User talk:Terryeo/Archive 01

happy Ho Ho's

other comments
I really appreciate what you are doing to try and clean up the definition of Scientology on Wikipedia. My mom and dad are OT 4 and 5, respectively, and while I have not explored Scientology to any reasonable depth, I found that 99% of the crap displayed on the internet over Scientology is lies or half-truths. Again, thanks for your hard work and hopefully Scientology will some day be displayed as it truly is.
 * Thank you for saying so, have a good one ! Terryeo

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 19:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notification in the matter, Tony. I will do so. Terryeo 01:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Active Wikipedic Editors with personal websites
I'm frequently accused of "pushing a POV". Here are websites of other POVs.

Modemac: One of 25 convenience links:

Chris O wen (One of 114 convenience links)
 * an anti-narconon website, dedicated to speaking against the organization, Naronon.

threat blocking
(Posted at 03:30, 9 May 2006 by anon editor at IP 62.255.236.137)
 * If you ever return, you will be summararily de-stroy-e-ed. I AM THY MASTER. BEWARE, YOU CHILDRAPING SCUM.
 * Removed from my discussion page by Chris Owen. Edit Summary: 04:00, 9 May 2006 ChrisO m (Reverted edits by 62.255.236.137 (talk) to last version by 24.127.127.236)
 * Happy Ho Ho's Terryeo 16:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Curiosity about your reversion of my User Page
Hi, I was at the Vandalism IRC channel, and I came across your user page by looking at the text the bot put up. And I saw it was an anon (was it?). I feel suspicous when anons edit user pages, and I knew it was vandalism, that's how I reverted it. Just come to the vandalism IRC channel or look at any of the channels at WP:IRC. No special programme is needed. --Ter e nce Ong 09:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know how that happened, Terence Ong Terryeo 19:59, 10 May 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 17:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification and your persistant work in presenting the case to the arbitrators. Terryeo 17:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My comment
I was speaking in general terms. I'm not suggesting you do anything that would be considered illegal or anything like that. I'm merely suggesting that if you have proof that contradicts the information you disagree with, you should present it. The problem everyone seems to have with you (and most other Scientologists) is that you seem to deny things that are bad PR for your religion/group. Simply giving confirmable sources would solve this problem. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, it's just generalized. I'm not interested in Scientology, and have no plans to become embroiled in that particular debate. I was only saying that you need more confirmable sources. From what I've read, this seems to be the major problem people have with you. A lot of your writing usually criticizes their sources, and they've shown them to be credible. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Terryeo
When I saw your name on the FBCH article I surely figured that I was about to see you disagree with every point that I was making in order to spite me. I was amazed and impressed to see that you were actually editing to improve the quality of the encyclopedia rather than just to spite me. I must say that I have underestimated you. You have much honor in this respect.

I just now noticed that you were banned from editing the Dianetics and Scientology articles. I'm sorry to see that happen. As you may have noticed I was recruited a long time ago on my talk page in an effort to try to get you banned from editing here. I stated then that I did not think it was necessary to ban you (unless you violated 3RR or did something completely gross like blanking an article). I admit that I haven't been paying attention to your recent edits like the people that commented and ruled on your ArbCom, but from my perspective I didn't see why it was entirely necessary for a permanent ban.

If you have relevant information that you think should be added to the Dianetics or Scientology articles and you can provide a verifiable source for your edits, then I will certainly look into helping you get those edits in place. Vivaldi (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you and good. Here is a clarification of the most recent Gross Editing Error: Talk:Volunteer_Ministers and thank you Terryeo 04:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Friendly but firm warning
I'm asking you to keep your cool on Wikipedia. Someone complained that you had breached your personal attack parole, but I'm not taking action because it seems to me that he goaded you. .

Nevertheless, please be careful about your responses. Please come directly to me again if you feel you are being goaded and I will happily investigate. On this occasion I have warned Antaeus to remain civil. --Tony Sidaway 16:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for telling me so and I understand what you have said. I'll do that, and thank you for your consideration. Terryeo 17:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As a note, the earlier time I went directly to Tony's (discussion page) was in regard to an issue of my earlier arbitration. Terryeo 21:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've issued a final warning to Fahrenheit451 for repeatedly attacking you, calling you a "banned user", and falsely accusing you of making personal attacks on him. --Tony Sidaway 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for informing me, Tony Terryeo 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Contract bridge
Hi. You might be interested in participating in new WikiProject Contract bridge. Regards, Duja 10:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocking both User:Fahrenheit451 and User:Terryeo for two days for gross incivility, personal attacks and bickering
I'm taking into account both Fahrenheit's continued provocation and Terryeo's personal attack parole. While Terryeo must not be drawn into such bickering, nor should Fahrenheit make statements like "The creepy tactics you describe Antaeus are exactly what Joseph Stalin employed during his purges in the old Soviet Union". This was quite out of order. --Tony Sidaway 18:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your notification, Tony. Terryeo 18:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Current defiances of Wikipedia Policy in Scientology articles
Here is a summary of several of the current defiances by Wikipedia anti-scientology editors in the articles.

Personal attacks
You're still being extremely uncivil even though I don't discern any provocation at present. In particular, ". There are no others. It is false and original research to state that there are others. It is, in fact, an outright LIE !" (17:13, 8 July 2006) and "Of course I understand this is simply tooooo much for some editors to confront and they will attack this position. heh." (04:19, 12 July 2006) constitute personal attacks. As you would expect, I'm blocking you under your personal attack probation. One week. --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. Terryeo 13:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark V E-meters no longer any good?
Hi Terryeo, I was wondering if you might help my understanding of a particular issue, since you are one of the few Scientologists I've met that seems capable of communicating with me in a reasonable fashion. Unfortunately for many Scientologists and practicing auditors and students that use the Mark V e-meter to perform their religious rituals, it appears as though RTC has now prohibited the use of the Mark V E-meter to be used for auditing and RTC is insisting that people upgrade to the newer versions of the E-meter at once. Is there any HCOB written by Hubbard that explains why the Mark V E-meter is an invalid and unusable instrument? Vivaldi (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Off the top of my head, I have not run into a prohibition of such use. The Mark V was designed to run Dianetics processes and worked well up through the level of Clear.  The newer meters read better and particularly at running the OT levels, they are without doubt, better.  But I don't know of a particular prohibition against their use. I'll take a look at the information I have and see if there are any cautionary or prohibition notices. Terryeo 12:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't find any prohibition against use of any meter of Mark V or later. But I don't have the most current information about that. The place to have such a question answered would be a Church of Scientology's acadamy, which instructs that area of information. Terryeo 12:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How does one determine that a Mark VII is better than a Mark V? Were there any studies that were performed?  Why did anyone decide that the Mark V wasn't working properly and needed to be modified and fixed or improved?  Who makes the ultimate decision to authorize the E-meter?  And more importantly, who is authorized to demand that Scientologists purchase the new machines?  Is David MisCavige the new source?  Can DM decide something like that on his own, or can people just go on and use the actual writings of L. Ron Hubbard and the HCOB's that came directly from him?  Can D.M. cancel policies written by L. Ron Hubbard?  Sorry for all the questions at once.  I'm just really baffled. Vivaldi (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not expert in the area, exactly. I know there were several improvements and have a bulletin that explains that a Mark IV is just barely sensitive enough for a certain process, that earlier meters (Mark III, Mark II, etc) are not sensitive enough for a certain auditing action.  I don't know the exact improvements from Mark V to Mark VI, to Mark VII to Mark VII Quantum, to Mark VII Super-Quantum.  I assume computer electronics brought positive changes.  I looked in the HCO Bulletins and didn't find information about the improvements.  I don't know where I would find that information.  I guess I just trust the Church about that.  I have read in several places, from what I think of as good sources, that Hubbard spelled out how a better Emeter should be built if the electronics were ever developed, he did that before his death in 1986, apparently.  But I don't have a direct reference which states his words.  Then according to the Church promotional literature I have received, such electronics became available and the Mark VII Super-Quantum meter was created.  The Church quit selling the earlier models as each new model was available.  That is kind of all I know about it right now.  No one demands anyone purchase books or meters, that would of course be up to an individual and what they want to do.

All of your questions are good questions. Some of them have to do with the way in which an organization of the Church (the organization which makes meters and designs meters and produces meters) how one organization of the Church communicates to another organization of the Church. Then the actual decision to produce and distribute a new model of meter probably does reach MisCavige. I suspect but don't know that MisCavige had to either make that decision or at least not veto that action. The newest meter promotional literature says it is more sensitive and has a memory which operates in a certain way. The promotional literature says it gives better, more accurate "reads" (indications). So I just accept in good faith that it does. I have not seen any study which compares the newest model to earlier models. Sorry I can't be more helpful about that. Terryeo 22:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can Miscavige cancel HCOBs that were written by Hubbard? Is he authorized to revise or edit Hubbard's words in any of his books?  How is the senior leadership of the Church of Scientology chosen and who will be the successor to Miscavige?  It looks like former #2 man Mark Rathbun and #3 man Warren McShane have been made unpersons by the church as both have been missing for over a year. Vivaldi (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert in the management of the Church and especially, and I have never communicated with anyone that is involved in the management of the organizations of Scientology. I can say that Hubbard's work, for all practical purposes, isn't changed and won't be changed. I'm not denying that some information today appears somewhat different than, say 1985 (before Hubbard died) but the changes that I have looked through seemed logical and sensible to me. The addition of some technology, particularly Patter drill, has proven to be a good addition. The improved E-meter has proven, by its results, to likewise be a good change. However, there is someone whose word I have found to be good and who I, myself would trust. Here are links to her answers which approach the area you ask me about. ,, , GAT=Golden age of Tech, , ,. Laurie Hamilton's entire list of answers. In general, Scientologists view Hubbard's work to be practical, that is, to achieve results and would not change it for that reason. Terryeo 14:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why must you pull these shenanigans
Terryeo, I thought we'd made some progress, and you were becoming more honest and communicative in your dealing with Wikipedia. Then you pull that nonsense with the superpowerbuilding image. I have taken the liberty of bringing your post to the attention of administrators, here:  BTfromLA 20:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (now here) Terryeo 14:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your baseless charges that I've been attacking you personally are objectionable and do not really merit a response. Nevertheless, I have replied on my talk page.  BTfromLA 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have told you. You have made a personal attack.  To state the situation is not itself, a personal attack.  Please stop your personal attacks. Terryeo 22:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

anarchopedia
thanks for your post in "reliable sources", discussion

as you seem to want the article kept, would you mind stating that (and your resoning) at ?

