Welcome!
Hello, Tenebrous, and
welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Longhair 01:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! It truly is a breath of fresh air to have someone on my side. Talking about 'taking it to his user page' that person actually vandalized my user page! Kind of pathetic. --
Miller
00:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tenebrous,
Thanks very much for your contribution to Talk:Dianetics - I found it very helpful in clearing up what it was that Terryeo was trying to suggest. I also agreed with your comments about using Intelligent design as a template for how to treat Dianetics. I've added a section on Dianetics#Dianetics and pseudoscience - I'd be interested to know what you think. BTW, I'm not one of the True Believers, as you might have guessed. :-) -- ChrisO 11:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
All right Tenebrous, I'll post it here rather than the dianetics discussion page because it is kind of long. You do whatever you want with the information. That citation which ChrisO presented and you are questioning happened about 1982. At that time there was a "Guardian's Office" and one of its sub-groups was the "watchdog committe" which created that document. It was an inter-scientology document. About that time there was a single individual, high in the implmentation of the technology of the Church of Scientology who was creating documents and signing them with L. Ron Hubbard's name. The documents he created in that manner had the same force as Hubbard's did. Hubbard was unaware of the duplicity. The membership was unaware of the duplicity. It was about 1982, about that time, that his duplicity was discovered. I think, but I do not know for sure because I was not right on the scene and because it was some time ago, that document ChrisO is citing was created specifically to deal with that situation at that time. The individual I am talking about has since left the Church of Scientology. All of the documents he created and changed in Hubbard's name have since been dealt with. That particular document which ChrisO cites no longer has force (I'm pretty sure because the portion of organization which it was generated under, the Guardian's Office, has since disappeared). The words themselves may be interesting and may spark "dirty interest" but they were never published to the public, they were inter-scientology only and as such, are not wikipedia standard for citation. Does this answer the questions you had about it? I'm trying to be helful here, not slanderous. Terryeo 06:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC) You have asked me about this same document again in the Dianetics talk page? and saw some sort of personal attack? I don't get it, what personal attack ? What did I say here that doesn't explain the situation so that you want more information about it? Terryeo 19:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tenebrous. Sorry about that message I posted in reply to your message under the slander section on the Dianetics talk page. It is late here and time to sleep for me, that is the only excuse I can give for making such a mistake. Have a good night (or day) :) -- JimmyT 12:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't really know what POV forking is, I am simply making a suggestion. I think that you misunderstand my position on the issue. rmosler 12:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Ok, I read through the policy on forking, and now it makes sense. Sorry, I did not realize that was wrong. rmosler 12:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Tenebrous, you said to take up your views on the goal I cited for Dianetics. You said you felt this goal of no insanity and no criminality somehow destroyed "individuality". I assume you mean to talk about Menninger and his belief that everyone is crazy. Spirit of Man 02:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there's no reason that this should even be on wikipedia. The science behind the concept is bad, the device itself claims to do almost nothing, and nothing I've seen gives any indication of notability within any field, with the possible exception of futuristic snake oil devices. User:Tenebrous 03:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Thought you'd like to know that Neurophone is at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neurophone. NickelShoe 18:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Just in case you are not aware, your skeptical desire to NOT have an article on the Neurophone has failed. -- JimmyT 12:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Stating: "This is a personal attack" on the Talk:Dianetics page, you caution me and I appriciate that you do. I honestly don't understand and hope you will enlighten me.
I state that ChrisO makes statements which make a divide. You tell me it is a personal attack. I do not understand.
When other editors state the Bridge Publications is reliable. ChrisO states it is "mostly reliable". I don't understand why my spelling this importance of this difference out is a personal attack.
