User talk:Justanother/Archive1

3RR (wishful thinking--Justanother 00:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

You've violated the Three Revert Rule on Scientology. Please stop, or I'll have to inform an administrator. --Davidstrauss 08:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I did no reverts and in fact I don't even know how to do a revert. My valid edits in the Scientology article were treated as vandalism by critical editors/admins violating the principle of Harmonious Editing, and IMHO, the spirit of wikipedia: that a person with a bit more knowledge can bring a bit more to the article. Justanother 22 August 2006

Administrators; there was no violation of 3RR here. You should not use this unfounded claim in any evaluation of my conduct on wikipedia or in any determination of penalties for misconduct.--Justanother 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

squaring the circle

You cannot say that they are the same area; the very point of the article is that that would require ascribing a finite value to pi (more precisely, the square root of pi). It is misleading and presumptive to put in the caption that they have the same area value. The graphic could also stand with no caption at all.

ps If you still think that the image shows a circle and square of the same area then copy it to your computer and zoom in on it. There is actually no circle in the image at all.

--Justanother 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are confused. In the first place, it is not claimed that illustrations are exact. They never are. But they convey ideas well. In the second place, the value of π is indeed finite, and so is its square root; if you think otherwise, you're very very confused. Perhaps you mean that its decimal expansion is only finitely long (in popular confusions, that seems to matter). Michael Hardy 18:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to confess, I've sometimes wondered if the people (is it two of them now?) who have expressed objections of this kind to this illustration, are under the impression that the impossibility of squaring the circle means that a square and a circle can never have the same area? That's not actually what it says; it just says you can't do the ruler-and-compass construction. Michael Hardy 21:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I said finite when I should have said constructible. My bad. From pi "An important consequence of the transcendence of π is the fact that it is not constructible." My point is that that caption is a lie. Do you argue that point with me?? You say "In the first place, it is not claimed that illustrations are exact.". But doesn't "A square and circle with the same area." make, for all intents, that exact claim? Why bother with that caption. Do you think that you can create a squared circle with pixels? I doubt it. This is not about mathematics, it is about whether a caption in a lie or not.--Justanother 15:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My points are:

• It is indeed possible for a square and a circle to have the same area (the impossibility asserted by the theorem is not that that is impossible, but rather that the rule-and-compass construction is impossible.

• Everybody knows that illustrations in geometry articles are ALWAYS approximations, whether made with pixels or with ink on paper. A theorem of geometry may say (paraphrasing) "This square has the same area as that rectangle", and accompany it with an illustration. The square and the rectangle as abstract mathematical objects do have EXACTLY the same area, and the square and the rectangle in the illustration in the book are approximations. Everyone realizes that they're obviously always approximations, so it is not a lie to say they have the same area. The assertion that two things have the same area is naturally understood to refer, not to the physical illustration, but to the abstract mathematical objects that they illustrate.

Michael Hardy 02:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your point of view. I am not a mathematician and I actually came to the article by way of the Timecube, which was referenced in another article I was reading. I had never encountered the "squaring the circle" and I found it interesting. The more we discuss, the more interesting I find it. My conclusion is while a square and a circle can, in theory, have the same area, there is NO way to represent that in the physical universe, not with ink or pixels nor with molecules or atoms or subatomic particles or whatever. That is pretty cool to me and I found that the caption detracted from my feeling of wonder. I think the simple caption "Squaring the circle" serves well. --Justanother 14:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientology and beliefs

Terryeo has often insisted that there are no beliefs in Scientology, it is false to label Scientology as a belief system, the Church may promote beliefs but Scientology is just "knowledge," it has nothing to do with beliefs, etc., etc. It is an unproductive line of argument and it flies in the face of the standard understanding of "belief system" if you ask me. Any chance you could translate/mediate/weigh in on this? His latest is in the "religion references" section on Talk:Scientology. Thanks. BTfromLA 21:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It'd sure cut down on the noise if Terryeo could be persuaded to ease off on some of the more idiosyncratic views that he so staunchly insists upon, including that one. I'm about to get very busy in the non-virtual world, so if I'm absent for a while--I wish you luck with your editing. BTfromLA 22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tellin' U the truth, there ain't no belief in the body of information called Scientology, and none in Dianetics either. Have a ball with your "beliefs" sillyness. Terryeo 04:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientology article

