User talk:Justanother/Archive8

Your Dispute

Please take all information regarding your dispute to AN/I so that other administrators can view it. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 22:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ARC and KRC

There's an article on ARC. *None* on KRC. Would you be willing to write one, or at least a stub? Ronabop 07:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Xenu

Just saying something is "unuseful" does not justify deletion. My image adds a great deal to the page as it shows the aircraft interior - clearly people would like to see that. MarkThomas 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yuk yuk yuk. Wikipedia not for joke. Thank you. --Justanother 23:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a private message board for Scieno POV either. You are not in charge here. MarkThomas 23:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am as "in charge" as any editor and, trust me, that is quite a lot. --Justanother 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that you just did a 3RR and it is the spirit as well as the letter of the policy that applies, can you think of a good reason why you shouldn't immediately be blocked for it? MarkThomas 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. --Justanother 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought you'd be ashamed...

which is why I didn't want to identify you. If you'd prefer to be identified I have no problem accommodating you. Anynobody 01:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just please include the diff. Thanks. --Justanother 02:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, you should cherish that diff. You are the only editor that ever squeezed a profanity out of me. Usually I am simply sarcastic. And I am going to do my darndest to quit even that so that "shit" and "motherfucker" you have there are rare gems indeed, not likely to be seen again. So enjoy! --Justanother 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that I care about "bad words" but I thought I noticed you cursing in one or two other instances, but it's the whole post that I love. Since I'm using it as an example of your negative behavior in a future RfC I have no problem with what I said that caused that reply but including the diff on my user page defeats the "quick entertainment" I was trying to provide. (It's the asking for my help so you can have something to insult me with I find funny.) The reason I redacted your name in the first place was to keep the quote as just a funny thing for one person to say to another, without implying anything negative about you.

If you are concerned people might get the wrong idea about you, I'd rather just go back to keeping the quote nameless so that it isn't an issue. Anynobody 03:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it only fair that you include the diff so that someone can verify 1) that I actually said that and 2) the context. Keeping the diff shows good faith on your part. That is good advice. Take it or leave it. If you must remove the diff then please leave the post just as I wrote it with my sig intact. But really, keep the diff is good advice; you should take it. Otherwise people will wonder why no diff. --Justanother 03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as other profanities, I think a few "craps" but that is about it. I don't consider "crap" a profanity, just a minor vulgarity. --Justanother 03:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's actually why I left your name out though, it's not meant to illustrate anything about you as an editor. Some people might not believe it happened without specifics, but I'd rather deal with them than make this into an issue about your character. To ensure that the idea of simple entertainment be maintained I'm going to revert my page back to the version that doesn't identify you. If you think it's inappropriate feel free to post a note on WP:ANI but please do not edit my user page again. I know you would not appreciate it if I edited yours. Thanks, Anynobody 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually have looked at WP:ANI at both your complaint about this and your accusation of harassment to Smee. Thanks for the heads up though. Anynobody 07:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not directed at you, I notified you. That was for Sarah. --Justanother 07:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Justanother/ORHOF

Hi. I noticed you had this subpage in your userspace. It doesn't appear to be extensively used at the moment, but you may consider not expanding it further. It seems like such a page would invariably result in some kind of conflict down the road, not to mention WP:AGF concerns. It doesn't seem beneficial to an encyclopedia to have this sort of thing, even if it didn't generate conflict (which would be unlikely). .V. _[Talk|Email] 19:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ya, the purpose of that one left a bad taste in my mouth for what was supposed to be a bit of fun. Don't know what I will do with it but thanks for the concern. --Justanother 19:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And now it is no more. Unlamented. --Justanother 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. You're currently on your third revert of this page. It's not helping anyone for a WikiProject to be the subject of an edit war. -- ChrisO 23:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Yes, I know but I am up against an inveterate edit-warrior and POV-pusher that has majorly redesigned the page at the expense of utility and I just want him to hold off and have a proper discussion, not just a couple of kudos from newcomers. Would you please do me the favor of helping me out over there? Thanks. --Justanother 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

ps. I brought it to talk but that did not forestall Smee starting an edit-war. --Justanother 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Request

I request that you have this page removed: User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova). These are personal attacks, false accusations, and blatant misinterpretations of my past actions in order to paint me as some individual that I am not. It is hypocritical in light of your requests that Anynobody remove his information about you from his user page. Please either pursue dispute resolution in whatever manner you see fit, but this is highly inappropriate. Thank you for your time. Smee 23:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Of course I will not remove it, I am putting together a formal action against you. --Justanother 00:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Smee, it is never to late for you to turn over a new leaf. If you were to make the necessary change right now, I would probably just hold that page in abeyance. Every single time from here on out that you edit war over your inclusions of inappropraite material and every time you attempt to stack the deck in articles or in talk; every time you do those sorts of things it reinvigorates my desire to prepare the Mother of All ArbComs or whatever it will take to fully address your WP:TE and WP:DE. This is something you brought on yourself, over the course of a year's worth of tententious editting, and over the objections of who knows how many other editors (but I will know how many very soon). Smee, you just finally found the right editor to address this with you. --Justanother 00:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Have fun with that. This is utterly ridiculous and a waste of time on your part. My main motivation here and the thing that I most enjoy is creating new well-sourced articles with citations from reputable sources, and contributing in a positive manner by adding material to the project. Your main motivations seem to be to remove material from the project, and insult others with impolite demeanor and language, and not apologize for it. The last ArbComm that you were involved in resulted in the banning of your friend User:BabyDweezil from the project, for disruptive editing. The last ArbComm before that that I was involved in, resulted in a decision with no punitive decisions for the editors involved, and the article has not been a subject of edit warring since then. I would much rather focus on what I enjoy most - writing new articles on topics/subjects not covered in detail on the project, than being the butt of personal attacks and the like from disruptive editors to the project, and being unduly distracted from creating new articles - which seems to be your main motivation. It is an easy thing for the only thing that I could possibly admit to doing wrong, which would be reversions, and I apologize and am working on that. It is another matter entirely for you to apologize (not as a blanket apology, but to the individuals offended) for your impolite behaviour and disruptions and language, and start to contribute to the project in a positive manner, and actually add material to articles or create new articles, instead of attempting to remove material. Others may see yourself as more of a "POV pusher" than you see others. I have said this before and I will say it again - if you can adjust your abrasive behaviour, apologize and act in a polite and courteous demeanor, you will see we could potentially work together. Regardless of your actions and what you may perceive, I will work on curbing the reverting. Smee 02:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Smee, if you can practice 0RR (zeroRR) and then add to that an understanding of what constitutes a reliable source and what constitutes NPOV; which understandings you presently do not exhibit; then we can indeed work together. Smee, I try to avoid analyzing other editors but I fear that you are one cat that may not be able to change her spots. But I stand ready to be amazed! Meanwhile I will be watching you closely and continuing my good work as warranted by your actions. --Justanother 02:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • And what of your end? Will you adjust your actions? Will you apologize to the individual editors offended? Practice 0RR yourself as well? Stop the abrasive edit summaries? Delete the page about me? That would be nice. Regardless, I will work on reducing the reverts, and, as you put it: "add to that an understanding of what constitutes a reliable source and what constitutes NPOV"... Working relationships go two-ways, and are 50/50. Smee 03:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
      • Oh and ps. "The last ArbComm that you were involved in" Smee, would you mind please showing me where I have ever been involved in any ArbCom?? That sort of misrepresentation is something we usually see from another editor. --Justanother 03:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • The ArbComm involving User:BabyDweezil. We were both involved with this, not as a main party, but as a party providing commentary, if I recall correctly. No ill intention was meant with this, simply pointing it out. Now, what of my questions above? Or is this a one-way street, and do you believe that you have nothing in your behaviour here that you can improve as well? Smee 03:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC). Strike that, it appears that you did not provide commentary in the ArbComm itself. My mistake. Suffice it to say, a disruptive editor was banned. Smee 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
          • OK, now that that is cleared up. Regarding your requests of me. May I remind you that you have already been to that well in User talk:Sm1969 and quickly poisoned the water by following me to articles you had little previous interaction with to, once again, engage in WP:TE and WP:DE that got you absolutely nowhere. You have been to that well. I have already made all the adjustment to my behaviour needed and most, if not all, of the apologies too. Now it is really your turn. --Justanother 03:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
            • To clarify: You are saying that you have nothing to apologize to other individual editors for, will not remove the page about me, and will not change any of your behaviour other than what you believe you have already done? Just so we are clear. I have already begun to work on myself, but if you are not willing to change, or apologize to those you have offended, that is... interesting, on your part, and speaks to your character and the nature of your purpose and contributions or lack thereof here on the project. Okay. I suppose I will simply work on myself in any event, and just hope that you will change your abrasive nature... Smee 03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Just to clarify then:

• Should I apologize to editors like you and Anynobody? Well, that is a good question. I was uncivil to you, certainly. But my incivility came after you'all's incivility to me. Your incivility was reflected in your abrasive and abusive editing, not in harsh words. But it is uncivil nonetheless. Anynobody's incivility was/is in his relentless creepy preoccupation with me and trying to prove me wrong, and in his false accusations of COI. So do I feel like apologizing to you guys. Sorry, but I do not. Stopping my incivility toward you is the best I can manage.
• Remove the page - Maybe if you demonstrate a true change. The page is a workspace for a formal action that I am certainly planning to bring if I do not see a drastic turnabout. No reason to delete it before turnabout demonstrated. If I think that you are showing a change, I will remove the mention of it on my main user page. That could occur earlier than full deletion. Full deletion of course, simply meaning that I save it off-wiki.
• Change my behaviour - Yes, I made my change. I will be polite. If you practice 0RR then we will have a chance, I think. In other words, if you do not revert my edits but instead raise a concern on talk I promise I will discuss and yield if I stand against consensus, reserving the right, of course to continue with any proper WP:DR.

