Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Terryeo

I have replied to ChrisO at his user page as per WP:RFC, educating him why his Rfc doesn't really fulfil WP:RFC. I've been busy in the real world and likely to be busy in the real world for a couple of more days. Terryeo 16:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC) I have also pointed out at ChrisO's talk page how these issues he raises are better handled first on talk pages.Terryeo 18:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC) I would also state, Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy is more suited for this Rfc than the platform ChrisO chose to use. :)Terryeo 15:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of these issues were tried first on the talkpage to no avail. Dispute resoultion must go forward. --ScienceApologist 13:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't treat you as politely as I could have, Science Apologist, but then it seemed to me that you intended to contribute something, rather than criticize. If you have a look at some of the abrasive comments which several editors make on the series of articles which comprise Dianetics and Scientology, I think you would find mine to you is not nearly as abrasive as some are. Have a good one. Terryeo 15:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also state, Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy is more suited for this Rfc than the platform ChrisO chose to use. This is a user-conduct RfC, Terryeo.  It was initiated because of your conduct.  You appear to be willfully oblivious to the fact that your behavior is highly objectionable, and this is a factor in why a user-conduct RfC became necessary. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out, actually, whether his ignoring the rules is intentional or not. I also can't decide which is worse, someone who knowingly violates the rules and feigns ignorance, or someone who honestly thinks that what they're doing is right and the rules support them. Tenebrous 22:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I "ignore the rules," actually I seem to quote them quite often. I suspect that several editors understand the rules differently.  Perhaps we could discuss several of them.  Which is the leatest burr under the saddle, Tenebrous that you feel I have ignored ? Terryeo 04:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do quote them quite often -- but frequently you quote things that are not rules, as if they were ("1. Term 2. Topic 3. Context", "unimpeachable sources"); you quote rules wildly out of context ("Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" in a situation where no predictions about the future are involved); and you willfully violate the rules yourself, sometimes in the very same situation where you raised a stink about other editors supposedly violating that rule. That makes your quoting the rules worse, not better. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I remember that arguement very well. At the time I quoted, "term, topic, context" it was a verbatim quote from the guideline.  That guideline changed and no longer uses that series of words.  A more recent guildeline change which has resulted in a similar and parallel situation is around the term, "unimpeachable sources".  I take a guideline to mean what is says.  Today WP:V does not use the words, "unimpeachable sources," but it did use that term not so long ago.  I have not misrepresented nor misquoted.  Guidelines have changed slightly, even policy (WP:V) has changed slightly.  I'm willing to flex on these issues. Terryeo 16:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that is false; what you quoted was neither a verbatim quote nor was it an accurate representation of what the text intended. "term, topic, context" is not a verbatim quote of "The introduction defines the term and topic and context", which is what the page actually said.  Even if your quote had been verbatim, the reason you were quoting it in the first place was to (very rudely) insist on one particular interpretation of it:  "The reason the article has not been introduced is because people who are CONVINCED they know how to introduced Dianetics are fouling up the introduction. Please read Wikipedia:Introductions it says, Term. Topic, Context in that order and no other order." "Why is it necessary with you people to point out that simple, straightforeward statemetns like: "Term, Topic, Context" mean 1. Term. 2. Topic, 3. Context."  [sic]  Now as we've seen, "Term, Topic, Context" was a "straightforeward statemetn" but it was not the statement made by Introductions.  Nor did Wikipedia:Introductions support your claim that those three items must appear, as you said, "in that order and no other order."  As I pointed out to you, each and every version of the page which contained the text "term and topic and context" also shows how to introduce the context, when there is a context to be introduced, and clearly shows that context being introduced before the term or topic.  I know you read that explanation, because you replied to it, changing your tune to "No, it does not provide a rigid structure which every introduction must follow. No, no, not at all. But, in general it is a pretty good guideline to follow."  So now you're claiming that "'term, topic, context' ... was a verbatim quote from the guideline" (you'd better word-clear "verbatim", Terryeo; you have it entirely wrong) and claiming "That guideline changed and no longer uses that series of words", and what you fail to mention even though you're perfectly aware of it is that no version of the page, not a single one, ever supported the "rule" that you quoted, that "Term, Topic, Context" must go "in that order and no other".  