I honestly ask if we can consider the books which Bridge Publications publishes to be reliable sources from a good quality publisher. My question is straightforward and I sought an answer. ChrisO used the opportunity of my asking to display a line of logic which I had not thought of. He presented it as if it were obvious that I was thinking exactly of what he describes. How does my stating my perception of ChrisO's supposition constitute a personal attack? Terryeo 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to offend, but do you mind shutting up for a while? I refer to your activities on Terryeo's RfC, which I don't believe are helping his cause. You're being antagonistic, which is not a good thing; your points may very well be valid, but you clearly have no idea how to present a reasoned argument, and that's all that anyone is going to listen to. Honestly, I don't think you could be doing worse for Terry if you tried. Tenebrous 11:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
"(thus fulfilling the except by consideration or postulate)" Is stated immediately above where I have restated it. It says, "by consideration or postulate" This is not my opinion, this is a straight restatement, within context, an example of exactly that situation, by consideration or postulate. Exactly, word for word. To call it "my opinion" isn't wrong, certainly that is my opinion. The definition couldn't be more starightforeward. It says, "except by consideration or postulate. That is exactly what happens and why there is confusion where one doctor measure one thing and one doctor measures another thing. What opinion? Its right there. Terryeo 02:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Tenebrous. At Talk:Thetan you stated a characterization of Scientology. "I'd love to see articles on all parts of Scientology, so that hopefully people will look it up here first and find out precisely what it is--dubious good mixed with great evil seems like an apt characterization." Could we talk about that a little? I understand that your immediate reaction is to convince me that is accurate, or alternative your immediate reaction might be "oh boy, here he comes trying to bible-thump at me." But I would like to understand what you mean. What parameters are you using for "dubious good?" are they the opposite end of the scale of the parameters you use for "great evil?" However you reply, if you choose to, I would like to understand, if you are willing, what you mean. Terryeo 16:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Dubious good: a fair amount of anecodatal evidence exists to suggest that Scientology can improve the lives of some people. Perhaps something else could produce even better results? It's entirely subjective. The information (Scientology is good) comes from a highly partisan source (either adherents or the CoS itself) and is therefore dubious. There's also a number of other reasons why it might be considered dubious, but that will do for now.
As for "great evil", I don't really think that I should have to explain that; there are a number of people who you've talked to on Wikipedia who consider the CoS to be evil and have told you why---you should at least have a pretty good idea why someone might consider Scientology to be evil. I don't really like organized religion in general; it's rather dangerous, especially when aligned with the State (cf. USA, Iran). Against Scientology in particular, a good summation can be found in the Times article, as well as various places around Wikipedia, and probably Clambake as well. The actions of the scientologists on Wikipedia have also not led me to favor the group. *shrugs* 137.229.152.246 09:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is the link to the statement [2] by the person at 137.229.152.246 (User:Tenebrous) for future reference and so we don't have to search for it later. -- JimmyT 12:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Tenebrous you may be interested in the personal attacks made against you here File:Glenstollery.gif P O W! 15:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that message was for Tenebrous specifically. Beat it sTrollery. By the way your website is down, whats wrong with you? -- JimmyT 15:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tenebrous, hope your day is cheerful. Could we get into communication about the Dianetics introduction? Several editors are editing the introduction, apparently you see my edits as having been placed "10 times before" and I'm sure willing to talk about an introduction. But editors aren't talking on the talk page about the introduction. I am baffled, myself. I know the subject, a lot of editors don't but though editors don't know the subject they feel their introductions are best. Could you explain that a little, maybe? Not you particularly but there are several editors who do that. And I really don't have a clue about Scientology's "great evil" and would like to talk about that with you too, sometime. Have a good one. Terryeo 14:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I just have a quick comment at present, I'll get to your other messages later. You've stated repeatedly that you want to introduce a subject, then talk about criticism. Well, that's all well and good but there are a couple problems. First that all sections need to be NPOV, and that does not mean that one POV section is balanced by another POV section. Second, a large part of Scientology's notability is because it is controversial. Notability is one of those things that is supposed to be established in the introduction. And finally, when you keep adding something to an article, and other people keep removing it, the solution is not to keep adding it and hope they give up. It's not even to post something about it on the talk page and then keep adding it until someone responds. The solution would be to get at least one of the other editors (besides SpiritofMan) to agree with you, preferably to actually achieve some sort of consensus for the changes. I for one find your removal of the etymology of Dianetics utterly mystifying. Tenebrous 00:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Following the recent Request for Comments on Terryeo's conduct, I've submitted the matter to the Arbitration Committee as a Request for Arbitration (see WP:RFAr#Terryeo). You're welcome to add your name as an involved party if you wish. -- ChrisO 19:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Editing a closed RfC and an RfA which you are not part of strikes me as being a really bad idea. I don't know if it's against policy or not, but something tells me that they don't look favorably on that around here. Tenebrous 07:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for you opinion, when I think it is a good idea. I am currently studying your edit history and too busy to deal with you personally. -- UNK 07:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You are notunderstanding simple english? I am not english and can understand what is the meaning of "I am too busy to deal with you personally" I have not said I would 'deal with' you as you saying : "how precisely do you mean to 'deal with' me?" I will not explain further if you still want to think I am wikiharassing you. You were the one came to me to tell me what I did was a bad idea. So you think I am acting in bad faith? And now straightup throwing it in my face? You are wikiharassing me. -- UNK 07:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Why are you thinking I harass Wikipediatrix? I gave evidence to prove she is dishonest. I gave evidence showing she refused to correct her behavior and instead attacked those who try to correct her. -- UNK 08:36, 31 March 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 are invited to vote at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). The issue of the name has not been resolved and therefore people are now recruiting others to delete. Feel free to make your judgement known, thank you.
Nomen Nescio
21:49, 3 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)
Welcome!
