![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please read this and hop over to this page with your markup of the insertion.
The "secondary definition" of psychotronics was the first one I ever
knew. The one you have posted was "secondary" in *my* education.
And you say there's "no evidence" of that usage? Good grief...I'd
better dig out the publications, and get busy on the bibliography,
hadn't I.
Hmph...I suppose I'll start with articles from Aviation
Week And Space Technology on the Russian work. Good enough?
P.S.: The "completely unsatisfactory editor's note" was cheese
for the mouse (whoever put in that link), but...it seems the cat
put his paw
in the trap first. Poor kitty. Oh well...I'll refrain
from using that tactic anymore. Don't want to stir up the natives.
(Yes, I admit it: I'm a wiki-newbie.)
Anyway, your subsequent observation was right: what did Bearden have to do with it.... --- MAS 31 Mar 2006 5:33 PM CST
Ok, thanks for the heads-up on that; there was actually a bit of debate a few weeks ago on the scifi/speculative fiction difference (actually it was whether or not speculative ficiton deserved its own stub category), and they seemed to come to the same thing you did, and apparently what most wikipedians do; that speculative fiction IS science fiction; even though technically, speculative fiction encompasses a much wider subset, including science fiction, most horror, and alternative history novels. Seeing as how I seem to be in the minority in this view, I guess I will concede it; but I still thank you for the info on the policy, I was not aware that they actually had any pertaining to this specific topic, but I guess I shouldnt be all that surprised. -- Gizzakk 20:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 19:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You're not going to tell me I was wrong, surely? Actually I reserved my language: I don't think that person was "deeply retarded", I think they were a pervert of some kind. -- 62.255.232.5 00:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Nikitchenko and I are now in Mediation based on his allegation of POV editing to the Office of Special Affairs article; See here. The Mediation is being held at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology. I notice there is a section, Comments by others so I thought given you have edited the article you may wish to comment when Mediation begins (I am unsure of the process at this stage). Look forward to hearing your opinion if you choose to offer it, and thanks in advance - Gl e n T C 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, a while ago you made an edit on the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline. I am proposing a revision to the guideline and I'm soliciting your comments. You can find the link to my rewrite at Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms -- cmh 01:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Feldspar. Up to your old "reversions without discussion" again I see at Thetan where you have ignored a great deal of talk page discussion. My efforts have been to leave the paragraph in the article for about a week. BTW, it is ChrisO's offensively cited paragraph, written in a narrative style which beguiles the reader into thinking that Hubbard actually stated what Atack says he stated, i.e. "Hubbard said ....". That is just a very poor citation. It seems to quote Hubbard whom, I beleive, never said what Atack says he said BUT it is perfectly okay with me if Atack's book says that Hubbard said that as long as the attribution is appropriately made so a reader can know that it is Jon Atack who is saying that Hubbard said .... So. After a week's of discussion you revert with no discussion. Typical. I have clearly laid out the problem, I have clearly attempted to get that paragraph appropriately cited. I have even helped to cite the previous paragraph. This is another one of ChrisO's very very poor citations. I plan to revert that paragraph once a day until it either has a good citation or is gone forever from the article. It is directly contrary to WP:V and in particular it is contrary to "burden on the person making the citation". Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 23:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus, I removed a question from the IP address that has been repeatedly posing unwelcome questions unrelated to encyclopedia building. I have advised the user to concentrate his efforts on our project, and limit his discussions to issues directly relevant to Wikipedia. He has been warned that ignoring this advice may result in a suspension of his editing privileges; drop me a line if he causes any trouble. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS states: Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. Please note, I am not adding emphisis, that is how the statement appears on that page. Terryeo 15:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up about Terryeo's edits of others on his talk page. Looks like we'll have some changes on the non-talk pages soon; take a look at [2] (scroll down to item 2.2). BTfromLA 21:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification, Terreyo removed a discussion I had with him [3]. Terryeo's m.o. is simply to remove or mutilate any correspondence he doesn't agree with, hopefully the injunction will limit such tampering to his user & talk page. ˉˉ anetode╞ ┬╡ 19:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo is still disrupting the wikipedia editing process. Here are some