Talk:Dianetics/Archive 9

message: Terryeo claimed that he was merely removing the  template.  While I feel that the disambiguation line is as useful as any disambiguation line, I would have let the change stand if Terryeo hadn't made an unmarked change to the introduction at the same time, from "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind, and a set of associated practices which attempt to treat physical and mental ailments." to "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind, and a set of associated practices. It purports to help people."  Terryeo knows of course that other editors oppose his attempt to remove the documented fact that the practices of Dianetics attempt to treat mental and physical ailments and substitute the flabby, vague "to help people" ; because he knows this, his choice to make both changes but only to mention one of them in his edit summary smacks of an attempt to deceive.  I am restoring both. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is more accurate to state: "to help people" than to state: "treat mental and physical ailments".  It says so at the website ] by stating, "the single goal of dianetics is to remove the reactive mind."  Unless you got a real good understanding of how a reactive mind might cause "physical and mental problems" it is more accurate to state, "to help people". Terryeo 11:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Gawd Feldspar, what we would do without you around to save us?  Whew! Terryeo 09:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, in pulling up the history of this talk page I see: (cur) (last)  13:01, 27 February 2006 Spirit of Man (→2¢ about the current state of the article - Comment to BTfromLA) 
(cur) (last)  01:24, 27 February 2006 Terryeo (→2¢ about the current state of the article - reply to Feldspar)
Which leaves a gap of 11 hours and 36 minutes.  Is there something wrong with my browser? Terryeo 19:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I am certainly removing the disambiguation, it is a blind guess on the part of an editor that a person coming to this page does not want to arrive at this page.  Further, the book link is available to them at the top of the navigation template.  Its dumb to have it there.  I plan to consistantly remove it.  Further, it is clearly obvious that the article is not being created by a consensus of editor opinion.  Obvious, clearly.  Spirit of Man has worked hard toward consensus.  He creates an an editor reverst his stuff out with almost no discussion.  One or two editors side with the revert and it stultifies the article's growth and accuracy.  I have worked for months, the contrary editors who revert me don't understand the words used and can not possibly understand, therefore, what the subject is about.  I'm through tip toeing.  Feldspar will sometimes go several days, happily reverting other poeple's created edits and he isn't the worst contrary editor.  I haven't given up discussion, but I'm through discussing every tiny one letter change on the discussion page before doing it.  The policy is "edit boldly".  I've long put concensus on at least an equal footing with that. But the policy doesn't say, "edit boldly if everyone agrees with you".  The contrary editors revert without discussion and uses excuses like "POV, reverted".  Have a happy editing time, heh,  just joining the crowd on this one.Terryeo 19:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terry, I don't want to put too fine a point on things, but you may want to read this, this, and this. Tenebrous 02:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't write that material, it was written by a group of four Dianetic critics, all I did was pull it out of being buried in a paragraph on illness and noted that on the edit summary. I don't know why it didn't appear, I must have done something wrong on that summary line. Your edit fails to note the actual source of information, The Auditor a publication of the American Saint Hill Orgainzation and again buries it once again, inside a paragraph on illness. David, why did you put it in there and delete the source material and use a conflict site for your citation? Spirit of Man 01:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the disambiguation (again). For one thing it is a blind guess that a reader coming to this article might want to go to the other article instead.  That is just a pure, silly blind guess.  They already have the template to navigate with one click.  Then a dumb disambiguation offers them yet one more mousey click to another article so they don't actually have to read this one.  How far are we going to go with this top of page nonesense? heh!  I removed it. Terryeo 11:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to pretend that it is a "blind, silly guess" to think that anyone will ever link the word Dianetics to get the article regarding the book, when the book is actually (now) described at Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, then go ahead and pretend.  Of course, you'll look ridiculous doing so, since two counter-examples (, ) already show that people have and may well again link Dianetics when they mean Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.  However, it will at least be a tiny bit less ridiculous than your insistence that what a "Doctor of Divinity" or a page reprinted by the U.S. Navy from the website of an amateur doesn't say is more authoritative than what the Church of Scientology's Deputy Inspector General for Legal Affairs says in court under oath. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh -- and the day that I find yet another article that links to Dianetics when it actually means Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health is the day (well, okay, one of the many days) that Terryeo tries to remove the disambiguation template with a bogus edit summary: . -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accurate edit summaries  

message: Content issues entirely aside from a moment: this article is huge, and that needs to be fixed right about now. Would a split to History of Dianetics be all right by everybody? That seems to cut the article more or less in half.
Sometime today I'm going to undertake a major grammar/style edit on this beast to see if I can't shorten it at least some without losing any content. Fair warning. Madame Sosostris 19:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, go for it, though I fear that the contentiousness on the talk page--which involves a lot of mania for citations and example and counter-examples--may make it difficult for any substantial copy editing to stand unreverted (though it is MUCH needed): you may want to take this editing project in stages to avoid having your work undone in one swoop.  I'm against the "History of " spinoff--I don't see why the necessary content can't fit into a single article, most of which can be incorprooated into a narrative history. There's a lot of unnecessary material in the article as it stands. BTfromLA 19:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I always go by sections on things like this. I'm hoping not to step on too many toes by focusing on stuff like sentence structure rather than content, at least at first. We may find that the spinoff is necessary, though, so keep an open mind. Madame Sosostris 20:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It amuses the hell out of me that you cut exactly the same things that I cut earlier and your edits stand while my edits seem to draw editors to revert them.  I have even wondered if the first thing editors do is follow my edits and revert for no reason except that I edited. HEH! Terryeo 02:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People don't like it when you just take information out without doing anything else. The trick is to rewrite extensively during the removal process, so that nobody wants to revert you, because the article is substantially better for what you've done. Madame Sosostris 02:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holy crap, this thing is long

message: * Bridge Publications is a refutable, (though special interest) publishing house. Its publications may be quoted as a "primary source"  okay? Terryeo 16:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It meets the Wiki criteria for "reputable". Spirit of Man 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why we discuss DavidStrauss.  I do mean "reputable", of good reputation.  It is appropriate to understand that a publishing house can publish in a specialized area such as Lawn Care or Science Fiction or Buddhism, but be of good reputation.  Bridge Pubs does not, for example, mispell frequently nor do other mistakes that some small publishing houses do.  I would hope that within its area of specialization it can be considered to produce the information its author intended to publish, as the author intended it to be presented.  Can we agree on that? Terryeo 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't using the CoS concept of primary source. The referenced website has the responsibility to represent the CoS and meets the Wiki criteria for primary source. Spirit of Man 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have outlined a Minority Point of View. Would you, as a signer of the Poll above, care to outline a Majority Point View that fairly represents the Minority View? Spirit of Man 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Your personal point of view (curruption) has been respected in the article. That point of view should be fairly compared with the (uncorrupt) point of view as Wiki policy says. You post your citations and we post ours. We don't delete yours unfairly, and you don't delete ours unfairly. Does this make sense? Wiki policies are fairly stable, that is the idea of stable data here, what one can hold to for while. Spirit of Man 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we establish stable datums to work from