Cold Light 00:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Superpowerbldg.jpg
The copyright problems with this image appear resolved; Andreas Heldal-Lund has released the image under the GFDL (see here). Thanks a lot for bringing this image to Wikipedia's attention. Ral315 (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks for informing me. Terryeo 07:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

May I ask you a question about your use of language?
Hi, Terryeo. I think I've asked this before, but I don't recall getting an answer. I notice you again saying that Scientology does not have "beliefs" nor is it a "belief system," even though it pretty clearly falls into a category that would routinely be so labelled in the "wog" world. I've also noticed that you object to terms that describe elements of discussion and persuasion--"claim," "argument," and "evaluation," for example. You have often denied raising arguments or presenting claims, insisting that you were merely making statements. And Scientology, according to you, just makes statements. This is quite contrary to the way I think--one does in fact argue, make judgements, make claims, etc., and there is nothing bad about it--it is part of the thinking process, and the way people communicate and reach decisions. BUt you clearly have a differnt view. Is the idea of "stating," as opposed to evaluting, arguing, claiming, etc., something that is introduced in Scientology? If so, what is the logic underlying that? BTfromLA 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology is religous. Its activity is to disseminate the philosophy, Scientology, into society. Scientology is about knowledge, as its name says. By itself, Scientology need not be a religion. However, it presents knowledge in an area which is not physical. Study Technology doesn't necessarily have a physical component. The idea of the Tone Scale does not have a physical component. Suppressive person is an idea, not a physical body. Auditing address thought, an individual's past and present thoughts. These things are not physical, but together comprise a philosophy, an applied philosophy. So, with or without the classification "religion" Scientology is a philosophy, an area of knowledge, a codification of things hithertofore uncodified. Consider, for a moment, an older philosophy. For example, the solar system. There was a time when it was uncodified. People did not know the sun was the center and the planets went around it. Knowledge and codification of knowledge about the solar system came about. Similarly, Scientology is knowledge in an area which has not been codified before. While a man could have argued whether the earth went around the sun, so too, a man can argue whether there can be any benifit from Study Technology. But, whether a man argues or doesn't, there are several barriers which a student might meet as he studies. The most commonly met barrier to study is the misunderstood word. Terryeo 08:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Just for the sake of clarity, here's a dictionary defintion of "belief" that I picked off of dictionary.com: "Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons."  I hope that you can, at least, see why others would consider Scientology a belief system in light of that definition--ideas like the thetan, tone scale, the idea that all of these things lack "a physical component,"  these are all beliefs, in any convetional sense of the term.   But I'd like to focus on my original question about your ideas with regard to language: are you saying that "belief," or that "argument," claim," etc., as opposed to "statement," are misunderstood words?  I'm not clear on this at all.  BTfromLA 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Without a doubt I understand perfectly that the Church of Scientology presents beliefs. This is expected of religions, after all.  And, I've no real arguement (though I know better) with people presenting that the Church of Scientology presents a system of beliefs.  I mean, to argue such a statement would take discussion, point by point, that might run to 40 million words. (Hubbard's work).  However, when discussing the subject matter itself, the information on the printed page which comprises the Scientology philosophy, I can not agree that any belief is presented anywhere.  Hubbard didn't talk like that.  He didn't suggest anyone believe what he wrote or said. It wasn't his style and it isn't stated by the printed word.  (I don't think, though maybe, somewhere, there might be one reference).  I am repling to your "tenents of faith" definition.  There are other definitions of the word "belief", but I am replying to you about that one. Terryeo 19:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the reply. I'm still hoping you'll respond to my main question here--about "statement" as opposed to "argument," etc., and whether your position is something taught in scientology?  BTfromLA 19:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My position is my own creation, the summation of my own opinions which I formed by my own efforts. I think I could find you other opinions or statements which just happen to say "the philosophy, Scientology is about knowledge and is not about beliefs" but there is no position taught.  My opinion is my own conclusion.  Does this respond to the question you asked? Terryeo 19:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that it does, thank you. Let me be sure I understand what you are saying: your aversion to such verbs as "evaluate," "claim" and "argue" is your own, and not rooted in the teachings of Scientology.  Right?  BTfromLA 20:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I was able to answer your question. But you are not sure I have answered your question, apparently.  I responded to whether your position is something taught in scientology?. I did not respond to "statement as opposed to arguement", I did not respond to what now seems to be your main question.  Good thing I asked if I had responded to what you asked !  Would you restate it please ? Terryeo 20:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is basically just pasted from above--please let me know if the question remains unclear. I've noticed that you object to terms that describe elements of discussion and persuasion--"claim," "argument," and "evaluation," for example. You have often denied raising arguments or presenting claims, insisting that you were merely making statements. And Scientology, according to you, just makes statements. This is quite contrary to the way I think--one does in fact argue, make judgements, make claims, etc., and there is nothing bad about it--it is part of the thinking process, and the way people communicate and reach decisions. But you clearly have a different view. Is the idea of "stating," as opposed to evaluting, arguing, claiming, etc., something that is introduced in Scientology? If so, what is the logic underlying that? BTfromLA 20:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I understand what you are asking me. I understand that sometimes people argue when they make statements.  I understand that some statements are claims.  I understand that sometimes,someone's statement becomes a claim after they have made the statement.  Example, the guy comes in first in the footrace and makes the statement, 'I have won', which later becomes a claim because his statement is challenged when someone else states 'I saw that guy take a shortcut'.  So, in attempt to be brief;


 * Some statements are part of an arguement
 * Some statements are claims
 * Some statements are evaluations
 * Some are persuasive
 * Some are challenges. I agree. Statements can be made in many ways, for many purposes.  But always, a statement is meant to communicate in some manner.  Whether to argue, to convince, to claim, evaluate, persuade or challenge, statements are necessarily a communication.  Okay, there you go.  Was that responsive? Terryeo 22:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, thanks for the response. What I still don't understand is why you object to having your words characterized as "claims, " "arguments," etc. Above, you allow how these are valid descriptions of some statements.  So why do you so strongly resist having them aplied to what you write?  BTfromLA 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now we are at last close to what you wished to know, I understand now. I was not trying to lead you off from what you wanted to understand.  The reason I often use the word "statement" is because it is emotionally unloaded.  There is less emotional influence if I "state" something, or if you "state" something, than if I "insist" or "claim" or "argue" or "conjole".  A statement is clean, free of emotional bias, while an arguement is intended to have emotional bias.  So I use "statement" a lot.  My communication is directed to the person's reason, rather that being directed to the person's emotion. Is this getting close to what you wanted? Terryeo 22:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, you prefer to use "statement" because it seems more emotionally neutral than some other words that may be substituted. Fair enough. Allow me to follow-up: If I were to respond by saying "Statement may be neutral, but it is also less precise than some of those alternatives,"  and you responded by talking about my claim that statement is less precise, I would not take offense--I would have, indeed, made that claim.  If I thought you misunderstood my claim, I'd try to clarify that.  Or if I thought your response required that I offer more examples, or make a stonger argument in support of my claim, that's what I'd do. What I wouldn't do is say "I did not claim, I stated."  Even if I wouldn't have chosen the word "claim" myself, it isn't wrong.  And, from my perspective, contradicting the person who is addressing you has exactly the opposite effect of keeping things emotionally neutral--especially if you are contradicting them when they have said nothing wrong.  This is a long winded way of explaining my perspective on this, and formulating the follow-up question, which is really the original question: while you are certainly free to call your own comments "statements," why do you object to others using a more full vocabularly, when they use it accurately?  Let me also add that I disagree that argument is intended to have an emotional bias.  Reasoned argument, as in formal debate, is at the heart of civil discourse, in my view, and I'd say it is, ideally, at the heart of the Wikipedia editing process (you'll notice I said "ideally"--we're very far from that ideal!).  So, another question--my last sentences, in which I "disagree" about "argument": does that bit seem emotionally-directed to you?  BTfromLA 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The English language is meaning - rich. "Argument" can mean,  A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate (reasoned debate implied). "Argument" can as easily mean a quarrel.   I guess I am on guard a tiny bit about the second meaning creeping into conversations when the first meaning initiates a conversation.  Certain editors tend to get hotted up real fast.  If all went ideally then we could argue and argue a lot, but, unfortunately, Wikipedia editors tend toward incivility now and then.  So I try to keep out of the "argue" area when possible.  On the other hand, I do see that you are first saying.  That if I don't reply in a similar language, i.e. 'claim' gets a 'counter-claim' or something like that, then that incites more arguement than it cools.  Your last question, No, I don't read the previous mention of 'argument' as being emotionally - directed. Terryeo 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the exchange, Terryeo. Not that you asked for it, but my advice is to pick your battles carefully if you want to keep things reasoned and civil--from my perspective, it just adds contentiousness if you make an issue about somebody saying you offered an argument or made a claim. Save the objections for times somebody really does characterize what you (or anyone) wrote in a "hotted up" manner--if they declare you had written a "crazy screed," say, I would certainly call them on it, and your objections will have more authority and draw more support from other editors if you offer them more judiciously. Just my 2¢.  BTfromLA 19:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition of publishing
Do you realise that Wikipedia talk:No original research rules out the news on both cable and satellite television (ie you have to be a subscriber to see the broadcast)? so CNN is not a citable source. Garrie 01:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not having a satellite dish I may not quite be right there - there may be free-to-satellite? but a lot of it is subscription based, eg pay per view. I would have thought that if there was a WWF event on Pay Per View then the fact it had been on once, would be enough to update the WWF information on this site (not that it should be here anyway but that's a fancruft issue not a source validity issue!)Garrie
 * I believe, myself, that when people pay for information (entertainment in the WWF example), then the information presented to them is published. However, electromagnetic energy (radio transmission) is fleeting and can not be verified.  Again, its my opinion and other editors seem to disagree.  A WWF transmission is published, but unverifiable (except for recorded copies). Terryeo 08:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I follow what you are saying, similar claims have been made regarding Australian Aboriginal heritage issues on a range of WikiProject Australia articles (we know it but it would never ever be written down or be authorised to be discussed with non aboriginals.... it that's the case then don't use it to refute what has been written here!)Garrie 22:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've wondered about that because I've understood there is some kind of tourist thing the Australian Aboriginals do which publishes (according this discussion) some of their heritage, but such publication is unverifiable. If, eventually, hundreds of thousands of tourists become pulished to, would their word of mouth talking to each other be a sufficent verification?  Beats me, I just don't know about that. Terryeo 23:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Ignatieff
I am assuming good faith that this edit was made with a genuine desire to be helpful. However, I have deleted it, as you posted it in a completely inappropriate place in the middle of a sensitive, focused discussion. If you want to post on this particular page, please read the material on the page first, so you can make a useful contribution. Thank you. Tyrenius 01:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you in return for your cordial note. Cordiality is always welcome. However, I don't accept your comment that I lacked etiquette, since my reversion of your edit was only necessary as you had placed it in completely inappropriate, off-topic manner, which one might consider did not demonstrate etiquette to begin with. If you read through the page, you will also see that suggestions for alternative solutions right now are not helpful, as the page is halfway through a resolution using the method which I have just instituted. You may like to keep your eye on the page, and then perhaps at a later date your idea may be something that editors choose to take up. Further points are made on Sunray's talk page. Tyrenius 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't granted you permission for anything, since I'm not able to. I've made a suggestion, which you are free to take up or not as you wish.

