User talk:Antaeus Feldspar/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On Psychotronics

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

Categories

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)

Well, I think there may be a misunderstanding here: I'm not saying that "speculative fiction IS science fiction", I'm saying that because "science fiction" is a subset of "speculative fiction", and thus "science fiction novels" is a subset of "speculative fiction novels", that it isn't necessary to say "this article falls into the category of "speculative fiction novels" -- because if you've already said "it falls into the category of "science fiction novels", it goes without saying. To give another example: Statue of Liberty is in Category:Landmarks in New York City; Category:Landmarks in New York City is a sub-category of Category:New York landmarks ; therefore Statue of Liberty doesn't need to be in Category:New York landmarks as well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

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)

Lena Zavaroni/Civility

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)

Yes, I do think you're wrong, on two counts: you're wrong to think that it's acceptable to call other Wikipedia editors "deeply retarded" or "a pervert of some kind" based on the phrasing of a single sentence; even calling it "bullshit wording" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Secondly, it is particularly bizarre to think such a strong reaction is somehow justified by the difference between "She began to suffer from what we now know as anorexia nervosa in 1979." and "She began to suffer from anorexia nervosa in 1979." Both are perfectly acceptable wordings and neither justifies the attacks on the wording, much less the attacks on the editor. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology

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 - Glen T C 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Neologisms

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)

Reversions without discussion

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)

Terryeo, someone who didn't know you might think you actually meant what you said about wanting things to be "appropriately cited". But the fact is that you have been known to request citations and then, once you receive them, remove them -- on more than one occasion. That is, in fact, just a small sample of the kind of behavior that has led to the current RfC on you. Please don't insult us both by pretending that you actually just want the paragraph "appropriately cited". -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed question

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)

Personal Websites as Secondary Sources

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)

Terryeo, among the material you dishonestly removed citations to the 1957 Martin Gardner book Fads and Fallacies In the Name of Science.[1] I have a hard copy of that book resting on my right thigh right now as I type these words. Your presumption that any citation to the book can be removed because the chapter on Dianetics happens to be available online, and I might have been working from that copy of the text, and that copy of the text might contain a transcription error, and that transcription error might potentially alter the meaning of what's cited, is quite frankly idiotic.
If you actually read WP:RS instead of cherry-picking out little bits and pieces you can misapply to waste people's time with, you'd realize that WP:RS allows editors to do their own transcriptions when the original is available for the transcription to be checked. If Andreas Heldal-Lund were to come to Wikipedia himself, he could transcribe relevant material from a copy of Fads and Fallacies into an article, and that would in no way contravene WP:RS. Are you still going to nonsensically assert that because Heldal-Lund did his transcription onto his own website instead of directly onto Wikipedia, that any citation which comes from that book must be removed because one of the sources from which the person inserting the citation could have gotten the text might have been Heldal-Lund's transcription stored on a "personal website"? You have no excuse. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
You raise a valid issue when it comes to citing sources for published works. The only lasting good I've done on here is to get "personal websites" and particularly Xenu before the arbitrators whom are voting on its use in Wikipedia articles. The rule is, as you know, no personal websites may be used as secondary sources. You raise a valid issue because your original research which rested on your thigh when you posted, tells you how accurate that particular article is. But I'm not longer a person of consequence in your arguement that Xenu.net may be used as a source of any information within any article. The arbitration committee is your terminal to communicate with. Terryeo 23:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
"your original research which rested on your thigh" -- you know, at this point, I really can't blame you if you're trying to create the impression that you're a complete incompetent who has no idea in hell what he's doing. That is, after all, the only other possible explanation for your behavior besides "a completely untrustworthy liar." However, at this point, you really should comprehend what "original research" actually is and why Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science really pretty utterly fails to meet that description. If you actually don't comprehend it by now, it should give pause to anyone who thinks Dianetics does good things for your IQ. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, a little hint to you: Editing other people's words on a talk page is not permissible. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I did that. Terryeo 23:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo a-go-go

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)

