tag (see history). And now I see that another warrior has reverted it again so I am going to have to take it to ANI unless you care to replace the tag. Actually it needs an AfD but I am not going to start one, at least now. Thanks --Justanother 04:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly see the problem. I'd prefer not to become a sponsor of an RfC, partly because my experience has just been this one episode, mostly because I would feel obligated to follow up and I will almost certainly be backing off from Wikipedia again within the next few days—I think it would be bad form to launch a criticism and then disappear.  But please do feel free to point to his abrupt rebuff of my attempt to address the problem (evidently I'm not welcome in those parts).  Assuming this is in fact an ongoing pattern, I have to believe that you'll have plenty of company in an RfC.   BTfromLA 04:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I will try a few other options. Thanks. --Justanother 05:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!?
Welcome back! But are you back? I always enjoyed our conversations and certainly felt that you were a fair (as in equitable) editor. But I am not the same Justanother that started here six months ago or even who I was 2 - 3 months ago. A awful lot has come together for me and gelled as far as the tactics employed here by "anti-Scientologists" and how to deal with them. But I really do hope you are back. I am curious, how much would you say the below describes your philosophy here?"There are plenty of negative things about Scientology that need to be mentioned in articles. There's no shortage of stuff, in fact. But tabloid tactics like constantly bringing up the Lisa McPherson case, horrible as it is, and stuff like Gorilla Goals, stupid as it is, aren't the best way to go about pursuing the case of showing the world the negative side of Scientology. We are hurting that case by making all the articles look like total lurid attack pieces, and hurting Wikipedia's credibility as well."--Justanother 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not back with any serious involvement, at least not yet. Just passing through.  But thanks for the welcome and the kind words!  I enjoyed my exchanges with you, too, and regret that circumstances have not allowed me time to pursue the discussion.  As to the above quote, I'm a little leery of responding... without more context, I don't know quite what I'd be agreeing to. What should I take "our own case" to refer to?  Who's my client?  And I confess to being unfamiliar with "Gorilla Goals."  But of course I do agree that Wikipedia articles should not aspire to be "total lurid attack pieces," but who would agree to that? BTfromLA 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I adjusted it - try it now. I am just trying to get a feel for your position in light of whom I am now and in light of the fact that I have become a bit foggy on your position as a lot has happened. I am not trying to trick you into anything. This was a statement by someone (I will tell you in a sec) that I felt might echo your own sentiments; that the statement might, not the person. --Justanother 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't approach editing with the goal of showing the world the negative side of Scientology. (There seems to be an astonishing amount of credible material that problematizes or contradicts the way Scientology represents itself, so much so that I think "however..." will, quite rightly, turn up in the Scientology-related articles with a greater frequency and urgency than with most other topics. You may interpret that as an agenda to air "negatives," but I don't believe it is.  I am equally committed to including lucid descriptions of the Scientologists' "case" in the articles.) Otherwise, I find your quote generally congenial.  I have certainly seen Wikipedia articles that gratuitously lay on "juicy tidbits" and "dirty laundry" about Scientology--that's a problem.  When I was more active editing the articles (before getting derailed by loopy discussions with and about Terryeo), I tried to edit that stuff down, in the interest of good encyclopedic writing.  My motivation here, since that what you seem to be asking for, is twofold: About Scientology, I have no first-hand history with it, but find it a fascinating phenomenon--I'm curious about belief systems, about the labyrynthine nature of the organization, about its roots in the science-fiction subculture, and, naturally enough, about what the heck is going in that big blue complex down the street (I live in Los Angeles).   About editing, I'm drawn to the challenge of describing contentious topics in a way that is both clear and fair.  Before I got involved with Scientology articles, I spent some time wrangling with Intelligent Design, for exactly the same reason.  Some time ago, when I had been quite involved editing these articles, a user created a page that listed the active editors in the Scientology articles according to their bias, pro or con.  I was one of the few (maybe the only one) listed as "neutral." I liked that, and while I don't deny having personal opinions on the topics I address, my real goal, believe it or not, is to aim for prose that is concise, readable and fair. It pleases me when I see something I've written that has stood for months little changed by the non-stop partisan scuffling.  Alas, contentious partisanship too often seems to overcome any shared goal about clear encyclopedic writing, and that has been made worse by the citation-mania that prevails here nowadays: the arguments tend to be about sourcing, not about the shape or utility of the articles. BTfromLA 22:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. First things first. The quote, in case you have not already figured it out, is Wikipediatrix (here) after being outed for gaming. Sounds like you have the right attitude, BT. Glad to hear it. The problem with Scientology's representation here is complex. The main problem is that while negative misrepresentation and criticism is widely distributed on the net, truth about Scientology is often subjective and if one cannot observe how a Scientologist uses Scientology to the betterment of himself and others then it does not have much reality to the casual outsider. It is impossible to write about Scientology accurately, IMO, by comparing it to other things that one knows. Scientology has comparisons but very essential differences too that are not captured by comparison to "similar" subjects. Such comparison will always result in some misrepresentation. Obviously, philosophically, each thing is itself but Scientology is much more its own thing than most. Depending on what you compare it to, that misrepresentation can be kinda close or wildly off. This is not your problem, BT, this is our problem as Scientologists. You are, IMO, trying to make NPOV stew out of POV meat. Good for you but some other chefs are not so well-intentioned and are making hate pie. The good work of editors such as yourself ameliorates the situation somewhat. Hope you can come back to us soon. --Justanother 00:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Smee on ANI
here - your comments are welcome. Thanks --Justanother 05:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that Smee has started his grease machine. You would not believe how much crap he has skated on so far. Get your boots out! --Justanother 05:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