There are various circumstances where talk can be deleted. See discussion here. Your post isn't deleted anyway. It's archived. Tyrenius 10:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is inappropriate to remove discussion from article talk pages. The single exception would be a personal attack.  Personal attacks may be removed by the target of the attack at his discresion.  This does not mean that you can remove personal attacks which target other people.  This does not mean you can remove discussion from an article's discussion page even though it appears to you, the added discussion does not address the issue which you want addressed. Terryeo 10:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. You do it how you think it should be done, and I'll do it how I think it should be done. Time, I'm sure, will be a good tester of who gains or loses wider support for their actions. Tyrenius 11:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * By your statement, you have said that you misunderstand. I have not suggested you take action based on your opinion, but that you take action based on policy and guideline which has been arrived at by our founder's work and by concensus of opinion reached by the work of many editors over a period of time.  As a parallel example, society passes laws, such as traffic laws which are enforced.  Your statement classifies my posting to you as advice.  I did not advise you, but pointed to a guideline for your illumination.  If you refuse to follow a guideline then you are not following my advice, if you refuse to follow a guideline, then you are not refusing to follow my advice.  My posting was informational, not argumentational. Terryeo 15:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Where I live, "You may like to" is not permission; it is suggestion. So that clears that one up. Another suggestion is to stop reading beginner's advice and get into good working relationships with other editors, when you might find that things on wiki do not happen by rigid rules, but by an evolving community that generates modes of action. Now, I think we have explored this quite enough, and I'm sure you're keen to get back to whatever articles you are working on at the moment.Tyrenius 11:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In the English language, "you may like to" can be understood only as one person having evaluated what the other might enjoin themselves to and stating their evaluation. Terryeo 15:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I ought to mention that I will regard any future off-topic posts inserted into the middle of the discussions on Talk:Michael Ignatieff as vandalism. Tyrenius 11:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your reply, though civil, denies the guidelines arrived at by a concensus of editors over a period of time. It would be unwise of you to remove discusssion from discussion pages.  This is advise. Terryeo 15:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Convenience links
Sorry for taking an unexpected wikibreak before we came to an agreement. Did the rest of you ever come to an agreement? I assume not, since the word "convenience link" doesn't appear in WP:RS. Anyways, I think you're right that something that isn't at least a reproduction/partial reproduction/at least a search of a reliable source probably shouldn't be put next to that source. If a convenience link not meeting those conditions is so helpful, it can be listed in the external links section, not next to a source. But I'm sort of confused what happened after I left, were we anywhere near consensus? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome back ! Our work toward "convenience links", and especially the manner in which you stated they might be cited, has not reached the page yet.  I hope it will.  There has been some agreement about certain sorts of conveniently linked documents.  The lastes at WP:RS, hand typed reproductions of affidavits and court documents are being agreed as not being suitable as secondary sources. I thought we were near concensus, myself. I was in agreement with the improvements your wording would bring about. Terryeo 02:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! : ) But I guess we haven't reached consensus about convenience links not being sources. (By we I mean everyone, not just you and I.) Thanks for summarizing! Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So hurray for our improvement of R2-45. I was wondering if you could give me a second opinion on a couple of references I added to Gunston Hall. The first might not actually be an indirect source - Chipstone might be the original publisher, but I'm not sure. The second one credits the original publisher and author (R. Carter Pittman), and says it has permission from the Manuscript Society. On the bottom it says "Prepared from a typewritten draft with the author's handwritten changes incorporated. Edited by Joel T. LeFevre." Joel T. LeFevre is the webmaster, and the whole site is dedicated to the works of that one author (R. Carter Pittman). The main page says, "This page brings together for the first time on the Internet selected writings of the Hon. R. Carter Pittman for the benefit of students, researchers, and everyone who appreciates American history. It is presented to the public with the kind permission of Mr. R. Carter Pittman, Jr." In other words, the second one seems to fall just short of being official. So I was hoping for your opinion (references follow).
 * — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * wow. There is some real quality there !  I will say more and say it on your page when I have looked at more of it.  I am glad you introduced me to quality here on Wikipedia. Terryeo 03:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It's not perfect, though. In the basement section, I used an architectural drawing and a photograph from the Historic American Buildings Survey (part of the US National Park Service) as sources - I would be more comfortable that my use wasn't original research with consensus from other editors. There also aren't any offline sources. (The "Recollections" of John Mason would be useful.) The best articles I've seen on Wikipedia, in my opinion, are Naval Battle of Guadalcanal and Battle of the Eastern Solomons, you might enjoy looking at them. Also, if you want to see quality more often, consider voting on WP:FAC. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

ISBNs
Hi, Terry, thanks for your note. The ISBN article states clearly that ISBNs should have spaces or hyphens, and WP doesn't work with spaces. Harvard style, as far as I can tell, has nothing to say about ISBNs, athough the examples in WP use unhyphenated ones. Perhaps I missed something, in which case, please let me know. Rich Farmbrough 22:53 27 August 2006 (GMT).


 * ISBNs do have hyphens and spaces. However, WP:CITE (how to create a citation) gives examples of how to include an ISBN as part of a citation and examples to remove all of the spaces and hyphens, leaving one solid mass of numbers, i.e. ISBN 0123456789. The Library of Congress  uses exactly that format, a solid mass of numbers (should you wish to use its catalog to look up a book).  I don't know the detail of why WP:CITE and harvard referencing spells it out that way, but it does.  However, since I'm not an expert, my comments are not meant to change your edits but to inform of the guidelines which apply. Terryeo 04:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey terryeo
Hey, terryeo. Just want to say that I am glad that you are here representing the on-policy, in-tech Scientologists. I know that this is not an easy place for a Scientologist to hang out. And your efforts are unsung, I am sure. Is there a time limit on your ban from editing?--Justanother 23:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm banned from editing the Dianetics and Scientology articles. That's it.  The arbitration committee could reconsider their decree, that would be possible. Welcome to Wikipedia.  You can email an  editor who has gone through the small procedure of making email a live option (on the left below "User contributions"), but only if an editor has agreed to receive email from Wikipedia.  Don't post personal information on Wikipedia.  Stuff on here gets copied all over the web.


 * Thanks for the advice, I pretty well know that already. You should just apply a condition. You have been assigned liablity.  Good luck.--Justanother 23:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a valid communication, thank you. Terryeo 23:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. One more for you.  You cannot control (i.e. edit) that which you are unwilling to be in ARC with. That is practically the definition of bad control. I read your advices and appreciate them. Especially about keeping TRs in on the discussion board and not being bullbaited; I will work on that. I don't agree that one should hide one's viewpoint though I am sure it keeps things simpler.  Get reinstated and go cautiously (i.e. apply non-e). Best--Justanother 00:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

? I have no idea what I have ever said about TRs in nor what discussion board you're talking about. Perhaps you have me crossed up with someone else, I don't know. Terryeo 04:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Are these your words "Incivility is what will get people banned. Several black hats, each prodding for an uncivil reaction until they get it, will later quote it. They're still quoting my reactive, "beanbrain, dogfood, idiot". Incivilities to several editors over a period of time are helpful to the black hats." Sounds like your TRs went out. I appreciate the warning.

Re: beliefs, let me give you an easy one. Go look at the Creed of the Church of Scientology (http://www.scientology.org/world/worldeng/corp/creed.htm). If you prefer that I do not communicate with you one on one I will respect that though I really don't have anything more to say anyway.--Justanother 04:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also appreciate the acknowledge. Thank you for telling me that you read what I wrote. Terryeo 04:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, those are my words, they do not say, "keep your TR's in" and they don't say, "don't be drawn off by bullbait". I do understand your re-stating them now, though I didn't at first understand that you were rephrasing what I said.  Thanks for clarifying. Terryeo 04:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Creed of the Church is created by the Church. The Church presents beliefs, as in "tenents of faith" (similar to 'we believe Christ died for our sins'), and further in the Creed of the Church.  The use of "belief" in that document is appropriate to a Church, of course. What I am saying is that Hubbard did not suggest and would laugh at the idea that anyone should believe his statements.  Hubbard suggested students be skeptical, not that students "believe until proven otherwise".   I mean the student is studying along and here is the Tone Scale Science of Survival, 1952.  He doesn't suggest a student believe that a person's action can be predicted, based on their prevalent emotion, but puts words on the page which you can read and can try out for yourself.  A student then comes to their own opionions and understanding but "believing" what Hubbard said plays no part in it. Terryeo 04:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please withdraw your personal attack
Your claims on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources about Raymond Hill's motives are inappropriate, speculative and a personal attack, and are in violation of your post-arbitration probation. Please withdraw them. -- ChrisO 12:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I see [[User:ChrisO] has placed edits of this matter here and here and here also. Chased by Fahrenheit451's concurence just 9 minutes later, here.

I have commented on the result of User:Raymond Hill's editing, but I have not commented on the motivation which Raymond Hill makes his edits with. However, if you argue that when Raymond Hill archives a Google Group message and then edits Wikipedia, citing his personal website archive, that Raymond Hill can not expect any reader to visit his website to read the message which he archived, then I could follow your statement in regard to Raymond Hill's motivation. No, I don't comment and I don't mention Raymond Hill's motivation. In fact, I refuse to analyze Raymond's motivation. Terryeo 12:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I made no claim. I placed edit summaries.  I did not comment on Raymond Hill's motives.  I made no personal attack.  I can not withdraw the edits he made. Terryeo 15:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Your ban
Per WP:BAN you may appeal "indefinite ban" after one year.--Justanother 11:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Terry, if I can make a suggestion, I think you would have a better chance to appeal if you also edited some non-Hubbard-related pages. I don't personally have a problem with your focus on the pages that interest you, but if you got a couple featured articles under your belt and showed an ability to get along with others, I think that would go a long way. (Of course, I'm not arbcom or even an admin, so what do I know. ;-)   )  TheronJ 13:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good as anyone else, thanks for a reasonable sounding suggestion :) Terryeo 17:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding Terryeo and Scientology
Chris, Terry,

I wanted to explore whether there's some way to agree on a mechanism for Terry to raise his concerns about scientology sourcing. I understand that you guys have a past, but it seems like you're close to some common ground.

Chris, if I understand you correctly, you think Terry raises some good points and some bad ones, and you would like to see Terry (1) use dispute resolution that doesn't immediately escalate to the policy pages or mediation, and (2) in the cases where consensus is against Terry, that he work with the consensus opinion. Terry, if I understand you correctly, you're frustrated that (1) many of the Scientology cites don't meet your understanding of WP:V and WP:DR, and (2) as long as the current scientology editors don't have an interest in fixing the problem, your complaints aren't likely to have any effect.

Chris, is it possible to agree on a mechanism for Terry to raise his concerns and solicit input in a way that you can buy into? Terry, are you interested? As a starting point, I would suggest: Sorry if I'm intruding, but it honestly looks like you guys are close to common ground. Would you be interested in something like the structure I've proposed? Thanks, TheronJ 13:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Terry limits himself to one scientology page per week.  (In order to allow discussion to focus on that page).
 * 2) Terry makes a good faith effort to find reliable, verifiable sources to offer as substitutes for the cites that concern him/her.  (Yes, there's no obligation to do this, but it will be a helpful contribution).
 * 3) Once Terry has his concerns and any proposed new sources, if any, ready, the discussion escalates something like this.
 * 4) Terry describes his concerns on the talk page for the page in question and includes a link to that discussion on the scientology project page.  Chris makes a good faith effort, time permitting, to respond to those concerns.  Terry and Chris both make a good faith effort to explore possible areas of compromise.  (I'm sure gadflies like Blueboar and myself will pipe in too).
 * 5) After discussion, if the groups are deadlocked, Terry seeks input from WP:3O (if appropriate), and/or areligion and philosophy request for comment.
 * 6) If the discussion is still deadlocked, Terry and Chris consider a formal] or [[WP:MEDCAB|informal mediation.
 * 7) Terry doesn't escalate to the policy pages unless there is a serious proposal to change an existing policy, or a serious question about a policy that can't be resolved by the steps above.

