User talk:Justanother

I like to keep both sides of my discussions together, so if you leave me a message here, I will reply here.
If I left a question on your talk page, please reply there; I'm watching your page so I will get back to you as soon as possible.
And thanks for writing!

Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Achive1 Achive2 Achive3 Achive4

Watchlist

/junk

In case you missed it...

You might be interested to know that Terryeo has now been blocked entirely from Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Terryeo_indefinitely_blocked. BTfromLA 18:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think you did influence him toward moderating his behavior but, even then, he was beyond the pale--the final episode had him posting "religiousfreedomwatch" slurs on particular Wikipedia editors and pretending that he was just innocently curious about whether the claims were true: as he'd done that sort of thing before, an administrator finally decided to pull the plug. By the way, that religiousfreedomwatch page, which appears to be produced with the full blessing of the CoS, reflects very poorly on the character of Scientology in my view--it strikes me as downright sleazy and creepy. I'd be interested in your perspective on that "dead agenting" side of Scientology, should you care to share it. BTfromLA 16:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have responded in turn on my talk page. BTfromLA 00:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And again. BTfromLA 18:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Another follow-up, trying to clarify the dead-agent question, awaits. BTfromLA 15:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to your recent question (though I'm not sure I fully understood what you were asking for) on my talk page. BTfromLA 07:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your recent comments on my talk page and would like to continue the discussion, but work demands won't allow me time for a thoughtful reply at this point. Please bear with me, I will pick up the thread within a few days. BTfromLA 17:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I haven't forgotten about our conversation--I remain bogged down in work for a few days yet, though, so I ask for your further patience. I see that there seems to have been a bit of strange and faintly scandalous behavior from Wikipediatrix while I was away--I sure didn't see that coming. What's next? BTfromLA 22:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Justanother! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ref desk reminders

In regard to your recent comments on the reference desk, I just want to reiterate that for the moment I'm proposing reminders, as you say, and not removals. In the long term, users who continually don't listen to reminders will have to be dealt with somehow, of course, but as I've said I'm more inclined toward the dispute resolution process.

Your help with reminders, in cases you think they're appropriate, would be greatly appreciated! -- SCZenz 03:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course. That's one of the reasons I'm calling for many users to work together on this. -- SCZenz 04:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment requested on User:light current's one week block

I, and User:Gandalf61, and others, feel that the action of User:Friday in blocking User:light current for a week was unwarranted and excessive: [1]. We would appreciate your comments in this matter. Thanks. StuRat 10:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice Work

Great job on the Lisa McPherson article. It is reasonably neutral and readable now. Well Done. ---Slightlyright 15:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A word to the wise

Just to say not to get too angry with Friday (unless of course youre and admin too)--Light current 01:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Paid in BS?

Hi, I thought I'd reply to your first comment on the "Paid in BS?" section here because the discussion on the page is too complicated to fork...

Listen, we do what we do for the reasons we do it. It is really not up to anyone to judge our reasons, only our output and contributions. I like the BS and consider it part of the recompense for my efforts here; the other parts being satisfaction of "getting it right", the enjoyment of helping another and my "knowledge buff" tendency. No particular order there. So I, for one, get partially paid in BS. You get paid in what you get paid. The BS is normal banter that happens when people get together and have fun doing useful work. It should not be suppressed. If you don't like then don't read it. Or do you think that you should dictate the working conditions here? Is that what this is about? --Justanother 23:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... I think Wikipedia policy dictates the working conditions here, yes. I don't know of any other page where Wikipedians are required to accept users' unhelpful contributions along with helpful ones, or where there is so much active objection to removal or even criticism of unhelpful content. The reference desk is very public; it should look like it's a place whose primary purpose is the asking of questions and giving of answers. And in fact, usually it does—but if asking it to look like that is "dicatating the working conditions," then yes, that's what I want to do. -- SCZenz 01:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just that you seem to have objected to the fact that some might enjoy the lighthearted banter. Maybe I misinterpreted your attitude. If so, sorry. I don't think wikipedia policy says anything about that. Other than that a sense of lighthearted irreverance pervades the entire project and I can point you at many many policies and advices that are written in a lighthearted irreverent vein ex. WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:SNOW, many more. Regarding the real issues I think that we have already decided that we agree that abuse of the RD is inappropriate so a lot of this is now starting to seem like redundant. Not you particularly, just this whole intermittable dialogue. All of us, me included but I think I am done now anyway, I've said what I have to say. Last word, if you are trying to make the RD all serious looking, if you are trying to make the RD look like article-space rather than community-space then I think you are fighting a losing battle. I think it is community-space. The best it will be is effective. I think we agree that actions which seriously reduce its effectiveness are inappropriate. --Justanother 01:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be community space, but it is not just community space. It's also part of the face we show to the world, in a way that policy pages like WP:SNOW are not. Lighthearted banter is fine if it doesn't interfere with the question... unless it's potentially offensive, at which point it puts off users and is bad. But when I cite banter being offensive as a reason for it being bad, I get accused of censorship and having ulterior motives. So I would genuinely like your input: is the best way to deal with offensive banter to a) reduce all banter, b) disallow banter that can reasonably be expected to offend some uses and doesn't really contribute, or c) something I haven't thought of yet? -- SCZenz 02:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you said it yourself "Lighthearted banter is fine if it doesn't interfere with the question". The question is deciding when it interferes with the question. I think a very light touch is called for. I think that if someone makes a non-offensive joke that seems on the "flow of consciousness" then leave it alone, maybe leave two in a row alone. If a thread of jokes or indeed any disruptive off-topic thread starts then just move the thread to the talk page and note the removal in the answer stream. But it needs to be obviously off-topic or obviously jokes that are not addressing the question (i.e. non-offensive joke embedded in valid attempt to contribute is always OK) and it need to be a contiguous thread before I would consider that it is interfering with the question. Hope that helps. --Justanother 02:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat's comment