OK, I think I covered your concerns. --Justanother 04:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• • A good faith gesture on your part would be for you to remove the page. "I was uncivil to you, certainly." This in and of itself is a big step for you, admitting your uncivil behaviour. If you could also apologize to me, that would go a long way towards improving things. If I have offended you with what you refer to as: "Your incivility was reflected in your abrasive and abusive editing, not in harsh words.", then I apologize. I will take a good faith assumption that you will improve your behaviour in the future, and also I would (hope) that you will change your edit summary pattern, and reserve long drawn out thoughts to the talk page. I also think it would be a good faith gesture for both of us to add the {{User 1RR}} User Box to our user pages, and for both of us to make a good faith hard effort to practice this. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 04:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
    • Not to be argumentative but it is not a big step for me to admit my flaws, I do it all the time. Agressively addressing what I perceive in your editing (I will spare you my repeating again what I object to) is not one of my flaws, it is one of my strengths. I gave you my good faith after User:Sm1969 and we see what happened there. Someone once said "AGF is not a suicide pact." The page stays until I see something that would lead me to believe that it might could go away. My good faith gesture is that I will not add to it for the nonce. --Justanother 04:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • So again, you are not really agreeing to do anything? You do not wish to add the {{User 1RR}} User Box to your user page? Apologize to me (I just apologized to you above.) ? Agree to have shorter, succinct edit summaries, and keep abrasive comments to the talk page? I am going to implement these changes to myself in any event, but it is very telling that you refuse this offering. Smee 04:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
        • Are you apologizing for your edit-warring with me over my tags, reversions, and removals that have one-for-one stood when input from admins and neutral parties was sought? Because if you are specifically apologizing for that misbehaviour on your part then yes, I will reciprocate. --Justanother 06:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I cannot speak to individual actions, but suffice it to say that I am truly sorry that we have both gotten into edit wars with each other in the past. I have added the {{user 1RR}} template to my User page. This signifies that I will try my best to speedily seek out the RFC, Third Opinion, and other channels as quickly as possible, before getting into an edit war in the future. I hope you will do the same. My requests for reciprocation stand as previously stated above, RE: Your apology regarding your behaviour, edit summaries, and removal of the page. Smee 06:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
            • In reverse order: I have noted on my user page that I am holding the work on that action as you have made promises to me here that may obviate the need to continue. Re the 1RR, I will look and see how that fits into my editing philosophy. That philosophy being to work well with others and to be sensitive to the legitimate concerns of critics while taking a very tough stand against WP:NOT soapboxing. My "tough stand" may be inconsistent with 1RR but I will review the policy and think about it. Re my edit summaries, you can expect my first one to be gentle but succeeding summaries in an edit war will likely follow the pattern I piloted recently at LGAT that clearly labels the inappropriate action for what it is without violating WP:CIVIL. That way people that watch the page can see what is going on and also the cases can be located easily later. Re the apology, well if all you want is what you've given then sure, I am sorry we got in edit wars too. Without speaking to individual actions, of course. I think that covers it all. --Justanother 17:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Hrm, so you have not put {{user 1RR}} on your user page, and have not deleted the page about me, and yet I am working on myself, have put the user box on my page space, and have steadily taken past articles where you appear off of my watchlist. Just so we are clear here that there is no reciprocation (so far) on your part. Smee 18:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Smee, what you have apparently not stopped is trying to cast things in a light sympathetic to your viewpoint and with little regard for the truth. And since that is the heart of my objection to your editing then I hold little hope of your spots changing. You are doing here exactly that which I object to elsewhere. There has been reciprocation. 1) I put the project on you on hold and mention that on my user page; 2) I gave you the exact apology you gave me; 3) I promised to be more civil. There is more. I see lots of reciprocation but you, in your objectionable manner, seek to cast it as "no reciprocation (so far) on your part." That is a problem; I worry that this is just more "smoke and mirrors" on your part. But I am still in "wait and see" mode. --Justanother 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Brought your attack page to ANI. Smee 01:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
  • I must say, Smee, that your desire to put the cart before the horse and your misrepresentation of what Tom told you (he told you it looked like what it is; preparation for a formal action and not an attack page like Anynobody's fake Editor Review); all that makes me just want to give up on working with you and just carry on with formal action. I will continue to hold off for a bit, though. You might want to withdraw your AN/I complant though but that is your call. --Justanother 01:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This was upon recommendation by another Admin. Smee 02:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
      • Please be clear. --Justanother 02:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I have been. I sought out advice, got a recommendation, and implemented that suggestion from the Admin. Smee 02:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
          • Oh, an unnamed Admin. OK, no prob. --Justanother 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Your own edit summary was: "Smee, take it to AN/I if you have a problem" - Seems hypocritical of you to take issue with me following your own recommendation... Smee 03:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
  • I can see that viewpoint. I meant that the proper action for you is AN/I, not messing with my user pages. Does not mean that I agree that you should do anything but take my user page off your watchlist, forget that page exists, and go about editing in the manner that you have promised to edit? If I can figure out my own question then I think no. Do what I just said (whatever it was) and the page will go away all by itself with no need for more chatter from us three on AN/I. You can still follow that advisable course of action and I will remove the reference to it in my "tally sheet". The tally sheet is about can Smee change or can she not change. This AN/I and trying to hide my page is old Smee. --Justanother 03:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I follow your own request from your edit summary, and you have issue with this. I was following your suggestions. This is not old Smee or new Smee, this is following what you had laid out in your own edit summary. Smee 03:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
      • Oh, then let me fix those edit summaries. Please replace them (in your mind) with this:

        "Please do not edit my user pages. If think something here is inappropriate you of course can pursue whatever avenues you care to but I must mention that I consider your preoccupation with this page and your desire to make it disappear before you have demonstrated that it should disappear to be counter to the spirit of our agreement."