I'm prefectly willing to try any approach toward more reasonable Scientology article. Using my page here in this manner is perfectly good with me. One article a week seems a litte sparse to me but I'm willing to give it a go as long as we are moving foreward. I'll notify you, TheronJ, that I agree on your user page. Terryeo 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, I have pitched in my 2¢ about this on TheronJ's talk page. No need for you to reply--I just though you might want to know.  BTfromLA 16:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Got your message, Terryeo, thank you. I'm busy with work for the next several hours, I'll respond when I have time... probably this evening.  BTfromLA 17:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)  I have responded on my talk page.  BTfromLA 02:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OKTerryeo 11:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Plain talking
Thanks for your kind note. I sympathise somewhat with your plight, although I'm no fan of scientology. It's just one of those subjects that will never be treated neutrally here. -- Grace Note.

John Fashanu
Is John Fashanu a Scientologist? I've seen this mentioned on other sites but it isn't mentioned on his Wikipedia page. 10:08, 7 September 2006 81.103.216.107 (anon signature added by Terryeo), per the "history" tab at the top of the page.

I've no idea anon from 81.103,216.107. No idea at all. Not only have I never heard the name "John Fashanu", but I've never heard the name "Fashanu" before. I confess that I'm not particularly good with names and generaly remember faces rather than names. Still, with 3000 + organizations in 3000 + locations, each location having perhaps 20 + staff members serving the public, the odds of my meeting any particular other Scientologist are slim. Terryeo 20:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your question
Terryeo, I just dropped in for a moment in the middle of my workday and I'm back to work now--I'll respond when I have a chance, probably either tonight or tomorrow night. Please bear with me. BTfromLA 21:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've responded on my talk page. BTfromLA 08:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems regarding your ban
From your Arbitration: "Terryeo banned from Scientology related articles 2) Terryeo is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to Dianetics or Scientology. He may make appropriate comments on talk pages.". However, since this ban, IP address 208.106.20.67 has edited several articles pertaining to Scientology: []. This editor then signed a message as you: []. Any comments? Yandman 14:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yandman (who has never addressed me civilly) has confered with administrator ChrisO and others to produce this.07:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC) He did that without following the procedure outlined on that page, i.e. he did not, Notify the user (me) at his or her user talk page. and has never addressed me in a civil manner. I spell out a few of the comments he addresses to me without spelling out all of his personal attacks at the enforcement link above.  As with nearly every edit I make, a small handful of Scientology series editors have filled that discussion area with stuff. Terryeo 22:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You say I never notified you on your talk page. This is somewhat incorrect. I did warn you on your talk page, and you did remove this warning. I did then put the warning back on your talk page, and you did remove it again. Then, and only then, did I take things to the administrators. ps: It is considered bad form to modify your previous edits when they have already been replied to. Yandman 08:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Incorrect, Terryeo. Yandman posted that info under the existing complaint about your behavior.  TheronJ is the one who created a new section to focus on your latest violations and moved Yandman's evidence there.  So if you weren't notified about the new Terryeo(2) section, blame TheronJ.  Since you already were the subject of a complaint on the same page, and since you obviously discovered the situation immediately, this isn't really much of a problem, though, is it?  BTfromLA 23:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're attempting to tell me that Yandman has said a civil word to me? By all means, point it out. He has hidden my user name in a link, implied and unstated that he finds something disturbing and wrong that I should be editing in an Encyclopedia available to 6.5 billion people to edit, yet is unable to say "hello", though I have attempted politeness at nearly every turn, and especially when he first came over from his newsgroups postings to edit here. If you, or any other editor would simply confront the issues I raise, which are quite reasonable issues and usually wind up being presented in a more neutral way than when I begin them, I would be more resonable, perhaps.  But you, BTfromLA, have incessently stated that you want me out and gone from any discussion.  Yet the things I suggest (which seem to arouse enormous controversy at the time) frequently wind up being the standard.  For example, the template. It now has a "view this template", "edit this template", discuss this template", etc.  While when I begin that discussion it was adamently opposed.   And that's not the only example.  I rarely use abusive language but the smallest (and most obvious to me) out point is enormously opposed by the handful of editors amonsgst whom you seem to include yourself. The smallest post on a guideline page brings huge response and "warning, Terryeo means to change Wikipedia to ...".  Should I spell out additional links to my really minor efforts toward an even application of Wikipedia Policy and guideline and your (and a handful of editors) enormous opposition? Terryeo 23:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "when he first came over from his newsgroups postings to edit here". What newsgroup postings? Are you confusing me with someone, or do you just enjoy sharing your fertile imagination with those around you? Yandman 08:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Terryeo, as is so often the case, you've completely ignored what's been said. You accused Yandman of not following the procedure of notifying you when starting a new complaint about your violations.  I pointed out that he didn't do that.  I didn't say anything about his civility or anything else about his relationship with you.  Terryeo, I have nothing against you personally--indeed, I've enjoyed some of my exchanges with you and I get no pleasure from hurting your feelings.  And I've got nothing particular against scientology, though if your behavior here is a reflection of scientology's teachings, it speaks very poorly for it in my opinion.  The truth is that that the problem here is not some conspiracy against you: the problem is your behavior.  Lying, dissembling, disrupting, misrepresenting, attacking people personally, confusing issues, etc., etc., is unacceptible behavior, especially when it continues with ever greater vigor after you have been shown again and again where the problems lay, by literally dozens of different Wikipedians. You are behaving antisocially at Wikipedia.  Your actions are the source of your problems here, and if all the editors you dislike disappeared today, you'd have exactly the same problems with any other batch of editors. BTfromLA 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was the one who started the complaint. I apologize for not notifying you, Terry.  I assumed that you followed ChrisO's page, but I should have put a note here.  Sorry again, TheronJ 11:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, your conclusions don't fit the real world. I get along fine with almost everyone with the exception of a small handful of anti-Scientology editors who refuse to follow WP:V as manifests by WP:RS and its attendant, "previously published by reliable sources". You don't agree. You have said you don't agree. I could give 100 example of fruitful exchanges in the Contract Bridge area where I sometimes edit or in other areas such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR]], WP:RS and in all of those instances you would read disagreement where I read agreement. The exception is yourself and a small handful of editors, such as Yardman, ChrisO, Feldspar, Wikipediatrix. However, even though your conclusion is (from my point of view) demonstrably false, the datums you build it on are likewise false (from my point of view). You talk with me while insisting you don't want to talk with me, doesn't this expose some kind of unresolved diachotomy to you? Terryeo 03:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, it isn't a small handful of editors--19 editors signed on to complain about your actions during the "request for comments," other editors, including all six voting arbitrators, found your behavior unacceptable during the arbatration, and still more editors, including Theronj and Yandman recently, have had problems with you since then. I suspect that we could find at least forty separate wikipedia editors who have found your behavior unacceptable.  And despite your fantasies to the contrary, I see no evidence these editors are part of a cabal who secretly communicate--I, at least, don't know any of these people outside of Wikipedia.  And while a few are indeed active critics of Scientology, many are not. As to my own "unresolved dichotomy," well, it's true that my attempts to communicate with you have resulted in a lot of frustration and wasted time, and perhaps reason dictates that I shouldn't waste still more time.  But I've been interested in trying to understand your thinking, and I'm willing to try to work with you as long as you are here.  I have--however foolishly--held out hope that we would make progress together.  I think you recognize that much of my interaction with you over the months has been a sincere attempt to help me to understand Scientology concepts from your perspective and to help you to become a productiv--as opposed to disruptive--editor.  Very reluctantly, I have concluded that you are not ever likely to become an honest and competent contributor.  Thus, I think you should be banned from the Scientology article talk pages.  But that isn't the same as saying I don't want to talk with you.  As I said above, I have nothing at all against you personally, and I'm willing to talk as long as we are both here.  If that reflects a personality defect on my part, so be it.  BTfromLA 03:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you feel you are making a valid point. For reasons I'm willing to list, I don't feel your point is entirely valid.  I feel that this discussion, like our earlier discussions, will fall apart when we begin a line by line examination of each of our respective sides.  On the last occassion, when we agreed to examine Study Tech, and we examined in detail how a personal website was mis-presenting Hubbard's ideas and it became clear and obvious the situation was as I was saying, you quit talking to me.  I am reasonably confident this situation is similar.  If we examine line by line and item by item, the 19 whom you reference and the abitrators, that we will find the sitatution to be much closer to what I have stated than to what you state the situation to be.  That is, a small handful of editors are remarkably reactive to my edits no matter how polite I am.  And I have learned to be polite from my being banned, even when my statement is evaluated, and mispresented.  For example (and all too often) "What Terryeo means is ....." and "he is trying to get Scientology ... blah blah blah", when what I am attempting to do is discuss an issue. Terryeo 03:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't remember that I stopped talking to you (though it is possible that I became distracted by work and wandered away from the discussion), nor did it ever become "clear and obvious" that Touretzky was mis-reprensenting Study Tech--at best, you made a point about a subtle shift in emphasis from the concept of "barriers" to the actual techniques used to address those barriers, but I saw no basis at all for your claims that he had the whole thing completely wrong. Also, if I recall correctly, the part of the discussion of Study Tech that you focused on was not being cited or used in any way by any Wikipedia article.  As to your problems with me and many other editors, being polite is only part of the issue, a rather small part in my view.  I have spelled out the problems at length, as have others, time and again, and you consistently refuse to acknowledge them, so there's really no point to repeating myself further.  BTfromLA 15:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why you continue to hold that I am an opponenet who "at best, made a point about a subtle shift in emphasis", is beyond my understanding. I pointed to the obvious.  Touretzky presents, "Study Tech is based on three principles".  Well. that is just plain false.  If there is a principle to study tech is could be phrased, "The principle of study tech is that barriers to study come up from time to time", or similar.  But Touretzky can't fathom "barrier to study", so he comes along with, "three principles".  There are no such "principles" because what study is tech is about is recognizing and handling barriers.  As a driver would find no bridge across a river to be a barrier, so too, there are barriers which come up as a person studies. Boom, here's a barrier which is going to slow your use of the studied material.  As a large crack in the street prevents a pedestrian from crossing the street, so too a barrier to study prevents a student from assimilating the information on the other side of the barrier.  The "principle" is "barriers exist".  But Touretzky doesn't get that far, he wraps up in "principles" and never gets to "barriers". In our previous discussion you quit just about the time this became undeniably clear. Terryeo 15:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * From my perspective, the difference between something like "Study Tech is based on the principal that there exist what Hubbard called 'barriers to study'; Study Tech uses three educational concepts to overcome those barriers" and "The main principals of Study Tech are three educational concepts which are used to overcome what Hubbard calls 'barriers to study,'" is subtle. Maybe there is a slightly different implication between them, maybe one is a more clearly stated explanation than the other, but it overstates it considerably to call either one "plain false."  BTfromLA 00:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Study Tech doesn't state, "principle" at all and simply presents, "There are 3 barriers to study". Want that link again?  But as you have said, you view the difference as being subtle.  Okay, that's fine with me, however you think of that difference is fine with me.  But I think you would conceed that not everyone reads the printed word exactly as you do, nor exactly as I do.  "3 barriers to study" is as simple as the information can be presented (My opinion).  Touretzky takes the simple statement and begins wrapping it in layers of complexity.  Hubbard's statement was like a cookbook's direction, straightforeward and useable.  Touretzky's layers of complexity reduce that useability.  Touretzky removes Hubbard's study tech from understandable and useable to erudite and useless and he begins by mis-stating, "there are three principles of study tech".  That is simply untrue.  There is a single idea which could be called a principle and that is, "there are barriers to study, there are 3 of them and here they are".  And that's just to start with, Touretzky gets more erudite and less useable as he goes on ! Terryeo 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Terryeo, we all read things a bit differently. I daresay that the group who considers erudite writing a bad thing in an encyclopedia is a very small minority, perhaps containing one person only.  BTfromLA 03:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You suggest I am the only editor of Wikipedia who considers Erudite writing (here) to be a bad thing. But that is not what I stated above.  I commented on how Touretzky's website takes Hubbard's written word and wraps it in erudite layers, thus entangling the reader and make the written simplicity less visible.  That Hubbard's words are difficult to assimilate is manifested by the many, many mis-stated misunderstandings of them, and you propose to that is as it should be, that his word not be understood by anyone at all (self excluded of course, the single exception).  I believe you could just come right out and say, if you chose, "I  mean to prevent any reader from understanding what Hubbard wrote".  Such a statement is only very slightly away from the statement you just made :)  Terryeo 11:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, your stated belief has no connection to reality. BTfromLA 16:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, good, I'm relieved to hear that :) Terryeo 16:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, you continue to remove this question from your talk page. Yandman 14:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is not you, and is someone trying to get you in trouble (rather clumsily in fact) it would be helpful to hear a defense of some kind. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. I use a common internet connection and don't know how those things works and edit with this screen name.Terryeo 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like you to reconsider your response. This diff shows that on August 28 at 15:22 UTC (8:22 AM in California) you signed a post on Arb Enforcement that was made by, so it looks like you first posted your response while logged out, and then logged in to sign. That IP address also made a number of (rather minor) edits to Scientology articles between August 4 and August 28. The last edit was to the Scientology template at 12:15 UTC, just 3 hours before you used it to post to the Arb enforcement page.