So I'd say that not only is it clear that you quote things which are not rules, as if they were, you also engage in deliberate misdirection afterwards to try and hide the fact that you've done so.  And you still claim not to understand why a user-conduct RfC has been brought due to your behavior? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to reply to you Feldspar. I still believe, myself, that "term, topic, context" makes quite a good introduction.  At that time, in that area, the subject was not being introduced so that a reader could understand it.  I would also say that Dianetics is not yet introduced so that a person can come away knowing for sure that it is some kind of action, activity, a thing people do. I clung to and even hammered at "term, topic, context" because it seemed to me that if we just followed that procedure that the subject had a pretty good chance of being introduced.  It is not that I need the rules, it is that the subjects are not communicated.  You're a bit of an expert about Catholicism, aren't you?  Would it make sense for me to introduce Catholicism?  I don't think it would.  You would be more able to communicate it in fewer words and with less chance of misunderstanding than I, who has only known it at arm's length. (my mother went to a Catholic School). Terryeo 18:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This insistence on talk page argument over what are clear misinterpretations and misapplications of Wikipedia guidelines is, in my view, a major reason why Terryeo's editing has been so counter-productive.  Is there some policy that specifically addresses this sort of behavior?BTfromLA 17:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting point, that: there are numerous occasions where several editors have patiently explained to Terryeo why he is doing something wrong, and guided him to the proper text in Wikipedia rules and guidelines, only to find that shortly thereafter, he continues to do it. Incredulously, there have even been times where he has subsequently denied that the aforementioned conversation about a rule took place. This bizarre amnesia, combined with the fact that his writing style is adequate one day and childlike the next, has sometimes made me wonder if more than one person is editing under the "Terryeo" username. wikipediatrix 04:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipediatrix, I appriciate that you make statements. However as often as not, like the one above, very little is contributed.  Instead some sort of criticism is the whole of your posting.  In addition you couch your criticsms in emotionally slanted manners, obviously frequent alt.religion.scientology, and in general, I have no confidence whatsoever that you understand what is being said.  The impression you leave is something like, "If it isn't hostile to Scientology, it isn't true".  Is this any base to work together from? Terryeo 04:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have, and he's denied it, but his behavior is still very odd. I haven't, myself, noticed any distinction in writing style---perhaps you can find some examples for me? In any case, his remarkable ability to rationalize his beliefs and actions borders on the delusional, if that is not what it actually is. I really don't think it makes a difference, though. Whatever his motivations, the outcome is the same. The evidence in the RfC is just the tip of the iceberg. Tenebrous 08:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is implication that I am 2 or 3 or 4 people using this screen name. I'm tempted to laugh at the idea but apparently more than one of you seriously suggest it might be. I'm not sure how to reply except to state I am a single individual, typing on a single computer which I myself purchased. Actually I've been for more forthcoming about my personal life and POV than many other editors. Terryeo 13:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and laugh, it's allowed. It doesn't matter whether you are one person or seven thousand people; your conduct is still extremely objectionable. Tenebrous 14:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, this looks like an excellent opportunity to mend some fences. Those that come to mend can get the situation mended. Those that come that don't wish to mend can be identified as well. Spirit of Man 00:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And what is your definition of "mend"? We have been trying to get Terryeo to act like a mature Wikipedia editor for months now, and we've gotten mature responses like "Beanbrain. Dogfood. Idiot." and "Post it or suck your .............thumb." and "Seeking an argument, the blind man found one. Seeking enlightenment the deaf man heard something. Seeking a fork, the buddhist found a spoon. Seeking a spoon, the christian heard one hand clapping. What does this mean? lololol" and suddenly you're talking about "an excellent opportunity to mend some fences" as if that could make up for the way Terryeo has been treating other editors all along, and talking about "Those that come that don't wish to mend can be identified" as if everyone who's seen all their best efforts to coax Terryeo into following basic policies like civility is suddenly committing a high crime by putting aside the naive expectation that now he'll suddenly be ready to act like a mature human being. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well Feldspar, Spirit of Man's comment points out to me that this is an opportunity to, you know, re-establish communication with other editors, to let bygones be bygones, to reaffirm our common goals of creating a useful Wikipedia. Perhaps to soften the edges of our abrasiveness and things of that nature.  