David Gaiman
Hi. Would you please take a look and see if you second my opinion that there are notability issues with this article given the strict requirements of WP:BLP. I placed a tag and opened a discussion but POV-warriors removed the tag. If you feel that discussion is warranted please replace the tag. I also happen to think that an AfD is in order or at least serious pruning in accordance with the non-public person requirements of WP:BLP. Thanks. And thanks for your help elsewhere. Unfortunalely that editor curries favor almost as relentlessly as he edit-wars. It is all smokescreen for his prolific propagandizing. --Justanother 14:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think your notability tag should have been unceremoniously removed. Personally, I think Wikipedia has a lot of articles that don't deserve to be stand-alone articles, including ones that are Scientology-related (do Patter Drills really demand their own article?). Of course, that problem isn't limited to the Scientology sector... minor comic book characters get their own articles.  Given the realities here, I think there's enough to justify David Gaiman as a subject: he was evidently a high-profile public spokesman for Scientology, owns an unusual store specializing in Scientology-prescribed vitamins, had some involvement in notorious criminal escapades, and has a famous son.  A weak "keep," then, but I'd accept the article as a given, and work on improving the writing: the "operation snow white" bit seems over-weighted--a sentence or two acknowledging his involvement and linking to the relevant page would seem to be enough.  BTfromLA 20:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. He is a private person and has no business having an article here. I object to the desire of Scientology critics to "out" Scientologists. Tilman maintains webpages with the sole purpose of "outing" private Scientologist with the assumed intention of harming their business or causing them problems with anti-Scientology bigots. The fact that Gaiman was a PR person for the Church does not convey the Church's notability ipso facto to him. Re my fury. Naw, not really. Just having too much fun with one propagandist, one "over-analyst" and one aspiring puppetmaster. But I am going to turn it off now (right after this edit, laff) as it makes it too easy for water-muddiers to hide the real offensive editing, which takes place in the articles, not on talk pages. Later. --Justanother 02:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Outing" non-public figures as Scientologists (or as gay, transsexual, Raelians, atheists, adulterers, porn afficionados, abortionists, admirers of GW Bush, or whatever category that they might prefer to keep to themselves) is certainly not something I approve of, and I presume Wikipedia has explicit policies against that (though I haven't checked). While I'm open to the idea that I'm missing something here, I don't see any evidence that Gaiman is being "outed."  He was a public spokesperson for the CoS, for heaven's sake; he runs a shop catering to Scientologists, and he seems to have been named in the press in Scientology-related court actions.  In other words, if I were persuaded that the function of this article is to expose a person to harrassment by "outing" him, I'd agree that it should be quickly deleted.  But I don't see any evidence to support that interpretation of this article.  BTfromLA 05:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you seen Tilman's "outing pages"? There are other major Scientology "outing pages" on the net. I, personally, am on one for no reason other than my name was found in Scientology publications that list course completions and the like. So someone googling my name would come up that I am a Scientologist (I have an unusual name). Not a problem for me but not everyone is me and one's religion is private information. Gaiman runs a vitamin shop?? That counts as part of why he deserves to be here??? He was a PR person. Was, not is. Anyway, so what? --Justanother 05:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The only one I've seen is the list of celebrities that are or were allegedly involved with Scientology. Is that what you mean?  Look, I'm not making a case for a David Gaiman article: I just have come to the conclusion that there's little to be gained by disputes over the existence of marginal articles at Wikipedia.  There are lots of articles I would cut, were I editor-in-chief, but most of them have their fans here, which is enough to keep them from deletion.  If I believed, as you are suggesting, this page exists only to harrass an individual, I'd be with you, emphatically so... but, sorry, I just don't see it.  BTfromLA 05:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tilman also has a more general outing page that he no doubt proud of. Gotta make sure everybody knows if they are dealing with one of those dirty Scientologists. Re Gaiman, I understand where you are coming from but there is only one reason that that page is on wikipedia. And it ain't notability. Really it needs to be cut way down as per WP:BLP non-public persons. A spokesperson is not, per se, a "public person". They deal with the public but if his notability is as the PR person then all that extraneous personal info should go, including his "famous" vitamin shop and his non-notable work in Russia. Maybe a line about the "Snow White" connection should stay as he is only mentioned in testimony/evidence. On a side note I have been to Big Blue a ton of times. It is not Big Blue to us, of course. It is ASHO or AOLA or PAC Base or the Complex. I usually rent a room south of Fountain though I have stayed at the Manor (Celebrity Center) too. --Justanother 06:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Manor" on Franklin would seem to offer superior digs to most of the south-of-Fountain lodging, though I'm aware there are a few motels there (on Vermont?); hotels and motels are in short supply in the nicer (let's say, north of Franklin) precincts of that neighborhood. I'm curious about how distinct those differently labelled sections of "Big Blue" are (isn't the whole thing called PAC base?).  