documented examples: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo/Proposed_decision-- Fahrenheit451 02:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Your edit summary states: "Antaeus Feldspar (Talk | contribs) (no, auditing is purported to treat the actual conditions -- the fact that Dianetics considers colds, arthritis, radiation sickness etc. to be nothing more than "mental stress" does not make it so)" in the Dianetics article and that has been a very very big point of contention with the medical community and Dianetics since 1950. The Church of Scientology gave it up, they found it to be an impossible arguement to state that Dianetics treats the human body's conditions. It might or might not happen, but Dianetics and the Church aren't going to argue whether it does or not. If placed as a historical presentation of Dianetics to the public, then that might be accurate. But not for a long time, maybe it was 1955 or something when they gave up stating that they treat medical conditions, or implying they treat medical conditions. Call it a brief "fad" if you like, heh. Terryeo 21:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Right, you state, "You didn't "remove an external link reference to Xenu.net", Terryeo. You removed everything on the page that had to do with Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, and used a link to Xenu.net as an excuse for doing so." So the way to do it would be to only remove the link to the personal website, but leave all of the other information intact, right? Terryeo 12:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Is the OCRT the personal website of a Wikipedia editor? Or did I misread your comment? - Will Beback 01:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Would you consider changing your vote to keep the information if it were merged with List of groups referred to as cults or expanded into a broader topic: "The Transition from Cult to Religion." That might make a very interesting wikipedia article. cairoi 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked 192.104.181.229 and 192.104.181.227 for 24 hours. If he resumes his previous behaviour, I will employ longer blocks. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Please respond at Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Removed_one. If in doubt, read Tantra. -- Pjacobi 17:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
While true, that section only really addresses server load. Bypassing redirects is good to reduce chances of having double redirects (which are bad because they make people click an extra link), especially when it's not doing something like [[direct|indirect]], as the link I did was piped anyway (assuming we're talking about the one I did in The Colbert Report, which was the only one I did recently, IIRC. (Interestingly, there was recently a discussion in Wikipedia about this with me arguing the WP:REDIRECT side, but whatever) -- Rory096 04:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I read with interest the discussion re devpt of SRA article. Currently experiencing problems with an article on SRA/moral-panic casualty Peter Ellis. Wonder if you would care to skim read the article and perhaps enter discussion with any ideas on how to the article can move ahead from seeming deadlock.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hugh_McGregor_Ellis#The_case
For background reading see http://www.peterellis.org.nz/
Richard 12:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus, I've just asked all the arb com members who voted on Terryeo's case to take a look at the talk page discussions that suggest Terryeo be banned form Scientology-related talk pages. I suspect it is too late--they may be about to close out the case. If you have any thoughts about ways to get some action on this, and perhaps for dealing with the larger issue of creating policy to guard against "dev-t"-type disruptive behavior, please advise. BTfromLA 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Please be civil with User:24.15.61.184. Egging him on isn't going to help matters any. Thanks! -- Zpb52 17:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This case is closed. Details of the final decision are published at the link above.
For the Arbitration Committee. -- Tony Sidaway 16:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
That was a pretty good edit. I do suggest you change the line 1 to omit the statement that the e-meter "treats" the reactive mind. Each e-meter bears a legend that "By itself, this meter does nothing. It is solely for the guide of Ministers of the Church in Confessionals and pastoral counseling." So the article needs to refer to the auditor's use of the e-meter. I don't agree with your use of the term "body thetan" since it is used nowhere in the Church's websites or literature, but I understand that the "Xenu fans" insist on including that reference, no matter how inaccurate.
But, would you agree that the e-meter is to assist the auditor? dcottle561
Actually, I did not intend to imply that your insertion of "body thetans" was inaccurate. Whether that is, or is not, a part of any Scientology secrets was not my issue. I merely noted that none of the Church of Scientology's websites or publications that I am aware of mention them. By the way, who is Warren McShane? Do you have a reference for his testimony? I'd love to read it. dcottle561 19 May 2006
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please read this and hop over to this page with your markup of the insertion.
