This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Kenja Communication was copied or moved into Ken Dyers with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This commentary relates to Kenja Communication, Australia. This group has had a strong effect on Australian social welfare. There will be a determined attempt to turn the article into a PR story, and complaints will continue untill that has been achieved. Please refer to the Wikipedia treatment of Scientology where there is acurate information allowed to remain on the site, while the Scientologists PR pages appear as well Legalist 07:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
there are edits I have drawn attention to which have all been secreted into articles ranging from the annhialation of the Tasmanian Aborigine to European and American court cases involving sexual matters. The editor, Mbarry, has also accessed sites involved with the Kenja Communication Group.
The group's leader faces 22 charges of sexual misconduct with two minors.
Thier defence appears to rely on declaring the charges part of a 'witchhunt'. The group has had an associate member produce a report which they are marketing as 'independent', which claims to examine 'the misuse of allegations of a sexual nature, and the ugly legal ramifications' involved. ( they did the same thing in a previous court case with a published book, 'Our Australian Freedoms are Under Threat', which was supposedly independent, but was also authored by Kenja members). the article is being secreted into wikipedia articles which involve historical injustices by the police, the courts and the media.
this appears to be a subversive move to give credibility to thier 'independent report', and help them build a credible case for being the subject of a 'witchhunt'. Thier strategy seems to be to draw various peoples attention to the articles, and having them draw comparisons with the groups contemporary situation, helping develop thier defence story. By enlarging the issue to make it a great injustice against society they hope to garner support from political quaters, as well as academic support and assistance from the genral community. They seem to present it to followers as proof of a 'conspiracy' to 'get' the group.
it seems to me there is no witch hunt, just two young girls bringing charges before the courts. But that is irrelevant, this seems to be a misuse of the encyclopedia, and introduces biased and slanted information into the site for personal gain.
as this group is a Scientology off shoot, with the leader being a Scientologist of 11 years standing, they should be treated witht the same respect for honesty as shown the Scientologists. ie; they should be allowed to present thier version of events, but it must be viewed with the material and information as published in the Australian Media, Parlimentary documentation and through articles written by leading Academics, which appear to have thier links removed in edits by 'MBarry'. Legalist 03:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- :excuse me, is there any reason why i am being called 'subversive' for editing articles? it is not 'my' 'independent' report. i am not trying to be 'credible', only 'reasonable'. where is your proof for the Scientology connection? i do not understand your insistance on this when the two organizations seem to be totally dissimilar. - : MBarry 05:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC
The group maintains a pyramidic financial structure where money is created as a resource, and then flows through to the leadership via a payments system for commodified spiritual experiences.
This model, originally conceived by L Ron Hubbard, after involvement with Jack Parsons, a disciple of Aliester Crowley, has proven successful for the leaders, although not always helpful to the members. It is a model which can be franchised easily, and can be set up in most areas with a large urban population, allowing for new recruitment to counter attrition.
In most cases, groups of this nature imply they have an altruistic nature and attempt to gain a tax free status to maximise profit. Whether through gaining a religious status from the government, or posturing as a social or sporting club, they conceal the profit's being funnelled through the group. Fundraisers appearing to be charitable, free up cash flow to then be liberated from the groups. Again, pioneered by L.Ron Hubbard, this is done primarily by suggesting the leadership is not in direct control of the group, but operates as a "consultant" only. The impression is of a hands off approach, for a one off fee. This is usually found to be false on closer inspection.
Please source these allegations TIA HAND — Phil | Talk 11:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed a section and some additional text due to complaints and a lack of sources (see WP:LIVING for policy basis). Please do not re-add the material unless it can be sourced. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The page needs more information on the philosophy of Kenja. The training section on the Kenja website looks to be the best source. At the moment the page doesn't say what Kenja actually is and what happens inside it in specific terms, so it's incomplete. RB 9 7 2 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Many of Kenja's buzz words are an integral part of the Scientology vocabulary including such terms as, "We have the technology; clear reactive mind thoughts; data; terminals; interbulate; processing; energy centre; reality level; ethics and research; standards and ethics; awareness; consciousness; causative" and more. The late Lafayette Ron Hubbard would not be pleased with Kenneth Dyers and company. He would regard their "technology" for living as definitely NOT "standard" tech.