Yep, that's the situation. I'm banned from editing in the articles for a while. However, the issue which has long driven the difficulties in the articles is also being confronted and will be voted on by the administrators. Fahrenheit451 attempted to modify WP:RS to suit his fancy, placed a racial slur on an experienced editor's page whom was communicating with him on that talk page and Vivaldi has engaged to modify WP:RS as well. The issue, "are personal pages allowed as secondary sources in Scientology articles" is at last being confronted. The administrators can argue it out, we've spent months with it. By the Way, Feldspar, I deleted your post form my page because you used invective language. And let stand what was real communication. This isn't an uncommon practice on here and I'm not the only one who does it. One more point, BRfromLA's idea of simply ignoring what isn't liked, so that 2 sides become more and more enbrittled isn't going to be a fruitful idea. Terryeo 19:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
By the Way, Feldspar, I deleted your post form my page because you used invective language. And let stand what was real communication. Blatantly false. I pointed out to you that the information you removed was from sources that would be perfectly acceptable if they were mirrored nowhere on the Web, and that common sense pointed out that such a source did not become unacceptable if a "personal website" chose to mirror it. You removed that, as well. You weren't concerned about "invective language", Mr. "Beanbrain-Dogfood-Idiot"; you just thought you could use "invective language" as a plausible excuse. What a pity for you that you have no idea just how pitifully implausible your excuses really are. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
ah, I see. You would rather bring that one up than move on. well, okay then. Terryeo 11:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
"move on"? The state of affairs I would like to "move on" to is one where you no longer waste the time of contributors who are actually acting in good faith. Thankfully, it doesn't look like that's too far off. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
More Office of Special Affairs smear tactics from you Terryeo. Where and what was this alleged racial slur you accuse me of? Looks like you are acting as a "third party" to pit editors against each other. Vivaldi and I have every right to edit. You are condemning us for that now. --Fahrenheit451 02:47, 25 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. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 19:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's the way I've been doing it. Removing by deletion old chat. On more rare occassion I removed personal attack or uncivil language. Yep, that's a good example Terryeo 00:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Editing other people's words, removing chunks right out from the middle without so much as an edit summary to explain that what is on the page is not what those people actually said -- I'm not sure I'd call it a good example, but it certainly is in keeping with your general habits! -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
It was better than the emotionally invective foul language you used. Terryeo 23:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
No. It was not better. What you did was underhanded and dishonest, and while personal attacks are to be avoided, they are a hundred times better than sneaky selective editing like yours. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
all righty then, you prefer it otherwise, I have duplicated your preference in the area. Fine, good. Terryeo 11:35, 30 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)

<blink> Terryeo 23:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The correct information about Dianetics

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)

Sorry, but you're incorrect. The Church of Scientology still publishes Hubbard's claims that auditing will cure physical conditions, and not as a historical curiosity, but as a current claim of "this is what Dianetics can do for you". If you want to verify it, you can find it the same way I did, on the first page of Google results for "Dianetics" and "arthritis". You can even find video of Scientologists making the claim if you like: [4]. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I see, you cite "xenu.tv" as a source for your statement. OK. Well, the Dianetics website might be able to tell the public what Dianetics treats, probably. They don't present that information. Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 19:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I cite Scientology Missions International as a source for my statement. What, didn't you read what I wrote, or were you too lazy to Google on "Dianetics" and "arthritis" as I said and find the proof you (weren't) looking for on the very first page of results? The video evidence of a Scientologist stating on camera that Dianetics cured her mother's arthritis was just offered as langniappe. =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that a man who can use words like "reprehensible" can't observe the difference between, "Dianetics treats arthritis as a regular practice" and "Jane Smith, on Dec 22, stated 'Dianetics treated my mother's arthritis' and she is happy about it". Miscaviage stated his allergies were treated, there have been many personal attestations. But Dianetics doesn't treat medical conditions. It confuses me that it is an issue at all. 65.146.33.28 19:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Oppsy, I seem not be logged in. Terryeo

Martin Gardner

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)

No, the way to do it would be to leave it alone. I mean, not for you, of course, since your objective is maximum disruption of the encyclopedia, but it's clear to anyone who's actually thinking about it that if there is clear reference information that would allow anyone to look up the original if they chose, adding a convenience link does no harm at all, and that is why such convenience links are in fact recommended in the style guides which you should have read. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
My intention is to "maximize disruption?" That verges on a personal attack, Feldspar. Apparently you still consider that it is perfectly okay to go to a personal website and quote a book, document or paper, insert it into an article and provide the link to the personal website it is on. That procedure puts Wikipedia into a less reputable situation than to quote and cite the same information from a website which is not either a personal website, nor a blog, nor a newsgroup. You notice, the procedure which I mentions would cause Wikipedia to be more stable, secure, its links more well established, the articles on such sites more dependable, etc. etc. rather than the "disruption" which you state is my intent and which sounds very much like a personal attack, it assuming bad faith. But, that one, for now, I'll let it go without initiating a personal attack procedure. :) Terryeo 02:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, I am not "assuming" bad faith. I am deducing bad faith from the copious evidence you have given us which has no other possible explanation other than your bad faith, including making knowingly false claims about myself and other editors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OCRT

