| Revision as of 10:23, 11 February 2006 editJimmyT (talk | contribs)516 edits →Dianetics← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:29, 11 February 2006 edit undoEssjay (talk | contribs)21,413 edits →Dianetics: Extend, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/DianeticsNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| * No specific concerns abut the content include talk page that is 87 kilobytes long. Common use of term which is presented is not the same as its use in the article. ] 07:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | * No specific concerns abut the content include talk page that is 87 kilobytes long. Common use of term which is presented is not the same as its use in the article. ] 07:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===Dianetics=== | |||
| Requesting mediation between ]/]/]/] and ] concerning various issues regarding ]. These include: | |||
| * should Dianetics be treated as a pseudoscience (and therefore subject to ]), or should it be presented as a scientific theory? | |||
| *:no to both of those, but several editors won't talk about how to treat it.] 17:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:No to pseudoscience. I disagree with the "or" questin that implies no other recourse. I have answered the 8 precepts of a science, and no one has refuted the discussion. The pseudoscience section should be removed from the article and the pseudoscience treatment applied to the article and discussion should be withdrawn. ] 02:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * is it POV to apply ], ] etc to Dianetics? (A recent addition of a template citing these policies , taken from the top of ], has been repeatedly deleted from ] on the grounds of being "POV".) | |||
| *:those policies are perfect, the problem with the template was that it ruled out discussions religion and theory, confining the whole article to only one POV, pseudoscience. ] 17:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)come to think of it, rather than object to the confinements of the template, I modified the template to possibly include additional discussion areas (religion, theory).] 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:To insist others use these policies, and then continuously do destructive POV actions oneself in violation of them is not the intented use of the policies. The calling parties have been doing this. ] 18:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * should scientifically unverified results presented by L. Ron Hubbard ''et al'' be presented as hard facts in the article? | |||
| *:the results you mention should be presented alongside other results, there is room for both if properly presented. One group's study, another group's study.] 17:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:The eight precepts of a science do not require scientific review or approval of the subject. The article is about Dianetics. L. Ron Hubbard is the primary author of the materials of the subject. If he or his books are cited that does not suddenly imply "hard facts", that is a personal POV. A citation is merely a citation not a hard fact. ] 02:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:How are they being presented as hard facts? I just realized Misplaced Pages's own policies imply that it doesn't present facts but statements that can be verified as not original research: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." ]. I find this a seriously illogical policy for an Encyclopedia. Should we continue to contribute to this "tabloid" ??? --] 10:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The answer to these may seem obvious to most editors, but we are having severe problems trying to reach any agreement with Terryeo. This may be due in part to editorial inexperience (joined 7 December 2005) and a lack of experience editing anything other than Scientology-related articles , concerning which he has a strong POV. I believe that the problem ''may'' be resolvable with some independent advice from a mediator, preferably one with some understanding of the nature of science (as this is a key question). Assistance would be much appreciated. -- ] 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:: I'm not so sure that science is actually the main question in the article. ChrisO has used more than one, unpublished, slanderous sort of citation which doesn't contribute to editor cooperation. ] 06:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I agree that user conduct is actually the key part of this dispute, but the user conduct in question is Terryeo's. It not only includes highly partisan characterizations such as accusing ChrisO of using a "slanderous sort of citation" but also making at least two accusations against other editors that Terryeo was completely aware were false. -- ] 15:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I'll be real specific. ChrisO cited an unpublished, legally protected, Church of Scientology, confidential Class VIII document with the challenging tone: "You really think that nobody outside the Church of Scientology has read those lectures? ''You'' may be bound by religious prohibitions, but that's certainly not true for non-Scientologists. -- ] 11:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)" "] 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Thank you for being specific enough that it discloses the lack of merit to your complaint. Please explain where the "slander" is in there? -- ] 01:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Sure Feldspar. By "slanderous" I mean to specify two things. One, the challenging tone ChrisO uses and more importantly, the attitude ChrisO brings to the table. ] spells out what a citable source is. There are plenty of citeable sources for this subject. An unpublished document is slanderous if it is a confidential or secret document. This puts wikipedia into the area of expose' reporting rather than encyclopedic creation.] 07:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::: I've got news for you: that doesn't even come ''close'' to the definition of ]. ] 15:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::: See below. ] 18:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I posted to the Discussion that the Xenu material was malicious and explained to Wikipediatrix that she should not represent the beliefs of high-level Scientologsists in this way and should not remove the copyright and artwork symbols that protect the book cover. She removed these things and posted 3 or 5 references to additional malicious and damaging websites that should be made known to the copyright holders according to Wiki policy. I presented that no where in Scientology published materials is any mention of Xenu details or these malicious details that tend to restimulate people excessively. She finally removed the material under this pressure but Calton removed the copyright protection symbols again and displayed all the malicious materials again. ChrisO's citation was intended to be a refutation in support of keeping the malicious and damaging Xenu details that are truthfully not published in any Scientology materials. His actions meet all of the legal requirements for "slander" or "libel" if you will. This is my opinion. If you would like an opinion from the owners of the rights please feel free to ask them and present these details. ] 02:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::I'm sorry, I'm missing something. You say "His actions meet all of the legal requirements for "slander" or "libel" if you will" but there is a very important legal requirement under United States law without which nothing can qualify as slander or libel, and that is that the statements in question must be knowingly false or made with malicious disregard for the truth. You keep harping on "malicious, malicious" but that is simply not enough to support your claims. Where is the untruth? You yourself have just ''affirmed'' that Scientology doctrine talks about Xenu by expressing the belief that details about Xenu "restimulate people excessively", but even if you didn't, you face the little problem that Scientology's own witness Warren McShane testified in court to the contents of OT III and even to the connection between the "75 million years ago incident" and the volcano on the cover of Dianetics. Are you seriously claiming that ChrisO acted with "malicious disregard for the truth" by ... trusting Scientology's witness not to perjure himself on the witness stand? -- ] 02:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::You and ChrisO and Wikipediatrix and Calton, have no authorization from L. Ron Hubbard to publish any of his works. Do you agree this is true? You specifically do not have the right to use these details he has refused to give publically, because they could harm. He specifically states there are details that can lead to booby-traps that can harm or kill people. Do want to harm people? If you don't you shouldn't be messing with any of this. If you credit him, you can't use what you posted. His name and Dianetics, are protected by the copyright symbols you removed. You have no right to represent the beliefs of high-level Scientologists and say they have authorized you do these malicious things in disregard for the truth. You have no rights to publish anything in or about the Class VIII course or the OT III courses of the Church of Scientology. None of these sources has given you permission to do so. Do you agree this is true? They have never given anyone permission to do so for good reasons. They never gave Warren McShane that type authorization. He was in court under oath, I don’t think he had much discretion in what he could not say. Scientology has never published the details of the materials you keep placing, and replacing maliciously with disregard. Those details are harmful and you shouldn't want to use them in this way. You do agree you intend them to be harmful to L. Ron Hubbard, the Church of Scientology, Bridge Publications and Scientologists, as well as the general public? To alter previous citations to make newspapers and others cite L. Ron Hubbard as if he is disclosing them is malicious disregard. To persist in presenting the materials, the off-site references and even continuing this discussion with those materials posted is "a malicious disregard for the truth." This is my opinion. Do you have any doubt this is true and that you folks have been intentionally acting in callous disregard for the harm you are doing or that could result? All references to "Xenu" details should be removed on Misplaced Pages. ] 18:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Here is what I agree and do not agree with: | |||
| *:::::::::*''You and ChrisO and Wikipediatrix and Calton, have no authorization from L. Ron Hubbard to publish any of his works.'' That's literally correct, but whether we ''need'' any such authorization is a different matter. | |||
| *:::::::::*''You specifically do not have the right to use these details he has refused to give publically, because they could harm.'' I do not agree that they could harm. I realize that this is a belief of your religion, but that does not obligate me to believe it or act as if I believed it. | |||
| *:::::::::*''He specifically states there are details that can lead to booby-traps that can harm or kill people.'' Yes, he specifically states that. I don't believe it to be true. I believe it to be an excuse that Hubbard invented to explain why Scientologists should not be allowed to learn the doctrines of their own religion until they were "ready". | |||
| *:::::::::*''Do want to harm people? If you don't you shouldn't be messing with any of this.'' As I already said, I do not hold the same religious beliefs you do, and I am not obligated to do so either. | |||
| *:::::::::*''If you credit him, you can't use what you posted. His name and Dianetics, are protected by the copyright symbols you removed.'' You are showing a confusion between two completely separate areas of law: trademark law, and copyright law. I don't think someone who doesn't know the difference between those two is someone qualified to pronounce what is prohibited by them. | |||