        Kinda long but you know how I like a long edit summary. So, since you are following my advice, please be kind enough to remove your AN/I notice and let us go on from there. Or, if you do not care to follow my advice, leave it and let us go on from there. No biggie. I am still in "wait and see" either way. --Justanother 04:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• I asked an Admin for advice, and was told to add that particular template to the page. I did so, and then you removed it shortly thereafter, with the edit summary: Smee, take it to AN/I if you have a problem - I then followed your suggestion. That was the chain of events. As such, all actions were appropriately taken. Smee 04:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
  • As a sign of good faith, I have acceded to your request and have move the pages off-wiki. I look forward to seeing a definite change in your editing patterns. Thank you. --Justanother 20:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I look forward to seeing a definite change in your editing patterns as well. Later, Smee 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
      • If you mean be more polite in my edit summaries and talk page comments, then yes, I hope that you have already seen the change. --Justanother 21:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• And what of adding the user box {{user 1RR}} to your user page, and holding yourself to it as well? You have asked me to hold to this. Smee 21:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
  • I will look at it as I previously mentioned. For now, let's just see if edit-warring is a thing of the past, no? I do not want to add the box if I feel that it will make me a hypocrite down the road as I do not mind edit-warring with edit-warriors and POV-pushers. Sometimes that is what it takes. POV-pushers having little regard for the rules and sometimes the only thing that can check them is 3RR. But I will think about it as I already stated. --Justanother 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Your characterization of "edit-warriors and POV-pushers" could easily be used by others to describe yourself as well. Edit warring takes two or more parties, and you have been a party to them, and been blocked before for 3RR. The very fact that you wish for me to abide by this, and not yourself, seems quite hypocritical, you must admit... Smee 22:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
      • And meanwhile you edit-war over your inappropriate and wrong inclusion of Sterling in the LGAT list. I think I am wasting my time with you, Smee. Why not just stop posting over here and make the changethat you promised to make. Thanks. --Justanother 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Please do not classify restoring information, and then bringing it to the talk page as and "edit war". It takes two to edit war - therefore clearly you are edit warring as well, if so. Please adjust your behaviour, tack, and politeness accordingly. Thanks. Smee 22:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
          • Why I might go 2RR or 3RR is covered just a few posts previous to this one. --Justanother 22:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
            • That is not a rationalization. You have been blocked as well for this in the past, as have I, and you should work on your edit warring as well. Smee 22:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
• And to clarify, my restoration the first time of Sterling Management Systems was the first time it was put back in today, April 2, therefore not a revert. You reverted first, then I reverted once, 1RR. Then when you reverted again, I did not, and instead took it to the talk page. In other words, my first revert was when I put the edit summary, add further to citation. Therefore, 1RR. Understandable to get confused. Smee 22:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Smee, I see this as dancing around technicalities. If you put it back, once it had been removed and documented, without going to the discussion page, I would consider it a revert. The 3RR rule clarifies its intention and that intention is to prevent authors from simply 'undoing' another author's edits. The count of 3 is arbitrary and the rule at least implies that even 1 revert, if done maliciously or without regard for other author's edits/perspective could qualify as a violation (at least thats what I see in the rule) Lsi john 22:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, what is your situation with Smee currently? It appears she and I will be going to arbitration and I have no idea what that involves nor what it technically means. I suspect I could use a bit of help from others who are more experienced with her revert-tactics and pov posting. Lsi john 02:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is not Arbitration, but Mediation. Much friendlier and less official atmosphere. Smee 02:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Yes, indeed. Perhaps it was a freudian slip that I was looking ahead, based on your past practices in anticipation that you'll continue to do things your way but paint it a different color and hope nobody notices. Lsi john 03:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Rumi

Salam. I nominated Rumi as a Good article and 0.7 release version of WP. As a reviewer of Ga Wikiproject I reviewed it informally and wrote my viewpoint and also explain what should be done to to reach GA criteria. We need your help .--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I am honored! I will be happy to help though my help may be mostly in the area of cleaning up prose, something I am pretty good at. While I admire Rumi, as I do most spiritual leaders, I am not much of an expert and own only one compilation of his work in my personal library. But I will do what I can. Thanks again. --Justanother 17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please write in its talk page what you can do. In a team working cleaning is as important as completion. God bless you.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

الله أَكْبَر --Justanother 17:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Credit

Thanks for your patience and help. Thanks, also for your example of of a userbox and user tags. I like my blue box better than your pink one (haha). also, could you review my recent updates to the lgat page and make any adjustments you think I need. I inserted a couple "comment" questions in the article where I felt something was wrong or missing but was not sure how to resolve it. thanks again, Lsi john 17:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

could you also critique my edit of the 'list'. I attempted to add readability to the preface to the list.

Thanks John. I did a bit of clean-up over there and will directly address your question later. Also please note that I move the write-up on User:Smee to off-wiki storage as a sign of good faith. I appreciated your input on it. If all goes well, and Smee can slow down, look at what others have to say before she reverts anything, and discuss in talk before she reverts anything, well then, just maybe, we won't need to go to the trouble. --Justanother 20:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll await your reviews. Feel free to thump me soundly if I begin to step off a cliff as I'm not a certified base jumper. Lsi john 21:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Do you really collect CPUs? I some rare Cyrix engineering samples that I need to toss up on eBay. Last Socket7 M2 before the Via buyout - 433 MHz, I think. Bought them years ago off some Cyrix lab guys selling them off on eBay. I am also a pilot but have not flown in decades, (sadly). --Justanother 21:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

only in the form of old hulks that are in my basement from 8088 to present-day vintage. Two years ago I had to assemble a 486-dx4-100 system for a customer from parts I had laying around. Hard to believe, but its true! Lsi john 22:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Déshabillé

Heh, thank you. Thoughtful! Bishonen | talk 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

My pleasure. Indeed, a pleasure. --Justanother 20:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought of you...

when I saw this discussion at WP:ANI.   :-)   Thanks for your just telling me about strike-through, rather than asking the cap'ns t' keel-haul me. :o>-<   Shenme 03:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Arrr. Shiver me timbers and pass the grog. --Justanother 12:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant Grok... Smee 12:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

I did mean grog but maybe I want wine. --Justanother 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to try it sometime. I prefer Jameson's, or Guinness, or both. Smee 13:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Sounds good. I only drink about one beer per year and I like Killian's. Cheers --Justanother 13:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

I am reversing the changes for which User:COFS was blocked. I am not blindly reverting them, nor am I being disruptive: I am attempting to maintain sources for assertions that remain in WP. Removing the source without removing the statement is hardly responsible, and that's what User:COFS was doing -- aside from, in many cases, simply removing a template that s/he didn't like. Cleduc 20:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:COFS is not blocked and if you think s/he is a sock then report it in the appropriate place. The "truthaboutscientology" site is non-RS and highly POV in addition to its highly offensive purpose of publicly "outing" Scientologists. That site has no place here. Please STOP. Thanks. --Justanother 20:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, I didn't imply that COFS was a sock, but I guess you just did. S/he was blocked until s/he agreed to quit. In any case, my reasoning above stands, if you care to read it. Cleduc 20:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? S/he was not blocked. The removals of the POV site will stand. Please stop your disruptive activity, especially as you are apparently basing it on a misapprehension (or misrepresentation?) --Justanother 21:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, as far as your reasoning; I would rather have the statement unsourced than "sourced" with a POV, non-RS, violation of our policies here. If they are unsourced then they can be tagged but if the "tas" site is the only source then there is no source. --Justanother 21:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see the block now. Inappropriate for ChrisO, he should have dropped it on AN/I. I will discuss it with him. --Justanother 21:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your reasoning. It's OK to out scientologists on WP as long as it is unsourced? And it's bad for that site to out them, but not bad for WP? I don't think you can have it both ways. Cleduc 22:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning is that that site is not a "source". There is a ton of unsourced material on Wikipedia. I do not mind leaving a bit more unsourced on Wikipedia, just tag it {{fact}} and see if someone can properly source it a reasonable time frame. If not then pull. Or pull it now. Either way makes no difference to me; the important thing is to not leave a phony non-RS source as that makes it appear that the material is sourced when it is not, at least as far as we are concerned. Did I manage to make my self clear? Unsourced with proper tag is better than improperly sourced. And yes, we still need to put tags where the improper source was pulled. That is true. --Justanother 02:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I *do* care if there is unsourced information in WP:BLP articles, so removing sources is unacceptable. If you intend to remove a source (because it offends your sensibilities in some way), replace it with another source, or remove the statements along with the citation. Cleduc 23:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But actually what I am going to do is go some WP:DR route as this is really a simple issue - use of non-RS in WP:BLP and I would like to handle it just once not over and over again. --Justanother 23:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, boys, thanks for the interest. First, it is She and second, I got two socks on. They are black and currently on my desk, having my feet it in. Otherwise I have nothing to do with socks. Now, a questions to Cleduc, why are you doing this? You have not shown up in the Scientology discussion so far. What makes you jump on this? COFS 04:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The "sock" thing was me misunderstanding Cleduc. I looked at your user talk page and did not see the big lavender "YOU be blocked" like is on, um er, MY page. Then I checked the block logs and did not see you either so I assumed he meant that you were an old editor that had been previously blocked. After I checked another log I saw the short block by ChrisO. Yes, if I had read your talk page a bit more closely I would have figured it out but I am soooooo tired of "Wikipedia Walls of Words" even though I contribute as much or more than anyone. Sorry for my mix-up. --Justanother 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw templates being promiscuously deleted from articles, with no good reason stated ("ugly") -- then sources being deleted from articles, with edit summaries that did not match the changes taking place ("POV vio gone"). My arguments with those changes are detailed above. Beyond the fact that I care about WP, I don't think you're going to be able to pidgeonhole me into one "team" or another in this little skirmish. Cleduc 04:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, if you do not pigeon-hole. That is a good thing. The "anti-Scientology team" has a lot more to fear from neutral editors than I do. I LOVE neutral editors. You are right that flippant edit summaries can lead one to believe that the edits themselves are flippant. However that is not the case in either of those series by COS. She was acting on a consensus evident at the time that two templates are redundant and duplicative (smile) and the other batch was removing an inappropriate source. You are right, she should have done a bit more, either 1) found a better source like www.scientology.cc; 2) removed the whole thing not just the cite; or 3) hung a fact tag on the bit. Later. --Justanother 04:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO's last words

I'm afraid I won't have much time for this discussion as I'm about to be without net access for a few days, but just a few points here:

• Yes, I did block COFS but only for about 10 minutes and solely to interrupt his deletion spree. He responded positively to my request to discuss the matter with other editors before continuing so I lifted the block quickly. As I said on his talk page, in principle I'm sympathetic to his concerns but we need to make sure that there's a consensus on how this website should be treated.
• The site in question is a personal website which aggregates info from reliable sources (i.e. C of S publications). It would be inappropriate to cite it as a reliable source within the main body of an article. However, if it's being used to support a particular statement (e.g. person X did Y according to magazine Z), it would be more appropriate to cite the original magazine reference directly. For instance, this removal was appropriate (though not for the stated reason!) - the completions in question should have been quoted directly.
• Regarding external links, this will have to be taken on a case-by-case basis: for instance, it would seem appropriate in the context of the list of critical websites on Church of Scientology. It may not be appropriate in every case.