Since you seem interested in contributing to the beliefs and practices part of the Scientology article, may I suggest that the ARC part needs some attention--the current description really doesn't make a lot of sense from a non-initiate's perspective. If the KRC triangle is similarly important, it might be introduced there, too. As always, I vote for keeping the descriptions concise--I just think the current short bit about ARC doesn't really communicate the concept clearly, and I don't understand it well enough to fill in the blanks myself. BTfromLA 17:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR again (wishful thinking--Justanother 00:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC))==

You have once again violated the Three Revert Rule, this time on Study Tech. You have also violated WP:CIVIL in your summaries and talk page discussion regarding the text you are insistent on inserting into the article without proper sources. Do not violate Wikipedia policies. Thank you. wikipediatrix 20:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, my dear. No violation of Three Revert Rule.--Justanother 20:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrators; there was no violation of 3RR here. You should not use this unfounded claim in any evaluation of my conduct on wikipedia or in any determination of penalties for misconduct.--Justanother 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You've been reported for a 3RR violation at Scientology and celebrities and have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. Please review the 3RR rule carefully and in future discuss your edits on the talk page if there are objections. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi

My block was inappropriate per Wp:3rr#Reverting_potentially_libellous_material. I quote:

"All users are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced derogatory information about living persons, whether within a biography of a living person or elsewhere, including associated talk pages. As with vandalism, the repeated addition of such material is best dealt with by blocking and page protection. The three-revert rule does not apply to users making a good-faith effort to enforce this provision, whether they are involved in editing the articles themselves or not."

The material I removed was inappropriate biographical material that in no way met the standard of "high quality references" of WP:BLP. It was simply speculation not even reaching the level of gossip. Please see the article's talk page for my reasoning.

I think that my good-faith in applying the provision is evident in my willingness to discuss with another editor both on their talk page and in Talk:Scientology_and_celebrities. Even if you do not agree with my reasoning please recognize my good faith; that alone is sufficient to not be blocked for violation. Further good faith is evidenced in that rather than continuing the edit war I backed off and mentioned that I would seek assistance in resolving this in accordance with policy and in a less disruptive fashion; I let the offending material stay in the article when I left it.

Please remove the block or if not please let me know promptly so that I may appeal.

Thanks--Justanother 04:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed unblock appeal template

05:00, 4 October 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (→3RR - sorry, got you mixed up with someone else)

No prob; tho I must say it certainly threw me for a sec!--Justanother 05:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Sorry, it's not the first time I've confused editors tonight. As for your block, does the source say what the edit you were reverting said? That is, I know you think it's gossip, but is it published gossip? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the source says "here is what a critic is speculating" so we have a critic sitting out there saying "Hmmm, maybe this happened". The source and the critic label it as pure speculation, nothing more. I, in good faith, do not consider that a "high quality reference" needed for biographical material on a a living person. If you disagree, OK, but please recognize my good faith which I feel is sufficient to be immune from the block. And note that I did back off after another editor entered the fray, even tho both editors edit from the same POV. I backed off and left the offending material in; backed off to investigate how best to pursue this in accordance with policy and not by edit war; good faith again. Thanks--Justanother 05:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If a reliable source reported it, then it's covered by BLP. If you undertake not to edit that article for 24 hours, or to make the same edits anywhere else during the same period, I'm willing to unblock you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I promise not to remove the offending material there or anywhere else for that period although I also have no intention of removing it beyond that period without either first attempting to build consensus or pursuing what appropriate remedies wikipedia offers. So if that works for you then thank you, I would appreciate the unblock.--Justanother 05:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've unblocked you. Happy editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Super, thanks! You are a gentleman and a scholar.--Justanother 05:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And note that I did back off after another editor entered the fray, even tho both editors edit from the same POV. I backed off and left the offending material in; Actually, that's a flat-out falsehood. If you had backed off after another editor "entered the fray", "even tho both editors edit from the same POV" (i.e., when you got the second opinion you claimed you desired on the talk page, it wasn't the agreeing opinion you desired), then you wouldn't have hit 3RR. I also note that you've violated exactly the conditions that you were unblocked under: SlimVirgin spelled out "not to edit that article for 24 hours, or to make the same edits anywhere else during the same period". And less than three hours later, you're editing the very article.[1] Were you under the "good-faith" impression that you had successfully substituted for the conditions she laid down your own looser conditions of "I promise not to remove the offending material there or anywhere else for that period"? I must say I'm disappointed, Justanother. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk about disappointment, I am beginning to doubt your reasoning abilities which I had to recently held in pretty high regard. SlimVirgin asked me to agree to certain conditions. I countered with my offer and stated "if that works for you then thank you, I would appreciate the unblock". SlimVirgin then, after reading my offer, unblocked me. I really think you are letting your POV take precedence over your ability to reason properly; I think you do yourself a disservice there as you are obviously a bright fellow. And here I was going to publicly acknowledge that you were right in your interpretation of WP:BLP.--Justanother 13:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In order to be upset that you doubt my reasoning abilities, I would have to have high esteem for your own. Within the past 24 hours alone I've seen you ignore multiple warnings that you were misapplying WP:BLP and that it did not justify the violation of WP:3RR you announced yourself willing to commit, and then claim that you made your mistake "in good faith" since you stubbornly chose not to believe the warnings you got. I've seen you tell a falsehood to an administrator to get yourself unblocked, claiming that you "did back off after another editor entered the fray", when what you really did was revert at least three times more: [2], [3], [4]. Do you think these things are going to make me look up to you and say "Oh, gee, if he thinks I'm misapplying policy there's a good chance he's right?" No. There are Scientologists on Wikipedia that I do have that respect for -- but they have a much better track record of honesty and integrity than you do.