| *:::::::::*''You have no right to represent the beliefs of high-level Scientologists and say they have authorized you do these malicious things in disregard for the truth.'' These are three separate statements. I have never said that high-level Scientologists have authorized me to talk about Scientology. I completely disagree that I ''need'' authorization from high-level Scientologists to talk about Scientology. As for whether they are "malicious things in disregard for the truth", the intent of that standard is to discourage people from thinking "If I make it up off the top of my head and don't make any efforts to see whether it's true or false, I can't get in trouble because I didn't ''know'' it was false." Your idea that it is acting with malicious disregard for the truth to rely on (or just to ''relay'') testimony given by Scientology's witness in court is frankly wishful thinking on your part, rather than reality. | |||
| *:::::::::*''You have no rights to publish anything in or about the Class VIII course or the OT III courses of the Church of Scientology.'' Incorrect. My rights to publish what is ''in'' those courses -- that is, the actual text -- may be limited, but thanks to the doctrine of fair use, it is absolutely incorrect to say that I have no rights to publish anything in those materials. As for publishing anything ''about'' them, you are absolutely incorrect that I have no rights in that area. You seem to be operating under the misconception that the right to discuss Scientology can only be granted by Scientology's permission. | |||
| *:::::::::*''None of these sources has given you permission to do so. Do you agree this is true?'' I agree that they haven't given permission and have already explained that I don't need their permission. | |||
| *:::::::::*''They have never given anyone permission to do so for good reasons.'' I agree that they may have never given anyone permission and I express my doubt that their reasons were "good", at least in the sense of "morally good" or even "in a spirit of enlightened self-interest". | |||
| *:::::::::*''They never gave Warren McShane that type authorization.'' Why do you think this matters? Warren McShane was called as a witness, to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. That isn't trumped by the rules of a private organization like Scientology; even if Scientology had specifically ''denied'' McShane "authorization" to answer questions about the OT levels, he still had to answer the questions put to him truthfully or be in contempt of court. | |||
| *:::::::::*''He was in court under oath, I don’t think he had much discretion in what he could not say.'' Here, again, you are confusing ''two completely separate things'' -- what Scientology ''wants'' people to know, and what is the ''truth''. I have no doubt at all that Scientology never wanted those things to come out in court in the first place but ''their want'' doesn't determine what's legal and doesn't determine what's true. | |||
| *:::::::::*''Scientology has never published the details of the materials you keep placing, and replacing maliciously with disregard.'' Again, you're mistakenly assuming that the only way information can be true, or legal to print, is if Scientology ''wants'' it to be known. | |||
| *:::::::::*''Those details are harmful and you shouldn't want to use them in this way.'' Again, "those details are harmful" is a statement of your religious beliefs, and my religious beliefs are far different. | |||
| *:::::::::*''You do agree you intend them to be harmful to L. Ron Hubbard, the Church of Scientology, Bridge Publications and Scientologists, as well as the general public?'' Fully disagree, of course. I don't believe there's a single bit of harm to the general public in anything I say about Xenu; I don't believe in Dianetic engrams, period, let alone that there are engrams of you-know-who out there waiting to be 're-stimulated'. I think the general public is better served by knowing what is in those OT levels ''before'' they pay large amounts of money to have the CoS tell them. Of course, they ''may'' be harmful to L. Ron Hubbard, the Church of Scientology, and Bridge Publications -- if the prospective customers of Scientology find out what they're really in for before they buy. | |||
| *:::::::::*''To alter previous citations to make newspapers and others cite L. Ron Hubbard as if he is disclosing them is malicious disregard.'' As explained before, I think you are conflusing "malicious disregard for the truth" and "malicious disregard for what L. Ron Hubbard and his successors would want". As for "alter previous citations", well, so far I've been able to guess how you've confused "true" with "permission from Scientology" and trademark law with copyright law but here I can't even guess what you're misdescribing because it's so far from reality. | |||
| *:::::::::*''To persist in presenting the materials, the off-site references and even continuing this discussion with those materials posted is "a malicious disregard for the truth."'' You have not presented ''one single shred of evidence'' relevant to whether or not it is the truth. All you've done is argue that Scientology doesn't ''want'' people to know these things, which is agreed but irrelevant. | |||
| *:::::::::*''This is my opinion. Do you have any doubt this is true and that you folks have been intentionally acting in callous disregard for the harm you are doing or that could result? '' It's more like "Do I have any doubt that it's ''not'' true?" to which the answer is "No, I have ''no'' doubt that it's not true." I do not subscribe to your religion; I do not believe that certain information which also just happens to be embarrassing to Scientology will restimulate engrams, or that there are any engrams at all to restimulate, or that there is any harm whatsoever that would result. I have not been acting in callous disregard for harm just because I have not followed one religion's views that reading the Xenu story in anything other than a paid-for course or in Hubbard's ''Revolt in the Stars'' script will do harm. | |||