I have tried with you on your user discussion page Feldspar, but there as here, you appear to reject such attempts.  Nonetheless, as long as we are talking, the possibility exists that we might align our efforts toward a common goal. I'm willing, I'm taking the step.  Will you meet me, brother? Terryeo 18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize there was so much hostility, I'm suprised.Terryeo 13:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "I didn't realize there was so much hostility, I'm suprised.", said the drunken bull as it knocked over yet another display case filled with china. Vivaldi 17:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Vivaldi, may I ask you, what knowledge and interest do you bring to the table in the area of Scientology. Do you oppose the idea that man might have some spiritual aspect altogether?  Or is it that particular words, such as "thetan" are poorly presented in articles? Or ?? Terryeo 18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have studied and read a large body of literature about L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetetics, and Scientology, including a large portion of the works straight from "source". My first encouter with Dianetics was well over 20 years ago when I came across of copy the book in a drawer at my house.  As a budding scientist I had some reservations about the quality of "research" that Hubbard put into the book and even as a youngster I was skeptical of many of his claims.  Also, I have numerous friends that are ex-SO, ex-OSA, ex-Scientology, ex-RPF, ex-RPF-RPF, ex-staff, etc...  I also have many friends that were never Scientologists, but have, through research similar to my own, come to similar conclusions about the criminal cult of Scientology.  I have witnessed the still ongoing practice of fair game and disconnection as it has been applied to people that I care about and to myself.  Vivaldi 06:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you oppose the idea that man might have some spiritual aspect altogether?.  No, I do not.  It is entirely possible that such a thing as an eternal spirit exists.  I do not object if people believe in invisible pink unicorns or in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or that one can command an ashtray to levitate.  However, I do oppose the idea that scam artists make claims of supernatural events being possible after the payment of large sums of money to take courses, when there is no demonstrable evidence to show that it is true.  I am against fraud and deception that is continually practiced and encouraged by the world-wide global scam that is known as the Church of Scientology.  Vivaldi 06:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Or is it that particular words, such as "thetan" are poorly presented in articles? Or ??. How would you know anything about it Terryeo?  You haven't even reached the level of clear, right?  You are just a low level public, right?    I talk frequently with people that have reached OT7 and OT8 -- and I talk to them about OT7 and OT8.   I've actually read the the OTs, the NOTs, and the Ls course materials myself.  I've talked about the materials with people that have actually completed the courses and attested to "wins" from the courses.  I've discussed them with other scholars of the subject.  I'm quite comfortable discussing matters related to Scientology. Vivaldi 06:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making your position more clear, I appriciate that and expect it will make communication and concensus easier for both of us. Your use of terms and the context you use them in tells me your situation is exactly as you have stated it to be. To respond to your question, I have not done any OT Levels, though of course I have talked with people who have done them.  My knowledge base isn't much with people who quit, withdraw and become exmembers but more with people who succeed using Scientology technology and processing.  I have used the technology with other people and seen their lives become better.  I have processed people and seen them become more cheerful and capable. Terryeo 13:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo. Even though you may have talked with OTs, you didn't discuss with them what was learned during the OT levels and you didn't read the course materials yourself.  You never learned what the actual processes are (the technology) that one goes through on the OT levels.  All you could have learned was that an OT told you that it "worked" and that is "great", but without the details of how it "works" or how to make it "work" for you.  And while some people may attest that their tomato plants looks healthier and produce tastier fruit after a good auditing session, there is still a lot of doubt in the scientific community about whether or not auditing a tomato works.  I talk regularly with people that attested to OTVII and OTVIII, and these people still have their signed course completion certificates.  In any case, it shouldn't matter about what I know, or what you know -- because Wikipedia isn't about Original Research.  We need to add material that is verifiable.  