I will read from a letter from yet another ex-Kenja member whom so far I have not quoted. I could read many more letters to the House. Those who wrote to me were concerned about a number of things. Parents, friends and relatives do not want to go public for fear that the person in Kenja will not want to contact them any more and will close off from them entirely, so that there will be even less contact than there is at present. Another concern relates to public ridicule. Most friends and relatives wish to be available if a person ever gets out of the organisation. This particular ex-Kenja member asked in the letter, as most correspondents have, that the name not be disclosed. I have asked most of these people to advise me if they do not want their names revealed. This letter states: This person said: One big lie is that Kenja is based on the research of Ken Dyers - over the last 40 years or so. In fact, it is based almost entirely on Scientology. Ken Dyers has stated that he was in Scientology and the implication was that he was in it for a number of years. On the first day that I started work in Kenja as a "professional" we had to go out and buy (from the Scientology bookshop) Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard and 0 - _ [Zero to Infinity] book. Also a copy of the "Tone Scale" and several other scales. Over the next month, we had to completely read "Dianetics" and the 0 - _ book. Daily, from then on, we had to read some of the 0 - _ book and at least daily, locate ourselves on the "Tone Scale". The Scientology material forms the core of Kenja Dyers lectures and seminars, yet they constantly deny that it has anything to do with Scientology (which is true in the literal sense that Kenja is not a branch of Scientology and that they pay money to Scientology. In fact Ken Dyers used to skite about how Scientology had labelled him a "squirrel" and tried to destroy him and Kenja - but, of course, had failed against the mighty powerful and evolved Ken Dyers. A number of so-called ex-Kenja professionals have given me books in which the name Scientology has been covered up. I have been given huge charts that are supposedly tone scales used by Scientology. They are very detailed charts. Apparently its members have to memorise details from the charts. It is another form of keeping people's brains so preoccupied with detail that they cannot think about anything else. I now seek to put on the record the contents of a letter written by Henry Bartnik entitled "Kenja not Scientology", of the Sydney Church of Scientology. The letter, which appeared in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader on 14th January, states:
The mental illness section needs more work, it is too POV at present. Can we get some references for the Michael Beaver paragraph? Also there is nothing to compare the size of the group to how many people have 'developed' mental illnesses. UBB449 07:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
reference is in the Steven Mutch parlimentary report ( Legalist 07:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC))and in the Robert Manne report. Statistically acceptable mental health issues?, seems a funny approach for someone to take. [[[User:Legalist|Legalist]] 21:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]
I have removed the 'discharged with a disability' part because I think it takes the war records entirely out of context - I may be wrong but I seem to remember something like, most soldiers who fought in New Guinea in WWII came back with 80 or 90% instability due to the extremely inhumane conditions... therefore if someone came back only 10% unstable it would be supposed they are doing quite well. UBB449 08:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think if the army thinks it s important enought to state it has validity. especially if we are talking about someone who practices executive mental health. It has relevance.[[[User:Legalist|Legalist]] 07:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)}
I cannot see any actual proof that this group is connected with The Church of Scientology - they claim on their website to be non-religious, and I have never heard of a religion claiming to be non-religious, that would really be illogical and pointless - unless anyone can actually find any proof i think the references to Scientology should be taken off - I am unconvinced that Dyers being part of Scientology for an unknown period, however many years ago means that the group or their practices are connected - in fact the inclusion of dyers on an 'enemy list' seems to indicate that they are not connected. UBB449 00:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Nomsky 01:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me Legalist. Just reviewed this chat section and note above you say 'Mr Dyers practices Executive Mental Health, (at least he says so on his website..)'. Two points: He doesn't say so on his website. BecauseA. He didn't write it. And B. he doesn't practice Executive Mental Health - the site refers to the fact he did this in his career prior to Kenja. And yes, I know coz I helped put it together! Cheers Eatingslowly 03:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Legalist, what I said in my earlier entry stands. I write web content professionally. In fact I research then write for a huge number of clients. So as I said, I'm neither a 'member or employee' of anyone but myself. Avoid my questions all you like, but don't question my professional integrity. Eatingslowly 03:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
well, as a paid contractor you are involved to a greater degree than you implied. you should have said..." Re member or empoyee - nup, but derive an income from Mr Dyers or his organisation...however completely dispassionate". that would have more clearly given an insight into your interest. thankyou for your clarification, appreciate your position. ( Legalist 05:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)) ....another thing though.., you have never asked any questions of me, that was "MBARRY", who stopped editing around the time you showed up....are you related? ( Legalist 06:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)) Not at all sure what your actual question is (re-read what you wrote without the benefit of inflection - it is hard to understand). Can only assume you are asking whether I am or I know MBARRY??? No to both. Further, I don't know anyone in this little cluster; only that I observed some nasty banter going back and forth between various parties. I never intended to become involved in any of it, other than to suggest it was getting a bit biased and inflammatory. In hindsight, I should have kept out of it! LOL. Eatingslowly 04:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I have been observing how this article was started and how it has been growing with the 'contribution' of basically 2 usernames (the last one being 'Legalist'). All content is highly biased, manipulative and presenting a single negative point of view towards Kenja Communication. This is propaganda by an individual or a small group of individuals against Kenja Communication. This article needs some balance to simply start to satisfy the fundamental principles of Wikipedia (NPOV).
I removed the last addition on AVO. This section is a misuse of the Wikipedia by 'Legalist' publishing what would be current court arguments (and again giving one sided viewpoint). Not only this is opposing the (WP:LIVING) by citing unsourced (very) contentious material about (several) living persons, but this is simply defamation. Legal action is not possible with Legalist hiding behind his username (making it a misuse of the Wikipedia to 'safely' write defamatory statements). If this was not enough, 'Legalist' is giving the name of fathers in case of an AVO, which will therefore be a 'Domestic Violence Order' (DVO). Naming the fathers means giving the name of the young people, which is possibly be a breach of the Australian 'Children and Young Person Act 2001'. But the important matter is that this article is defamatory and is damaging the reputation of several peoples including young peoples. This article is exposing on the public place family situations that should stay private and is trying to connect domestic issues with the involvement of some of its members to a so-called cult. In several countries, which already confronted these issues faced in Australia and where 'cult lists' have been established, this is already documented as a classical misuse of justice. A Wikipedia article is definitely not the place for this. But the purpose of 'Legalist' may not be to simply contribute to a free encyclopedia. Using the popularity of Wikipedia, 'Legalist' is probably trying to threaten various persons or worse influence current court arguments. This is what I call another serious misuse of Wikipedia. In conclusion and besides having this paragraph removed, I am requesting that the 'Wikipedia' authorities ban 'Legalist'. ( Highestcourt ( talk) 05:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC))
I am afraid the section on AVO's refers to an article published in the 'Daily Telegraph',a major daily newspaper in Sydney, in which names are included, and statments made about a current court case. this is information before the public. this article distils the public record regards Mr Dyers and his group. Therefore this is seen as a necessary inclusion.I appreciate your comments and will rewrite the article in a more thoughtful manner. I am removing the addition to Mr Dyers biography as it is an unashamed PR attempt. there is a link to the website where this information can be found. We will upload the link to the daily telegraph story for verification. in answer to a charge of 'propaganda by a small group of individuals', again, i am afraid the article is a distillation of the writings of a vast number of writers from senior public academics (The Monthly), senior writers for the 'SMH'(four in total), senior court reporters and reporters for the 'daily telegraph'(three in total), Television Reports, Documentarians, published records from The Government regards War Service, Speaches recorded in NSW Government (Hansard), Court Records and published testimony from individuals. It is not difficult to find. Hardly a small group of people. Keeping an accurate historical record is important, in all matters. We might add, it is a long bow to draw, suggesting the courts could be influenced. You seem to be throwing darts hoping something may stick. ( Legalist ( talk) 01:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)) ( talk) 01:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)]
Another AVO court case has completed and the complaints against Kenja have been upheld. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cults-bizarre-ploy-to-initimidate-nonbeliever/2008/08/26/1219516472353.html 203.11.129.10 ( talk) 22:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Added links to cult, and added a link from the cult page to this group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.213.116 ( talk) 11:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sources http://www.rickross.com/ http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/2008/07/kenja-communications-cult-abuse-case.html http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.213.116 ( talk) 10:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello all. First off, I understand that it's been a few days since this was listed on MEDCAB. Apologies, I just saw it today.