I believe a new sub page is about to be born on the Purpose of the RDs. Perhaps you both would like to join in the discussion?--Light current 01:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Rules for deletion

Would you care to comment on my proposed Ref Desk Rules for Deletion: [2] ? I would like to build a consensus on which rules should be followed. StuRat 07:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Rules for Ref Desk opinions ?

Would you care to comment on rules for Ref Desk opinions: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Next_item_for_consensus_discussion:_Opinion ? StuRat 17:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinions on Ref Desk template removal ?

Sorry to bother you again, but would you care to comment on: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Opinions_on_template_removal ? StuRat 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Outlawing responses

Any notion of "outlawing" a certain kind of response misses the point- we have no ability to enforce such a rule. We're all volunteers, and some people do sometimes answer with things like "try google". If you think this is bad, feel free to explain what a better answer would be, but any desire to "outlaw" a certain answer is completely misguided. Friday (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Hope you are not thinking I am getting personal with you? Because I am not. We are having a lively discussion on policy related to the Ref Desk. --Justanother 21:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all- and don't worry about offending me in any way- I'm usually fairly thick skinned. Friday (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Good deal cause I am way too fat to tiptoe. --Justanother 21:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, general comment not very relevant to WT:RD. Use of language like "let's outlaw this!" demonstrates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia. I'm really not trying to insult anyone, but I can't get past the thought that almost all the discussion at WT:RD is only happening because people are trying to make policy without a proper understanding of how we do things here. Friday (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Many things are "outlawed" at wikipedia. Disruptive sockpuppetry. Original research (in articles). Personal attacks. On this issue, I think that you need to readjust your thinking, not me. It is totally OK for the community to decide that some questions and some answers have no place here, i.e. they are outlawed. We just don't use that term. --Justanother 21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't because of rules- it's because our goal is the encyclopedia. By simple common sense, behavior that hurts the encyclopedia is severely frowned upon. This point is subtle but vitally important to understanding what we do here. See WP:5P where it says "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." Friday (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, and saying "Go Google" hurts the RD, IMO. Should be outlawed. Excuse me, should be discouraged. BTW, discussing this on two fronts is giving me headache. --Justanother 21:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Accidental Deletion

Sorry Justanother, the edit look alot like vandalisim, and I appologize for my actions, I still must develop the ability to discern ligitimate edits from vandalisim. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sick Puppy

Hi, and thanks for your "PROD" message.

So you arrived at Sick Puppy because there is a link to aphrodisiac from it. Looking over your contributions, I see that you have never edited a single literature page, your edits mainly concerning matters of Scientology and your own user page.

I suggest you carefully read Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum and the most important pages related to the novels project. There are hundreds if not thousands of similar pages out there which concern a single work of literature: Are you planning to tag them all and subsequently have them all deleted?

We're moving in ridiculous circles here. Anyone can classify any piece of any information as "indiscriminate", especially if they are on unfamiliar ground. I suppose we're trying to build rather than destroy an encyclopaedia here. And I suppose we're working together, not against each other. "Only" a plot summary may mean the article is not finished yet, but is that a reason for deletion? You can't have a stub first begging people to expand it and then, once it has been expanded, want to delete it. I remember that in the old days anyone complaining that an article lacked something was given the advice: Well, go change it!

Please tell me precisely what you want me to add to the plot summary, and I'll try my best. I am usually very reluctant to remove a tag, but in this case I think I'll have to make an exception (and anyway, I'm practically invited to do so in the wording of the tag itself). And the deadlines are getting shorter all the time: now it's only five days.