Vivaldi 07:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Vivaldi, I do appreciate and respect what you have said, I appreciate your honesty. Of course Hubbard did not and I don't propose that he did, fulfill what the scientific community calls "scientific research." Generally science designs experiments which can be reproduced by other scienticsts anywhere if only certain equipment, certain physical universe things are done in exact and specific ways, right? And I don't believe Hubbard attempted to do that. So surely you do have a completely valid arguement about Hubbard's research not being verifiable, nominally verifiable. The elements of Hubbard's research that were critical were rarely about the physical universe at all, the critical elements were communications which are not so easily reproduced, though even this is a poor way to state the critical element of Hubbard's research. On another topic and about the OT levels, I've walked into the presence of an OT who just got out of session and suddenly felt a lot better, it was amazing. But that's a personal experience and could hardly be verified or duplicated or even expected. People often mention something like, "why can't Hubbard's results be duplicated, if they are so damn good?" and that is a real good question. I recognize that you almost have to believe in it for it to work. Therefore, for the extremely skeptical, for a person who just can't quite understand that during a moment of extreme pain a person is slightly unconcious, it is never going to work. Because that extremely skeptical person is not going to get the idea that they can review that moment and observe there were things they are not aware of in that moment because pain overlaid their perceptions. I don't have a position with the Church, Vivaldi, and if something is working for you, that's perfectly cool with me. I just would like the articles to present somewhere in them, the subject they name.Terryeo 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you would find it interesting that many ex-members are regularly using standard scientology and having great wins doing so. You seem to think otherwise. Suggest you look at where that notion originates from.--Fahrenheit451 17:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding that Fahrenheit451, good luck with it. Rereading it a second time I see that what you say has relevance, though the first time I read it, I understood it differently. Terryeo 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fahrenheit451. Just above you see to mature people communicating.  You see that I have understood something, perhaps.  You see that Vivaldi has taken the time and effort to state his experience, his background and knowlege in the area. From such a base he has realistic ways of building and blocks with which to build. He makes it clear he is not blowing straws in the wind but has communication and knowledge that he brings to the table.  I can appreciate his point of view because he does.  Your contribution to the conversation though, Fahrenheit, your advise or suggestion, tells nothing at all about your background, your experience or your insterest.  It points a finger and says, "look over there" and isn't particularly polite about it either.  I'm perfectly willing to talk with you (based on what I know, which is not a lot) about "former members", about "patter drills" about "those who left the Church of Scientology" or nearly any subject.  But whether we talk or don't talk, Fahrenheit, I still appreciate the effort Vivaldi made to make his point of view more easily understood. Terryeo 04:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Vivaldo frequents a discussion group full of squirrels and officially declared SP's, some who claim to be OT. His discussion with these "OTs" (and their "wins") is only the experience of a potential trouble source. --JimmyT 14:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

JimmyT, you have no basis for your statement. Please demonstrate that the people you are attacking are in fact, "Squirrels and officially declared SP's", and even if the latter is true, could there not be severe misuses of the term in the cofs? Sounds like you are attacking from the rtc/osa POV.--Fahrenheit451 17:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

something odd going on
The page appears to be but a small piece of the page that was there. Anyone have any idea of what happened? Terryeo 18:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the restorations of the full article, Feldspar. The database was locked for a while. How did you do that? Terryeo 20:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously I didn't do it while the database was locked, but I paged through the edits, looking for one where the data disappeared. When I found it, and when the database was unlocked again, I edited the latest version, and copied back into it the section that looked like the only thing that disappeared in the edit.  I did a diff between the resulting version and the version just before things disappeared, to check whether that restored everything, and found there was more missing than I'd thought, so I did the same thing, pasting from the old version to the new one and then checking the diff.  This time it showed that nothing from the first version was missing from the second, so I was done. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Helpful. Thank you for making that clear, Feldspar.Terryeo 16:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Endorsers/Commentators
The only people who made any (Outside) Comments were the same anti-scientology Wikipedia editors who endrosed the submission of the RFC. What a CABAL!!! --JimmyT 14:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What CABAL are you a part of, JimmyT?--Fahrenheit451 17:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Fahrenheit451, you can see my point of view on my user page.  What is yours in the area of Scientology? Terryeo 04:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not part of any cabal. However, the anti-scientology crew does CABAL!!! Fahrenheit451, are you part of the efforts of THAT sick minority? --JimmyT 08:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What now?