The "secondary definition" of psychotronics was the first one I ever
knew. The one you have posted was "secondary" in *my* education.
And you say there's "no evidence" of that usage? Good grief...I'd
better dig out the publications, and get busy on the bibliography,
hadn't I.
Hmph...I suppose I'll start with articles from Aviation
Week And Space Technology on the Russian work. Good enough?
P.S.: The "completely unsatisfactory editor's note" was cheese
for the mouse (whoever put in that link), but...it seems the cat
put his paw
in the trap first. Poor kitty. Oh well...I'll refrain
from using that tactic anymore. Don't want to stir up the natives.
(Yes, I admit it: I'm a wiki-newbie.)
Anyway, your subsequent observation was right: what did Bearden have to do with it.... --- MAS 31 Mar 2006 5:33 PM CST
Ok, thanks for the heads-up on that; there was actually a bit of debate a few weeks ago on the scifi/speculative fiction difference (actually it was whether or not speculative ficiton deserved its own stub category), and they seemed to come to the same thing you did, and apparently what most wikipedians do; that speculative fiction IS science fiction; even though technically, speculative fiction encompasses a much wider subset, including science fiction, most horror, and alternative history novels. Seeing as how I seem to be in the minority in this view, I guess I will concede it; but I still thank you for the info on the policy, I was not aware that they actually had any pertaining to this specific topic, but I guess I shouldnt be all that surprised. -- Gizzakk 20:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 19:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You're not going to tell me I was wrong, surely? Actually I reserved my language: I don't think that person was "deeply retarded", I think they were a pervert of some kind. -- 62.255.232.5 00:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Nikitchenko and I are now in Mediation based on his allegation of POV editing to the Office of Special Affairs article; See here. The Mediation is being held at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology. I notice there is a section, Comments by others so I thought given you have edited the article you may wish to comment when Mediation begins (I am unsure of the process at this stage). Look forward to hearing your opinion if you choose to offer it, and thanks in advance - Gl e n T C 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, a while ago you made an edit on the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline. I am proposing a revision to the guideline and I'm soliciting your comments. You can find the link to my rewrite at Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms -- cmh 01:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Feldspar. Up to your old "reversions without discussion" again I see at Thetan where you have ignored a great deal of talk page discussion. My efforts have been to leave the paragraph in the article for about a week. BTW, it is ChrisO's offensively cited paragraph, written in a narrative style which beguiles the reader into thinking that Hubbard actually stated what Atack says he stated, i.e. "Hubbard said ....". That is just a very poor citation. It seems to quote Hubbard whom, I beleive, never said what Atack says he said BUT it is perfectly okay with me if Atack's book says that Hubbard said that as long as the attribution is appropriately made so a reader can know that it is Jon Atack who is saying that Hubbard said .... So. After a week's of discussion you revert with no discussion. Typical. I have clearly laid out the problem, I have clearly attempted to get that paragraph appropriately cited. I have even helped to cite the previous paragraph. This is another one of ChrisO's very very poor citations. I plan to revert that paragraph once a day until it either has a good citation or is gone forever from the article. It is directly contrary to WP:V and in particular it is contrary to "burden on the person making the citation". Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 23:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus, I removed a question from the IP address that has been repeatedly posing unwelcome questions unrelated to encyclopedia building. I have advised the user to concentrate his efforts on our project, and limit his discussions to issues directly relevant to Wikipedia. He has been warned that ignoring this advice may result in a suspension of his editing privileges; drop me a line if he causes any trouble. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS states: Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. Please note, I am not adding emphisis, that is how the statement appears on that page. Terryeo 15:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up about Terryeo's edits of others on his talk page. Looks like we'll have some changes on the non-talk pages soon; take a look at [2] (scroll down to item 2.2). BTfromLA 21:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification, Terreyo removed a discussion I had with him [3]. Terryeo's m.o. is simply to remove or mutilate any correspondence he doesn't agree with, hopefully the injunction will limit such tampering to his user & talk page. ˉˉ anetode╞ ┬╡ 19:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo is still disrupting the wikipedia editing process. Here are some