You talk about how others' reasoning is affected by their POVs but your own edits show how your POV dominates your editing: you refer contemptuously to "even a 'wog' judge"[5]; you continuously append "on a critical website" and "by Scn critics" and "by a critic" and "by critics" as if credibility was determined first and foremost by POV; you even slip and show your prejudices and refer to "the malicious suppositions presented", when in fact you have no reason (except, again, your own prejudices) for thinking that those that the "suppositions" originated with are acting out of malice. I think you are not only letting your POV take precedence over your ability to reason properly, but letting your POV blind you to the fact that maybe it is others who are reasoning properly. After all, you announce that you were "going to publicly acknowledge that you were right in your interpretation of WP:BLP" as if that was some tasty carrot that I, the mule, had missed out on by not hurriedly declaring you right in your interpretations of everything else. Some carrot! Whether you publicly acknowledge it or not, the only one who was surprised that you weren't allowed to remove material verifiably reported by a reliable source just by claiming WP:BLP was you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing and I am glad that you do not feel personally attacked. Unfortunately, I think my humor is at times a bit obtuse. The comment about not publicly acknowledging that you were right was a joke because obviously I did in that self-same sentence. I would think that the "carrot" would be seeing me admit I was wrong on these pages. How many times have you seen that on either side of this issue? There are some other issues in your remarks that bear response and I will address them as time permits. But for now I would be very curious to know which "Scientologists on Wikipedia that [you] do have that respect for" because I certainly don't see any Scientologist around other than terryeo and I suspect that statement does not apply to him (tho I would be pleased to be mistaken about that).--Justanother 21:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning: No personal attacks

History: wikipediatrix put up a "warning" with an image in presumed defense of Antaeus but Antaeus did not complain to me about my communication with him. Per WP:NPA if Antaeus (not wikipediatrix) thought I was attacking him then he (not wikipediatrix) should have asked me to stop. I removed the "warning" (it looks like something wikipediatrix may have put together, it was not a WP:template) but wikipediatrix replaced it. After unsuccessfully looking around for anything that would support her action I decided to let it stay anyway, I just removed the graphic.--Justanother 00:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing template: If Antaeus Feldspar thinks my open discussion with him on my own talk page constitutes a personal attack then he can say so himself. I would not make a similar rash evaluation of his comments to me.--Justanother 13:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)--Justanother 21:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not make comments such as "I am beginning to doubt your reasoning abilities" and "I really think you are letting your POV take precedence over your ability to reason properly" as you did to User:Antaeus Feldspar. If you have any further feelings about the mental faculties of fellow editors, keep it to yourself because it has no place here. wikipediatrix 13:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Don't remove warnings from your talk pages. wikipediatrix 13:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I will leave it for the moment pending my reading applicable policies. If you have a policy reference that spells that out I would appreciate a link. Thanks. And on the subject; I would caution anyone; you, me, Feldspar, anyone; to not let a POV color their reasoning; when that happens, their edits and complaints about edits start to look somewhat absurd. I imagine that has happened with previous pro-Scn editors; I will endeavour not to repeat their errors. But Scn critics are just as prone and are rarely called on it, IMO.--Justanother 13:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Reblocked