Hope this is helpful. In the meantime, have a good Easter! -- ChrisO 06:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Easter, Chris, I hope the eggs don't get too wet. COFS 04:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR

You have been blocked for violation of the 3RR on Danny Masterson. See report on WP:AN3. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

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:

Good morning. I see that I have been, IMO, incorrectly blocked for three days for WP:3RR on Danny Masterson. Please see WP:AN3#User:Justanother reported by User:vivaldi (Result: 3 days).

   * Revert # 1 - My first edit was clearly a revert.
   * Consecutive edits, no revert - My second[3] and third[4] edits were consecutive and should be considered to count as one for the purposes of WP:3RR so no revert, simply replacing a bad WP:BLP source with a good one.
   * Editing, no revert - The following edit on my part was not a reversion either. It was also an edit conflict for me as I was correcting and expanding the article using the good sources while User:Vivaldi was reinserting the bad source.
   * Revert # 2, but to a different version - My last edit was a revert to a different version, which is the current version of the article.

I look forward to a fair review. Thank you for carefully considering my arguments; I apologize for the length. Thank you --Justanother 15:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It does look like you are in technical violation of the 3RR rule here. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:18, 8 April 2007 (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.

Now that I have declined you unblock request, I do think 3 days is a bit long. I can reduce it to 24 hours(from its original start time) if you promise not to perform any reverts on that page until the 3 day block would have ended(08:10, April 10, 2007). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

HBC just beat me to this. I was going to reduce it to a 24 hour block as well; you can count it as either 3 reverts or 4 reverts depending on what you define a "revert" as, but either way, both of you were edit warring rather than discussing it on the article's talk page, and both of you should have been blocked. (And for the record, I support your edits, but not your right to edit war.) At any rate, please take it to the talk page. You'll save everyone grief. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Thanks guys for reducing it and sure, I will stay away from the page in question for the next few days. Thanks bbat for the support of my edits; I will be taking some WP:DR route to sort it out when I have a bit more time. Have a happy holiday. --Justanother 03:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it is reduced to 24 hours from the original block, which expires at 08:10, April 8, 2007, just under 4 hours from now. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3

<returned to sender> --Justanother 08:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think young Lsi john is looking for foster parents. Wanna adopt him? Misou 05:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is he? I have already offered to mentor him a bit over on his talk page. --Justanother 05:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll check. He certainly can use it. Misou 05:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Catherine Bell article editing

I noticed that you recently reverted changes to the Scientology section of Catherine Bell. As you know, I'm trying to build consensus wording and citation on the talk page; please refrain from editing that sentence of the article until we have an agreement on wording and sources. (Yes, I know we have a discussion on my talk page, but this is a separate issue and just a short note). Enuja 00:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I know that Smee asked you to tell all the editors the same thing. No prob. I just reverted to what I thought was a working version. I see that Smee has reinserted the objectionable TAS site even though it is currently disputed and the subject of the RfC. --Justanother 00:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you worked on the grammar and wording on the article page after you posted this. Currently, I am the only one suggesting language and citations on the talk page. I'd love some help. Please use the talk page to build the best sentence we can build, and refrain from editing that sentence on the article page. Enuja 18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

All due respect but I do not see a particular conflict over that sentence, just over the sourcing. If I see a clear fix for something that is not under dispute then I will WP:BOLD. The dispute was over the use of the TAS site and I will respect your attempt to mediate on that point pending further input on my RfC. However, I am not agreeing to not edit in the article so as to improve it and I am not agreeing to clear my edits with others. That is cumbersome and not how things work here. If you do not like what I did with the sentence then just change it; let's not make a huge big deal out of everything; all due respect but we have enough of that already. I do appreciate your help. Thanks. --Justanother 18:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Worst Scientology article?

Please check out Scientology Finance. Even worse that Barbara's. Steve Dufour 05:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

All due respect but it is nowhere near in a class with Barb's. Both aspects of Scientology policy are correct. There is an OR synthesis by F451 joining them together as they are unrelated other than both being policies related to money. They are also non-notable and too much detail for a separate article. Similar to F451's article on Dead File; non-notable, too low a level of detail, and that one is WP:Fair use vio. --Justanother 14:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A belated thank you

Circumstances led me to log out entirely from Wikipedia for several weeks... I just logged back in today, and I see the posts you made on my userpage about three weeks ago. Thanks--very gracious of you, and I hope your junket was a rewarding one. Not sure whether I'm ready to have my Wikipedia experiences cross over into "real life," but I greatly appreciate the kind offer, and I'm sorry I wasn't "here" to respond in a timely manner. BTfromLA 16:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Yes, making the move to RL can require thought. Please don't think it is any different for me. Are you going to be editing again or is this a "guest appearance"? --Justanother 16:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, never say never, but my available time remains low, and I have to confess that my interest has waned--too much bickering of kinds that I find unsatisfying. (Challenging arguments and serious discussion I like, but...) I have a little free time over the next few days, so I may poke around a bit, but you should assume I'll remain fairly inactive. Do I assume that the usual battles in the Scientology articles continue as before, or has there been a change of climate? BTfromLA 17:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the dynamics have changed quite dramatically; I will not further characterize them as such would be from my POV. But yes, lots of change, things are different. And yes, arguing but good input from non-involved parties. Interesting. In a Chinese proverb kinda way. --Justanother 17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think people dislike Scientology?

I was reading some of what you wrote, just curious, why do you think people dislike it? Personally, I think it has something to do with This user does not contribute by using a Web browser. Rather, he uploads material directly to the Internet by using the awesome power of his mind.. Probably jealous. -- feb^talk 09:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right, just jealousy. Laff. --Justanother 11:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fear. Lsi john 13:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

People. --Justanother 22:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jealousy, I get. People dislike what they dont have.

Fear - People dislike what they dont understand and are afraid of.

People - i dont get. feel free to edit this and s'plain it to me.

Lsi john 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

People dislike Scientology because some people have made it their mission to spread lies and misinterpretations about Scientology for their own reasons (perhaps fear). Other people have had a bad experience with Scientology and look to spread their discontent; these bad experiences being the result either of their own errors and shortcomings or of yet other people misunderstanding Scientology and confusing it with some earlier practice like, I don't know, the Spanish Inquisition or ??? Also Scientology is PEOPLE is a play on a famous line. Oh, and Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health? IT'S A COOKBOOK! --Justanother 01:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

posible item of interest

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-10 Large Group Awareness Training Lsi john 01:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&section=46 Request for help Lsi john 03:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Issue_on_AN.2FI Lsi john 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi John. I do not want you think I have forgotten you. Remember that that is a mediation between you and Smee about specific issues between you and not some sort of court on either of you. You have to go into that assuming good faith that a mutually agreeable settlement can be reached. It is not the place for a bunch of 3rd parties to rehash other issues. The important thing is that you have a desired outcome in mind and hold to that. Smee and I have worked out our own disagreement over our respective behaviors and although Smee has broken the letter of the agreement on a number of occasions by edit-warring to 2RR, I have not yet called our agreement off. Again, figure out what you want and hold to it. If you need help figuring that out I can help although I expect that the mediator will be willing to help you on that also. --Justanother 14:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that you take any action, nor that you get involved, nor that you had forgotten me. I felt, in the same way that you referred me to your 'pending action' page, you might have an interest in the proceedings and would like the link to the page. My desired outcome has been written on the form.