| *:::::::::*''All references to "Xenu" details should be removed on Misplaced Pages.'' I thank you very much for illustrating why doing so would be unjustified. -- ] 21:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Fair Use permits you to cite documents in Misplaced Pages, but not those which are unverifiable.--] 10:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I am seriously saying that ChrisO has defied ] more than once. He once modified ] to justify his action (later reverted) and he has since cited documents from the long past (1982) which were never published and which are most certainly unavailable. Yet he cites them as if it is incumbant upon the reader to find them. In addition, many of his other citations are poorly formatted and poorly presented. As another example, he uses 2 different copies of ], apparently written in different languages but I'm not sure of that. ChrisO is editing in ways which prevent collaberative editing, rather than working toward collaberative editing.] 07:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::So you are saying that though you accused ChrisO of slander, you cannot support that accusation; you can only accuse him of other things. -- ] 18:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Since the ] was made public in two different court cases, it's pretty ridiculous to still maintain the Xenu material was never printed or published by Scientology. And to say I removed the Xenu contents from the article "under pressure" is an understatement, since you made extremely sinister-sounding and legal threats against Misplaced Pages. ] 14:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:In the spirit of disclosure and fairness when assigning strong POVs, it will be useuful to ask Modemac and his friend Fledspar about <i>their</i> strong POVs in regard of Scientology. Or is it that they claim have no such POV? --] 03:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *::38.119.107.81, do we know you better under some other name? -- ] 04:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : It should be noted that Terryeo has taken to quoting and interpreting Misplaced Pages policy very broadly to support his arguments. Consequently he is accusing the four editors listed above (including myself, and including ChrisO) of egregious violations of policy, at least when it suits him. --] 01:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since Modemac has commented, I'll comment also. I have occassionaly stated when someone is at fault and stated how and why. That is true as far as it goes. I have been working toward "how to present the information which comprises Dianetics" for some while. Several of us have begin to see ChrisO, Modemac and a couple of other editors are only willing to present it as "pseudoscience" in the manner of ]. While I am willing to have a portion of the ] article be treated in that manner, I believe there are religious aspects as well. At least one other editor and myself have agreed the information might be treated as theory, ] because there are associated concepts of "engram", etc. Apparently ChrisO so stongly disagrees with this idea that he is unwilling to discuss the idea. It was on that note (from my understanding) that he submitted to mediation. It was my impression we were all communicating on some level and *poof* its in mediation.] 02:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::One more comment, the sequence of events at they happened. Several of us were working toward an agreement of how to treat the information which comprises Dianetics. ChrisO entered and saw the discussion and stated it should be presented as pseudoscience. He then posted the template that denys any other method of treating the subject except as pseudoscience. No Theory, no religion, nothing but your ChrisO's POV on the subject. That being the case, when I persisted (as per earlier agreements) with "theory" and the possibility of "religion" ChrisO submitted to mediation.] 03:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree that Terryeo is the problem. The above group represents an extreme POV. I refer the mediation to the comments of Wikipediatrix referring to me in association with Charles Manson, serial killers, etc, with a view to saying that her intention is that I should have no say on Misplaced Pages. She had just deleted the entire contents of the Philosophy of Dianetics section I had revised a third time after two deletions by Antaeus without prior discussion, or any discussion at that point. She did not discuss but made it a pronouncement. ChrisO has recently deleted the entire article and replaced it with own version of things. Modemec then repeatedly deleted edits to that even after discussion. I think the problem is this group, not Terryeo. As to pseudoscience, I have presented test results from the Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation published as the Introduction to ]. ChrisO then deleted that and rewrote his own version as from a survey rather than a study, and then providing a fanzine article that disputed the survey. I presented the facts of 50,000 or so Clears as the results of Dianetics. It is not pseudoscience and should not characterized from an extreme POV only. As to NPOV I think the above group uses it as an overt banner only to wave when in fact they are covertly acting as Wikipediatrix has outlined. Denying neutrality and stretching the POV of the article further and further to direction of Clambake.com and Xenu.com and other sites that have been shutdown by legal actions. As to "hard facts" this a common comment by Antaeus. He deletes a sections repetitively without Discussion then days later claims that I intended this when I did not. He may have some kind of a point but shouldn't it be discussed then revised with a "he said" or citation or change in the wording, instead of wholesale repetitive