Hi Justanother, I see you edited the article a few hours after I offered to unblock you on condition you stayed away from it for 24 hours, so I've reinstated the block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This is kinda weird on your part, don't you think? You said "I will unblock if you do X." I did not come back with "OK, I will do X". I said "I will do Y" and Y was obviously not X. Then you unblocked me. What am I supposed to assume other than that you were agreeable to my doing Y? If you were not you should have replied "No, I will not unblock you unless you do X as I requested." At that point I would have pursued the appeal. But I thought that our handling was simple and direct and in the spirit of wikipedia, both of us acting in good faith and assuming good faith on the part of the other.

FWIW, I did not agree to do X because I thought my block was improper in the first place based on my good faith even I applied the WP:BLP wrongly. What you should have done, IMO, instead of blocking me is say something like "Justanother, I will not block you as I can assume good faith on your part and 3RR specifically does not apply to good faith edits attempting to enforce the referenced policy but your understanding of this issue is flawed for this reason, blah blah, and if you persist in reverting based on flawed reasoning then I will block you as that would be an example of bad faith." That. IMO, is what you SHOULD have done. Instead you chose to block me. I asked you to review but no response so I asked for the appeal. At that point you came back and I thought that we had agreed on a condition of unblocking.

At this point, rather than ask for the appeal again, I ask that you look at my reasoning here and address it. I would appreciate it if you would do the unblock contingent on my doing what I promised to do; leave the offending material in and find a better way to address it than edit war and 3RR. Please unblock. Thanks--Justanother 21:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you'd slightly reworded the offer, but I assumed you had just made a mistake, rather than that you were trying to create a loophole. It would have been odd of me to offer to unblock you for agreeing not to continue making the same edits to the same article, because if you had, you'd have incurred another 3RR block. The offer was not to edit the article at all for 24 hours, or to make the same edits elsewhere during that period, and there was no other offer on the table.

I also see that there have been previous 3RR problems, so I think you need to sit this block out and realize that the 3RR rule is something we take very seriously. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, though I have no idea why you would assume that I made a mistake in the midst of a negotiation (you should have asked). If there were no other offer on the table it would have saved us both trouble if you had said so. I DO take 3RR seriously but I feel that WP:BLP trumps it. I stand corrected and will not make the same mistake of removing sourced gossip, speculation, and slander by violating 3RR. I will continue to disregard 3RR for clearly unsourced or poorly sourced material that violate WP:BLP. Thank you for your prompt response, I am a bit short on time here so that helped. I will go ahead and appeal now. By the way, this is the first time I ever "violated" 3RR; the others are all wishful thinking and should not be held against me.--Justanother 21:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not in a position to negotiate or make offers while you're blocked. I made you an offer. You seemed to accept it, but then didn't, so the block stands. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What position do I need to be in to negotiate while blocked? Will I be able to reach the keyboard? Take care.--Justanother 22:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Justanother (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

WP:BLP exception to 3RR esp. in light of good faith; please see my talk page

Decline reason:

Good faith was assumed once already. WP:3RR violations are usually negotiable on the first offense, but definitely not once an editor is made aware of it. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Original: Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by SlimVirgin for the following reason (see our blocking policy): 3RR on Scientology and celebrities

Reblock: Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by SlimVirgin for the following reason (see our blocking policy): violated the unblock condition of staying away from the 3RR article for 24 hours (note the above talk re: what really was agreed to--Justanother 22:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC))

Let me repeat the below here to save the reviewer the trouble of searching. My response to the original block is below. I thought that SlimVirgin and I had agreed on a sort of nolo contendre unblock in above talk but apparently SlimVirgin did not realize I made a counter-offer but instead assumed I had made a mistake in my reply. I feel my original reasoning stands but I would also be amenable to SlimVirgin taking ownership of his/her error in the negotiation and unblocking me for that reason alone. I do understand the points being made and have addressed them above.