documented examples: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo/Proposed_decision-- Fahrenheit451 02:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Your edit summary states: "Antaeus Feldspar (Talk | contribs) (no, auditing is purported to treat the actual conditions -- the fact that Dianetics considers colds, arthritis, radiation sickness etc. to be nothing more than "mental stress" does not make it so)" in the Dianetics article and that has been a very very big point of contention with the medical community and Dianetics since 1950. The Church of Scientology gave it up, they found it to be an impossible arguement to state that Dianetics treats the human body's conditions. It might or might not happen, but Dianetics and the Church aren't going to argue whether it does or not. If placed as a historical presentation of Dianetics to the public, then that might be accurate. But not for a long time, maybe it was 1955 or something when they gave up stating that they treat medical conditions, or implying they treat medical conditions. Call it a brief "fad" if you like, heh. Terryeo 21:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Right, you state, "You didn't "remove an external link reference to Xenu.net", Terryeo. You removed everything on the page that had to do with Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, and used a link to Xenu.net as an excuse for doing so." So the way to do it would be to only remove the link to the personal website, but leave all of the other information intact, right? Terryeo 12:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Is the OCRT the personal website of a Wikipedia editor? Or did I misread your comment? - Will Beback 01:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Would you consider changing your vote to keep the information if it were merged with List of groups referred to as cults or expanded into a broader topic: "The Transition from Cult to Religion." That might make a very interesting wikipedia article. cairoi 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked 192.104.181.229 and 192.104.181.227 for 24 hours. If he resumes his previous behaviour, I will employ longer blocks. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Please respond at Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Removed_one. If in doubt, read Tantra. -- Pjacobi 17:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
While true, that section only really addresses server load. Bypassing redirects is good to reduce chances of having double redirects (which are bad because they make people click an extra link), especially when it's not doing something like [[direct|indirect]], as the link I did was piped anyway (assuming we're talking about the one I did in The Colbert Report, which was the only one I did recently, IIRC. (Interestingly, there was recently a discussion in Wikipedia about this with me arguing the WP:REDIRECT side, but whatever) -- Rory096 04:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I read with interest the discussion re devpt of SRA article. Currently experiencing problems with an article on SRA/moral-panic casualty Peter Ellis. Wonder if you would care to skim read the article and perhaps enter discussion with any ideas on how to the article can move ahead from seeming deadlock.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hugh_McGregor_Ellis#The_case
For background reading see http://www.peterellis.org.nz/
Richard 12:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus, I've just asked all the arb com members who voted on Terryeo's case to take a look at the talk page discussions that suggest Terryeo be banned form Scientology-related talk pages. I suspect it is too late--they may be about to close out the case. If you have any thoughts about ways to get some action on this, and perhaps for dealing with the larger issue of creating policy to guard against "dev-t"-type disruptive behavior, please advise. BTfromLA 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Please be civil with User:24.15.61.184. Egging him on isn't going to help matters any. Thanks! -- Zpb52 17:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This case is closed. Details of the final decision are published at the link above.
For the Arbitration Committee. -- Tony Sidaway 16:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
That was a pretty good edit. I do suggest you change the line 1 to omit the statement that the e-meter "treats" the reactive mind. Each e-meter bears a legend that "By itself, this meter does nothing. It is solely for the guide of Ministers of the Church in Confessionals and pastoral counseling." So the article needs to refer to the auditor's use of the e-meter. I don't agree with your use of the term "body thetan" since it is used nowhere in the Church's websites or literature, but I understand that the "Xenu fans" insist on including that reference, no matter how inaccurate.
But, would you agree that the e-meter is to assist the auditor? dcottle561
Actually, I did not intend to imply that your insertion of "body thetans" was inaccurate. Whether that is, or is not, a part of any Scientology secrets was not my issue. I merely noted that none of the Church of Scientology's websites or publications that I am aware of mention them. By the way, who is Warren McShane? Do you have a reference for his testimony? I'd love to read it. dcottle561 19 May 2006