I'd appreciate a thorough answer from you because to me this process really deviates from the norm. All the best, <KF> 22:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, editor sees article that violates WP:NOT, editor tags for delete, is very "normish". I just don't see every book ever written as notable for this encyclopedia so, IMO, you gotta give more if you want it here. --Justanother 00:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been enlightened on the consensus that almost all books belong here (my paraphrase) but have agreement that Sick Puppy, as a bare plot outline, is in violation of policy and needs work if it is to remain so the PROD was fine though another might have handled it elsewise. --Justanother 01:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile and the laugh! -- Karen | Talk | contribs 03:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (who is still not a tengrem)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Bridge Publications (Scientology) Squirreling Galaxy Press Criminon Association for Better Living and Education AMC Publishing Mark Rathbun World Institute of Scientology Enterprises Scion xB International Association of Scientologists Operation Freakout Gas leak Scientology terminology Reactive mind Andreas Heldal-Lund Heber Jentzsch Science of Survival Hubbard Association of Scientologists International Concerned Businessmen's Association of America

Cleanup International Churches of Christ Christopher Masterson Traumatic incident reduction Merge Firebomb Timex Sinclair 1000 Land of Sunshine Add Sources 3D projection Liquified petroleum gas Los Angeles Free Press Wikify New Acropolis Jeffrey R. MacDonald Sukyo Mahikari Expand National Forensic League The Righteous Brothers Howrah Bridge

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to your email;

You state my site is "beneath me":

For a start, all my site does it take statements Tom has made himself and put them back to back, and also some satirical material that has been produced by others - all of this already exists on the net and all of it is freely available. Nothing here has been produced by me. Not one single thing.

So, does bringing Tom's own statements and the work of others together make me anti-Cruise? or does it simply mean that there's a lot of people who have a lot to say about him, his actions, and/or his religion and here's a place they can freely and anonymously express them. It's amazing how many emails I get stating that they are so grateful because they have been too scared...

But my reasons were/are as follows: I believe the statement Tom has made recently stating that people should not be using (certain) prescribed medication is not only ignorant but darn right dangerous. Life threatening in fact. Tom states that Brooke Shields and Matt Lauer are ignorant about the history of psychiatry - well he is most certainly ignorant of the circumstances of every medicated individual in the world, and as such his comments were outrageous.

No one could possibly argue that it was not completely irresponsible for Cruise to effectively tell every man, woman and child on prescribed medication for any mental illness (or other 'chemical imbalance' such as depression, bi-polar, schizophrenia, ADD/ADHD...) to suddenly stop their medication and "start exercising and taking vitamins"

Think about how many people his statements could have (and from the dozens of emails I've received HAS HAD) on those who are unwell?

But to be clear I am not "anti-Cruise", and I have at least 6-8 of his films. But, his statements were irresponsible, ignorant and dangerous and if my site pokes a little fun at him for doing that and possibly makes those people think twice before following his advice then I'm happy.

Its had over 10 millions visitors, literally saved one life that I know of, and helped hundreds see the stupidity in his statements - so no, its far from "beneath me"  Glen  18:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Did he really say "I can fly around and move stuff with my mind"? [3] --Justanother 18:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats not mine - thats a copycat http://www.scientomogy.info  Glen  18:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (for some reason the link isnt working... will fix or see [4]

Oh, then I will not say another word against it until I have a chance to look it over better. On first glance I must say that yours makes more "sense" to me as simply putting Tom's statements and actions up for people to judge as they will. Perhaps you see why I might find the other considerably more objectionable and would wonder whether it was "beneath you". --Justanother 18:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For background, here is my email in full (personal info removed)

Hi Glen

Aren't you the body builder at (removed)?

I would think that someone with as much "on the ball" as you would consider creating a site dedicated to denigrating and mocking two other fellow human beings, Tom and Katie, to be beneath him.

I can respect Operation Clambake and Andreas Heldal-Lund because there I see a forum for presenting what might be legitimate criticism of Scientology and/or the CoS.

Don't you think that your site is beneath you? Aren't you lowering yourself to maybe what you perceive the level of the CoS to be?

Anyway, that is my only point.

Take care.

Justa Notherguy

--Justanother 18:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote on attempt to delete new Ref Desk rules

Vote here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules. StuRat 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding?