I mean, if you show up to do some work at ASHO, do you confine yourself to ASHO, and not have anything to do with the folks at AOLA or the LA org?  BTfromLA 06:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)  PS: I've heard that the restaurant on the grounds of Celebrity Center is pretty good--have you any experience with it?  BTfromLA 06:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean as staff or public? I assume public. Basically in Scn, you follow the Bridge. So what you have there are three separate organizations. LA Org is a normal Class V Org. ASHO exists mainly to train advanced Class VI auditors on the SHSBC and delivers no OT material. AOLA is to take you to OT V. Then you go to Flag for OT VI and VIII and to the Freewinds for OT VIII. Upper orgs can deliver lower material too but mostly do not. --Justanother 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for filling me in on this. So, if a "public" scientologist shows up to get "clear," do I assume they wouldn't even enter the other divisions? Or is there some built-in mechinism to bring Scientologists from all levels to come together (other than things like the LRH birthday party)?  And do the staff members know the staff members who work across the street?  And (one more, if you don't mind), how much of the Complex counts as "PAC base"?  BTfromLA 06:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The three are completely separate organizations that just happen to be in the same complex. You can go Clear at any of them. It depends on how much reality Scientology has to you. Most people do the first part of their Bridge at a Class V org and go Clear there. But it is very real to me that someone that was raised in a Scientology family or for whom Scientology really struck a chord, that person might go over to ASHO and do the SHSBC and co-audit to Clear. That is a great way to do it and many do. AOLA is almost exclusively post-Clear but can deliver the lower materials so one could go Clear there. Other than the LA Org, all staff are SO so they know each other as much or more than any group of co-workers in a large organization. More because of communal dining, transportation, and the like. There are, I believe, some SO at the LA Org too. While PAC base is maybe used casually to refer to everything, I think it more covers the tall building and the other administrative outbuildings within a 1-2 block radius and not the three orgs. I take it you live north of Franklin? --Justanother 04:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, I've often wondered about those subdivisions of the Scientology complex. I hope you won't think me rude if I decline to drop further clues about my street address in a Wikipedia post: like you, I prefer to preserve anonymity online, and you never know who's looking in.  Suffice it to say that I've lived in LA for many years, and am pretty familiar with the whole Hollywood/Silverlake/Los Feliz area that we've been discussing, and with some other neighborhoods, too.  When I described the blue complex as "down the street," I didn't mean it literally.  I have indeed heard that the Celebrity Center restaurant is open to all comers--if I get over there at some point, I'll offer a report. Thanks again. BTfromLA 05:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, north of Franklin goes a long way (laff). Just based that on my knowledge of the area and your comments. No big deal. --Justanother 03:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Re the restaurant, I may have eaten there once years ago but have no real memory of it. I usually eat at the places on Fountain. The cheapo Chinese near Vermont. A little Middle Eastern or Greek place where NY George's used to be and my favorite, that little Philippino (I think) restaurant on the north side of Fountain next to Bridge Pubs (Lilly's?). I love her breakfast with eggs, sausage, banana bread, fresh fruit. Makes me hungry! You should go to the restaurant at the CC. It is open to all, I am almost certain. Oh, House of Pies! I would walk up there for breakfast (can you guess what my favorite meal is?) Well, I have walked from the Complex to the CC too though that is a bit of a trek. --Justanother 06:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Bed for me now, I will get your other question later. G'nite. --Justanother 06:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that House of Pies: Franklin and Vermont. That very intersection, looking very different, is featured in the great Billy Wilder movie Double Indemnity.  (It's one of the pleasures of life in LA, seeing the cityscape in old films.)  Good night.  BTfromLA 06:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Civility Award for a Good Effort