Although there is a place for third-party input on the form. Whether or not you added anything would strictly be up to you and I was not soliciting your involvement. There is always the possibility that you would read something I wrote there and privately (on my page) offer unsolicited feedback. Which, for clarification here.. I openly solicit.. thus making it solicited feedback at any time of your choosing. There is also the possibility that you would read something written either by myself or Smee and feel compelled to add a third-party comment which supports or refutes the item, since you have been involved, or at least seen, several of the incidents between myself and Smee.

I apologize if some unintended meaning was sent/received by my posting the link here. Lsi john 15:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No apology necessary but thanks anyway. Re your desired outcome, it has something to do with Smee writing balanced articles, right? Wow, that is great! I know she could if she cared to (or at least I think she could). I am not going to jinx you by saying anything more about that (laff). Good luck and if you run into a difficulty that the mediator does not seem to be addressing I am more than willing to advise you. I was thinking about a 3rd party statement but it would be mostly what I say here so no real point. --Justanother 15:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My overall objective/goal/desired outcome is that she stop walking the 2RR line with so many contributors, and start joining in discussions in order to constructively generate articles with input from all sides. I grow weary of making an edit, citing a reason, and returning several days later to a revert with the comment 'facts are there', instead of a discussion about it before she reverts. I have to believe that my verbosity demonstrates my willingness to communicate. In my experience, her reverts demonstrate the opposite quality. My secondary goal is that she stop throwing LGAT into (virtually) every article she edits and especially stop working it into the opening paragraphs of an article. It is leading and often very misleading and when it belongs in an article, it belongs IN the article, not in the opening statement. Unless the article is specifically about LGAT, it should not be mentioned until later in the article in direct proportion to its insignificance to the article. Lsi john 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Are my posts on the dispute page in line with the process? Are they relevant? Any suggestions on how I might better present the case? Lsi john 17:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you have also posted on Howchen's page. I went there over a dispute with Smee's reverts and was surprised to find you had already posted there for similar problems. Lsi john 17:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am on a quick break and will look at the mediation later. Re Howcheng, I was and am concerned about misuse of the DYK feature to promote POV-pushing. It is specifically not supposed to do that and I saw a string of Smee Scientology smears on there so I am addressing the issue. You can also address it from your end. By address I mean post an objection to any misuse. If an article is POV or disputed it is not a fit source for DYK. If the factlet is POV or disputed it is not fit for DYK. --Justanother 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You can archive this. Its no longer necessary. Fresh Start. thanks ! Lsi john 01:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi Just. Sorry for the failed deletion. The rudeness of the admin was kind of shocking. Well, there are lots of other articles that need deleting. Cheers. Steve Dufour 03:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well, it is just people. No biggie, I will post it on DRV. --Justanother 03:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Larger pattern of subversive behavior

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holiday_Magic#Third_Opinion

Interesting choice of words. Lsi john 03:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well. --Justanother 03:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any feedback on commentary on my userpage? thanks. Lsi john 14:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

--You may archive this section if you wish. Lsi john 14:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

LSI John

John, I am opening a new section here for your recent request for help. John, you might want to watch the "walls of words" as they can be off-putting and not conducive to having a dialogue and dialoque is what you want. Break your issue down into managable bites of 3-4 sentences or less and only present one at a time and I think you will find you get more answers. Include diffs to clearly illustrate the problem. That said, what can I help you with? --Justanother 03:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Beer? Lsi john 03:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Killian's --Justanother 04:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Guiness Lsi john 04:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• That is what Smee drinks. See, you have something in common! --Justanother 04:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I don't know. I realize that there is a wall of words. The scope is so damned broad and the incidiousness of it is not seen at the microscopic level. Ive used the analogies:

• "A drop of water is insignificant. A dripping faucet wastes gallons of water in a year."

• "A violin does not make a symphony. It is not until all the instruments are assembled that you can hear the orchestra"

• A single note, removed from a concert, will not be noticed. A single instrument, removed from an orchestra, will not be noticed. Yet, if this pattern is repeated, the music stops and the orchestra vanishes.

I suppose you could confirm that I'm not alone in what I'm seeing. I don't know where to raise the issue in order to demonstrate the pattern I'm seeing.

Peace. Lsi john 04:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is what it is, see WP:TE and WP:NOT a soapbox. The problem is that she writes articles in a biased manner from often biased materials and then fights to keep the bias in place. I really do not have a good answer for you as the only thing that will likely handle her once and for all is WP:ArbCom. That is a lot of work but you have to balance that against how much work you are already doing to try to keep her in check. Basically she and I have a somewhat uneasy truce that is holding so I cannot second a User RfC unless she violates our agreement again. You can continue with the mediation but you should not be afraid to address the full scope of your issue with her in the mediation. Just go slow and do not overwhelm with words. --Justanother 04:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I fear the word-overwhelming has already been accomplished. Only a party who is truly interested in wiki will read them at this point. I suspect I have out-written myself. Lsi john 04:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually its costing me too much time, and thus Dollars, to continue this effort. Even when I'm successful in getting something changed, it gets reverted or rewritten a few days later. I can't afford to sit and monitor the articles for vandalism. Lsi john 04:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this project never ends. The best you can do is hope that a few more editors take an interest in your articles of concern and help you out. Once you finish with the mediation, you should come up with compromise articles and I can put them on my watchlist. Read User:Wikipediatrix for some further insight into the problem. --Justanother 04:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming also included in LGAT, though LGAT isnt mentioned anywhere in the article.

If nothing else, the medcab will be a resource which documents her WP:TE and WP:UBX subversive editing practices. Lsi john 04:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if this one is wiki-proper or something she made up.. Talk:Harry Palmer (Avatar)‎ - Anything can be included in a category as long as it references something else in that category?!!! wow! Then everything is in every category?! ha! Lsi john 04:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You may close/archive this, it is no longer necessary. Fresh Start. thanks! Lsi john 01:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Worst Scientology article?

Please check out Scientology Finance. Even worse that Barbara's. Steve Dufour 05:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

All due respect but it is nowhere near in a class with Barb's. Both aspects of Scientology policy are correct. There is an OR synthesis by F451 joining them together as they are unrelated other than both being policies related to money. They are also non-notable and too much detail for a separate article. Similar to F451's article on Dead File; non-notable, too low a level of detail, and that one is WP:Fair use vio. --Justanother 14:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi Just. Sorry for the failed deletion. The rudeness of the admin was kind of shocking. Well, there are lots of other articles that need deleting. Cheers. Steve Dufour 03:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well, it is just people. No biggie, I will post it on DRV. --Justanother 03:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

cult apologist

Per my mediation agreement, I will not edit articles that Smee has edited within the past 3 months.

I have posted a suggested addition to the cult apologist article, in the discussion section.

-Peace in God. Lsi john 23:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi John. All due respect but that is not your "mediation agreement". That is your own decision having little or nothing to do with the mediation. Re the article, it is not one I normally involve myself with (my previous involvement notwithstanding) but I will perhaps have a look. This crap is as distasteful to me as it is to you but someone has to do the hard jobs. Namaste. --Justanother 23:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It's actually very distasteful.

Whether it was requested in mediation or not, I gave my word, as part of the mediation, and a sign of good faith to Smee, that I would not edit the articles, and I will not go back on that word.

I will give suggestions in discussion and I will make my case for what I believe. If other contributors see value in what I suggest, then that means there are at least two people who feel the way I do. My editing articles, only to have it all reverted, was pointless and wasting time.

I now choose to work via discussion. If cult apologist isn't an article you have been working on or are interested in, then don't edit it. If you misunderstood my msg as a request to edit for me, then I apologize. It seemed that you had been gone a couple days and I wanted to make sure you saw my input there.