I think that we should start off with firstly a review of what constitutes a
reliable source. I think that we should also start by dropping personal experiences,
points of view, and deal only that which can be
verified to be a fact. Whether it's about a person or an entity information in an encyclopedia must be accurate.
As I understand it the gist of the matter is the word "
cult". Correct me if I'm wrong. Any other arguments about what to include or not would seem to stem from that debate, essentially.
For something to be verified as a fact for inclusion into any encyclopedia, it must be able to be sourced by a neutral, reliable third-party source. The reason for this is because encyclopedias are not items of original research but are collections of reviews of evidence found elsewhere. The reason that this is important is because lay-people "pick up" an encyclopedia and rely on it as their source of fact. Therefore, it must be correct. So for evidence to be acceptable to us we have to make sure that other people we can trust and in who's opinion the average, reasonable person (not everybody) can rely on, have "peer-reviewed" the subject. Now for every article, the standards of evidence needed are the same; the acceptable sources might differ, but not the standards. For an article such as biomedical research the sources needed would be something like; peer-reviewed scientific journals, government health departments, research ethics committees or perhaps university researchers of note. For an article such as Reliable LCD televisions the sources would be; independent electronics reviews in reputable, national magazines, journals, independent TV shows, testing labs etc. What would not be acceptable, would be ; information from the manufacturer themselves. Who is to say that unit X has the fastest refresh rate? If it's been tested, then the lab should be referenced, if not then how can we rely on what the manufacturer claims. It is the same for what any entity says about itself, or any entities friends or opponents.
In this article, what is needed are reliable, independent & neutral, 3rd party sources that can be relied upon to label this entity as a cult. They would need to be in the form of; a major government department or ministry in the location of the entity (Australia) that has officially called them a cult in public documents more than once, by more than one person; or other official references of similar weight. This would give the lay reader an assurance that the label can be trusted. Claims of good would need to be referenced by third party reliable sources as would claims of harm.
What would not be acceptable is; sources from news-papers (they are opinions, unless they quote government sources and name them and even then they have to be national major papers), sources from TV (unless things like CSPAN coverage of hearings, (even then care should be taken to determine if the quote is the opinion of someone or the position of the government), references from court-cases (these are opinions of the judge and not official positions of a government), books or other such (unless they quote government or similar weight sources). At the end of the day, you all have to realize that this is a reputation thing (
ours as much as theirs), and Wikipedia is about facts. An entity such as this can only be labeled a cult if it can be proved to be one. The onus is on the accuser, not the accused.
Similar positions have been taken here on topics such as
Jehovah's witnesses,
Morman's,
Scientology and others. One thing is for certain, and that is that
POV has no place in this issue. People can always find others to support their views. We could find 100 people to label them a cult and we could find 100 people to label them a church and 100 to label them a whatever. None of those peoples opinions matter, only facts. We have to deal only with the
verifiable facts, especially in a situation such as this! Even if a reliable source can be found to label them a cult, a proviso should be added directly afterwards that the term cult is vague or that the organization objects to this term: providing a 3rd party source can be found that proves they do object.
Thanks for listening!
Fr33kman
talk
APW 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note: I have made some changes to the article (remove cult for now etc.) that should be left in place until this dispute is resolved one way or the other. There are also some pretty serious allegations on the articles page, those will have to be sourced for legal reasons! Regards, Fr33kman talk APW 04:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I have a passing acquaintance with Scientology, both through a previous minor involvement, knowing people who were in it, and reading about it. I knew nothing about Kenja except for the sensational press coverage of the sexual accusations made against Dyers, and his subsequent suicide. Then, I saw the documentary “Beyond our Ken” which aired on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) a couple of days ago. I was astonished that just about EVERYTHING taught and practiced by Kenja has quite obviously been ripped off from Scientology. In fact it is a sort of Scientology Lite. I was also surprised that, in a two-hour doco, no one mentions this. Perhaps the notoriously litigious Scientologists scared the producers off.
Obvious rip-offs were:
1. The teaching that our hang-ups and mental problems are the result of some attaching spirits
2. The belief in reincarnation, and a sort of Westernised karma.
3. The idea that many psychological problems are embedded when the unconscious mind is not aware of what is being done to the individual.
4. The notion that once these traumas are brought to the conscious mind, the individual will be freed from their noxious influence.