 * On a related note, thank you for your attempts at reaching out/mediating. Believe it or not, they were most appreciated.  I hope you are doing well.  Yours, Smee 05:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Thank you both. BTfromLA 05:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Mention
I mention your name at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR --Justanother 11:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Aspen3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Aspen3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just writing a fair use rationale for your image, but I see someone else beat me to it. Please refrain from calling for the censure of BetaCommand; his bot does necessary work cleaning out copyrighted images on Wikipedia without fair-use rationales, which is a major problem facing Wikipedia. If you take a photo of a magazine cover, it still retains the copyright of the magazine as a derivative work. Thank you. Grand  master  ka  19:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The rationale that has been added is in large part a direct quote of the language that was already attached to the image via the "magazine cover" license template. I think the bot was really inappropriate in this case, and I now see where Betacommand has stirred up a lot of anger from other users.  I am quite willing to believe that I don't have a full perspective on this: I haven't been very active here in recent months, and I trust that if I'm being too harsh, more moderate voices will prevail.  But this still really strikes me as a very destructive bot--if I hadn't logged in this week, it appears that there's a good chance the image would have been deleted without further ado.  BTfromLA 19:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Seed (underground newspaper)
Hi i saw that you uploaded an image of the chicago seed newspaper and i just started the page, and i really want to add to it, i was wondeirtng if you had any links or info that you might know of......