No worries mate. -Peace in God. Lsi john 03:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, John. no problem. I hope that your method works for you, I will watch with interest. --Justanother 03:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

She is actually a very caring and gentle person. She and I have been working on several articles and have reached compromises. I wish she were a bit more open minded in subjective areas but so far she is continuing to discuss and that is refreshing from where we were before. Lsi john 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

God bless you both then and good luck. --Justanother 04:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

heh

This is not the first time that Smee has attempted to prevent me from properly tagging articles with what I deemed to be appropriate templates. Other than edit warring and wp:te or wp:point, are you aware of any specific rules being violated. I'm not sure it would count as wp:de, but it would seem to me that a concern raised by a template tag, shouldn't simply be deleted because there are other tags on the article. Reverting a template tag for a specific reason, which established improper use would be one thing, but to simply remove it, based on multiple tags, seems inappropriate. I've asked for a 3O on it, just to clarify. Lsi john 16:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have taken an editor to AN/I (I think it was Smee or Anynobody?) for removing my tags and the admins overturned and admonished the editor. It is WP:DE and worthy of admin attention. --Justanother 17:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Now he re-worded my 3O request. changing it from is it appropriate to remove a tag, simply based on multiple tags.. into is the tag usage appropriate on that page. This seems very much out of line. Lsi john 17:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And again, he removed my request and replaced it with his own. *sigh* Lsi john 17:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

-

I do over-analyze don't i. Lsi john 22:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We all do. We are a cerebral bunch here, by and large. --Justanother 01:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

wb.Lsi john 00:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

ty. --Justanother 01:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[more of the same] 15:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to be any more clear on Government Reports. This conversation has stretched across to Jossi's talkspace as well as Anynobody's. I'm beginning to doubt that WP:AGF applies here. I have been very very clear that Government Report is a specific term which refers to a specific type of document. I have very carefully explained that we cannot transpose wording and assume it all means the same thing. At this point, it looks more like I don't want to hear you than it does I really don't understand. Lsi john 15:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Its called trolling. They're having sport with it. I can hear the laughter. Lsi john 00:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to put the issue to bed for them. --Justanother 00:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fun stuff, now he's going from article to article removing tags that I had placed. Amazingly childish. Lsi john 13:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll enjoy [this] and [this]. ;-} Lsi john 01:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed my AN/I against Smee. it seems that it has caused both him and anynobody to gang up on my editing. Now they're both reverting me. I'm have to let them win, or I can expect to never make any future successful edits on wiki. Lsi john 00:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• That is not the case. You had not even initially added the "quotefarm" tag. Please stop reading into my edits, your interpretations of my actions are wholly incorrect. Smee 13:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

• Was I talking about you? Why would you think that? Hmmmm.Lsi john 13:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sarcasm is not appreciated. Smee 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Over On "Xenu: No Joke"

Hello Justanother. I understand you may be busy. If I've bothered/caused you ANY headaches over on Xenu, please do accept my apologies. We've stalled discussion on the No Joke tag while waiting to hear back from you. I've presented general views of the situation at the bottom of [[1]] thread, and am waiting for your input.

I hope you've noticed that none of us other editors plan to stomp on your toes by callously re-adding the box without you having further say-so and at least giving all editors a week or so to chime in if they dissent from the tag being there. That said, as far as I can see, concensus currently rests with -keeping- the tag. I assure you, I really believe this is what's best, and hope you can accept concensus and revert your -own- edit. It really would be a huge leap of good faith on your part to trust us that, far from damaging the page's integrity, our intent with putting the tag there is to maintain it. I hope to hear from you over there soon, if at all possible. Raeft 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC) (Who needs to learn not to let his login cookie degrade out, and thus to sign under his own name)

Thanks Raeft, for your kindness and concern. Listen, you guys go ahead and put what respectful tag you care to put there. I am not going to self-revert as I do not agree with the tag being there for my stated reasons. But since I am a minority of one I am not going to address it further until such time as I address it further and that will not be by edit-warring over it so I reserve all rights to address it further at some future date. Thanks again and best wishes. --Justanother 18:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's really not the way we wished to do it (Reverting someone else's revisions is, in my eyes, a most unkind thing to do until concensus with them can be reached), but I look forward to reaching an amenable decision on the discussion, rather than just running up against a "cease fire", as it were? Nonetheless, I -will- ask that if ever you find fresh concerns for it being there, you do me the favor, not as an editor who believes it should or should not be there, but just out of professional courtesy: and not simply remove it while stating your reasons, but discuss the removal before effecting it, given the situation. Cheers. Raeft 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You are a kind soul, Raeft. Sorry but I will not revert something I believe in - that is not how Wikipedia works. If the consensus is against my removal then the consensus editors can work out an appropriate message. You asked me to trust you so go ahead. I do not intend to remove it. I may edit it but this is a wiki and I do not forfeit my rights to edit anything. If I object and take some future action then I will leave it in place until the action is complete. Take care. --Justanother 21:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop your incivility and personal attacks

Please comply with wikipedia policy. I cite you for your violations here:[2]--Fahrenheit451 21:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no personal attack in that comment. While it is colorful and perhaps a bit unprofessional, there is nothing which appears to violate WP:NPA.

Fahrenheit451, your charges appear to be unfounded. You might consider your own remarks:

"Are those images of my index finger hysterically waving around from an implant you have received?"

which do not appear to show respect. Tossing around warnings of alleged violations is fine, as long as your own house is squeaky clean.

How about working on writing good articles instead of worrying about someone else's slip in control due to frustration which you helped create. Lsi john 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My post was to Justanother. I am not obligated to show anyone "respect". I would suggest if "squeaky clean" is important to YOU, YOU conduct yourself to your own standards. My responses to COFS's incivility and personal attacks are not fodder for your posturing here. I do acknowledge your opinion, I just do not value it. I did not create Justanother's frustration, Justanother did.--Fahrenheit451 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that makes you a victim. And, noone said you created it. Lsi john 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you were attempting to paint Justanother as a victim. And you did explicitly state "frustration which you helped create" in reference to Justanother. Read your previous post.--Fahrenheit451 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The operative word being helped, which you notably left out when you chose to misquote me. I didnt choose to paint Justanother as a victim. I clearly said his words were unprofessional. But as wikipediatrix said, enough with the finger pointing and name calling. Go edit. Lsi john 03:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You are still attributing Justanother's condition to me, even using "the operative word being helped". Lsi john, thanks for your gratuitous advice, but I suggest it is your own medicine and YOU need to take it.--Fahrenheit451 17:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

More coffee? wikipediatrix 03:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at this time of night.--Fahrenheit451 03:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish the whole "incivility" thing could just be jettisoned, because almost every single editor of Scientology articles - myself and Fahrenheit451 included - have been sarcastic, snide, caustic or just plain mean at some point or another. For any of us to play the "no personal attacks!" card is Bull at this point in the time track because we're all a bunch of contentious hotheads. (I, of course, am less hotheaded than everyone else. Of course.) wikipediatrix 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course. :-} Lsi john 00:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

F451, you are the man that taught me how to bait for PA way back when when I first got here (Memory Lane me and you). So keep on baiting, my friend. BTW, who is frustrated? Not me. I was simply commenting on your lame attempts at "Black Scientology" which lame attempts I can easily point to in your dealings with others. I am sure that most of our audience is not exactly sure what we are talking about. For them, F451 tries to misuse Scientology to misdirect an opponent. Actually it is more than that; the attempt is to introvert the opponent - to make them doubt themselves and look inward. The most effective position for someone that is looking to accomplish something is to ignore their doubts and look outward - extroversion. If you can make your opponent stop looking outward and look inward then you have gained a victory. Ta Da. F451 attempts that with his little comments designed to make you look inward including the one about my alleged "frustration". It is Black Scientology because he usually uses perversions of Scientology techniques. Actually Scientology is supposed to create the opposite effect; less introversion and more extroversion. Of course that is when it is used with good intentions and in accordance with the Auditor's Code; which is not how Mr. F451 does things. Ah, the pleasant light of the truth - let us bask in it together, my friends. Amen. --Justanother 21:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, again, you are advised to stop your personal attacks.--Fahrenheit451 01:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

F451, knock off the BS charges of PA. You were recently chased off AN/I for your time-wasting spurious complaints (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive235#Possible Vandalism from User:COFS). I am pointing out inappropriate behavior of YOUR part, my friend. And rather than complain about it on AN/I or on some admin's page [3], I am simply calling it for what it is and letting the truth speak for itself. Simple solution for you, amigo? Just knock off the "auditing" and edit the encyclopedia. Good night. --Justanother 05:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, again, knock off your incivility and personal attacks. I was never chased off of AN/I as you lie. I am not "auditing", so just stop saying that nonsense.--Fahrenheit451 15:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's two more drinks in our drinking game right there. wikipediatrix 15:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no drinking game.--Fahrenheit451 15:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I take a drink of vodka every time you say "personal attack", "incivility" or "uncivil". Please continue. wikipediatrix 15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, I would say chased off was a polite way to put it:

"I'm serious, quit wasting our time here. Thread archived. Go find something else to do. ··coelacan 00:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Resolved Resolved··coelacan 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)"

Who was that addressed to? I don't believe that was addressed to me.--Fahrenheit451 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"This is even more of a spurious complaint than your last one. Please don't post this trivia on this page any more - if you continue, you risk being blocked for trolling. Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)"

And this was ONE admin who withdrew from the matter after another admin handled it.--Fahrenheit451 15:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Let it go already. Lsi john 15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, take your medicine. Yours does not interest me.--Fahrenheit451 15:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, a shot of Jose Cuervo perhaps? Lsi john 15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

F451, are you "truth-challenged"?

F451, you say "I was never chased off of AN/I as you lie" but the only liar is . . . ? Well, let's just see, shall we?