deletions without discussion? ] 03:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''"they are covertly acting as Wikipediatrix has outlined"'''? I have no idea what you are talking about, please explain. ] 00:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think such explainations should be in the Discussion area, but since your arn't discussing there, here goes. Antaeus deleted my two philosophy edits per BTfromLA's request without discussion, you then deleted a third edit without discussion and made an alarming statement without discussing it either. This is the first line from your statement: "Just because there are two sides to any issue doesn't mean these two sides get equal time." In the context of that time it looked like you two were making a point of denying me any view whatsoever. Then you went on with your statement: "To use an extreme example, we don't give serial killers like Charles Ng benefit of the doubt and devote many paragraphs to the notion that maybe Ng had good reason to torture and kill all those women." It seems to me you are assuming an extreme viewpoint and comparing me to this serial killer in a context of torture and killing women. Continuing on with your statement, "Scientology and Dianetics are similarly EXTREMELY controversial matters and the long string of veriafiable and proven misdeeds by the Church" I note you have provided me with no such data previously and offered me no rebuttal here. I posted a rebuttle but you did not discuss. "(who are we supposed to believe, Time Magazine or Spirit of Man?) means that like it or not, it is NOT being unfair to weigh an article towards these FACTS and against the philosophical opinions of the subject, or the subject's adherents." To me this says you consider your beliefs as stated here as FACTS sufficient to deny me access to Misplaced Pages on this issue. "This isn't picking on Scientologists - the same goes for Moonies, Heaven's Gate disciples, Jim Jones followers, Charles Manson devotees, Anton LaVey Satanists, Branch Davidians, and any other group that attracts pathologically contentious fans. wikipediatrix 14:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)" You have compared me to Charles Manson and Satanists, and as a pathologically contentious fan. You state this view is your justification why it not unfair of you to deny me any right to post my philosphical edits. You state this from the context of an edict that you have refused to discuss. This seems the same plan that Antaeus had used in the two earlier reversions. And the same plan ChrisO had used when deleting all edits with his rewrite of the entire article without discussion, that deleted all attempts to fairly represent two sides. It is true Antaeus has made entries on these matters just before the mediation started, but one has to ask, was that to soften the view for mediator review or make amends for a mistake? Please continue this in the Discussion area. ] 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Reverting your poorly-written, improperly-sourced, unencyclopedic philosophical ramblings is NOT "denying you access to Misplaced Pages", and I'm only one among a dozen other editors who have reverted your edits. And you've deliberately taken my "both sides don't necessarily get equal time" quote out of context: I then went on to explain that we don't give, say, ] equal time to give his own POV that murder is okay. We don't say "although some critics have stated otherwise, Bundy's perspective was that random killings of young women were justified", and then go on to devote many paragraphs to his personal philosophy. In so illustrating, I am not "comparing" Scientology to Ted Bundy, Satanists, etc. but it often takes an extreme example to properly make a point. Scientology has been embroiled in so many controversies, crimes, and court cases over the decades that it would be misleading and whitewashing to give Scientology the POV "benefit of the doubt" that you want. ] 20:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think Misplaced Pages ''Tricks'' should provide exact reference of what he means by "poorly-written..." otherwise his rambling entry should be viewed as a personal attack upon ]. --] 23:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Wikipediatrix, if that was your view you should have discussed it so the material could be revised. You didn't "revert" the material to any of the previous three states, you deleted an entire section. You "say" you are not comparing me to killers, but you blindly do exactly that here again under scrutiny. I did not present "personal" philosophy, I used citations from Dianetics books and honored the content there. You now attempt to mask your actual intention and responsibility by saying others do it and imply I'm asking for a "benefit of the doubt" by pointing out a representative misconduct here where you are a party to calling for the mediation. I believe this representative misconduct overt or covert, by the calling parties is the heart of the matter, not Terryeo. Terryeo is just defending against all this in his own way. ] 02:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::On many occassions I've felt Wikipediatrix reverted my edits and used the excuse "POV" simply because I had made an edit. I've also seen her gloat in anticipation that she would soon revert Spirit of Man's philosphy when she saw it.] 07:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Even if I did compare Dianetics to Ted Bundy in a sense which implied similarity (which I didn't), '''you are not Dianetics''', so by what arrogant osmosis do you arrive at the notion that it's YOU I've done the comparison to? Can we stop talking about you and talk about the article now? ] 14:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Is there any objection to you reverting the Philosophy section you deleted? Don't you think people interested enough in Dinetics to come to Misplaced Pages would want to see what the philosophy is all about? ] 04:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::], with