It is technically possible that this IP address (which appears to be a DSL line) belonged to someone else and was switched to you between edits on August 28, but it frankly doesn't seem likely (or that some other random person in your geographic area would have the same interests you have). If you admitted making these rather minor edits, I would argue for a short block to recognize the violation but also the fact that the edits were minor and somewhat stale. If you deny the edits and checkuser can prove you made them anyway, any argument for a short symbolic block would lose its appeal. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I see 13 edits at (contibutions by that IP address.  I did those edits. My ban says I shouldn't have.  I had raised the issues in talk pages, other editors had agreed about the issues, (with the exception that certain editors refused to discuss the issue, or raised other issues instead of discussing the issue) yet the articles didn't reflect what discussing editors had agreed to in principle.  I then made those edits while not signed in. Terryeo 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I know it must be very frustrating to be under a topical ban, especially something so important to you.  The only thing I can suggest is that if you can establish a history of improved conduct (i.e. not edit warring or making personal attacks), you can ask the arbitration committee to replace the article ban with a modified probation.  I don't know how long that is likely to take but they are close to rescinding Khoikhoi's probation after 6 months good behavior.  So read "indefinite" as "undefined" rather than "forever" if that gives you a goal to work towards.  Thanks for your response. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The subject
"HELP" is the subject. The Scientology series doesn't have the word anywhere in it. The reason why is the subject revolves around and was created around the subject "HELP". And as Hubbard's Suppressive person technology spells out, no suppressive can tolerate the idea. Thus, rather than the single subject which is the actual subject of Dianetics and Scientology, a vast array of subjects is presented in the Scientology series and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM doesn't present the actual subject, "HELP", anywhere within them. That's the bottom line for suppressive folk. That's the reason why none of the philanthropy of the subject will be presented in Wikipedia. 5000 Volunteer Ministers show up at a disaster, how are they published in Wikipedia? Their philanthropic efforts are published as on opposition to psychiatry. Those Volunteer Ministers administer Touch Assists and teach Touch Assists to others and how is that published in Wikipedia? As a "pseudo-scientific procedure", even though newspapers carry personal attestations, which say "I have been helped". People with strong drug habits do a Narconon program and how is that published? As a dismal 2.5 % failure. Criminon is another example. The Tone Scale, which is the foundation of an actor's craft isn't presented as helpful to an actor. Study Tech which I know from personal experience to greatly help a student improve their grades isn't presented as helpful to the student. You get the idea. Through one means or another the subject which prompted Hubbard to create Dianetics and later Scientology isn't going to meet the reader's eye as helpful. Not as long as expelled and declared suppressive persons control the articles. And this statement here is not an opposition, this statement of mine is a recognition of the situation. Don't take my word for it, "HELP" is taken out of, dispersed and belittled in every Scientology Series article. Look for yourself. Millions of people have spent billions of dollars and made many many attestations, people find Scientology helpful.Terryeo 15:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The first two sentences of the main Scientology article: "Scientology is a body of teachings and related techniques developed by American author L. Ron Hubbard over some thirty years beginning in 1952 as a self-help philosophy, an outgrowth of his earlier self-help system, Dianetics. It claims to offer an exact methodology to help humans achieve awareness of their spiritual existence across many lifetimes and, simultaneously, to become more effective in the physical world." Not that your point about a conspiracy against th word "help" would mean anything even if it were true.  This is simply a ridiculous claim, Terryeo--I don't know how to put that any more kindly.  And worse than ridiculous: "expelled and declared suppressive persons control the articles"?  You have a particle of evidence for that? BTfromLA 16:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The example you give is as interesting as it is unciteable. In that instance "help" is mispresented.  At no point that I know of has Scientology ever published itself as being a "self-help" philosophy and your example is an excellent illustration of the point I make.  "HELP" is mispresented. I won't reply to the rest of your statement because to do so would require naming names.  I have been enjoined not to name names, apparently the individuals whom you could of course, ask privately and who jump at my edits most frequently have, through various means, enjoined me not to name names. Have a good one. Terryeo 17:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What? Enjoined not to name names?  Do you really think a blanket smear of all the editors with no evidence is better than a specific charge against one that has some basis?  That really makes no sense to me.  BTfromLA 17:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, fascinating that you would view my refusal to spell out particulars as a "blanket smear", while I don't intend any smear whatsoever. In fact, I don't see the Church declaring someone a suppressive person to be a smear on their reputation at all.  Perhaps that is where our difference originates.  I mean no belittlement or disrespect when I say what I say.  My comment is about the capability of some editors, not about any quality which can be "smeared".  Terryeo 19:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, I think you take the idea of "suppresive person" seriously, and that you are declaring the editors who work on the scientology articles to be, at best, sworn enemies of all that is good in Scientology and, at worst, Hitler-type sociopaths. If you call me a sociopath, that is, most certainly, a smear against my character, and likewise for anyone else you level tghe charge at.You are also implying that many if not most of editors are disgruntled former scientologists who have been "expelled."  A very specific charge: if you can't offer evidence for such a claim, don't make it. BTfromLA 19:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate that you tell me your thinking about my statements, that is not what I have said. In fact, what you have said reflects some of what I see on personal websites, you know?  The kind of personal opinion widely presented on anti-scientology websites?  I haven't said any of that at all.  I haven't mentioned "Hitler", "sociopath", "smear against character", "enemy of all that is good".  But you have used all of those terms.  I have not used any of those.  And, the reason I haven't used any of those (my opinion coming here) is that I understand what the meaning of Suppressive person and don't consider those terms useful co-descriptors.  While an interesting Point of View, BTfromLA, I don't think you actually mean to understand what I stated.  Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 20:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A bit of history
The impetus for the proposal was discussion on Expert Retention; a common complain is that experts in various technical subjects were having to constantly deal with crackpots who insert "the moon is made of green cheese"-style theories into science articles; despite these theories having no merit whatsoever. Cranks who engage in personal attacks or such can often be blocked, but polite crackpots often cannot be dealt with under current policy by anyone other than the arbcom--and due to backlog, the arbcom often requires several rounds of (often fruitless) dispute resolution. In many cases, there is no real dispute to resolve; the crank is flat-out dead wrong, and his theories have no place in an encyclopedia.

It is cases like this that Tendentious editors tries to resolve.

My intent is to exclude debates, such as Scientology, where there are sources on both sides, and an active, public controversy exists. Given your history on the topic, I can understand why you would be skeptical of this. I've added language to the policy as proposed to explicitly exclude active controversies which can be demonstrated.

Unfortunately, as I've noted in the talk page, words like "crackpot" and "crank" are highly pejorative, and inappropriate for inclusion in a policy page (especially in a policy name). "Tendentious editing" is a phrase with a well-established meaning on Wikipedia, and has generally been used against "crackpot" editors. I'd prefer a better name, but haven't come up with any good ideas yet.

Hope you understand, --EngineerScotty 20:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that editorial policies need not "understandable" to readers who are not editors. I agree that the definitions for things should be evident; either standard English usage, or explicitly defined.  Many disciplines, organzations, etc. have specialized terminology which uses common English (or other language) words in ways which are more precise or specific than the terms mean at large; Wikipedia is no exception.  Neutral point of view, for example, means something specific to Wikipedia; and occasionally its usage in Wikipedia may be puzzling to outsiders who try to determine its meaning from the dictionary definition of the terms.  Again... do you have any suggestions?   --EngineerScotty 21:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * : We have editors using English as a second language on here. At this time, now, we still have controversy about how to present WP:NPOV in a manner which editors not only understand, but would be hard pressed to not understand.  And yes, I understand what you are saying, it has a narrow meaning rather than a broad meaning.  I'm not objecting to every specialized word, but would work toward keeping specialized jargon to a minium. Terryeo 23:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

A new name...
has been proposed for the Tendentious Editors policy:

Intellectual spam(mers).

As this is (FTMP) a coined phrase, and one not previously used on Wikipedia, I am hoping you will find this one more agreeable; there is a poll on the subject at Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editors.

--EngineerScotty 16:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for saying so. I have responded. Terryeo 01:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:CREEP and WP:NPOV
Instructions should be limited to the minimum necessary. You'll notice that we already have a tutorial page in which to place suggestions and guidelines on how to have NPOV. The main NPOV page should contain the definition of the policy, the basis/history of the policy, and the minimum amount of extraneous information possible.

Additionally, since NPOV is a global policy but its application is very case-by-case you should take care that additions reflect the global principles, not just a few extreme cases. --tjstrf 17:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I suspect that urge to be brief is the foundation for 3/4 of the discussions that happen on these policy and guideline pages. It is unfortunate, perhaps, but nonetheless is a real world situation.  Many of us use English as a first language but the internet has made English a second language of choice for many people. Sweden, for example, requires it because English is the most widely used internet language.  Therefore, if we can reduce discussion page chatter by some amount by simply expanding a tersely written policy, I believe we should.  Your suggestion above looks good to me. Terryeo 17:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If the policy is confusing to ESL speakers in its brief form, I would tend to think that longer, more complex forms would be even more confusing. Clarity is best achieved through simplicity. Full expoundment of an idea for clarity is only necessary if people are not understanding the simple form.