F451, this is directed at you:

"This is even more of a spurious complaint than your last one. Please don't post this trivia on this page any more - if you continue, you risk being blocked for trolling. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)"

And F451, this is directed at you:

"This is a waste of everybody's time. The insertion might violate a minor rule of MOS, but it is not and never will be a cause for administrative actions. Next time, please see if you could fix it yourself before putting it here.--Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 00:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)"

And finally, F451, this is directed at you:

"I'm serious, quit wasting our time here. Thread archived. Go find something else to do. ··coelacan 00:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)"

F451, my friend, do you think that if you lie big enough and long enough and loud enough it will become the "truth". That is the basic principle of the propagandist and the unfortunate thing is that there are always people that will believe big, loud, repeated lies. The least I can try to do is open the eyes of the Wikipedia editors and admins to the techniques employed. So cry PA all you like my friend, it does not make it so. ps - I will ignore your WP:PA of calling me a liar because all this name-calling and then crying to mama is, frankly, childish. --Justanother 18:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, STOP YOUR LIES AND PERSONAL ATTACKS.--Fahrenheit451 22:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, please don't keep escalating the accusations of "lies" here. You and Fahrenheit451 would do well to stop calling each other liars. I've asked that user to do the same. ··coelacan 18:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Justanother, your comment above[4] is a bit over the line. I'm not going to sit here and chastise another experianced user by suggesting you read WP:NPA because these usually stem from getting a little hot under the collar, not ignorance of policy. I would, however, reccomend you tone it down a bit, and maybe take a few minutes between reading and replying, something that helps me out. I don't want these getting bad enough that it ends up a blockable offense. -M^ask? 01:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi AKMask. Thanks for visiting. While I guess I can see how an editor that is, I assume, unfamiliar with the actual techniques of Scientology and with the edit history of F451 in his dealings with Scientologists could think that I am attacking him, I must stress that that is not the case at all. My comments are simple remarks on the type of comments that F451 uses when dealing with Scientologists. I will post a few diffs of his interactions with others when I get the chance. For now you can look at his user page and see that he has a "thing" with the Church of Scientology. I do not represent the Church but I am a Scientologist in good standing with my church. Take care. --Justanother 04:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this is funny. I just looked at his user page [5] and I see that he has added an exchange with COFS that demonstates his lame phony Scientology. It looks like this:

"Are those images of my index finger hysterically waving around from an implant you have received? Where did that occur? Who would represent a master psychologist?--Fahrenheit451 03:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)"

You see, AK, I did not even have to look very far for a diff. In actual fact the only WP:PA in this affair is the insulting and introvertive questioning by F451. I am not saying that COFS did not play along with F451 but F451 started the silly exchange and I have seen F451 do that again and again. The ones I originally commented on were his first tries with me and "homey don't play that". What does any of his questioning have to do with editing the encyclopedia? --Justanother 04:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, Justanother, you resent being questioned about your postings and editing. Just so you know, I am continuing to question you when I see it is appropriate. You are just going to have to learn to deal with it.--Fahrenheit451 15:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If Mr. 451 can't see the difference between what Justanother typed and what a real personal insult looks like, I'd be happy to provide him with one. Ever looked at 451's contributions? Lately, they consist almost entirely of baiting and arguing on talk pages, and tattling to admins that Justanother was mean to him. If this was a drinking game where we all took a drink every time 451 said "personal attack" or "incivility", we'd all be under the table by now! wikipediatrix 13:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, sorry you are disturbed by my reporting Justanother's off-policy conduct here on wikipedia.--Fahrenheit451 15:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize. You can make it up to me by rolling up your sleeves, buckling down and getting to work on these articles instead spending so much time in arguing and flame-baiting. Even if you're 100 percent right about Justanother's comments, you only make it worse amplifying it and going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it. While y'all are arguing, I'm working on improving articles. Care to join me? wikipediatrix 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sober up first :-), I don't work with sauced editors.--Fahrenheit451 16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with Wachter's site?

What do you have against Kristi Wachter's "Truth About Scientology" site? (I mean in Wikipedia terms, not personally).... all she's doing is collating existing Scientology sources and presenting them anew. Of all the anti-Scientology sites, hers should be the one that you would find above reproach, because most of her pages are not editorializing, they're simply pointing to primary sources.

Furthermore, if they weren't fit as references (and they most certainly are), there's doubly no reason to remove them from the External links sections.

You do realize that for every time a Wachter page is used as a source and you don't like it, we can always simply re-insert it and cite the source that Wachter cites, rather than cite Wachter herself? In fact, we could even cut and paste Wachter's lists of people's Scientology completions right into the articles, because Scientology magazines like Freedom, Freewinds, Celebrity, Ability and Source are all valid primary sources. Surely you'd rather just let it go and let an occasional Wachter link pass? wikipediatrix 19:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Gluck just disappeared. Saved me the trouble. After working with the article I could find no notability. --Justanother 19:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmm. Fascinating. The question's not moot, though, because Gluck still is discussed on other Wikipedia pages. wikipediatrix 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Where? --Justanother 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The World Institute of Scientology Enterprises article mentions him, I think, and some info formerly on his article can go here. The list with his name on it is linked to on Reed Slatkin.... uh... hmmmm, is there not a Slatkin Fraud article? Give me time. wikipediatrix 20:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick for now. Please see Talk:Catherine Bell#Request for Comments - Use of the "truthaboutscientology" website. My main point on that is that even the site owner says to not use it the way our "team" wants to use it. You can use the original source mags but only if they actually clearly show who is being referred to - not just a name in a list of names. --Justanother 19:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmmm. Doubly fascinating. I missed the memo. I disagree that "John Travolta"'s appearance in a "list of names" in, say, Source 136, renders it unusable. The magazine says it, so we can say they said it. I look forward to flouting that decision :) wikipediatrix 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about completion lists, not articles about some Scientologists. Completion lists are ambiguous. http://find.intelius.com/ lists (44) "John Travolta"'s. Think about it. --Justanother 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, looks like somebody got the memo now. Talk about a "honking huge post"!! --Justanother 06:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the notice. That article has major problems but I don't feel that me getting involved would help any. :-) Steve Dufour 16:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Diff - Thanks for the "further sign of good faith and in acknowledgment of observed changes" - it is appreciated. Yours, Smee 20:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

• No prob, Bob. 8-) --Justanother 20:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Derogatory epithets

Justanother, I find your refering to me or anyone you do not agree with as a critic to be offensive and consider it a personal attack. You would be offended if I refered to you as a cult member. I am asking you to stop using this term. --Fahrenheit451 18:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

*takes another drink* wikipediatrix 18:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. F451, if you do not want to hear my opinion then do not engage me in conversation that calls for my opinion. Be a big boy and stop your whining. We can talk about things. You go so far and then, waa waa waa, you cry PA. And why now? Because I called you a critic? You are a critic of the CoS. Are you not? You are certainly critical. Does that not make you a critic. You can call me a cult member. Sticks and stones, my friend. --Justanother 18:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• buys stock in Smirnoff* bull market Lsi john 18:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Smirnoff??? Ewww.... that's so bottom-shelfy. wikipediatrix 18:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Drinks are on me. --Justanother 18:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm a 7&7 or Rye Manhattan guy, myself. But it appears there is a run on Smirnoff, thus a huge BUY recommendation! Lsi john 18:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, stop your personal attacks and incivility.--Fahrenheit451 18:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

*takes another drink* Keep 'em coming. wikipediatrix 18:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And why don't you stop being afraid of some honest conversation? Especially since you often start it with own contentious remarks. --Justanother 18:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A short Wikipedia play in one act:

X: The Super Adventure Club are perverts and meanies, and so are any editors who support them!

Y: You're wrong. Get your facts straight.

X: What-what-WHAT?? How dare you? How DARE you, sir! I have had ENOUGH of your personal attacks!! That is INCIVILITY! Why, I'm marching over right now to several admins and TATTLING ON YOU AGAIN!!!

(Apropos of nothing, of course) wikipediatrix 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell ya what, Mr 451, as soon as he starts making personal attacks, I'll personally make him stop. kk? Lsi john 18:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Justanother I believe that Monsanto manufactures a drug to prevent epithets. Lsi john 19:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Shit yes! Will it help me with my mother-fucking coprolalia?

Sadly, not. Lsi john 19:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Damn. I will just stick the fucking sock back in my mmmmpphpphh --Justanother 19:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

n/m, I just read the package insert. It is only for mild and infrequent epithets.

"Usage of this producte for treatment of frequent or severe derogatory epithets is contraindicated."