Hi

My block was inappropriate per Wp:3rr#Reverting_potentially_libellous_material. I quote:

"All users are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced derogatory information about living persons, whether within a biography of a living person or elsewhere, including associated talk pages. As with vandalism, the repeated addition of such material is best dealt with by blocking and page protection. The three-revert rule does not apply to users making a good-faith effort to enforce this provision, whether they are involved in editing the articles themselves or not."

The material I removed was inappropriate biographical material that in no way met the standard of "high quality references" of WP:BLP. It was simply speculation not even reaching the level of gossip. Please see the article's talk page for my reasoning.

I think that my good-faith in applying the provision is evident in my willingness to discuss with another editor both on their talk page and in Talk:Scientology_and_celebrities. Even if you do not agree with my reasoning please recognize my good faith; that alone is sufficient to not be blocked for violation. Further good faith is evidenced in that rather than continuing the edit war I backed off and mentioned that I would seek assistance in resolving this in accordance with policy and in a less disruptive fashion; I let the offending material stay in the article when I left it.

Thanks--Justanother 22:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Justanother I would suggest you not to get highly perturbed about the contents: all world knows that wikipedia is not reliable. --Bhadani 11:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have hoped that "all world" can see that Justanother was trying to violate WP:V and treat "truth" (or rather, his beliefs about what is likely to be true) as a criterion outweighing verifiability. If Wikipedia reports on Hubbard's and Miscavige's transparently paranoid ramblings about international conspiracies of bankers and psychiatrists and Communists and the IRS, then Justanother has no basis for deeming the verifiably reported theories of former Scientologists as "heresay [sic] and gossip" that must be removed even above the importance of 3RR. Those quoted in the Post article, after all, were all former Scientologists who had experience with the Church's inner workings; Hubbard, despite his forming a "Freudian Foundation of America" and offering prospective students a "certificate" as a "Freudian Psycho-Analyst", was never a psychiatrist or psychologist. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bhandani. Thank you but unfortunately I think that assumption is a bit wishful. I think that someone that wanted to know about Scientology might google the term and be presented with these top three choices; the official CoS site, the clambake site, and wikipedia. They might recognize that the first two would be clearly biased but might mistake wikipedia for being encyclopedic and unbiased on the subject of Scn. While wikipedia might be a great source for many topics, even the critic's crow their success in making the Scientology articles a mass of "entheta" (Scn for lies, upsets, misinformation - Touretzky gleefully proclaims wikipedia an "entheta-palooza" on the subject of Scientology).[6] Both sides basically seek to make wikipedia a mirror of their own websites; the critics are winning. My goal is to make it encyclopedic and to show the good side of Scn in the sympathetic light it deserves while not discounting the bad side. Meaning that I will not contribute to the bad side but neither will I try to prevent it from being PROPERLY presented (i.e. derogatory information must be well-referenced, and discredited or biased sources reported in reliable sources to be such should be labeled as such). I should mention that I feel that there are plenty of editors here that are "mirror images" of myself, i.e. they are "no fans of Scientology" but would not dream of standing in the way of my well presented presentation of the good in Scientology provided that I allowed critics the same rights as I ask for for myself. Antaeus may well fit in that category and, if so, then he and I are really of one mind in that respect. I have seen others that clearly fit that category also. On the other hand, there are some that want to prevent ANY presentation of the good side of Scn. They probably feel that Scn is SO bad that any good is irrelevant; it would be like mentioning that Ted Bundy bought Girl Scout cookies to support the Girl Scouts. Such a claim is ridiculous and insulting to the perhaps 500,000 active Scientologists that would disagree and all those that they impact favorably.