thanks !

vic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorgrigas (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nancydetail.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Art extraordinary
Thanks for the heads up. I would merge them. See the afd. Bearian 22:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nancydetail.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nancydetail.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Flipside6.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Flipside6.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Punk3.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Punk3.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Screamersgigposter.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Screamersgigposter.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 00:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Your characterization
I'm not sure that it is appropriate to state that the editing at Intelligent design constitutes antics as you stated here. User:Gnixon has a POV that is diametrically opposed to the POV of others. I consider the other side of Gnixon to be the actual NPOV, but who knows. I read over your contributions, and you appear to be a fairly neutral editor, so I think it would be best to get the opinions of those who aren't Gnixon, because there is an alternative thought about how the lead should be constructed. I personally don't like the lead for many reasons, and probably it would shock Gnixon, but some of those reasons are similar to his (or her) own. I gave up on editing ID, because it just isn't any fun at all. At any rate, I think there are valid viewpoints all around that should be part of your thinking. This is all IMHO, so if you think I'm wrong, I'm all right with that. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am more than happy to hear your perspective on this. In my brief dip in the waters of the ID talk page, Gnixon and Ludwigs2 seemed to be striving to neutralize the aggressively anti-ID POV that seems to me to characterize much of the article, including the lead.  They also seemed to be met with great resistance to what struck me as very reasonable proposals (like that bit about the "junk science" sentence.  I agree that the environment there is no fun; it's absolutely discouraging fresh editorial imput.  So that is why I posted a note to them.  I am very happy to hear from you, too--what am I missing here?  BTfromLA (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As you will note, I haven't contributed anything to that article in months (if not a year). I'm not the right one with whom to discuss the article, but you will find many other editors who have long experience there.  Taking a strictly neutral viewpoint, here are my issues:


 * Pro-ID POV editors (not casting any aspersions to Gnixon) tend to repeat the same arguments over and over and over again. It gets tendentious and boring, and frankly it causes the anti-ID POV editors to not "compromise" (if you can actually compromise here).
 * Many editors on both sides of the issue use a lot of original research or WP:SYNTH.
 * ID does promote itself as science, so it really is junk science. However, even I consider that term to be pejorative, so pseudoscience works.  For example, Creationism as a religious dogma can state exactly what it is.  Creation science, which promotes itself as the science that can defend Creationism, is really a pseudoscience.  So, if the NPOV of ID is that it attempts to portray itself as a science, and every reliable source says that ID is not a science or is pseudoscience, then it belongs in the lead.
 * IMHO, an article like this should state what ID believes it is in the first paragraph of the lead. In the second paragraph, the "critique" should exist.  The third paragraph should state the cultural or sociological story.  That seems balanced.  See Homeopathy which is really junk science.  However, the lead contains three paragraphs (as I recall), the first what it is, the second what it really is (according to research), and the third kind of a review of the cultural aspects of it.  That seems fair.
 * ID should be criticized because it is a backhanded attempt by creationists to push religious teaching into public education in the US. But it really is a US phenomena.  But I think a fair lead would be what I said above, toning down the criticism, but making it clear what the effect of the strategy is.