Sorry. Lsi john 19:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, I can usually control it whilst typing, it is talking that is the problem, hence the sock. --Justanother 19:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How DARE you!

How dare you require that facts be accurately sited. How the happy hell is anyone suppose to conduct a decent propaganda campaign if you keep requiring them to accuratly cite things.

"Controversy - stop altering what she said to suit your POV"

I think you should reconsider. Perhaps only require them to accurately spell 3 or 4 words. Don't throw such a HUGE challenge at them all at once, and require that they report the factual truth. You, sir, are a big meanie bully. Lsi john 19:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oops. *takes pill to prevent epithets. Lsi john 19:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Feel better now? --Justanother 20:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• mmmmmm.. al a la la la la la Lsi john 20:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The very long discussion over at WP:SCN project talk page

I have read a lot of the WP:SCN pages, and the very few have Neutrality tags. Some have OR tags but the majority seem to be NPOV. So why is the project talk page being bloated by a discussion between three Scientologists (from what I can make out have scanned all three user pages, and a lot of comments are unsigned) about how the project is biased against Elron? Would the time not be better used by going through the pages and challenging NPOV, possibly by throwing in neutrality tags and pointing out non-NPOV statements on the talk pages of those articles? After all Xenu is FA status so the NPOV cannot be too far off. As for unsigned, the comment you left after my first post was unsigned, and there were a couple of more during the discussion. Darrenhusted 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is two Scientologists and one ex-Scientologist who is now a "doesn't like to be called a critic". I tell ya man, if you do not like talk page bloat then you are in the wrong project. Elron is dead, he could care less. The problem is that Wikipedia misrepresents Scientology to the harm of individual Scientologists. I cover a lot of the issues on my user page. --Justanother 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I read your user page, as stated on the Project talk page I read the articles a lot, but when there is a very active WP, like SCN is, then I don't like to start editing pages until I know how project members will react and whether or not I'll be reverted, I don't mind being bold but I don't want to stumble in to edit wars, and 3RR blocks. The quote from Nihiletnihil concerned me, "With all honesty I really would like the articles on Scientology to be balanced out simply to align with the purpose of Wikipedia.", this seems like a way of removing any CofS criticism from all WP:SCN articles and complain when any is made. Plus ten for Scientologists not hiding their allegiances, minus twenty for trying to make the project an arm of Scientology.org. Darrenhusted 23:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you nailed it exactly Darrenhusted. And to Justanother: Yes, we know Hubbard is dead. He died with the drug vistaril in his blood while david miscavige went to las vegas to play. The previous day, Hubbard's will was changed under suspicious circumstances.--Fahrenheit451 23:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard died? Who's Hubbard? Lets celebrate with a drink! Lsi john 23:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No silly, someone has to cry "Personal Attack" before you can take another drink. --Justanother 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now thats going too damned far, calling me silly.. now I'm going to file an RFC on you.. I have those notes around here somewhere.. I'll be back.. you just wait. Lsi john 23:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Heavy stomping heard....going off into the distance.. Harumpf.. I'll show him who's silly... Lsi john 23:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

F451. Ho Hum. --Justanother 23:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Darren, you are misrepresenting what Nihil said. He is saying that he wants the articles to be NPOV in accordance with the basic policies and purposes here. You should give him his 20 points back. You know Darren, I have no fear of critics of Scientology and I can edit happily (well . . .) alongside some critics of Scientology. Those that are fair-minded and are not trying to mis-use this project to push their POV. Do you object to making this project a mirror of xenu.net as much as you object to making it a mirror of scientology.org? If you do then we will get along just fine. --Justanother 23:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is by having both (all) perspectives, proportionally represented, that NPOV articles are created. It is interesting to watch some editors use revert, never discuss, document as cited sources and cry foul when their edits are challenged, or their neutrality is questioned. Yet other editors, seem to welcome the diverse views when they are respectfully presented and added to articles.

Perhaps a study should be conducted. Do you suppose the academics would notice the narrow-minded single-focused cult-like behavior of those who refuse to constructively participate in open and honest communication and concensus? Lsi john 20:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remove

I have not given you permission to post my comments on your user page. You previously objected to User:Anynobody doing the exact same thing with your comments, and you objected so strenously that you posted it at WP:ANI. Please remove. Thanks. Smee 14:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

On the Anynobody case, I objected to the inclusion out of context without attribution. I attribute your remarks and give the context. You do not "own" your words here. If context and attribution is provided then you have no reason to complain. Remove it from the AN/I complaint and I MAY remove it here. Otherwise, if you don't like it, take it to AN/I. --Justanother 14:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is incredibly hypocritical of you. I myself would NEVER put such a display of your actions, or any user for that matter on my own user page. I would ask that you do the same. Smee 14:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I do absolutely nothing here that I am ashamed of or that I would not have on the front page of Wikipedia. I ask only that the words be correctly attributed to me and a diff or other clear context be provided. That is all I asked of Anynobody and all I did at first was add that information. I only complained after he removed the information and refused to restore it. You, on the other hand, don't like your activity "advertised" do you? You prefer do work in the shadows and hope that every complaint quickly falls into the black hole of edit history, never to be seen again. I have plans to resurrect a lot of ghosts, my friend. As far as this; remove it from AN/I and it gets removed from my page. Remove it, not strike it out. Strike out there = strike out here. --Justanother 14:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC) ps. I should mention that I LIKE the section on my user page and did not put it there to force you to remove it from AN/I as that disturbs me not at all, too. My offer was simply a nice idea on my part and a good faith concession to another editor. But it is pretty much an "act now" for you as I am at work and must log off now. --Justanother 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, I could almost say that it is possible in the future for me to reconsider 1RR with you, even if you do not observe 1RR with me, and that it is possible we could maybe have a polite working relationship in the future. But with hypocritical displays like this on your user page, and your goading bull-baiting language above, this makes it very difficult. It is a shame because I would have enjoyed discussing sources and citations and article material with you in a polite manner, but unfortunately it appears that is not possible at this point in time. Smee 14:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I intend to remain polite, Smee. That part of our agreement is still in place because it is a needed change that I made some time ago and not for the sake of an agreement with you. It is my "agreement" with the community. I have to log off now. --Justanother 14:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That is kind of you to say that your part of the agreement is still in place. Perhaps we can attempt to have a break from each other, stay away from articles that the other is heavily involved in, and both try to practice 1RR. Smee 14:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

You've recently laid that line on me before too (diff), but it did not prevent you from going 2RR a few days later over at Speedyclick.com in violation of our agreement in a bid, IMO, to bait me to 4RR (diff). --Justanother 15:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if you feel that way, but you are certainly misinterpreting my actions. And in the case of that particular article, you were removing material that was sourced to reputable citations from an article, with zero discussion on the talk page. And I sought out comments from neutral editors, received them, that backed up the usage of the citations on that page. So in some cases, yes, I feel that it is alright to re-instate material removed that was backed up by sourced reputable citations. However, it would still be nice at some point in the future if we could eventually work amicably albeit have differences, yet work politely with one another. Smee 15:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Left. I already told you, Smee that you can deal with me as you would any other editor and I will do the same with you. Our agreement was that you would only go 1RR with me and you repeatedly violated it and I repeatedly warned you that you were bending our agreement to the breaking point. And in return for you not violating 1RR, I would not pursue sanctions for your inveterate WP:TE and WP:DE that has disturbed all but the most extreme of editors. "Neutral" editors like User:Wikipediatrix and User:BTfromLA (they are actually critical of Scientology) have complained along with many that, like myself, subscribe to one of the belief systems that you campaign against here. I have had it with you, Smee, and our previous agreement will not be reinstated. Perhaps you can invent a new one that will include the broader community. You are welcome to propose one. --Justanother 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you feel that way. I will attempt to do my best to practice 1RR, I hope that you will do the same. I will do my best to be as polite and kind as I can be in my language, I hope you will do the same. But it is difficult when I witness removal of factual information that is properly sourced to reputable citations, as I noted, above. Smee 15:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Cleared my watchlist

Please note that I have cleared my watchlist of all but my own user pages, two pending issues, and a couple somewhat open conversations on other users' talk pages. I will not be editing further until I come back from preparing an action off-wiki. I will be soliciting interested parties at some appropriate time; on-wiki and in the clear. I will watch my talk page and will address issues of import that others alert me to but right now the only pending areas of interest I have are the AfD for Stacy Meyer and the Groups referred to as cults in government reports issue. --Justanother 16:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• That sounds like a good idea. It is always quite relaxing to clear off my watchlist as well. I will try to remove some articles from my watchlist, in keeping with the spirit of what I had stated above, trying to work back eventually towards a polite and perhaps amicable editing relationship. Smee 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC).