Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Proposed decision

message: It is unclear to me why his is doing this.  His explanation does not make sense: "Sure, Fahrenheit451. I removed that older discussion material from my discussion page so as to keep its length within what I consider to be reasonable limits. I understand I could archive it if I chose to, I also understand that every editor may make their own choice, archive or delete at their own whim. I also understand the single item which an editor may not delete from his user page. I did not delete it to present a particular point of view because my point of view is pretty widely recognized and if anyone has any doubt of my stance, my user page tells you what I think of Wikipedia and how I hope to achieve a reader being able to come here to our Wikipedia and learn about those things which I feel I am capable of contributing about. To be honest, I don't understand your statement, "in a rather POV manner", if you would care to discuss how my deletion of past, resolved (I thought) discussions is contradictory to ongoing discussions, please say so. Terryeo 03:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a user's perogative to edit their user page.  I removed this because, as I spelled out when I did, I did not like your invective use of language.  I notice you use even stronger language which includes racial slurs on other editor's talk pages.  I don't have the administrative status that User_talk:SlimVirgin does, but it is nonetheless within my rights as an editor to remove invective statements and past discussions.  I thought we had finished the patter drill discussions.  I provided you with the information you requested and you wrote the patter drill article which still, largely, stands. Terryeo 17:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A couple of your personal attacks, Fahrenheit451, selected at random from your contributions. (this guy is quite a troll)
 (be gone OSA troll)  Terryeo 14:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Fahrenheit, looks like I have responsded to your accusations about "working for the Office of Special Affairs" many times.  I think it would be senseless to say the same thing again and again to you.  I've responded to your accusation about that on talk pages, on your talk pages, on other's talk pages and to your assorted other accusations about "working for Scientology", that sort of thing.  I've been forthcoming, that's not the issue before you, except to the degree you make it your issue. Terryeo 18:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terryeo is selectively removing and altering his talk page discussions 

message: I quote from Terryeo reply above: "I notice you use even stronger language which includes racial slurs on other editor's talk pages."
He continues to violate wikipedia policy against personal attacks by falsely accusing other editors. --Fahrenheit451 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, we should ask an admin to ban him for at least 24 hours. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terryeo engaging in personal attacks again 

message: I removed this link because it did not conform to the WP:RS guideline which Terryeo advocates strongly.
He added it on 19 April 06.  Interestingly enough, the linked page was created on 15 April 06.  
The blog was written allegedly by a member of the cofs and provided only her opinion on patter drills and related topics.
Laurie Hamilton responds to the Golden Age of Tech and Patter Drills 
--Fahrenheit451 02:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added that to a talk page, when someone asked for another point of view on something.  I don't believe I added it into an article.  Why didn't you link the difference which shows your accusation, rather than linking the webpage you find violates talk page discussion? Terryeo 07:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Damn Right !  I added that as "other links" in an exterior section and not as a secondary source of information.  Damn Right ! Exactly in the section all such personal website links and opinions should go !  Damn Right ! Terryeo 13:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Did you find that in an article, or in a talk page?  I've used that link a couple of times in respose on talk pages, toward answering questions about various things because "experts.com" has several "experts", Hamilton being one, but there are others too, not all of whom are pro-Scientology.  It provides an additional point of view, for those who are interested.  Seem reasonable to you? Especially in response to questions on talk pages.  Did I post that actually in an article as a secondary source of information?  I don't think I did. Terryeo 17:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terryeo adds partisan blog link to [[Patter Drills]] 

message: "The practice of first setting forth the viewpoint of the advocates of a positive viewpoint has been considered and rejected." is better written "The practice of first setting forth a positive viewpoint has been considered and rejected." It would be easier to read with the change. --Davidstrauss 06:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reword item