Antaeus, I know that I am low on your "favorite Scientologist list" (which i would LOVE to see, BTW) but please hang on a bit. Despite my occasional sarcasms in talk pages and edit summaries, I have limited my sarcasm to those areas and have not been disingenuous in my edits. If you can show me an example to the contrary, I would like to see it. Re the sarcasm, I am trying to be better there because I realize that it is inappropriate and does not particularly further my end of creating fair and balanced articles but instead may put off people that would otherwise be sympathetic to me. But I say "hold on" because I really think that you and I are not really on different sides of the wikipedia issue. We may be on different sides of the Scn issue but you might be surprised even there. But I mean I think we both want wikipedia to be fair, accurate, complete, and encyclopedic and to the degree we have been butting head it is, IMO, because we have not been looking at each other viewpoints to a sufficient degree and, for my part, because I sometime snap back a bit too quickly which might be understandable if you take a look at the (pretty unfair amount of) effort an openly Scientology-sympathetic editor much exert here to contribute. There are reasons for that effort that the CoS may have brought on itself but I am not the CoS and it is unfair to paint me with the same brush.--Justanother 15:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not going to put you high on my list that you just repeated the old tired "'entheta' means 'lies' to critics" lie. 'Entheta' is often used to imply the presence of lies or misinformation, but it only denotes the 'enturbulation' of 'theta'. Of the three things that you claim that 'entheta' is "Scn for" -- lies, upsets, misinformation -- it actually only 'means' one, upsets. Therefore, any information that upsets Scientologists is automatically "entheta" even if it is 100% true -- Hubbard's lies that he saw action in all five theatres of World War II and got between 27 and 29 decorations for his heroism are never considered 'entheta' by Scientologists, but the proofs uncovered by critics that Hubbard lied about his record are. Reporting what critics say about their "entheta", and then supplying the Scientologist meaning of "entheta" for interpretation, is about as honest as interpreting the name of the rap group Niggaz With Attitude according to what the Aryan Nations mean when they use the N-word. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry but I did not know this was "old" because I am kinda new here. But why not stop to think why Scientologists keep saying that? It is because that is a valid meaning to a Scnist. It has to do with what is "theta" and what would then be "entheta". It has to do with what's constitutes the reactive bank (to an Scnist, of course, I am not proposing you subscribe). The bank is composed of lies and misinformation - entheta. If it were truth it would have no bad effect on the being. That meaning of entheta (lies) is actually truer than calling it upset. I will try to find you a good reference so you don't have to take my word for it. So when a Scnist says wikipedia is full of entheta, it is very possible they mean lies (alter-is in Scn terms and upsetting lies at that, hence entheta). Whatever else I might say about Touretzky, I will say that he has a decent grasp of Scn terms and knows what the term entheta means to the Scnist. That is the true meaning, IMO, and how I use it. When others use it to describe upsetting truth I suppose that they mean truth shoved in their faces to upset them such as critic Lonsdale screaming at young dedicated Sea Org members about Xenu. It is truth? Perhaps. It is being used inappropriately to upset another human being that has done nothing to deserve it; you tell me.--Justanother 23:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your supposition, I'm afraid, is still revealing your bias. "When others use it to describe upsetting truth I suppose that they mean truth shoved in their faces to upset them such as critic Lonsdale screaming at young dedicated Sea Org members about Xenu." So, basically, you are claiming that critics are motivated by malice, by a desire to "upset". You discount that they could be trying to present truth so that people who have been carefully shielded from getting both sides of the story will finally be able, perhaps for the first time in their lives, to make an informed decision about Scientology. You discount that perhaps they are trying to present exactly that truth which was withheld from them during their own experience with Scientology, that which they wish someone had told them. No, in your paradigm, if critics mean "truth" at all when they say "entheta", they are apparently rubbing their hands gleefully, cackling as they return from an invigorating session of kitten stomping, and gloating "ahahahahahaha! let's see how many Scientologists we can upset today with disturbing news about their leader Hubbard!"

Well, to paraphrase the old joke, it does me no good to speak in English if it's to someone who's listening in Gibberish. Likewise, anyone who speaks Critic to those who speak Scientology is quickly going to discover that some very important words are missing from their listeners' language. For instance, there's no word for a critic who isn't a criminal. There's no word for a critic who is critical of Scientology because of anything but a guilty conscience. There isn't even a word for a critic who thinks Scientology is all bullshit -- Scientology has no place for such a concept; it only accepts the existence of Scientologists who 'know' that Scientology works and want it to work all over the world, and evil Suppressive Persons who 'know' that Scientology works and want to keep it from working (because they're evil kitten-stomping bastards.) So it's no surprise at all that Scientologists have no idea what "entheta" means when spoken with a Critic accent; their own language has no word for "something about Scientology which is not a lie or misinformation but is still disturbing to one who thinks Scientology is everything good, and everyone who opposes it, evil."