5. The practice of getting the individual to tell a church counsellor everything they can about their experiences in an effort to locate these traumatic episodes
6. The insistence that members of the group pay large sums of money to go through these procedures.
7. The use of word “clear” (used by BOTH Scientologists and Kenja) to describe both the procedure and the emergent individual.
8. The promise that the “cleared” individual will be almost a super-person, charismatic, powerfully willed, able to control other people and bend them to their wills, with vastly increased creative powers.
9. The vehement rejection of psychiatry and psychiatric drugs, even in extreme cases of schizophrenia and bipolar disease.
10. The pathetic lip service given to “world peace” and other liberal notions, for which they do nothing at all.
11. The control over members’ lives and the pressure placed upon them to sever ties with family members and friends who are perceived to be hostile to the organisation.
As for Kenja not being “a religion”, anyone who knows anything about Scientology knows that Hubbard quite cynically gave his theories a religious gloss—quite late in their development—in order to make his views more authoritative, and to gain the all-important tax-free status. To call Scientology a “church” is to make a travesty of the word. Scientology is a pyramid selling organisation which uses some simple confidence building exercises, and makes its members pay through their noses for it. Dyers learnt his lessons well and applied precisely the same tactics in Kenja.
Kenja was and is evil, not least because it takes people with significant mental problems and denies them psychiatric care. Then, when they really begin to disintegrate, they simply abandon them. As Ken said in the doco, these are problems they may have to sort out “in their next life”. Scientology does much the same thing. The real irony is that IF Dyers had been more powerful and had a massive organisation such as Scientology does, he would never have been so vulnerable to the Law and Public Opinion. Believe me, Hubbard got away with a lot worse then Dyers did, and he just laughed all the way to the bank. This material should be present in this article. Kenja is not the only offshoot of this toxic “Church” called Scientology. Myles325a ( talk) 07:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
HI Myles325a
of course you are correct, but such a program clearly has time constraints. that Dyers was a Scientologist is no longer under question on this page, although it was vigorously denied by contributors earlier on. Plagarism is an essential element of the groups theories and practice, and as such it is equally important to discredit the source, which is Scientology. the irony here is rich, as Hubbard did precisely the same thing with the work of various phsychologists, phsychiatrists and quasi religous practitioners, notably Aliester Crowley. The Kenja processing is a Scientology TR, but Dyers clearly told his followers he had invented it and so they are stuck with that idea. this page however is subject to rigorous standards and requires these observations to be clearly spelt out in the public domain in legitimate organs before they can be included here. Hubbard has a lot to answer for by sending laymen out into the world with minimal knowledge to practice a hybrid and dysfunctional type of mental health program. if you buy the DVD, there are outtakes where Dyers is quized on Scientology, and he belittles them, as he was taught to do. apart from that, the Scientologists are keeping the Dyers creation at arms length. ( Legalist ( talk) 00:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC))
I've moved this list here, as the list isn't "popular culture", as it appeared in the article, but instead is a list of media coverage. As such it might be useful for developing the article, but doesn't fit within it as such. - Bilby ( talk) 13:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Media Watch:
Compass:
The Spirit of Things:
PaintedCarpet ( talk) 18:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kenja Communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to Dorothyette for attempting to clarify this. Generally the word "company" is used to describe any form of business. On the other hand "organisation" (or organization, depending on your country of origin) is larger and comprises a number of companies. As the article already states, the Kenja Communication organisation has several businesses or companies in different cities and with different business names. This is a relatively minor point but I trust that this explanation should satisfy everyone. A Google search should verify these definitions. Banjo92 ( talk) 03:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi B, not really. Each of the individual groups appear to be separate legal entities - registered as companies with separate ACN's. There does not appear to be a overarching legal structure. I can't really see the issue with it being known the groups are company structures? there is nothing obnoxious about it. Dorothyette ( talk) 06:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi D, it really is more useful to refer to it as an organisation. Apparently this minor point is important to you, but your argument doesnt really make sense. An organisation doesnt necessarily have a 'legal structure'. The organisation in question is a business yes, but the name Kenja Communication refers to more than a business entity, as it is an overarching structure that is used to refer to several 'businesses' as well as activities run by an association and other entities. Banjo92 ( talk) 06:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi B, I have reviewed the available articles etc and am surprised the child molestation charges do not appear on this page, as they are very much part of Kenjas' complexion. With regard to the noting of company structure it is not such a minor point I think. You seem to want to whitewash any reference to company structure on this page. It would be in the public interest to know that ownership sits with the 'few' as there are several companies within the assemblage of entities. I am therefore left wondering to whom it would be 'more useful' to refer to the group as an organisation, rather than as a company with front of house entities? If there are companies with ACN numbers involved in the structure, they will be fundamental to organisation and as such should be known. Anything else is a deception. Dorothyette ( talk) 22:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
User Banjo92 has asked for a 3rd Opinion - I think we can resolve this issue by simply removing that part of the sentence, as I dont think it's really necessary, if it's such a point of contention. Dorothyette, you seem to be a little riled up about this with your mentions of a 'complexion', whitewashing, front of house entities and deception. Seems a little over the top for a company and I can't see that actually happening here. TheresaF ( talk) 02:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Guys User Banjo92 does not seem to have made such a request, at least not on wikipedia. That's cool, but they have already been warned about operating as a kenja entity and told that promotional editing will not be allowed. I take it you are both familiar with sock puppets and the like. TheresaF, you turned up at the same time as Banjo92, probably just a coincidence huh?, I think its fair to say you are not a Wikipedia editor, that is the proper method for reconciling issues, rather than what has occurred here. Ill put the offensive word 'company' back up, and we can ask Dorothyette to do something about calling in a Wikipedia editor. and I am now intrigued as to why you guys don't want it on the site Kripes ( talk) 12:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Kenja Communication was copied or moved into Ken Dyers with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This commentary relates to Kenja Communication, Australia. This group has had a strong effect on Australian social welfare. There will be a determined attempt to turn the article into a PR story, and complaints will continue untill that has been achieved. Please refer to the Wikipedia treatment of Scientology where there is acurate information allowed to remain on the site, while the Scientologists PR pages appear as well Legalist 07:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
there are edits I have drawn attention to which have all been secreted into articles ranging from the annhialation of the Tasmanian Aborigine to European and American court cases involving sexual matters. The editor, Mbarry, has also accessed sites involved with the Kenja Communication Group.