Hello, Tenebrous, and
welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Longhair 01:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! It truly is a breath of fresh air to have someone on my side. Talking about 'taking it to his user page' that person actually vandalized my user page! Kind of pathetic. --
Miller
00:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tenebrous,
Thanks very much for your contribution to Talk:Dianetics - I found it very helpful in clearing up what it was that Terryeo was trying to suggest. I also agreed with your comments about using Intelligent design as a template for how to treat Dianetics. I've added a section on Dianetics#Dianetics and pseudoscience - I'd be interested to know what you think. BTW, I'm not one of the True Believers, as you might have guessed. :-) -- ChrisO 11:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
All right Tenebrous, I'll post it here rather than the dianetics discussion page because it is kind of long. You do whatever you want with the information. That citation which ChrisO presented and you are questioning happened about 1982. At that time there was a "Guardian's Office" and one of its sub-groups was the "watchdog committe" which created that document. It was an inter-scientology document. About that time there was a single individual, high in the implmentation of the technology of the Church of Scientology who was creating documents and signing them with L. Ron Hubbard's name. The documents he created in that manner had the same force as Hubbard's did. Hubbard was unaware of the duplicity. The membership was unaware of the duplicity. It was about 1982, about that time, that his duplicity was discovered. I think, but I do not know for sure because I was not right on the scene and because it was some time ago, that document ChrisO is citing was created specifically to deal with that situation at that time. The individual I am talking about has since left the Church of Scientology. All of the documents he created and changed in Hubbard's name have since been dealt with. That particular document which ChrisO cites no longer has force (I'm pretty sure because the portion of organization which it was generated under, the Guardian's Office, has since disappeared). The words themselves may be interesting and may spark "dirty interest" but they were never published to the public, they were inter-scientology only and as such, are not wikipedia standard for citation. Does this answer the questions you had about it? I'm trying to be helful here, not slanderous. Terryeo 06:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC) You have asked me about this same document again in the Dianetics talk page? and saw some sort of personal attack? I don't get it, what personal attack ? What did I say here that doesn't explain the situation so that you want more information about it? Terryeo 19:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tenebrous. Sorry about that message I posted in reply to your message under the slander section on the Dianetics talk page. It is late here and time to sleep for me, that is the only excuse I can give for making such a mistake. Have a good night (or day) :) -- JimmyT 12:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't really know what POV forking is, I am simply making a suggestion. I think that you misunderstand my position on the issue. rmosler 12:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Ok, I read through the policy on forking, and now it makes sense. Sorry, I did not realize that was wrong. rmosler 12:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Tenebrous, you said to take up your views on the goal I cited for Dianetics. You said you felt this goal of no insanity and no criminality somehow destroyed "individuality". I assume you mean to talk about Menninger and his belief that everyone is crazy. Spirit of Man 02:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there's no reason that this should even be on wikipedia. The science behind the concept is bad, the device itself claims to do almost nothing, and nothing I've seen gives any indication of notability within any field, with the possible exception of futuristic snake oil devices. User:Tenebrous 03:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Thought you'd like to know that Neurophone is at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neurophone. NickelShoe 18:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Just in case you are not aware, your skeptical desire to NOT have an article on the Neurophone has failed. -- JimmyT 12:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Stating: "This is a personal attack" on the Talk:Dianetics page, you caution me and I appriciate that you do. I honestly don't understand and hope you will enlighten me.
I state that ChrisO makes statements which make a divide. You tell me it is a personal attack. I do not understand.
When other editors state the Bridge Publications is reliable. ChrisO states it is "mostly reliable". I don't understand why my spelling this importance of this difference out is a personal attack.