 * Also, I've recognized that certain users seem to be interpeting your actions as having ulterior motives, which is both a violation of WP:Assume good faith and borders on poisoning the well. I personally think that dragging content disputes to the policy pages is disruptive. However, since you seem to have started addressing the policy as a whole, I am trying to interpet your changes on their own merits. --tjstrf 18:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's very true. I was proposing that we take a complex sentence which used a tag end phrase, separated by a comma and restate it by making two complete sentences, instead.  My intention was really to simplify, but I understand, because 2 sentences actually make more words on the page, such a method could be thought of as more complicated. Terryeo 18:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating your ban on editing Scientology-related topics. The block was applied by after I requested his help on his talk page. Thatcher131 20:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't do that again. That block was far more light then what will happen if you ignore the ArbCom decision again. Voice -of- All  20:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

All Right. Terryeo 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Silent Birth
RE: Scientology, the Church of Scientology International has recently created a whole website to the widely discussed subject silentbirth.org. A full set of links about birth and children can be found here. Terryeo 01:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Scientology in various languages and locations

 * International Directory for Churches of Scientology
 * European Directory to Church of Scientology


 * Volunteer Ministers India and Poland. Terryeo 02:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in your list
I notice you say in your enemies list that "I have read that [ChrisO] was once active in the Church, is trained in the data series and in public relations and is expelled and declared." I'd be very interested in where you read that, because it's 100% inaccurate - I've never been a CoS member, nor have I been trained by the CoS, nor have I been expelled or declared. I'm not at all impressed with the accuracy of your sources, if this is the best they can come up with. -- ChrisO 01:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

At no time have I ever made an "enemies list". Any such classification existed only in the mind of the reader of the now-removed page. Of course I did take a few moments to understand that Chris Owen has posted many opionions for a long period of time. All of the ones I read were critical of Scientology, but that is Chris Owen's right. As it is my right, to have an opinion. But I have never and don't intend to, make an "enemies" list because we all have an opinion and an opinion might make one a friend, but it would take more than an opinion to make anyone an enemy (my opinion). Terryeo 14:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, you published the view that ChrisO was an "expelled and declared" CoS member. He says this is a total fabrication. Will you please address this: perhaps clarify your sources?  Or admit you made this all up?  BTfromLA 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, as you know BTfromLA, even though you don't want to see me discuss anything with anyone, anywhere on Wikipedia, I'm pretty responsive and will talk about just about anything with just about anyone. What do you want to talk about?  Just point out a link. Terryeo 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't my previous message clear? You published some claims about ChrisO, which you said you had "read."  He says the claims are completely false.  I'm wondering if you ever had any reason to believe what you wrote about him was true, and, if so, what your source was.  I'm wondering if you still think what you wrote was true, or whether you feel you owe ChrisO an apology for spreading falsehoods about him.  Please address those issues I'm wondering about.  BTfromLA 02:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You can understand my difficulty. I thought you were asking me about the information which GIen deleted which was the information that ChrisO (apparently) is talking about.  Now it turns out that you are talking about ChrisO's claim about the information which GIen deleted (probably as a result of ChrisO's claim).  No, I'm sorry, I can not help you with either ChrisO's claim nor with the information which GIen deleted.  However, I would be eager to discuss the delted information if there were a way to retreive it where we could all look at it.  The situation of one admin finding something he didn't like in a piece of information, another (and obviously sympathetic) admin deleting the information while the first admin comments like ChrisO did above, doesn't happen often, does it? Terryeo 02:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'n not sure if the is the most current edition, but here you go: BTfromLA 02:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, I didn't know such a cache existed. Maybe you could tell me how to access it since it shows me an IP address, 72.14.205.104 but not a website name. In regard to its deletion, Do you see anything on it that says "enemies" ?? The term "black hat(s)" is used, it is mostly a quote of our previously discussed individual, David Touretzky, but does contain the statement you mention. Since you choose to discuss the issue with me (unlike ChrisO who makes a counter claim and doesn't discuss), I would ask you first if you see anything on the page which uses the term "enemy" or alludes to the term, "enemy?" Terryeo 06:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Google has cached versions of millions of pages--I just searched for your page name and clicked on "cached," an option that always appears on Google. I'll answer you question, then I hope you'll answer mine. No, I don't see the word enemy.  But I do think that "enemies list" is a fair description of your list of "critical person editors."  BTfromLA 16:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Responding to your question, BTfromLA. Thank you for making what you were asking more clear.  Had someone told me they interpreted that way, I would have changed it.  That isn't my thinking and wasn't my intention.  I used a newsgroup post from a recognized Scientology critic as the center of my advice because a newgroup posting gives the tenor his attitude and provided a word which he misused, "entheta" (as an example of his inability to understand Scientology).  Also an indication that he has been in communication with some of those whom edit here.  He named names, I didn't have to.  He congradulated Wikipedia editors in an newsgroup posting which is known to be anti-scientology.  He exhibited familiarity with those editor names.  That he is known for his anti-scientology stance, that his website has been legally notified by the Church, that he legally complies, are all elements which reek of a POV which is anything but neutral.  I intended my "advice" to communicate to green editors who know something about Scientology that they would be meeting editors who had communicated for some while, were of a like critical point of view and would prod a person who understands Scientology (which is why I used that posting, because it misused the word "entheta") toward preventing good information becoming present on the page.  You see just below how Fahrenheit451 interprets my advice.  He considers there are good guys and bad guys and understand, as you apparently do, that I made an "enemies" list.  I did not make an "enemies" list.  I used a newgroup posting which named names and quoted it.  I did not specifically say that any individual was wearing a "black hat" or a "white hat". Terryeo 20:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Black hats" is a slang american english term for "bad guys" or "criminals". This term comes from the old west where bandits were stereotyped for wearing black hats. So, Terryeo did indeed mean that as an attack. He also recently stated, in more than one place, that "declared SPs" should not be reliable sources on wikipedia. Very bizarre viewpoint, but definitely something that could originate from the Office of Special Affairs.--Fahrenheit451 19:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fahrenheit451, you state, Very bizarre viewpoint, but definitely something that could originate from the Office of Special Affairs. You judge my viewpoint to be "bazarre" and imply that I am working for the Office of Special Affairs.  How many times will you continue to imply that I am not a responsible individual, that I am some sort of a cut-out, a clone, a shadow, a drop-out, drop-in, a malcontent, miscontent, employee, dead agent or other equally distateful, irresponsible sort of individual?  You've posted almost nothing else for weeks !  I've told you and everyone for months that I have never been any part of any organization, that I don't work for anyone, that I edit without permission, and as far as I know, without the knowledge of any organization.  I'm an individual who has studied some Scientology, found it useful in life and have improved my position in life because of it.  I certainly did state in the Patter drill discussion page that a declared suppressive person, interviewed and making a short statement in a newpaper article is a poor source of information about how a person is to do a patter drill.  His statement, "read to the wall" is simply wrong tech.  But even if he had made an accurate statement about Scientology technology, for the whole article to rely completely on a person who had proven he didn't agree with and refused to comply with Church policy is plain bad editing. Terryeo 20:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have stated this to you several times before, Terryeo, the Suppressive Person status of the CofS carries no weight whatsoever outside that organization. It is entirely irrelevant here. You may believe in it, but your belief is not shared by the vast majority of editors of wikipedia. That is indeed a false, tendentious argument of yours. Please cease making it. You know full well that the relevant policy that applies there is WP:V and that is just plain good editing. Also, be advised that there are no policy letters or technical bulletins written by L. Ron Hubbard on Patter Drills, so it is not valid policy. I suggest you take a look at your religion's basic policies written by Hubbard. Regardless of the merits or demerits of his work, he never authored, nor did anyone in the educational field outside the CofS author, Patter Drills. It takes a very barbaric, vicious organization to label and expel someone who has the insight to see that something is wrong and the courage to persistently report it. Now, tell us where you read the alleged information that ChrisO was declared an SP and expelled from the CofS, studied the data series and public relations.--Fahrenheit451 00:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The removed text did not contain any reference to a term which you state that irrelevant. If you wish to discuss the editing of the Patter drill article you created, I'm willing to do so but it makes no sense for me to state, "a newspaper quoted expelled person is not a good sole source for a technical article" and you to state, "is too! is too!" Terryeo 03:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That is an uncivil, false accusation from Terryeo. I have never said, "Is too! is too!" You tendentiously promote your POV opinion that someone dispagingly labeled by the CofS should not be considered a reliable source on wikipedia and I state the fact that it is irrelevant every place else on the face of the earth. I am stating verifiable, documentable fact, and YOU are the one proclaiming it as the way it should be. I suggest you knock off your incivility and false accusations.--Fahrenheit451 16:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So, Terryeo, do you think it is fair for us to conclude that you are maliciously rumour mongering other editors here on Wikipedia?--Fahrenheit451 00:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First, User:Fahrenheit451, my statement concerning ChrisO was the only first person statement that was on the page which is now deleted. Second, I think you, User:Fahrenheit451 owe me an apology, because you have followed me around for weeks, placed any number of personal attacks couched in the third person, (as your next to last posting on this page is) and hold hard to the idea that I am some kind of unperson whom you feel you must belittle.  You go to places where I post and rather than involve yourself with the issues everyone (including me) is posting about, you post about me, personally, warning poeple that I have some kind of banned status.  You raise personal issues in an uncivil manner which don't contribute to the community, but instead attempt to police the community and, apparently you hope to remove me from the community.  On a planet of 6.5 billion people, your attention is somehow so fixed on me that you feel you must warn other editors, as if they were incapable of their own judgement.