The group's leader faces 22 charges of sexual misconduct with two minors.
Thier defence appears to rely on declaring the charges part of a 'witchhunt'. The group has had an associate member produce a report which they are marketing as 'independent', which claims to examine 'the misuse of allegations of a sexual nature, and the ugly legal ramifications' involved. ( they did the same thing in a previous court case with a published book, 'Our Australian Freedoms are Under Threat', which was supposedly independent, but was also authored by Kenja members). the article is being secreted into wikipedia articles which involve historical injustices by the police, the courts and the media.
this appears to be a subversive move to give credibility to thier 'independent report', and help them build a credible case for being the subject of a 'witchhunt'. Thier strategy seems to be to draw various peoples attention to the articles, and having them draw comparisons with the groups contemporary situation, helping develop thier defence story. By enlarging the issue to make it a great injustice against society they hope to garner support from political quaters, as well as academic support and assistance from the genral community. They seem to present it to followers as proof of a 'conspiracy' to 'get' the group.
it seems to me there is no witch hunt, just two young girls bringing charges before the courts. But that is irrelevant, this seems to be a misuse of the encyclopedia, and introduces biased and slanted information into the site for personal gain.
as this group is a Scientology off shoot, with the leader being a Scientologist of 11 years standing, they should be treated witht the same respect for honesty as shown the Scientologists. ie; they should be allowed to present thier version of events, but it must be viewed with the material and information as published in the Australian Media, Parlimentary documentation and through articles written by leading Academics, which appear to have thier links removed in edits by 'MBarry'. Legalist 03:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- :excuse me, is there any reason why i am being called 'subversive' for editing articles? it is not 'my' 'independent' report. i am not trying to be 'credible', only 'reasonable'. where is your proof for the Scientology connection? i do not understand your insistance on this when the two organizations seem to be totally dissimilar. - : MBarry 05:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC
The group maintains a pyramidic financial structure where money is created as a resource, and then flows through to the leadership via a payments system for commodified spiritual experiences.
This model, originally conceived by L Ron Hubbard, after involvement with Jack Parsons, a disciple of Aliester Crowley, has proven successful for the leaders, although not always helpful to the members. It is a model which can be franchised easily, and can be set up in most areas with a large urban population, allowing for new recruitment to counter attrition.
In most cases, groups of this nature imply they have an altruistic nature and attempt to gain a tax free status to maximise profit. Whether through gaining a religious status from the government, or posturing as a social or sporting club, they conceal the profit's being funnelled through the group. Fundraisers appearing to be charitable, free up cash flow to then be liberated from the groups. Again, pioneered by L.Ron Hubbard, this is done primarily by suggesting the leadership is not in direct control of the group, but operates as a "consultant" only. The impression is of a hands off approach, for a one off fee. This is usually found to be false on closer inspection.
Please source these allegations TIA HAND — Phil | Talk 11:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed a section and some additional text due to complaints and a lack of sources (see WP:LIVING for policy basis). Please do not re-add the material unless it can be sourced. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The page needs more information on the philosophy of Kenja. The training section on the Kenja website looks to be the best source. At the moment the page doesn't say what Kenja actually is and what happens inside it in specific terms, so it's incomplete. RB 9 7 2 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Many of Kenja's buzz words are an integral part of the Scientology vocabulary including such terms as, "We have the technology; clear reactive mind thoughts; data; terminals; interbulate; processing; energy centre; reality level; ethics and research; standards and ethics; awareness; consciousness; causative" and more. The late Lafayette Ron Hubbard would not be pleased with Kenneth Dyers and company. He would regard their "technology" for living as definitely NOT "standard" tech.