So what happens now that the requested comments have been amassed? Terryeo, will you agree to change your behavior? Will anybody else change theirs? What's the next step? BTfromLA 16:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The steps have not been followed. If you read some past Rfc's, the original organization of this Rfc followed them.  And several editors did follow the form.  But more than several editors followed the form and then, additionally, felt compelled to add in comments.  For example, the idea of an Rfc is to allow people who have disagreement to each state their POV, disagreements, difficulties and so on.  Which is how this Rfc begin.  Then, after I thought I had understood the comments made, I made a reply.  This follows Rfc from and is appropriate.  But my reply got chopped up, people felt compelled to add into my reply, their reactions.  Of course they felt compelled to add their reactions into my "say" where they were reacting and not as a part of their own comment.  This makes understanding of the issues difficult.  This is exactly what happened when Dianetics was submitted to mediation.  It makes me wonder if I could state, "the sky is blue" without someone reacting to my statement, chopping it into 4 pieces with a paragraph after each piece.  It is possible the whole Rfc can be read to make sense, but it flows less easily than (most) preceeding Rfc's.  The one element I don't understand in this thing is the accusing tone other editors use while accusing me of an accusing tone.  Other editors seem to feel completely appropriate to attack me and expect me to remain calm, cool and collected while they do.  I too react. heh. Terryeo 08:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So, Terryeo, are you saying that after this RfC you do not understand the issues that a large number of editors are raising concerns and objections about? BTfromLA 18:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand what has been stated here, BTfromLA. I also understand the form that has been followed.  An Rfc's purpose is to allow editors to place thier experiences about an editor and to comment.  Everyone gets a piece of a page to do that in.  In such a manner everyone gets to say as much as they wish to in the way they wish to.  It provides a good format to air things out.  Unfortunately, this form has not been well followed.  Some editors raise issues (rather than in an article) in challenging sorts of ways.  Fahrenhiet451 re: "patter drills" as an example.  Other editors feel compelled to chop up my reply (which should be all of once piece) into smaller pieces and reply to its pieces, rather than to take their own space to state their own comments.  This convolution of form doesn't help understanding of the issues.  Instead it makes the issues more difficult to understand.   Other editors "rake the muck" and find long past stuff (beanbrain which I admitedly shouldn't be using) and paste it up more times than I ever used it.  It convolutes the issues, it makes the issues less clearly understandable and less easily resolved.  The one thing I get from it is that certain POV editors who never wanted any actual information about Dianetics or Scientology to be understood, are vastly offended that I insist Wikipedia policies and guidelines be followed.  And frankly, I intend to continue to insist Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines be followed.  It is my contention that as long as Wikipedia procedure is followed (and yes, I have sinned and fallen short of the glory of it, heh) ... is followed, good, readable, understandable articles which present both what Dianetics and Scientology are and their practice will be present.  There will also be the medium sized handful of controversial issues presented too.  :) Terryeo 22:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, Terryeo. I think that the purpose of the RfC is to resolve problems and conflicts that have emerged when editing without having to resort to arbitration and the imposition of bans, etc.  In this case, a very large number of editors have expressed dismay at your conduct, which they claim is frequently in violation of the letter and spirit of Wikipedia on multiple grounds, which are enumerated on the RfC page. While you admit to the occasional bit of rudeness or name calling, your above remarks seem to imply that you think most of the complaints are the product of  "POV editors who never wanted any actual information about Dianetics or Scientology to be understood,"  and that you see no reason to change your approach to editing Wikipedia in any fundamental way.  Is this a fair summary of your view?  BTfromLA 22:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not a long way from what I believe the situation is. I believe almost all the editors, almost all of the time, edit in good faith.  I mean to say, we all edit to the best of our ability to accurately provide the reader with the subject as we understand it to be.  This is, I think exactly the problem with the Dianetics and Scientology articles.  Time magazine had the same situation, they presented what they say to be the situation.  They created an article in "good faith," to the best of their ability.  I don't believe they intended to slander or to cause harm, but to present the situation as well as they were able too.  So too, BTfromLA, your Rolling Stones (example) article.  As best as possible, as faithfully as the creator of the article saw it.  I would say that the actual information which comprises, say Thetan is not being understood and presented by the editors of that article.  From the POV of a person who understands the subject, they appear to be "POV editors who never want the subject to be presented."  That's exactly right.  They understand the subject (they think) in a way which they present.  That understanding is completely off the wall and wrong.  