 * So, that's my POV. But again, you should speak to the really strong opinions of others.  I hope this helps.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply. I'm a little surprised that you hint Gnixon is pro-ID... I hadn't sensed that.  In general, I agree with your comments, including your structure of the lead in #4.  Where we may disagree is with the implications of your your point #5.  While I personally agree that ID deserves criticism as "stealth creationism," it seems very clear to me that Wikipedia should not engage in that criticism.  In other words, we can report on the esteemed sources that have reached that conclusion and outline their reasoning, but the "voice" of Wikipedia should not be a critical or partisan one.  Make sense?  This gets to the heart of what I'm struck by in the article--the absence of a distinction between the dominant POV on the subject and the NPOV of wikipedia.  BTfromLA (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wanted it clear that I was not cast any aspersions or making any commentary about Gnixon's POV. Hence the parenthetical statement.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The parenthetical statement does raise the specter, doesn't it? Not that it matters to me, unless somebody is being deceptive.  The goal, as I see it, is to create an article where both pro- and anti-ID contingents will see their positions fairly represented.  BTfromLA (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Fairly represented" is quite subjective. Realistically (and objectively) we need to be guided by WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and in this case (a point that is often missed) WP:UNDUE.  The latter is the primary sticking point for some editors, as they mistakenly think that NPOV equates to balanced 50:50, or equal time for both sides, or whatever similar term one chooses to use.  It isn't as a stroll though both NPOV and UNDUE will quickly make clear.  Cheers.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed--thanks for weighing in, Jim62. I do think that the "undue weight" question is a little different in an article that is about a minority idea (like ID) versus the representation of that minority idea in another context (e.g., an article on evolutionary theory).   Clearly, a more expansive presentation of ID's claims is merited in the ID article than elsewhere.  Right?  BTfromLA (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The opening quote, to me, explains it in a nutshell. It's just creationism warmed over and plopped in a mantle of "science" -- and science it isn't (per the preponderance of evidence).  Anyway, its status as a minority viewpoint, as is shown by scores of cites, has to be maintained in the ID article as well.  One of the problems is that the pro-ID folks would like it to read as an advertisement for, or a confirmation of the validity of, ID.  The facts just don't back up such a position, nor do they back up anything other than the provisions of undue weight.
 * Dollars to donuts, had Wiki been around when Darwin first published his theory, it too would have been treated the same. However, Darwin's ideas quickly showed results based on predictions made in the theory itself, something that ID cannot say.  It makes no predictions (nor is it falsifiable -- two biggies for stating that something is a theory) and its assumptions, especially those of Behe and Dembski, have been disproven.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well...
This might be a fallacy: "It appears to me that a number of editors won't acknowledge that their point of view, no matter how well reasoned, is still a point of view, and by definition not neutral" ... it's my POV that the sun is a yellow star. ;)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jim, I'm not sure quite why you posted this here; frankly, it looks like trolling. If you want to challenge my argument, do so.  I hope it is clear to you that I was not referring to statements of fact that are uncontested in the context of the article's topic, like "the sun is a star" or "George Washington was President of the United States," as points of view.  I provided a specific example of what I was talking about. BTfromLA (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nancydetail.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Nancydetail.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gothicblimp3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gothicblimp3.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

user NestleNW911
Hello BTfromLA. I am not a wikipedia editor. I was reading the main Scientology article and noticed NestleNW911 added church propaganda to the article (the section New Churches of Scientology).

Of the two sources referenced the first doens´t contain the supposed facts in Nestle´s edit. The second is a church press release.

The claim that there are 8500 Scientology orgs, missions and groups is patently untrue and picked apart at: http://leavingscientology.wordpress.com/doubt-formulas/statistics/.

I am not allowed to restore the previous version, but perhaps you would be so kind to do this. Perhaps the fact that Scientology has opened a number of churches in the last couple of years (though I highly doubt the claim of 24) can be retained, potentially in the membership statistic section.

