User talk:Stanleygoodspeed777

The Way International

Personally, as an ex-member, I try to stay away from significantly editing this article — however, the reason Phil and myself reverted your edits is because they are largescale, and weren't described and explained and discussed on the talkpage prior to their inclusion. — Deckill e r 18:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The reason Phil and myself reverted your edits is because they are largescale, and weren't described and explained and discussed on the talkpage prior to their inclusion." That's fair. I'm not a Wikipedia expert and I just want a fair-and-balanced presentation of this organization and the research they claim to uphold.

Phil indefinitely blocked you, but if you're willing to discuss perhaps a rewrite of the article on its talkpage, I'm sure he'd be more than willing to unblock. From an editor's standpoint, I do agree that the unsourced allegations should be taken out of the article, since they have nothing to back them up (like "thought control"). — Deckill e r 18:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about a "Talk Page" (for TWI) ... I kept going to the "Talk" pages of users to try to engage in a conversation. But I just found it ... now some civil discussion can follow.

Philwelch

What you have said seems fair. As I posted on the Way International discussion page, "All I am seeking is a fair-and-balanced presentation of the material the Way International claims to teach and uphold. The tabloid history and rumors of disgruntled ex-members from 20 or 30 years ago are not part of an unbiased encyclopedic entry of what this group claims to represent and should be deleted."

I am not a member of the group but am appalled at the tabloid journalism used by 2 or 3 contributors instead of focusing on the facts of the history of the group, the material they have published, and the articles and books that they are currently producing.

As for the legal statements ... I was mad. But, my God, what if that group ever checked out this Wikipedia-endorsed article ... they've already sued at least 2 people for $50 million and won. It was an empty threat that came out of the heat of anger and I apologize. If I am allowed to edit I will only do so after discussions with the page administrator(s) or whoever is in charge of the page ... all I want is an unbiased article without the tabloid sideshow. - Stanleygoodspeed777

Unblock and probation

After reviewing your promise of better behavior, I have decided to unblock you—however, you will be kept under strict probation for the time being. This means two things:

If you ever make a legal threat again, or accuse others of libel or defamation, you will be blocked indefinitely, and will probably never be unblocked again.
If you start revert-warring with other editors again removing information from articles like The Way International again, you will be blocked indefinitely, and will probably never be unblocked again.

Since I have your word that you will not engage in either of these behaviors, I will personally unblock you. (However, please continue to make your contributions from this account—i.e. please log in to make your edits.) Thanks for your cooperation. — Philwelch t 14:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Welch

Thank you. All I am seeking is an encyclopedic entry of the Way International that focuses on what they teach, the books and materials they have produced, and the non-tabloid facts that comprise its history ... and I will work with the page administrators to come up with the best unbiased, fair-and-balanced entry possible.

Image:Prevailing_Word_Auditorium-8.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Prevailing_Word_Auditorium-8.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 02:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Way International is certainly a subject worthy of encyclopedic attention ... it's in Wikipedia, for one thing ... isn't it a good idea to have a few public domain pictures of their grounds? stanleygoodspeed777 07:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]