No Terryeo, my attention is hardly fixed on you. You seem to resent my right to participate on wikipedia talk pages and that is unacceptable. I think you have your own definition of uncivil and that is anyone who successfully debates with you. Terryeo you are doing more than an adequate job in getting yourself on the road to being banned from wikipedia. I think you owe all the editors of Scientology articles an apology for the disruption you have caused wikipedia.--Fahrenheit451 16:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Terryeo, you intentionally omit your statements and merely state my responses. That is a rather dishonest tactic. I suggest you stop it.--Fahrenheit451 16:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * When editors are talking about Wikipedia_talk:Tendentious_editors, you are stating: Well, Terryeo, clearly you have not taken responsibility for your disruptive, policy-violating editing that got you banned. Instead you blame the ArbCom. You "snarl about justice". You just don't seem to learn. --Fahrenheit451 01:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 
 * When editors are talking about: Wikipedia_talk:Tendentious_editors, you are stating: Well, Terryeo happens to be talking about himself again here. He is currently banned from editing any Scientology related articles by ArbCom decision and he himself has been rather tendentiously disruptive by pushing his own POV.--Fahrenheit451 01:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And these are recent examples, examples long after your block from editing based on your continually making such inappropriate comments. Terryeo 03:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The one time where you and I were both blocked for an heated argument we had on a talk page. My block was lifted by Tony Sidaway after just a few hours.  I think it is interesting that you are the only user I have had protracted disagreements with.--Fahrenheit451 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for one week based on the contents of User:Terryeo/subpage1
Ummm, what personal attack did you see, Glen, that prompted such an action? Terryeo 13:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the deletion log, Glen deleted your subpage per "CSD A6", which translates to "attack page intended to disparage its subject." Is that the page where you said that Chris0 was an ex-scientologist?  TheronJ 15:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you contend that this was not an attack page under the terms of your probation, you will probably need to request clarification from the arbitrators at Requests for arbitration. You will have to wait out the week before you can post, or you can e-mail one of the active arbitration clerks and ask them to post your request for you.  Unfortunately Arbcom moves pretty slowly so they may not actually reverse or shorten the block, but if you can make your case at least it can be removed from your record.  Please understand I can not take any action at this time and I never saw the page so I have no opinion about whether or not it violated your personal attack parole. Thatcher131 15:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I'm lol that Glen deleted what I thought was perfectly good information, nothing on it attacking anyone, basically full of quotes and links.  It used the phrase, 'black hats' and I stated I had read something about Chris Owne on it. There was no mention of the sort of thing either Glen or ChrisO alludes to.  Oh hum. Terryeo 15:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at the cached page, I can see how Glen thought it was a personal attack. You would have probably been all right if you had written "many editors currently editing scientology have a stong anti-COS pov" even if you had some facts wrong like Chris's COS status.  Calling them black hats and accusing them of intentionally entering NPOV edits was over the line, IMHO.  TheronJ 17:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Explanation for your block
Terryeo, the fact that you are "lol" about the deleted page is testimony to exactly why you are continuously finding yourself in such situations. On that page you specifically name certain editors including "Chris Owen (ChrisO), Android Cat, Modemac and Antaeus Feldspar" and go on to state: The term "black hats" is used in Scientology to describe "bad people" or "Criminals". In addition, you also state on that page: Now, tell me, how is this not a breach of WP:NPA or commenting on the contributor rather than their contribution. My advice, take this week and seriously look at your attitude, or I fear we will once again find ourselves back at this rather undesirable juncture. - Gl e n 20:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "They're still quoting my reactive, "beanbrain, dogfood, idiot". Incivilities to several editors over a period of time are helpful to the black hats." and
 * "there are some Wikipedia editors who wear black hats. Wikipedia is simply a window of opportunity for them."
 * "I have read that he [Chris Owen] was once active in the Church, is trained in the data series and in public relations and is expelled and declared."


 * Had you requested, GIen, or had ChrisO requested or even attempted any communication in the area at all, I would have removed that which you found offensive. Terryeo 00:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo you have been a member long enough to know what is and isnt acceptable here. No one should have to request you remove an attack page. What really bothers me however, is the fact you show zero remorse nor even acknowledgement of any fault on your part. Truly mindboggling. - Gl e n 03:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

High speed connection required
The Anatomy of the Human Mind online Terryeo 14:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Claims about ChrisO and "Black Hat" editors
Looking at the log, I'll note a few points: (1) you were put on NPA probation at 16:49 13 May 2006, but created the subpage at 04:07 14 May 2006, evidently in response to the arbitration decision; (2) it was originally titled "The anti-Scientology editors", then was changed to "The suppressive person editors"; (3) you edited it numerous times throughout the period of the NPA probation, most recently at 01:36, 15 September 2006, so it wasn't just a one-off thing that you'd created in the heat of the moment and then forgot about. From what I saw of it before it was deleted, it had no encyclopedic value whatsoever and served no purpose other than to denigrate other editors. I am absolutely not surprised that Glen saw it as an egregrious breach of your probation. What were you thinking? -- ChrisO 20:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo's statements bring up more interesting questions: Exactly where did Terryeo read that ChrisO was once active in the CofS, is trained in the data series, in public relations, and is expelled and declared? Having spent considerable time in discussions on the various wikipedia policy pages and being under personal attack probation for several months, why did Terryeo continue his personal attacks on editors he disagrees with? Terryeo needs to provide truthful answers to those questions.--Fahrenheit451 03:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know the answer to your first question, too. I can only guess that he's asked someone who he thinks is "in the know", perhaps his local DSA? -- ChrisO 08:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Since it is you, User:ChrisO who begin this discussion, it would be your place to ask me a question. Its uncivil of you to imply without actually asking a question.  I have responded many times to implications of the nature you pose there.  In fact, since User:ChrisO and Antaeus Feldspar's first discussion of me as having a POV which differed somewhat  from the editors who controlled the articles for a long time, I have responded to such overtones, and direct questions.  It is real simple.  And I have said it a number of times.  I know that if a person studies Scientology and understands its information, that it can be helpful in life.  That is real, real simple.  It is so simple that not everyone can swallow it.  However, since fredom of religion is something we all espouse, I expect the same tolerence from everyone as I give everyone.  You don't read my advice as useful advice.  Fine, good.  You read my advice as some sort of attack.  Well, instead of talking about it behind my back until you had a concensus of opinion and then "making your move", why didn't you just say to my face, "Your advice disparages ?"  As I've stated, if my mostly impersonal statements offended someone, I would have removed them or modified them.  Terryeo 00:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My guess, given the fact that he's dodging the question and in light of his recent dissembling about making anon edits, is that he made the stuff about ChrisO up out of whole cloth. I asked him a while back (scroll up this page to "The subject") for some specifics to support his charge there that "expelled and declared" SPs controlled the articles.  He refused to answer, claiming that "I have been enjoined not to name names, apparently the individuals whom you could of course, ask privately and who jump at my edits most frequently have, through various means, enjoined me not to name names."  BTfromLA 16:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, above you told me how happy and willing you would be to talk about this if you only had a link to what you'd written. The link was provided. Several editors have asked what the basis for your claims about ChrisO was.  Your response has been to ignore the questions at first, then to delete them from your page.  Will you please accept responsibility for what you've written and respond?  BTfromLA 18:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is where he deleted the questions:--Fahrenheit451 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Terry, you said that you "have read" various untrue things about me. Can you tell me where you read them? I'd like to contact them to put the record straight. They've clearly misled you into believing something that isn't true (relaying false data, right?). As a Scientologist you'll understand the concept of false data stripping. I'd like to do some of my own with regard to this mistaken source. Put yourself in my shoes: if there was some source relaying false data about you, wouldn't you want to correct them? As an act of good faith, tell me where you got this false data so that I can fix the problem. -- ChrisO 20:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I made a statement about something I had read. I did not provide a link. I could have been mistaken and can not, right now, provide a link. Terryeo 20:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it possible that, while writing from memory, you got the names mixed up? A google search for "chris owen" scientology expelled declared reveals a number of results, but in none of the ones I looked at is anyone by the name of Chris Owen expelled and declared, but instead other people. Often, "Chris Owen" (whether ChrisO or someone else) is the author. I'm not sure how many of the results would meet your standards of reliability, though. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 03:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being considerate, Armed blowfish. I could have made such a mistake. As I have stated, I am unable to support my statement. Nor did I make a direct accusation. Thank you for your consideration. Terryeo 05:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to be able to believe that this actually was just a mistake. However, I can't really find it too plausible, as this isn't the first time Terry's done this.  He incorrectly claimed to Spirit of Man that "Feldspar was once banned for a week for a personal attack, from what I've read."  Elsewhere, on an article talk page, he claimed I had been "barred for a month".  Both of those accusations are false.  I have never been banned or blocked, not for a week and not for a month.  This isn't the first time Terryeo has distributed false information that disparages other editors, and I'm not at all comforted that Terryeo is offering "Nor did I make a direct accusation" as if indirect accusations are totally acceptable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * An edits summary. (no, erasing your stupid insane jumps to conclusions from MY OWN USER PAGE is not "vandalism", thank you, drive through, drive off a cliff, die) .  15:39,18 November 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Antaeus Feldspar (who says it's "mysterious and unexplained"? The fact that I haven't explained it TO YOU has a much simpler reason: I do not like you or trust you.) . 13:27, 18 December 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Antaeus Feldspar (Hmmm, am I interested in the diatribes of the lying scum Zordrac, who sends e-mails pretending to represent me, claiming I said things I never did? NO, I am not.) .  Your language has become more polished and with less "lying scum" and "drive off a cliff, die", but doesn't encourage communication on an equal basis, if you see what I mean ? Terryeo 20:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Terryeo, your habit of trying to change the subject whenever you are confronted about something wrong that you did is quite annoying. Yes, indeed, you did manage, by going through my contributions history, to find three examples of very annoyed edit summaries.  But no, you have not said a word that is relevant to the fact that you made not just one, but two false accusations against me that I had been "banned" or "barred".  Please do not attempt to change the subject. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You just said that I made an accusation "against you". My statement was made a long time ago one a discussion page that you could have participated in. Instead, you chose not to participate. Instead you laid back, watched until you saw it was as bad as it would possibly get and then, now, months and months later, you bring up my statement at that time. How should I respond?  You first say, "Terry said that he read" and then you call that a "claim".  Well, I have read a lot of things.  Perhaps I was mistaken about that.  Then, rather than attempting to let bygones go (as I did when ChrisO mistakenly accused me of commenting on Raymond Hill's motivation) you bring up the past and say I claimed, when what I actually stated was that I said I had read.  Now that statement is a claim.  But do you let it go at that?  Or do you prod the area further?  You prod the area further.  The second time you dont' call it a claim anymore.  Now you call it an "accusation".  Terryeo 00:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, as anyone can verify by examining both User talk:Spirit of Man and Talk:Thetan, I did reply to your false allegations on both those pages. Admittedly, I replied to your false allegations on Spirit of Man's page quite some time after you left them there, but if you want to know who's responsible for that, then I think you need to stop muttering nonsensical dark paranoid hintings about "you laid back, watched until you saw it was as bad as it would get" and face up to facts: you hardly notified me that you were spreading false rumors behind my back, did you?  and you certainly never checked to see whether they were true before spreading them.
 * I responded to your false claims when I saw your false claims, and I marvel that you not only seem to suggest I should have done more than that, you actually think you can paint me as some sort of Macchiavellian bad guy who somehow made you make two separate false claims damaging to my own reputation, all so that I could bring it up later when you once again spread a false rumor about another editor, pretending that it's okay to spread such innuendo as long as you "think" you read it "somewhere"? Why should I "let bygones go", Terryeo?  There are situations where it is appropriate to let bygones go, but why do you think this is one of them?  Why should I "let it go at that"?  You're still doing it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just my two cents, but bringing up examples of mistakes people have made in the past only seems to be making things worse. People get in crappy moods, get to worked up about something, or just plain make mistakes, because life exerts pressures on us that sometimes make our heads snap. Saying stupid, insenstive things doesn't change the fact that a normally nice person is still basically nice, at heart. Perhaps it's too hard to just simply move on, or to apologize first, but maybe it would help to try to understand why the other did what they did? Of course, if it's off-wiki stress, it could be way too personal. But hey, maybe I'm all wrong. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 03:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Armed, the point I am trying to make is that people are trying to say "Let's forget about Terry's mistake and move on." That is only the appropriate action to take if it was a mistake.  If it was not a mistake, then saying "Let's forget about it and move on" is equivalent to telling Terry "Go ahead, you can spread false information about any editor, as long as you phrase it in the form of 'I think I read somewhere that .'"  Some may think it is a violation of assume good faith to even consider the possibility that it was a planned strategy by Terryeo to smear more mud on the editors he already labels as "black hats".  However, I quote from WP:AGF itself: "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, sockpuppetry, and lying." (emphasis removed and added)  We already know that Terryeo will lie when it suits him:  when confronted with the edits made by an anonymous IP editor, he claimed "I have no idea" when he actually knew quite well that they were his edits.  And incredibly, even after that lie had been exposed, he then lied about that lie, stating "I didn't lie about it on my discussion page as ChrisO states I did" when that is provably exactly what he did.


