User talk:Tenebrous

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)[reply]

Jeremy Glick

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)[reply]

Dianetics

Hi Tenebrous,

one more thing. This true beleivers stuff is a pile of horse doo. Any person who can not think for themselves is already having a lot of trouble. I want the articles to speak of the information the title is about. I understand Dianetics. I want the article to communicate a little about it. Controversy is fine. At present the article has nothing in it which communicates what the title of the article suggest, Dianetics. It is POV and has every jot of dirt ChrisO could dig up on it.Terryeo 06:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Tenebrous. lol, when you commented on the Dianetics article, I might have been a bit abrupt with you. The article has been the subject of many edits, as you can see by viewing its history. In recent days a discussion has been raised in an attempt to resolve what seems to be pro, con and neutral people's viewpoints. That is, how should Dianetics be treated, how should the information be presented. You just happened along at a peak moment. lol. To explain the situation a bit, on one hand (myself included) are a few people who have participated or used Dianetics and seen the results. On the other hand are what I would classify as "Dianetic Haters", like ChrisO there who has strongly insisted that the articles should contain anything which hurts the subject. For example, ChrisO took great pains, including modifying a wikipedia guideline (discussion [Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Clarification_about_ease_of_checking] and his modification [1]) to get included into Dianetics articles certain unpublished, confidential Church documents. As you might know, the Church of Scientology has brought a number of lawsuits in this area. And being unpublished, such documents don't satisfy WP:V (published means published to the public). And this is the sort of situation you stepped into, lol. In any event, and especially if you are a neutral party in this sort of area, your input would be apprecited. Terryeo 16:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just wanted to make one last comment before I sign off. I believe the Watchdog Committee still exists but it's operating policies and functions are not the same as under the LRH forger back then. --JimmyT 12:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

{o,o}

|)__)

-"-"- --JimmyT 20:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, not at all. Your goal is to "clear the world" (Scientology- A New Slant on Life, p. 76). Well, okay. Everyone is Clear, and sane, and normal, and cured of any disorders (homosexuality apparently being one of those).

Homosexulity would only be "cured" if its origin was engramic to begin with. Cultural norms and educational content, and personal choice are not a part of clearing engrams and clearing the first dynamic. The citation in the article is out of context and is intended I think, to enflame certain people and groups. The state of Clear is for the first dynamic, the self. Clearing of the other dynamics is done on the OT levels.

Sanity is not an absolute, it is a consensus opinion. Your opinion is rather more restrictive than most other groups' opinions. If you succeed in making everyone "sane" (or Clear, or any adjective of your choice), then you will have gotten rid of some elements of human personalities. Human personalities, along with physical characteristics (and possibly more so than them) serve to differentiate one human from another. Therefore, your goals are intended to destroy individuality. Tenebrous 05:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience and knowledge the opposite is true. Birth is an experience common to all humans. When it is cleared as an engram, many people lose a number of illnesses. One would be Asthma. There are very few that consider this to be an asset rather than a liability. Such illnesses are held in place by the original mental image picture of birth. When that is gone or refiled without pain the body sensations or birth, that the indiviudual knew as asthma, can no longer affect him unknowingly. That specific picture might not be the source of his asthma, but if it is, the asthma is gone. He may be able to recall birth and not have asthma. Likewise with anything said at birth when the baby is in pain and unconscious can get stuck in a picture and result in insanity for the future individual. There are examples of these in DMSMH. When the picture is refiled then all this information is available to the Clear to use and integrate with his personality. Before clearing such things have a command value over the person and his entire personality. After clearing he has his full personality available to use at his command. His personality is decreased it is increased. This is described at length in all the basic books. In other words anything an aberrated personality can do, a clear can do under his own determinism and better. He doesn't have the liability of the pain induced by others, or the commands implanted by others that he must obey without his knowledge. The basic personality of the individual is not influenced by clearing. It may be greatly obscured in the aberrated state, or insane state, but it all comes forth when cleared. Spirit of Man 15:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neurophone

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)[reply]

Bye. --JimmyT 08:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Thought you'd like to know that Neurophone is at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neurophone. NickelShoe 18:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

May I discuss with you please

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)[reply]

"ChrisO, you rarely fail to include in your comment some sly statement" extremely uncivil. Also, speculation as to a "divide" is not assuming good faith and additionally has no business on the discussion page. RFC:USER if you must. "No, that is just your overstimulated imagination in hyper-drive, ChrisO" This is a personal attack.

Thank you for responding so that I could understand. Terryeo 09:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime Tenebrous 09:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at Talk:Dianetics. I did not intend a personal attack and was offended that ChrisO's assumption of a 4 point line of reasoning which results in an idiocy was my motivation for asking a the question, "is Bridge Pubs a reliable publisher."Terryeo 09:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments - Terryeo

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Send your suppressive ad hominem to someone who can't confront you next time. --JimmyT 12:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion?