all due respect, you can't force on us that 50,000 Clears is meaningful to us: this is a specific Dianetics concept not recognized outside Dianetics (I am aware of many "clears" that are no longer adherent of scientology, do you count them?). Therefore, it has no value to people that don't consider Dianetics scientifically sound. What matters are the claims, and the absence of proof about these claims, as simple as that. It's not about POV, it's about facts not matching the claims. I actually understand that you strongly believe in Dianetics, the point is you have to understand that the claims made by Hubbard don't pass scientific scrutiny, and this has nothing to do with ChrisO's opinion in particular, but the secular approach of an encyclopedia. ] 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"Raymond Hill" might be a mediator but he edits toward the same POV as ChrisO (disallowing any real information about Dianetics in the Dianetic article) under the twin appearences, "Povmec" and "Raymond Hill". ] 15:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It seems "Raymond Hill" is User:Povmec. --] 23:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Raymond, I don't know you, so I shall assume you are a mediator. The state called Clear is the most basic quantifiable claim of Dianetics. It is the goal of Dianetics published in early books. A Clear is the most fundamental result of Dianetics. A Clear can be tested. A Clear is a standard. Clears can be counted. The results show if the subject works. Do I count Clears no longer adherent? Yes. It is a state not a membership number. It is the basic data needed by anyone that considers Dianetics to be unsound. And I believe if you don't see the actual results of a thing you should consider it unsound. Clears are the results. If you presume to evaluate or form an opinion of Dianetics there is no more basic thing than Clear. If you don't know what it is and why it is important how could you have a valid opinion about Dianetics? It seems to me this is most important and is what a person that read a book would expect to see at Misplaced Pages. He expects to see what is important. Not what is hearsay. Do you agree? ] 05:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Raymond, one more thing. When did the article on Dianetics start to revolve around whether people consider it to be scientific rather than what the subject is? Isn't it up to the reader to decide on the facts of the matter, and not your decision to exclude this opportunity? I'm not saying I have a problem with you presenting your view, I'm saying it is wrong to exclude the subject and ONLY present your view. I think that amounts to simply advertizing your personal ideas. That is a long way from an encyclopedia of knowledge where people that might have an interest in reading about something interesting to see what it is for themselves and get some ideas. Do you agree? ] 05:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:29, 11 February 2006
 | This project page is actively undergoing a major edit for a little while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. This page was last edited at 10:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC) (18 years ago) – this estimate is cached, update. Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited for a significant time. If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with {{Under construction}} between editing sessions. |
Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rfm-header
Please list new requests at the top of the section 'to be accepted by committee'. Use LEVEL THREE HEADERS (===). A mediator from Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee#Active will be assigned to take care of your case. purge the cache
New Requests
Users Ambi and Virtual Steve – Issue Redlink Reduction
I am seeking mediation assistance with regards a dispute concerning my attempt to tidy the wiki by removal of redlinks as per What not to link and Administrator Ambi’s dogmatic refusal to allow any adjustments along these lines. I have attempted to discuss this matter with her – and that discussion has gotten heated on both sides (see combined talk pages). In particular I am concerned by long term redlinks and on that point I am more than happy to concede that some of my removals may be too early for all wikipedians but I do not concede that redlinks should be allowed to stand ad infinitum. For a single example (although the dispute is not about this page per se) this article St. Nicholas' Collegiate Church which has not been added to or adjusted since April 5, 2005 is in Ambi’s view (as posted on her user page) to be quite good. I would not be allowed to remove the redlinks on that page that have been there for almost a year and which make the article look clumsy and feel unprofessional. If I did I would be threatened that my alterations are close to vandalism and then would be threatened with blocking if such changes continue. Indeed Ambi has even gone so far as to revert redlinks that I personally created in my own major articles. The continuum of our conflict is probably that I consider that I am following both the consensus view/s and the encyclopedic view that redlinks are generally clumsy and should be discouraged – and if not discouraged totally able to be removed when a reasonable amount of time has passed. I also have a concern with Ambi’s method of administrator support but that may be her way of doing things and beyond mediation. Whilst it may be impossible to clear up this matter perfectly there must be a way to gain middle ground on this and not be threatened on every edit. Please can you help? VirtualSteve 12:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
To be accepted by committee, RE: Daredevil
Requesting OnWiki (public) between User:Tenebrae and User:GodzillaWax RE: Daredevil. There have been several disagreements between us two parties. Tenebrae asked for, and consent from GodzillaWax was given, for mediation. The current dispute stems from this paragraph below.
- Nocenti and Romita Jr.
- A round-robin of creators contributed in the year that followed Born Again: writers Mark Gruenwald, Danny Fingeroth, Steve Englehart (under the pseudonym "John Harkness"), and Ann Nocenti, and pencilers Steve Ditko, Barry Windsor-Smith, Louis Williams, Sal Buscema, Todd McFarlane, Keith Pollard, and Chuck Patton. Longshot co-creator Nocenti, who'd written #236, became the regular writer for a long, stable, four-and-a-quarter year run of all but two issues from #238-291 (Jan. 1987 - April 1991). John Romita Jr. joined as penciler from #270-289 (Sept. 1989 - Feb. 1991), and was generally inked by Al Williamson. The well-received and award-winning team specifically addressed societal issues, with Murdock, now running a non-profit urban legal center, confronting sexism, racism and nuclear proliferation while fighting supervillains. Nocenti's run is also of note for introducing the popular antagonist Typhoid Mary, a supporting character from #254-263.
GodzillaWax and I have gone back and forth over whether something can be called "well-received" or a "stable run" when there was a 4 1/4-year run after the previous year's round-robin; when artist John Romita Jr. became a comics star with the series; and when inker Al Williamson won awards for the series three years running. I noted in the Talk page that "well-received" does not necessarily mean critically acclaimed, citing McDonald's burgers and Stephen King novels; and I cited Merriam-Webster's #1 definition for the adjective "stable" ("1 a : firmly established : FIXED, STEADFAST b : not changing or fluctuating"), which he does not accept.
I also ask mediation over GodzillaWax's frequent use of insults. I'm sure he feels put-upon by me as well, though I would note that other editors on the History page and elsewhere have been insulted by him with phrases like, "Will the Virgin Brigade please let their balls drop?" Thanks very much for taking the time and trouble as an Arbitration/Mediation volunteer. — Tenebrae 23:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
East Sea (disambiguation) and related pages
Appleby has repeatedly tried to edit East Sea (disambiguation) against concensus, and just ended up breaking the 3RR for the THIRD time now (and is now serving a 48-hour block). It began when these edits were done by Appleby on Dec. 18, 2005 without any discussion. On Jan. 28, 2006, Nlu realized some of these were done without concensus and then Nlu and myself (Endroit) started to revert some of these. Then an Edit War broke out, resulting in Appleby being blocked numerous times. The pages involved are East Sea (capital), East sea (small), East Sea (disambiguation), and Sea of Japan. Some discussion already took place in Talk:Sea of Japan#east sea disambiguation (and below) regarding whether East Sea (and East sea) should redirect to Sea of Japan or East Sea (disambiguation). A later Edit War shifted to arguments about the wording of the text in East Sea (disambiguation), where the Edit War continued without the discussion page being hardly used. And there are more people involved now. I have requested admin Katefan0 to lock the East Sea (disambiguation) page while we pursue mediation and/or arbitration. I am requesting a mediator to clarify the position of each person involved, to facilitate any further discussion/mediation/arbitration.--Endroit 19:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Bosnian Genocide
Dispute regarding the relevance of the article. Factual accuracy and neutrality tag is placed on the article while no specific concerns abut the content were presented. Research was presented stating the relevance of the article and common use of the term in media and academia. Dispute between User:Dado User:Zvonko and User:Asim Led. For more see talk.--Dado 18:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- No specific concerns abut the content include talk page that is 87 kilobytes long. Common use of term which is presented is not the same as its use in the article. Nikola 07:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)