 * Our policies, especially WP:AGF, are set up to deal well with the situation where both parties are coming to the interaction with good faith but with differing ideas on nearly everything else. In that situation, AGF works well to keep bad faith from being assumed where it does not actually exist.  It deals less well with situations where there actually is a bad actor, who will of course try to cover the fact that he is acting in bad faith with arguments such as "I [didn't] make a direct accusation", as if false accusations are less personal attacks if you claim you read it somewhere. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean just you, but rather both of you. Nor am I saying that either of you violated WP:AGF, which indicates, as you said, that "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." (Personally, I would prefer, if not to assume good faith, then to at least assume perfectly natural motivations that would be perfectly understandable if revealed. But that's my preference, and it's probably a minority opinion.) As for the truth of the statements that have been made, I am not in a position to judge that, nor do I have any desire to determine whether or not the things you (pl) have said about each other are true. What I am trying to say is that, regardless of mistakes made in the past, I'm not sure that dwelling on them will help us shed the past and look towards the future. Of course, moving on is difficult, as an unkind word is hard to forget, and it is also hard to apologise under pressure. If you want help, you could consider mediation. Since MedCom has been rather slow lately, I'd reccomend MedCab. Again, if you were offended by my statement, which may have been poorly worded, I'm sorry. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I got a bit confused with the convolution of this discussion, replying just below, thinking that it was User:ChrisO that I was replying to and spelling out my resoning and reactions, etc, when actually it was User:Antaeus Feldspar that I was replying to. Terryeo 17:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You have said I lied, User:ChrisO and attempt to demonstrate that I did. I stated, I have no idea (about the ip and situation you speak of).  And that was true at the time.  I had no idea about that situation, nor did I know I had a fixed IP.  Yandman had never addressed me in a civil manner and had made several personal attacks and I didn't explore what he stated.  I stated the situation as I knew it to be at that time, i.e., I have no idea (about what Yandman was saying).  I did know I had made some small anonomous edits.  When I was asked to reconsider I then explored the situation and saw that I had made those edits then I said so.  I did not lie with any of the statements I made.  ChrisO suggests I have made a false statement about him.  My statement was, "I have read ...."  But my statement was not, "ChrisO has the status of... xyz".  Again, had you notified me, I would have removed it from the page. Terryeo 14:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, you are replying to Antaeus Feldspar, not to ChrisO. Second of all, your statement "I have no idea" was in fact a lie.  You did not just have an "idea" that [Special:Contributions/208.106.20.67 these edits] were in fact made by you, you had direct knowledge of it.  In what possible way can you define the phrase "that situation" so that it does not refer to something you definitely had knowledge of?  The situation was that you, in full and knowing violation of your ArbCom ban, edited several Scientology articles while deliberately not logged in so that you wouldn't get caught.  The only part of that which it's even possible you had "no idea" about is having a fixed IP and thus getting caught when you slipped up and edited a Terryeo message from that IP address.


 * Third of all, you keep harping on the technical point that you did not personally claim a false rumor about ChrisO, but merely stated that you had "read" that false rumor somewhere. Do you think that makes your actions acceptable?  Would it be all right for me to tell people "I do not trust Terryeo; a man who was court-martialed from the Army for violent sex crimes is not a man I want to associate with"?  After all, those are two entirely true statements (if not related to each other in the way that nearly every reader would assume) whereas the best that can be said about your claims that you 'read somewhere' that Chris was declared and expelled or that I was banned for a week or for a month is that they might be true, since no one can prove the negative that you didn't read such a thing (even though the burden of proof is actually on you to show that such a thing was there for you to read).  Frankly, with the amount of respect for truth and honesty I've come to expect from you, I wouldn't be surprised if you had written down on a piece of paper "ChrisO was declared and expelled", looked at what you had just written, and then claimed with 100% literal truthfulness and 0% honesty "I have read that he was once active in the Church, is trained in the data series and in public relations and is expelled and declared." -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have said that when I made the statement, I stated the truth. And that was the situation at that time. Terryeo 17:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this page is convoluted enough that I got confused about who I was replying to where I replied. However, none of my reply is other than the truth. Terryeo 17:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And I have taken your signature from below and pasted it onto your statement from above because you used indents to make separate points, allowing me to reply to separate points, but did not sign your first, separated point. So I took your signature from your third point which you intented and copied and pasted it onto your first two points which you indented so that I could reply to them in turn. I didn't lie about the situation at the time. When I understood the situation, I replied with what I knew of the situation. Terryeo 17:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have undone that interruption. Simply because I break up my statement into paragraphs for easier reading does not mean that I have invited you to interrupt me.  As for whether you lied, you seem to be expecting us to believe that when Yandman said to you, "Terry, here is an anonymous IP address that made thirteen edits to Scientology articles and then signed a message claiming to be 'Terryeo'," you didn't make the connection between that IP address and those edits and that signing as "Terryeo", and the anonymous IP address from which you had knowingly made thirteen edits to Scientology articles in violation of your ban, the last of which was signing a message as "Terryeo".   If that were to be the case, which is of course not a very plausible thing at all, it still is not in your favor; you are basically asserting that you didn't show dishonesty by lying about the question, but rather showed dishonesty by paying so little attention to the question that your answer was absolutely meaningless. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Anateus, I must ask you to cease your personal attacks against Terryeo. Stop criticising his religious practices, most notably that of dead agenting. Asserting radical things such as "one should tell the truth" and "don't make allegations based on the contents of your fertile imagination" goes against these practices, and therefore incites religious hatred. Thankyou. Yandman 07:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is completely inappropriate imply that my religious practice includes "dead agenting". Overstating the the importance of the truth by refering to it as a "radical thing" and juxtaposing it with "allegations" and other emotionally biased languaged is inappropriate. I had never heard the following terms until I got on the internet. "Xenu", "Dead Agenting" "Snowwhite", and I won't list the rest of the drivel.  None of that stuff, in more than 10 years of being active. Terryeo 17:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Next time I'll put around similar comments. Anyway, how can one overstate the importance of the truth? Presumably, you consider the truth to be not that important. And the word "allegations" is in no way "emotionally biased languaged". Finally, the reason why you were never told these things before is explained in the corresponding articles. You say these articles are "drivel". After you have made a comment like this, how can we possibly let you contribute to them?  Yandman 07:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell from the link at dead agenting, the technique consists of telling the demonstrable truth when you are provably right, ignoring other information when it is at least subject to debate, and personally attacking someone who is publishing negative information. That seems to describe what has been happening to Terryeo much more accurately than it describes Terry's attack page.  IMHO, Terry's attack page doesn't really qualify as dead agenting because it doesn't start with provably false things that ChrisO has published.  TheronJ 10:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was talking about his attacks on Feldspar. Yandman 07:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Theron, dead agenting is trying to destroy the reputation and credibility of someone you expect will say damaging things about you, so that no matter how true those things are, they will not be believed coming from that person. Hubbard may have described dead agenting as countering "false" information with "true" information, but let us remember that he also said "What is true is what is true for you" and that the history of Scientology abounds with examples of Scientology trying to silence their critics with false information.  When I pointed out that this is not the first time Terryeo has made damaging claims about other editors, claiming that he "read" it somewhere, even though he cannot actually provide one shred of evidence that the false claim did not start with him, Terryeo's response was to dig through my past contributions back to 2005 and present three rude edit summaries that I had made in moments of anger.  Even conceding that this is true information, how is it relevant?  Does it in any way ameliorate the fact of Terryeo making allegations he cannot substantiate but pretending it's okay for him to do so because supposedly he 'read it somewhere' and is supposedly just 'saying' he 'read it somewhere' instead of actually claiming it himself?  If anything it makes things worse -- because if he can go back through nine-plus months of my contributions history looking for proof that I can lose my temper, he certainly could have gone back through the contributions history of  and substantiated the very serious allegations he made about him, making a direct accusation of F451 making "racial slurs".  Yet that is just another of the allegations Terryeo has made against others which he could not substantiate. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what this discussion is supposed to be accomplishing, since the page is deleted. As unacceptable as it was for Terryeo to refer to other editors as suppressive persons or black hats (which are specific negative terms), it is equally unacceptable for other editors to refer to Terryeo in terms of OSA tactics or dead agenting.  While Terryeo should not use a person's alleged (ex) religious affiliation against them, neither should his opponents.  Terryeo's personal attack parole is not meant to lock him in the Stocks, allowing other editors to throw insults and rotten fruit with impunity.  All editors are expected to refrain from personal attacks, and that includes negative characterizations of an editor's motivations and character.  In three days Terryeo will be allowed to edit again, including Scientology talk pages, and it is in everyone's best interest to show him at least a minimal amount of respect and courtesy, as he is required to show to you.  By all means discuss and dissect the content of his edits, but not the content of his character.  Terryeo is on an even shorter leash than before.  After 5 blocks for violating his parole, the maximim duration increases from 5 days to a year.  The next block for calling somone an SP or black hat might be two weeks.  That does not give other editors license to provoke him. Thatcher131 11:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with Thatcher. A simple request by Chris could have handled the thing. Terryeo 17:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not at all what Thatcher was talking about.Yandman 07:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Have a nice day. Terryeo 12:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And on the 24th of November 1967, John Winston Lennon stated "I Am the Walrus". This doesn't change the fact that you were agreeing with something Thatcher never said. Yandman 13:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Article 9: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile" Human Rights.  Terryeo 14:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, do you mean to imply that your "exile" at Wikipedia is arbitrary? BTfromLA 15:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Exile?" Exile has a long tradition as a form of punishment. currently says our exile article. Could you quote, please, any mention of this punishment term within those policies and guidelines which speak of "ban?"  Are you suggesting the guidelines and policies about ban and banning should contain that term?  Do you in fact think of a block or a ban as a kind of "exile" rather than a temporary meausure meant to stop disruptive editing and allow productive editing to continue? Terryeo 15:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm simply trying to understand why you felt moved to drop these quotes into this discussion. BTfromLA 15:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the comments are just obfuscation for the barbaric CofS practices of Fair Game, enforced Disconnection and the Suppressive Person declare. I think it is incredible how much sanctimonious hypocrisy is extant in the CofS.  Those who pretend to run it have no compunction about treating another human being worse than dirt, but they are quick to point to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when someone is terse with them.--Fahrenheit451 16:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The your issue seems to be with them User:Fahrenheit451. Feel free, go right ahead.  Myself, I don't have a clue. Terryeo 17:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

For once we agree Terryeo. You do not have a clue. That is why you have been banned and blocked from editing Wikipedia. Happy Ho Ho's!--Fahrenheit451 23:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)