I will read from a letter from yet another ex-Kenja member whom so far I have not quoted. I could read many more letters to the House. Those who wrote to me were concerned about a number of things. Parents, friends and relatives do not want to go public for fear that the person in Kenja will not want to contact them any more and will close off from them entirely, so that there will be even less contact than there is at present. Another concern relates to public ridicule. Most friends and relatives wish to be available if a person ever gets out of the organisation. This particular ex-Kenja member asked in the letter, as most correspondents have, that the name not be disclosed. I have asked most of these people to advise me if they do not want their names revealed. This letter states: This person said: One big lie is that Kenja is based on the research of Ken Dyers - over the last 40 years or so. In fact, it is based almost entirely on Scientology. Ken Dyers has stated that he was in Scientology and the implication was that he was in it for a number of years. On the first day that I started work in Kenja as a "professional" we had to go out and buy (from the Scientology bookshop) Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard and 0 - _ [Zero to Infinity] book. Also a copy of the "Tone Scale" and several other scales. Over the next month, we had to completely read "Dianetics" and the 0 - _ book. Daily, from then on, we had to read some of the 0 - _ book and at least daily, locate ourselves on the "Tone Scale". The Scientology material forms the core of Kenja Dyers lectures and seminars, yet they constantly deny that it has anything to do with Scientology (which is true in the literal sense that Kenja is not a branch of Scientology and that they pay money to Scientology. In fact Ken Dyers used to skite about how Scientology had labelled him a "squirrel" and tried to destroy him and Kenja - but, of course, had failed against the mighty powerful and evolved Ken Dyers. A number of so-called ex-Kenja professionals have given me books in which the name Scientology has been covered up. I have been given huge charts that are supposedly tone scales used by Scientology. They are very detailed charts. Apparently its members have to memorise details from the charts. It is another form of keeping people's brains so preoccupied with detail that they cannot think about anything else. I now seek to put on the record the contents of a letter written by Henry Bartnik entitled "Kenja not Scientology", of the Sydney Church of Scientology. The letter, which appeared in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader on 14th January, states:
The mental illness section needs more work, it is too POV at present. Can we get some references for the Michael Beaver paragraph? Also there is nothing to compare the size of the group to how many people have 'developed' mental illnesses. UBB449 07:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
reference is in the Steven Mutch parlimentary report ( Legalist 07:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC))and in the Robert Manne report. Statistically acceptable mental health issues?, seems a funny approach for someone to take. [[[User:Legalist|Legalist]] 21:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]
I have removed the 'discharged with a disability' part because I think it takes the war records entirely out of context - I may be wrong but I seem to remember something like, most soldiers who fought in New Guinea in WWII came back with 80 or 90% instability due to the extremely inhumane conditions... therefore if someone came back only 10% unstable it would be supposed they are doing quite well. UBB449 08:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think if the army thinks it s important enought to state it has validity. especially if we are talking about someone who practices executive mental health. It has relevance.[[[User:Legalist|Legalist]] 07:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)}
I cannot see any actual proof that this group is connected with The Church of Scientology - they claim on their website to be non-religious, and I have never heard of a religion claiming to be non-religious, that would really be illogical and pointless - unless anyone can actually find any proof i think the references to Scientology should be taken off - I am unconvinced that Dyers being part of Scientology for an unknown period, however many years ago means that the group or their practices are connected - in fact the inclusion of dyers on an 'enemy list' seems to indicate that they are not connected. UBB449 00:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Nomsky 01:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me Legalist. Just reviewed this chat section and note above you say 'Mr Dyers practices Executive Mental Health, (at least he says so on his website..)'. Two points: He doesn't say so on his website. BecauseA. He didn't write it. And B. he doesn't practice Executive Mental Health - the site refers to the fact he did this in his career prior to Kenja. And yes, I know coz I helped put it together! Cheers Eatingslowly 03:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Legalist, what I said in my earlier entry stands. I write web content professionally. In fact I research then write for a huge number of clients. So as I said, I'm neither a 'member or employee' of anyone but myself. Avoid my questions all you like, but don't question my professional integrity. Eatingslowly 03:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
well, as a paid contractor you are involved to a greater degree than you implied. you should have said..." Re member or empoyee - nup, but derive an income from Mr Dyers or his organisation...however completely dispassionate". that would have more clearly given an insight into your interest. thankyou for your clarification, appreciate your position. ( Legalist 05:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)) ....another thing though.., you have never asked any questions of me, that was "MBARRY", who stopped editing around the time you showed up....are you related? ( Legalist 06:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)) Not at all sure what your actual question is (re-read what you wrote without the benefit of inflection - it is hard to understand). Can only assume you are asking whether I am or I know MBARRY??? No to both. Further, I don't know anyone in this little cluster; only that I observed some nasty banter going back and forth between various parties. I never intended to become involved in any of it, other than to suggest it was getting a bit biased and inflammatory. In hindsight, I should have kept out of it! LOL. Eatingslowly 04:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I have been observing how this article was started and how it has been growing with the 'contribution' of basically 2 usernames (the last one being 'Legalist'). All content is highly biased, manipulative and presenting a single negative point of view towards Kenja Communication. This is propaganda by an individual or a small group of individuals against Kenja Communication. This article needs some balance to simply start to satisfy the fundamental principles of Wikipedia (NPOV).
I removed the last addition on AVO. This section is a misuse of the Wikipedia by 'Legalist' publishing what would be current court arguments (and again giving one sided viewpoint). Not only this is opposing the (WP:LIVING) by citing unsourced (very) contentious material about (several) living persons, but this is simply defamation. Legal action is not possible with Legalist hiding behind his username (making it a misuse of the Wikipedia to 'safely' write defamatory statements). If this was not enough, 'Legalist' is giving the name of fathers in case of an AVO, which will therefore be a 'Domestic Violence Order' (DVO). Naming the fathers means giving the name of the young people, which is possibly be a breach of the Australian 'Children and Young Person Act 2001'. But the important matter is that this article is defamatory and is damaging the reputation of several peoples including young peoples. This article is exposing on the public place family situations that should stay private and is trying to connect domestic issues with the involvement of some of its members to a so-called cult. In several countries, which already confronted these issues faced in Australia and where 'cult lists' have been established, this is already documented as a classical misuse of justice. A Wikipedia article is definitely not the place for this. But the purpose of 'Legalist' may not be to simply contribute to a free encyclopedia. Using the popularity of Wikipedia, 'Legalist' is probably trying to threaten various persons or worse influence current court arguments. This is what I call another serious misuse of Wikipedia. In conclusion and besides having this paragraph removed, I am requesting that the 'Wikipedia' authorities ban 'Legalist'. ( Highestcourt ( talk) 05:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC))
I am afraid the section on AVO's refers to an article published in the 'Daily Telegraph',a major daily newspaper in Sydney, in which names are included, and statments made about a current court case. this is information before the public. this article distils the public record regards Mr Dyers and his group. Therefore this is seen as a necessary inclusion.I appreciate your comments and will rewrite the article in a more thoughtful manner. I am removing the addition to Mr Dyers biography as it is an unashamed PR attempt. there is a link to the website where this information can be found. We will upload the link to the daily telegraph story for verification. in answer to a charge of 'propaganda by a small group of individuals', again, i am afraid the article is a distillation of the writings of a vast number of writers from senior public academics (The Monthly), senior writers for the 'SMH'(four in total), senior court reporters and reporters for the 'daily telegraph'(three in total), Television Reports, Documentarians, published records from The Government regards War Service, Speaches recorded in NSW Government (Hansard), Court Records and published testimony from individuals. It is not difficult to find. Hardly a small group of people. Keeping an accurate historical record is important, in all matters. We might add, it is a long bow to draw, suggesting the courts could be influenced. You seem to be throwing darts hoping something may stick. ( Legalist ( talk) 01:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)) ( talk) 01:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)]
Another AVO court case has completed and the complaints against Kenja have been upheld. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cults-bizarre-ploy-to-initimidate-nonbeliever/2008/08/26/1219516472353.html 203.11.129.10 ( talk) 22:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Added links to cult, and added a link from the cult page to this group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.213.116 ( talk) 11:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sources http://www.rickross.com/ http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/2008/07/kenja-communications-cult-abuse-case.html http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.213.116 ( talk) 10:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello all. First off, I understand that it's been a few days since this was listed on MEDCAB. Apologies, I just saw it today.