Startwater (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite note
Hello BTfromLA. The "OK to rewrite" was specifically a part of the proposed plan to keep it short (so as to garner other input), the alternative being a longer exchange (rebuttals to rebuttals, restatements in response etc.) You should feel free to do the same. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I won't do that... it's a very bad idea and I never agreed to it; it makes it impossible for a third party to read and respond to, and it sets up a situation where I'm obliged to go in and rewrite my comments over and over again indefinitely in response to your revisions. I don't get the sense that you are consciously trying to make things confused and incomprehensible, but honestly, from my perspective that is what you do, consistently.  This is just the latest example.  Let's leave it where it stands and see whether anybody else stops by.  --  BTfromLA (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Admittedly it does have some of the drawbacks that you describe. But I figured it might be 2 or 3 cycles, not "indefinitely".  The main plus side is that it keeps it short and condenses it which is what we were going for. Either way I'll go with your "leave it where it stands" statement.  North8000 (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Checking in
Hope you didn't mean you won't be editing "Separation" any more. I was just trying to find common ground as you guys requested, and your bowing out permanently would be a bad result. I don't plan to be inmvolved in the minute to minute of this page, which definitely needs your continued vigilance. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm on hiatus, at least. Thanks for the thought, and, again, thanks for stepping in.  I'm not usually an active Wikipedian; I just got sucked into this one at a moment that my work-life was less demanding than usual. I saw the article was a mess, punched up a few sentences, responded to a talk page comment a couple of weeks later and fell down the rabbit hole.  I have an interest in understanding and  communicating with people who have very different mentalities from my own, and have enjoyed the challenge of Wikipedia when I could write in a way that all sides of contentious issues like Scientology or Intelligent Design could acknowledge that their positions were fairly represented.  But this one has exhausted and depressed me. Maybe I'm too invested in the topic; I care about it to a greater extent than I realized going in.  Plus, I was defeated in my many attempts to communicate with North8000, though he (I'm guessing about the pronoun) seems sincere enough in his way.  He never responded to my reasoning and I was never able to grasp his, though it is clear he wants to avoid linking "separation.." and constitutional principles.  (If you identified a kernel of a reasonable argument on his side of the dispute that I've been blind to, please share it with me... otherwise, I'll go to my grave mystified about that "very broad statement," with "elements" or "things" which are embedded in the constitution, and "elements" or "things" which are not thusly embedded.  I'm guessing there are others out there who would agree with him, and I would love to better understand what it is they are agreeing with.)  Best regards, BTfromLA (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't really understand the reasoning either, but I didn't have to to suggest some wording. It may be based on a deep conviction that this is a Christian nation, and that is what the Framers really intended. Anyway, if you have some time, take a look at Religious Toleration, a sleepy page I have been trying to improve recently and where I could use another set of eyes and some help. Hope to see you around here in any event--stay in touch. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Walsh (art historian)


The article John Walsh (art historian) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Logan Talk Contributions 02:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Howdy
Hey there, BT. Didn't know you were active here. Myself, not so much. Now if we can just find Wikipediatrix :-) --Lyncs (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not much involved, though occasionally I stop by when procrastinating on some project. I think most of the gang from that Wikipediatrix era ended up banished from WP, (re: CoS articles, at least) didn't they?  Either that, or just discouraged by the rule-crazy editors who have come to dominate the scene.  --BTfromLA (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, take care, amigo. --Lyncs (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi BTfromLA. Need your help. User 173.167.1.129 has expressed concern over the attribution of claims on the L. Ron Hubbard article. The issue of attributing claims has been discussed on the talk page recently, and there seems to be a group consensus that this issue must be addressed. Could you provide assistance on this? Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello BTfromLA. I have proposed removing a paragraph on the IRS-related section on the David Miscavige page. Details are in the David Miscavige talk page. Please provide input and feedback. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello BTfromLA. Need your assistance once again -- there is discussion on the David Miscavige talk page about retaining an edit that substantiates a claim in the Media Coverage and Criticism section. Please provide input and feedback. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe watch my talk page for a while for his response. One way or another, however, I think, even if we want to "retain the evidence" on the talk page for awhile, this should probably be resolved by the weekend. John Carter (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor in question had stopped editing after the earlier discussion, and I didn't want to propose a ban of someone who might have left anyway. But, more of the same today. Doug said he thought that seeking a site ban would be appropriate, and I basically agree. Do you feel up to making the proposal at WP:AN or would you prefer someone else do it? I acknowledge that I myself am less than skilled in doing so, and actually most anyone else would probably be better at it, although I am willing to do so if you prefer. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Starmagv1n1.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Starmagv1n1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have left a message for you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Miscavige. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

User:NestleNW911
FYI Sockpuppet investigations/NestleNW911. I didn't tell you because if I was wrong I didn't want it to become some sort of drama feast. I wanted the checkuser to be completed first.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)