But their edits the block, stop and prevent understanding of the concepts which comprise the use of the word "thetan" in Scientology.  It reminds me of what the U.S. Military discovered in Iraq.  A man could stand in front of a group of Iraqis, present information for 5 minutes and every U.S. Serviceman understood exactly what was meant.  While every Iraqi understood exactly what was meant too.  But in an entirely different way.  I believe this is exactly the situation here, too.  I scream the subject is not understood.  A large group of editors who have never studied nor used the subject scream they know Perfectly Well ! what the subject means and are screaming to shut me up. Terryeo 18:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether we should be adding to the talk page on a closed article... I guess it's ok. Thanks for clarifying your view.  Unfortunately, your position is incompatible with the standards of Wikipedia, as I understand them.  You seem unwilling to recognize the difference between an editor with a POV (every editor) and POV-driven editing (which is unacceptible).  Your idea that the only people who should write about these subjects are "experts," which you seem to mean are fully committed and enthusiatic currently practicing Scientologists, is totally off-base.  Not only is this a dubious notion of what constitutes expertise, but the whole idea of wikipedia is that it is based on existing third party sources--wikipedia articles are not written from scratch by experts, they are edited by people who organize and present existing published information about the topic.  If any expertise is called for, it is expertise in editing text, not in the subject matter of a given article. BTfromLA 18:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, it is for sure, POV - driven editing when someone who knows an article introduces an article. Likewise, when a person who grafts apples trees for a living introduces "grafting" and likewise when a person who drives tractors for a living introduces "tractor - driving."  Yep, that's right, it is POV - driven editing for an editor who knows a subject to introduce a subject, you are sure right about that, yep, yep, yep. Terryeo 14:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You claimed goals are irrelevant; that's not what you're doing. What you're doing is unacceptable. You also failed to respond to the main of his argument, and seized upon the little bit of text that was most like a personal attack, and are now trying to play the Victim card. Oh, and you also demonstrated that his assessment is perfectly accurate. Tenebrous 23:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? I agreed that my edits are POV - driven.  From that you get that I didn't respond, my goals are irrelevant, that I felt I was personally attacked and am playing a Victim card?  Good gosh Tenebrous.  BTfromLa and I communicate to some extent, we have exchanged ideas with each other, I have done some reading from such communications and generally the two of us work more toward a concensus than an enbrittled difference of view.  I completely fail to see how your comment, Tenebrous, contributes to anything. Terryeo 22:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, what IS next? I don't see the behavior of Terryeo or any of his Scientology POV-pushing cohorts to change. In fact, I think he's only gotten snippier since the RfC began, since it apparently only reinforces his conviction that there's an anti-Scientology cabal out to get him and cover up the "truth". I must admit I'm confused, because I've seen people banned from Wikipedia for far less than what Terryeo and other users have done. It's starting to feel like when you're in the supermarket, and lazy parents are letting their kids run completely amok while they do nothing except mumble an occasional "don't do that" and "don't make me you tell again, quit" which, of course, goes unheeded. wikipediatrix 18:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The articles don't introduce the subject very well. For example, the acronym "MEST" stands for an idea. That's all it means.  It doesn't have beliefs, it is a 30 second education, it is almost nothing at all.  But does the article present that?  Well no, the MEST article uses the term to introduce controversy which a very very few poeple could even care about, except they can dig it that there is some almost unbelievable thing about high level auditing somehow effecting the physical universe with thought alone.  I simply want to present the subjects as they exist, that's all.  I would think every editor would want this objective fulfilled.  After a subject is actually introduced, then a reader can understand controversy around it.  Not before.  You call this POV, but it is not POV that I am attempting to cause here.  I am simply attempting to get the information put onto the Wikipedia page in a manner so a common reader can understand it.  I would think other editors would want the same.  After a subject is actually introduced then there are kilobytes available for controversy, rumor, second party opinions, etc.  The subject matter of Scientology is a stack of books higher than a ceiling, it is published in many languages on two continents.  A couple of paragraphs can introduce the subject (usually).  What does "POV" have to do with it.  Other editors do not understand the meanings of these articles.  They call it "POV" when I introduce an article.  The problem, I believe, is that I simply can not understand how many editors can refuse to understand that a couple of paragraphs of actual information is necessary before the controversy (almost always poorly cited, too) begins. Terryeo 08:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Terry isn't the problem. You are. --JimmyT 08:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)