You talk about the "true" meaning of the word entheta but the fact is that Scientology tries to do the impossible: it tries to determine the "true" meaning of the word, and also tries to be the sole arbiter of what does and doesn't meet that definition. It doesn't work that way. You can say "anything said by a critic is entheta", and then you have to concede that critics will have a very different definition of "entheta" than you do. Or you can say "we choose to define entheta as 'lies and misinformation'", but then you lose your claim to be the only one who knows what is and isn't entheta. You offer the grudging compliment that Touretzky "knows what the term entheta means to the Scnist" but frankly, it seems to be only so that you can imply "and therefore he must be using the term as the Scnist would, hence confessing to spreading lies and misinformation or at the very least deliberately upsetting Scientologists, with, of course, malicious intent because that's what the Scientologist always assumes about 'entheta'." Return to our earlier example -- the gangsta rappers of Niggaz With Attitude surely know what racists mean by the N-word; does that mean that they are describing themselves as what the racist sees? Or as what the racist refuses to see? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus - good points all, well thought out, and well presented. I will respond to them as time permits. I am out-of-town at a convention and killing a bit of time in the hotel's business center.

Re my bias - I have acknowledged my bias from my beginning here on wikipedia. I was recently watching the acceptance speech by Christine C. Quinn on becoming the first female and first gay Speaker of the NYC Council, making her the 2nd most powerful official in the city, second only to the Mayor (I see it says 3rd on wikipedia but I heard it described as 2nd, not that it makes much difference to this discussion). She made the point that if you want to progress you have to be who you are. I decided to take that position myself from the get-go here. But let me clarify my bias:

1) I am strongly biased in favor of Scientologists inside or outside the CoS that take the Scientology technology and use it to make positive difference in their own lives and the lives of other people.

2) I am biased against CoS PR spin (lies), irresponsibility, and outrageous tactics in perceived defense.

3) I am biased for ex-Scientologists, now critics, that were blackballed for speaking out against the above after themselves being the victims of improprieties.

4) I am biased against pile-on critics that further what I personally know to be lies just because they read these lies on the internet and believe them. Please understand - they read truths, lies, and everything in-between but swallow the whole package and pass it on. I think that this is the area you might dispute with me so before you do please take a moment to understand my point well. I am not talking about Touretsky, I am talking about what could well be a number of editors here. If a critical website says "Scientologists eat babies" these people would want to see that on wikipedia. Imagine how I feel because I know that eating babies has no part in Scn. Duh, you say, that is a stupid example. Yes, it is. I make it obvious because the real issues are often more subtle but no less obvious to anyone familiar with Scn including the "apostates" referenced in 3) above. But the real problem is that these pile-on critics know nothing about Scn other than what they have read from detractors, some of them discredited liars like Jesse Prince. But they believe it all. And refuse to believe anything a Scientologist says. So they cannot possibly have a complete and accurate picture of what really is true in relation to Scn. Such a picture would require ALL the viewpoints above or, better, the truth in all of them, even the ones I am biased against. That is what wikipedia must accomplish. I am willing to take some of the burden and present what I know to be true. I leave it to others to present the other issues but I do not argue that they should not be included. I just want the lies out. I don't mean by lies that some expert says Scn is brainwashing. If he is really an expert and really says that then fine. By lies I mean lies and ridiculous (to me) speculation by unqualified persons. I know that part may be a bit uphill but I am willing to work with good-faith editors to get a fair depiction.

5) I am neutral on 3rd parties that have thoroughly investigated Scn from their area of expertise and found it to be bad (or good, for that matter) and present their findings honestly. I have no beef with them; they are entitled to their opinions or evaluations. I don't have to agree with them; others have every right to agree if they care to.