Is the OCRT the personal website of a Wikipedia editor? Or did I misread your comment? -Will Beback 01:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

OCRT isn't the personal website of a Wikipedia editor (at least, if Bruce Robinson edits Wikipedia, I've never heard of him doing so) but it certainly seems to me to be a personal website in the sense meant by WP:RS: the content, while well-written and occasionally insightful, has not been published by a reputable source. It's simply the personal opinions of the site owner, formatted in an academic style. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, now I see I was misreading you. Thanks for the clarification. -Will Beback 01:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you goint to remove the OCRT references from the List of groups referred to as cults? cairoi 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religions once classed as cults...

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)

Muhlenberg anon

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)

Thank you. As the primary target of his harassment, I of course fully support those blocks -- hopefully he'll learn his lesson, and further blocks won't be needed ... -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Tantrism

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)

On bypassing redirects

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)

SRA

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)

Terryeo's talk page ban

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)

Be civil!

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)

I'm sorry if it seemed an uncivil way to express to him that vandalism wasn't helping his case. I've tried merely ignoring him in the past, but if that had worked, well, he wouldn't have come back for another spree. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

This case is closed. Details of the final decision are published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

your last edit of Scientology medical claims

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

Well, I thank you for your compliment and your polite approach. I looked at the introduction and didn't see a need for the E-meter to be mentioned in the summary, so I removed it. I agree that it is technically correct to say that Scientologists don't claim the E-meter itself can diagnose any medical condition or apply any treatment. I also think that it is highly misleading to stress that particular point. The Church of Scientology is still publishing Hubbard's claims that coronary disease, arthritis, high blood pressure, the common cold and other ailments are really just problems created by the reactive mind. The Church is still claiming that problems caused by the reactive mind can be cured by auditing. The Church freely admits that the E-meter is an assist to the process of auditing. The Church insisting that the E-meter 'doesn't treat anything' is like a builder insisting that his carpenter's level doesn't build any buildings. Stating that the level itself doesn't build anything is accurate. Implying that it isn't used in the process is not.
As for the issue of body thetans, why are you so sure that you have the accurate information on them? That's an honest question: unless you are on the other side of the Bridge already, you know that your religion still has secrets that you won't be allowed to learn until you've done more auditing and are ready. Why are you so sure that this isn't among them? Even if you decide that you don't believe all the former Scientologists who have said "Yes, I went through the OT III levels, and yes, they do talk about X--- and Teegeeack and body thetans", then why don't you believe the testimony that Warren McShane provided in court as Scientology's witness, not only confirming the story of X--- and the volcanoes and the body thetans but claiming that it had never been secret? Please, if you can explain to me, I'd love to know: why are you so sure that references to body thetans are "inaccurate" when you don't know whether they're accurate or not? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Oh, I'm sorry. That's what I thought you were trying to imply when you added "no matter how inaccurate" to the end of your sentence. As for the question "who is Warren McShane?" -- well, at the time he testified in Civil Action No. 95B2143 [Sep 1995], Religious Technology Center, Plaintiff, vs. F.A.C.T.NET, INC., et al., Defendants, he was Deputy Inspector General of Legal Affairs for the Religious Technology Center. Up to about September 2005, he was Deputy Inspector General of External Affairs. After about September 2005, however, his name, along with that of Marty Rathbun, started being removed from official Scientology sites as if the two had never held such high-ranking positions. If you go to http://faq.scientology.org/page18a.htm you'll see Miscavige and Rathbun and McShane, listed as the RTC Board of Directors. Then try to find any mention of McShane on the RTC website or any acknowledgement he was ever there. Then try this search on Google: 'site:rtc.org "Deputy Inspector General"' It looks like not only McShane but even the position he held have just ... disappeared.
McShane was with the Church since 1973 -- more than three decades. He's been a major executive of the Church since 1983 -- more than two decades. Now he's been written out of the Church's version of history. After over twenty years of service, he's been disappeared with barely a trace left here and there. Maybe you can explain for me, because I honestly am curious: how do you deal with knowing your Church will do things like that? Do you just say, "Well, they must have done it to him because he was secretly an SP all those decades, and they'd never do anything like that to me because I'm not Suppressive"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar/Archive_13&oldid=1139843108"