"(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)[reply]

Toward concensus

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I can understand *shrugs* easily enough, after all who cares about organized religion anyway. Other editors have not told their stories of "great evil" and I've really no idea what you mean by that. I would like to get a handle on what "great evil" means. How about Priests raping little boys, is that "great evil?" Or maybe the "holy crusades" was that "great evil?" I'm unsure of what you mean and know of mistakes made by the Church of Scientology, here and there. But not "great evil" so I'm asking about that if you will?Terryeo 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very slow to get back with you, though I originated the question and thank you for replying. I can't argue "dubious good" because it is my opinion that everyone should be skeptical. But I fail to understand any part of "great evil." You mention "aligned with the State (cf. USA, Iran)" and I don't know what you refer to there. I understand we view Scientology differently. I hope to understand what you mean. No one has much discussed why they think Scientology "evil" and you are the first person to do so. People have mentioned a very very small handful of examples, such as Lisa McPherson. In general I'm aligned with Wikipedia because the articles are to present that which is most published. Scientology is widely published. The "great evil" pushers (clambake, Xenu) are a relatively tiny publication effort in comparison. I hope to discuss with you, I hope to find a way to present the articles so most editors are mostly pleased or at least no opposed to the articles. Terryeo 22:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Tenebrous" statement

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)[reply]

JimmyT

Honestly this guy has more issues than National Geographic - check this out. It's almost scary, seriously! He almost needs an RfC himself IMHO... File:Glenstollery.gif^POW! 14:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC) (CCed to Antaeus Feldspar and Wikipediatrix also)[reply]

You'd be suprised how much many more issues I do have then what comprises the 4 of your little glory holes collectively. I still think you're contentious AND pompous and biased; and your Outside View for Terryeo is full of claptrap lugged out of your despotic ___. --JimmyT 14:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Tenebrous you may be interested in the personal attacks made against you here File:Glenstollery.gif^POW! 15:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Dianetics introduction

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The reason for that was the way it was done. A reference at the end of those 2 or 3 sentences pointed to an online, five page book, terra incognita. But the etymology study and the next dispersive statement ".. -etics may have been formed from" does not appear in the book which is stated as a reference. There were 3 sentences. one of the sentences was a perfectly good etymology. But the whole of the 3 sentences appeared as coming from the book. The book doesn't have the etymology, it is an uncited, add-in by an editor. And then, additionally, the original research "..-etics may have ..." also appears to come from that reference but it does not come from that reference either. The book mentions the roots of Dianetics but most of that (which is referenced by the book) comes from elsewhere. I hope this answers your question. Terryeo 00:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration - Terryeo

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)[reply]

User:Tenebrous

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What on earth do you mean by that? Why are you studying my edit history, and how precisely do you mean to 'deal with' me? Tenebrous 07:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently studying your edit history. --UNK 07:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am too busy to deal with you personally. --UNK 07:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How remarkably uninformative. Why are you studying my edit history? What do you mean by 'deal with'? Explain, or I shall assume that you intend to wikistalk and otherwise harass me, as you appear to be doing to Wikipediatrix. Tenebrous 07:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why are you studying my edit history? Tenebrous 08:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am studying your edit history to understand what you have been doing here. Why are you concerned about me studying your edit history which are publicly accessibly anywhere in the world? --UNK 08:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe most people scrutinize the edit histories of everyone that they come into contact with; I find it slightly strange, and wonder what your motivations are. I (clearly) have nothing to hide, and nothing, in fact, that I would want to. Why are you so reluctant to state your motivation? Tenebrous 08:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im about half through looking at you history and you are most civil and from a scientific point of view. You make some personal attacks[3][4] and at a couple of time you said someone was "bad faith"[5] But mainly you are civil and try to be fair. --UNK 09:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'deal with'? The first thing I can think of is that you mean 'deal with' as in 'talk to'; however, you are clearly communicating with me so I have to assume that that is not what you mean---unless perhaps you mean some sort of in-depth conversation. The other alternative is that by 'deal with' you refer to some sort of action that you would otherwise take if you were not so busy. I'd like to know what that action might be, if that is in fact what you mean. Tenebrous 08:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still are non-understanding of me. I said I am too busy to deals with you, and I mean like this questioning that you are bothering me with. --UNK 08:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't mean to bother you; I'm just asking questions. You are under no obligation to answer them immediately. You could even just ignore me, though that might be somewhat rude. Tenebrous 08:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am happy you share my point of view on answering communication. --UNK 09:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly willing to accept any explanation you choose to give, and given that explanation, I will certainly apologize for implying that you might be harassing me. Tenebrous 08:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need an apology. I havent joined Wikipedia for my own ego. --UNK 08:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, alright then. Tenebrous 08:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatrix

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)[reply]

If you have a problem with Wikipediatrix, that is not the proper forum to resolve it. You should consult Wikipedia: Dispute Resolution and take whatever steps there that you deem necessary. Your posting that message on Terryeo's Request for Arbitration is what I would consider to be harassment, but I will allow the possibility that it was not meant as such. Tenebrous 08:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think its unfair to Terry for Wikipediatrix also to have against him when she is dishonest. Unlike you, you seem to be honest. --UNK 09:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<blink> Terryeo 23:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WikiProject updates

I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 21:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 21:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]