I think that we should start off with firstly a review of what constitutes a
reliable source. I think that we should also start by dropping personal experiences,
points of view, and deal only that which can be
verified to be a fact. Whether it's about a person or an entity information in an encyclopedia must be accurate.
As I understand it the gist of the matter is the word "
cult". Correct me if I'm wrong. Any other arguments about what to include or not would seem to stem from that debate, essentially.
For something to be verified as a fact for inclusion into any encyclopedia, it must be able to be sourced by a neutral, reliable third-party source. The reason for this is because encyclopedias are not items of original research but are collections of reviews of evidence found elsewhere. The reason that this is important is because lay-people "pick up" an encyclopedia and rely on it as their source of fact. Therefore, it must be correct. So for evidence to be acceptable to us we have to make sure that other people we can trust and in who's opinion the average, reasonable person (not everybody) can rely on, have "peer-reviewed" the subject. Now for every article, the standards of evidence needed are the same; the acceptable sources might differ, but not the standards. For an article such as biomedical research the sources needed would be something like; peer-reviewed scientific journals, government health departments, research ethics committees or perhaps university researchers of note. For an article such as Reliable LCD televisions the sources would be; independent electronics reviews in reputable, national magazines, journals, independent TV shows, testing labs etc. What would not be acceptable, would be ; information from the manufacturer themselves. Who is to say that unit X has the fastest refresh rate? If it's been tested, then the lab should be referenced, if not then how can we rely on what the manufacturer claims. It is the same for what any entity says about itself, or any entities friends or opponents.
In this article, what is needed are reliable, independent & neutral, 3rd party sources that can be relied upon to label this entity as a cult. They would need to be in the form of; a major government department or ministry in the location of the entity (Australia) that has officially called them a cult in public documents more than once, by more than one person; or other official references of similar weight. This would give the lay reader an assurance that the label can be trusted. Claims of good would need to be referenced by third party reliable sources as would claims of harm.
What would not be acceptable is; sources from news-papers (they are opinions, unless they quote government sources and name them and even then they have to be national major papers), sources from TV (unless things like CSPAN coverage of hearings, (even then care should be taken to determine if the quote is the opinion of someone or the position of the government), references from court-cases (these are opinions of the judge and not official positions of a government), books or other such (unless they quote government or similar weight sources). At the end of the day, you all have to realize that this is a reputation thing (
ours as much as theirs), and Wikipedia is about facts. An entity such as this can only be labeled a cult if it can be proved to be one. The onus is on the accuser, not the accused.
Similar positions have been taken here on topics such as
Jehovah's witnesses,
Morman's,
Scientology and others. One thing is for certain, and that is that
POV has no place in this issue. People can always find others to support their views. We could find 100 people to label them a cult and we could find 100 people to label them a church and 100 to label them a whatever. None of those peoples opinions matter, only facts. We have to deal only with the
verifiable facts, especially in a situation such as this! Even if a reliable source can be found to label them a cult, a proviso should be added directly afterwards that the term cult is vague or that the organization objects to this term: providing a 3rd party source can be found that proves they do object.
Thanks for listening!
Fr33kman
talk
APW 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note: I have made some changes to the article (remove cult for now etc.) that should be left in place until this dispute is resolved one way or the other. There are also some pretty serious allegations on the articles page, those will have to be sourced for legal reasons! Regards, Fr33kman talk APW 04:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I have a passing acquaintance with Scientology, both through a previous minor involvement, knowing people who were in it, and reading about it. I knew nothing about Kenja except for the sensational press coverage of the sexual accusations made against Dyers, and his subsequent suicide. Then, I saw the documentary “Beyond our Ken” which aired on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) a couple of days ago. I was astonished that just about EVERYTHING taught and practiced by Kenja has quite obviously been ripped off from Scientology. In fact it is a sort of Scientology Lite. I was also surprised that, in a two-hour doco, no one mentions this. Perhaps the notoriously litigious Scientologists scared the producers off.
Obvious rip-offs were:
1. The teaching that our hang-ups and mental problems are the result of some attaching spirits
2. The belief in reincarnation, and a sort of Westernised karma.
3. The idea that many psychological problems are embedded when the unconscious mind is not aware of what is being done to the individual.
4. The notion that once these traumas are brought to the conscious mind, the individual will be freed from their noxious influence.