I honestly ask if we can consider the books which Bridge Publications publishes to be reliable sources from a good quality publisher. My question is straightforward and I sought an answer. ChrisO used the opportunity of my asking to display a line of logic which I had not thought of. He presented it as if it were obvious that I was thinking exactly of what he describes. How does my stating my perception of ChrisO's supposition constitute a personal attack? Terryeo 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to offend, but do you mind shutting up for a while? I refer to your activities on Terryeo's RfC, which I don't believe are helping his cause. You're being antagonistic, which is not a good thing; your points may very well be valid, but you clearly have no idea how to present a reasoned argument, and that's all that anyone is going to listen to. Honestly, I don't think you could be doing worse for Terry if you tried. Tenebrous 11:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
"(thus fulfilling the except by consideration or postulate)" Is stated immediately above where I have restated it. It says, "by consideration or postulate" This is not my opinion, this is a straight restatement, within context, an example of exactly that situation, by consideration or postulate. Exactly, word for word. To call it "my opinion" isn't wrong, certainly that is my opinion. The definition couldn't be more starightforeward. It says, "except by consideration or postulate. That is exactly what happens and why there is confusion where one doctor measure one thing and one doctor measures another thing. What opinion? Its right there. Terryeo 02:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Tenebrous. At Talk:Thetan you stated a characterization of Scientology. "I'd love to see articles on all parts of Scientology, so that hopefully people will look it up here first and find out precisely what it is--dubious good mixed with great evil seems like an apt characterization." Could we talk about that a little? I understand that your immediate reaction is to convince me that is accurate, or alternative your immediate reaction might be "oh boy, here he comes trying to bible-thump at me." But I would like to understand what you mean. What parameters are you using for "dubious good?" are they the opposite end of the scale of the parameters you use for "great evil?" However you reply, if you choose to, I would like to understand, if you are willing, what you mean. Terryeo 16:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Dubious good: a fair amount of anecodatal evidence exists to suggest that Scientology can improve the lives of some people. Perhaps something else could produce even better results? It's entirely subjective. The information (Scientology is good) comes from a highly partisan source (either adherents or the CoS itself) and is therefore dubious. There's also a number of other reasons why it might be considered dubious, but that will do for now.
As for "great evil", I don't really think that I should have to explain that; there are a number of people who you've talked to on Wikipedia who consider the CoS to be evil and have told you why---you should at least have a pretty good idea why someone might consider Scientology to be evil. I don't really like organized religion in general; it's rather dangerous, especially when aligned with the State (cf. USA, Iran). Against Scientology in particular, a good summation can be found in the Times article, as well as various places around Wikipedia, and probably Clambake as well. The actions of the scientologists on Wikipedia have also not led me to favor the group. *shrugs* 137.229.152.246 09:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is the link to the statement [2] by the person at 137.229.152.246 (User:Tenebrous) for future reference and so we don't have to search for it later. -- JimmyT 12:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Tenebrous you may be interested in the personal attacks made against you here File:Glenstollery.gif P O W! 15:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that message was for Tenebrous specifically. Beat it sTrollery. By the way your website is down, whats wrong with you? -- JimmyT 15:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tenebrous, hope your day is cheerful. Could we get into communication about the Dianetics introduction? Several editors are editing the introduction, apparently you see my edits as having been placed "10 times before" and I'm sure willing to talk about an introduction. But editors aren't talking on the talk page about the introduction. I am baffled, myself. I know the subject, a lot of editors don't but though editors don't know the subject they feel their introductions are best. Could you explain that a little, maybe? Not you particularly but there are several editors who do that. And I really don't have a clue about Scientology's "great evil" and would like to talk about that with you too, sometime. Have a good one. Terryeo 14:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I just have a quick comment at present, I'll get to your other messages later. You've stated repeatedly that you want to introduce a subject, then talk about criticism. Well, that's all well and good but there are a couple problems. First that all sections need to be NPOV, and that does not mean that one POV section is balanced by another POV section. Second, a large part of Scientology's notability is because it is controversial. Notability is one of those things that is supposed to be established in the introduction. And finally, when you keep adding something to an article, and other people keep removing it, the solution is not to keep adding it and hope they give up. It's not even to post something about it on the talk page and then keep adding it until someone responds. The solution would be to get at least one of the other editors (besides SpiritofMan) to agree with you, preferably to actually achieve some sort of consensus for the changes. I for one find your removal of the etymology of Dianetics utterly mystifying. Tenebrous 00:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Following the recent Request for Comments on Terryeo's conduct, I've submitted the matter to the Arbitration Committee as a Request for Arbitration (see WP:RFAr#Terryeo). You're welcome to add your name as an involved party if you wish. -- ChrisO 19:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Editing a closed RfC and an RfA which you are not part of strikes me as being a really bad idea. I don't know if it's against policy or not, but something tells me that they don't look favorably on that around here. Tenebrous 07:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for you opinion, when I think it is a good idea. I am currently studying your edit history and too busy to deal with you personally. -- UNK 07:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You are notunderstanding simple english? I am not english and can understand what is the meaning of "I am too busy to deal with you personally" I have not said I would 'deal with' you as you saying : "how precisely do you mean to 'deal with' me?" I will not explain further if you still want to think I am wikiharassing you. You were the one came to me to tell me what I did was a bad idea. So you think I am acting in bad faith? And now straightup throwing it in my face? You are wikiharassing me. -- UNK 07:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Why are you thinking I harass Wikipediatrix? I gave evidence to prove she is dishonest. I gave evidence showing she refused to correct her behavior and instead attacked those who try to correct her. -- UNK 08:36, 31 March 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 are invited to vote at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). The issue of the name has not been resolved and therefore people are now recruiting others to delete. Feel free to make your judgement known, thank you.
Nomen Nescio
21:49, 3 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)