My beef with you Antaeus, if I could be said to have any beef with you, is NOT that you accept the whole package referred to in 4) because I do not know if you do, but that you appear to be unaware of or overly skeptical of 1), based on some of your reactions to my, IMO, less-controversial edits. Overly skeptical if you have not taken the trouble to look at the claimed successes and/or talk to Scientologists that fit in 1). But maybe I am wrong about that too. Maybe you agree with me that there may be some good in Scn and that those that can present it well should do so but that those that claimed to be presenting it in the past have engaged in disruptive behavior and you don't trust anyone claiming to be pro-Scientology. I know that is quite a big assumption on my part but maybe. In any event I will carry on and hopefully we can work together toward a good series of articles.--Justanother 03:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To Netsnipe re denying my appeal - pls read this

Please take another look here. I feel that you did not address my issues of:

1) I should not have been blocked in the first place as I was operating in good faith under my understanding of WP:BLP.

2) SlimVirgin blocked me for 3RR despite this being my first actual violation; for that reason and the above a warning would have been more appropriate.

3) SlimVirgin reblocked me when I did not violate the terms I agreed to under which, IMO, he/she unblocked me. SlimVirgin is not taking ownership of his/her own admitted error.

I should note that I feel that ANY disciplinary action wrongly taken, no matter how mild, must be vigorously opposed. To leave it unopposed implies agreement on my part that the discipline was warranted, creating a black mark on my record that may affect me adversely later.

Please unblock me. Thanks--Justanother 16:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

For Andaeus - You should not call someone a liar lightly

Andaeus, I see that you have been claiming that I lied to SlimVirgin when I said I backed off when AndroidCat "entered the fray".

You should not call someone a liar lightly, I doubt that you would appreciate being on the receiving end of that, especially in the midst of a disciplinary action. Though you might claim it is trivial, I never said I IMMEDIATELY backed off; I said I backed off, which I did and announced that I did on this edit. I left the offending material in and continued editing other aspects of the article. Since, at the time, I felt that I was justified in continuing to revert the article as many times as it took there was no justification to my stopping other than acting in good faith and deciding that maybe I should pursue this another way.--Justanother 17:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: If I was in a "fray" with some other editor which manifested as edits back and forth, and if a third editor joined the "fray", agreeing with the other editor's assessment of the situation instead of mine, and I proceeded to revert the other editors three more times, before stopping? I would never dream of describing it as "I backed off after another editor joined the fray." Yes, another editor "joined the fray"; yes, I stopped. But to present those two events, and not the three reverts between them? You might find some word to call that knowing omission other than a "lie", but it sure wasn't the truth as you knew it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The question was not if I might find some other word to call it than "lie"; the question is if you should have. You could have simply said I was not telling the whole truth or left out some important aspect if that is what you believed. Instead of "I've seen you tell a falsehood to an administrator to get yourself unblocked" and "He told some falsehoods to SlimVirgin". Basically you came forward in the midst of my disciplinary hearing, so to speak, to damn me with phraseology that should not have been used and I think you know it, At least, I hope you know it.--Justanother 22:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So, basically, you think "the question" should be all about the word rather than the substance. I am saying that yes, I am saying that I do believe you committed a knowing deception by saying you 'backed off after another editor joined the fray' and leaving out the "reverted both editors three times, stubbornly insisting that I must be right" part in the middle. You accuse me of trying to "damn you with phraseology", as if the significance is that I used the word "lie" to describe your action, or that I used the word "falsehood" to describe your action, and not that you did in fact perform those actions. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't I admit that I could have phrased my part better and you admit that you could have phrased your part better. Work for you?--Justanother 04:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, because the only one who had a problem with the phrasing was you? And the problem with demanding that others be exquisitely precise in their phrasing around you is that then you will be held up to that same standard, which so far you have not met. Over at Talk:Scientology and celebrities you assert "I misinterpreted the application of WP:BLP as regards well sourced gossip, speculation, and slander". Would you please explain for everyone exactly where you think "slander" is involved in this incident? "Slander" has particular legal meanings; can you stand by that accusation? Or are you just practicing a double standard under which you can mis-describe theories that you think are far-fetched with the legal term of "slander", but no one else can use the far milder term "falsehood" to describe your actions no matter how blatantly you omit major facts in order to give a misleading impression? -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, there's nobody here but us chickens. Aren't you the only the only one that had a problem with my phrasing (I am sure some will now take the opportunity to chime in support of you). At the risk of sounding trite let me end with . . . whatever.--Justanother 14:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)