5. The practice of getting the individual to tell a church counsellor everything they can about their experiences in an effort to locate these traumatic episodes
6. The insistence that members of the group pay large sums of money to go through these procedures.
7. The use of word “clear” (used by BOTH Scientologists and Kenja) to describe both the procedure and the emergent individual.
8. The promise that the “cleared” individual will be almost a super-person, charismatic, powerfully willed, able to control other people and bend them to their wills, with vastly increased creative powers.
9. The vehement rejection of psychiatry and psychiatric drugs, even in extreme cases of schizophrenia and bipolar disease.
10. The pathetic lip service given to “world peace” and other liberal notions, for which they do nothing at all.
11. The control over members’ lives and the pressure placed upon them to sever ties with family members and friends who are perceived to be hostile to the organisation.
As for Kenja not being “a religion”, anyone who knows anything about Scientology knows that Hubbard quite cynically gave his theories a religious gloss—quite late in their development—in order to make his views more authoritative, and to gain the all-important tax-free status. To call Scientology a “church” is to make a travesty of the word. Scientology is a pyramid selling organisation which uses some simple confidence building exercises, and makes its members pay through their noses for it. Dyers learnt his lessons well and applied precisely the same tactics in Kenja.
Kenja was and is evil, not least because it takes people with significant mental problems and denies them psychiatric care. Then, when they really begin to disintegrate, they simply abandon them. As Ken said in the doco, these are problems they may have to sort out “in their next life”. Scientology does much the same thing. The real irony is that IF Dyers had been more powerful and had a massive organisation such as Scientology does, he would never have been so vulnerable to the Law and Public Opinion. Believe me, Hubbard got away with a lot worse then Dyers did, and he just laughed all the way to the bank. This material should be present in this article. Kenja is not the only offshoot of this toxic “Church” called Scientology. Myles325a ( talk) 07:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
HI Myles325a
of course you are correct, but such a program clearly has time constraints. that Dyers was a Scientologist is no longer under question on this page, although it was vigorously denied by contributors earlier on. Plagarism is an essential element of the groups theories and practice, and as such it is equally important to discredit the source, which is Scientology. the irony here is rich, as Hubbard did precisely the same thing with the work of various phsychologists, phsychiatrists and quasi religous practitioners, notably Aliester Crowley. The Kenja processing is a Scientology TR, but Dyers clearly told his followers he had invented it and so they are stuck with that idea. this page however is subject to rigorous standards and requires these observations to be clearly spelt out in the public domain in legitimate organs before they can be included here. Hubbard has a lot to answer for by sending laymen out into the world with minimal knowledge to practice a hybrid and dysfunctional type of mental health program. if you buy the DVD, there are outtakes where Dyers is quized on Scientology, and he belittles them, as he was taught to do. apart from that, the Scientologists are keeping the Dyers creation at arms length. ( Legalist ( talk) 00:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC))
I've moved this list here, as the list isn't "popular culture", as it appeared in the article, but instead is a list of media coverage. As such it might be useful for developing the article, but doesn't fit within it as such. - Bilby ( talk) 13:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Media Watch:
Compass:
The Spirit of Things:
PaintedCarpet ( talk) 18:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kenja Communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to Dorothyette for attempting to clarify this. Generally the word "company" is used to describe any form of business. On the other hand "organisation" (or organization, depending on your country of origin) is larger and comprises a number of companies. As the article already states, the Kenja Communication organisation has several businesses or companies in different cities and with different business names. This is a relatively minor point but I trust that this explanation should satisfy everyone. A Google search should verify these definitions. Banjo92 ( talk) 03:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi B, not really. Each of the individual groups appear to be separate legal entities - registered as companies with separate ACN's. There does not appear to be a overarching legal structure. I can't really see the issue with it being known the groups are company structures? there is nothing obnoxious about it. Dorothyette ( talk) 06:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi D, it really is more useful to refer to it as an organisation. Apparently this minor point is important to you, but your argument doesnt really make sense. An organisation doesnt necessarily have a 'legal structure'. The organisation in question is a business yes, but the name Kenja Communication refers to more than a business entity, as it is an overarching structure that is used to refer to several 'businesses' as well as activities run by an association and other entities. Banjo92 ( talk) 06:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi B, I have reviewed the available articles etc and am surprised the child molestation charges do not appear on this page, as they are very much part of Kenjas' complexion. With regard to the noting of company structure it is not such a minor point I think. You seem to want to whitewash any reference to company structure on this page. It would be in the public interest to know that ownership sits with the 'few' as there are several companies within the assemblage of entities. I am therefore left wondering to whom it would be 'more useful' to refer to the group as an organisation, rather than as a company with front of house entities? If there are companies with ACN numbers involved in the structure, they will be fundamental to organisation and as such should be known. Anything else is a deception. Dorothyette ( talk) 22:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
User Banjo92 has asked for a 3rd Opinion - I think we can resolve this issue by simply removing that part of the sentence, as I dont think it's really necessary, if it's such a point of contention. Dorothyette, you seem to be a little riled up about this with your mentions of a 'complexion', whitewashing, front of house entities and deception. Seems a little over the top for a company and I can't see that actually happening here. TheresaF ( talk) 02:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Guys User Banjo92 does not seem to have made such a request, at least not on wikipedia. That's cool, but they have already been warned about operating as a kenja entity and told that promotional editing will not be allowed. I take it you are both familiar with sock puppets and the like. TheresaF, you turned up at the same time as Banjo92, probably just a coincidence huh?, I think its fair to say you are not a Wikipedia editor, that is the proper method for reconciling issues, rather than what has occurred here. Ill put the offensive word 'company' back up, and we can ask Dorothyette to do something about calling in a Wikipedia editor. and I am now intrigued as to why you guys don't want it on the site Kripes ( talk) 12:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)