That is transparent trolling. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No prob with removing the Santa question the first time if done politely but the explanation is plausible so we must AGF. --Justanother 19:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, we must not. "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Do you think the series of questions from this editor present evidence to the contrary, in the light of what is currently ongoing on the RD talk page? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Legit question about piles (which you sloughed off and gave a "no answer", BTW) followed by the Santa question. OK, looks strange; delete. OK. IP comes back with a totally plausible explanation (I have kids). You blow him off. Please knock off the crusade. If this guy was trolling then he won that round. Big deal. If he trolls again we will have him. --Justanother 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not real, but even if it were.. What reasonable parent would allow their 6 year old near the "edit this page" button? Ned Wilbury 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He said he helped he. I can totally see that happening. Please let's do this in one place - the talk page. --Justanother 19:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"woops - should look before I leap"

Heh heh heh. (That is, I got a big grin out of your double-take, there. And don't feel bad -- *I* had a big huge double-take at Hipocrite's paraphrasal, too!) —Steve Summit (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I did not realize that his was an answer to yours as I had not read yours. Both straw men point out valid issues. --Justanother 22:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruption (from Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guideline#Disrepute)

Replying here since Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guideline is strictly for talking about Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline, and this is turning into a side conversation about disruption at this point. Yes, you're right- we need observable disruption to conclude that there's disruption, not just suspected disruption. This is already a widely accepted idea. Ned Wilbury 00:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But I observed a tendency to delete posts based on suspicion. It is not big deal to pull them once the troll is confirmed. Why hurry? --Justanother 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

People will frequently disagree on when to decide someone is no longer worth the time. However if a few different people agree that something is trolling, they're usually right. If you wanted to be extra sure, you could at that point give the editor in question a "last warning" along the lines of "Look, several of us think you're just trying to cause trouble. However a few people wanted to give you another shot, so that's what we're doing, this last time." Then you re-explain the problem to the user and give them another shot. Honestly, the whole issue of problem editors is mainly something admins deal with, and unless you want to be one, you may want to avoid that whole mess. Ned Wilbury 00:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

To be blunt, this occurred because one editor deleted questions because he did not AGF the OP's totally plausible explanation. That he was right is irrelevant. There was no "first warning", let alone a "last warning". Again, we have to avoid getting "too smart" here. It is OK if we miss a few. "Fool me once". We have to let them fool us once if they do a credible job of fooling us. You can be suspicious; check their history; even "tail them" (keep an eye on their contribs) if you like; but do wait for them to make the telling mistake before taking any action, either as an editor or an admin and any editor can help out with trolls and vandals. Usually it does not take long for them to reveal what they are really about. --Justanother 00:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, an editor does not have to be an admin to help out in that way. If you're into giving people that extra benefit of the doubt, that's good- the project needs people willing to do this. Best thing to do in that case is leave them a friendly talk page message asking them to clarify, or whatever is relevant to the situation. I specifically recommend leaving the message on THEIR talk page instead of on the reference desk, because it's more relevant there. With so many contributors, pages can become difficult to edit and read if off-topic things are going on everywhere. Ned Wilbury 00:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

These were WP:POINT trolls by unlogged users. I almost always discuss issues I have with editors on their talk page or leave some sort of message there if they are not clearly cognizant of what is transpiring. Most issues are ongoing ones and the parties are watching everything. --Justanother 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The "calculus" of criticism

Hold on - I am going to write something here. --Justanother 15:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi! Thanks for the message. You have no idea how happy I am to see another Scientologist editing the Scientology pages on here! REally cool. Sorry if I did it wrong, or did this message here wrong, feel free to change it, I think I just saw something that was written wrong that I wanted to changed right away. Feel free to message me if you want to discuss any Scientology pages that should be edited and how we could re-write it! Bye!<Johnpedia 16:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)>

^_^

Haha, I'm not the kind of person to attack people like that so don't worry, but I will edit other pages first, and I will try and get sources. I'm a busy person and when I have the energy, I'll be going through the Scientology pages and trying to correct them. It'll be fun. Considering it's something that has pretty much nothing but positive things about it, and pretty much everything on here about it is negative, it's a little odd, so I'd like to change that. <Johnpedia 04:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)>

What are you doing ?

Can you please let me know what is being moved where ? StuRat 15:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am doing what I suggested earlier which is to put it all on one page where it can be sorted out. There are redirects. I am in the midst so please give me a few minutes. --Justanother 15:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're in the middle of something. But, what we have right now is all screwed up. The proposed policy itself should be on the Wikipedia:Reference desk/whatever page. It's talk page would be Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/whatever. Right now you've got the policy ON the talk page, so there's no place to talk about it. Ned Wilbury 16:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Salt

Yup, you're probably right. Something does smell fishy around here... Ilikefood 22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice answer

HAHAHA Nice answer to that question on the reference desk about questions that waste time. That was hilarious. Ilikefood 00:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --Justanother 00:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi there! If you turn a page into a redirect, you should remove its contents. If you don't, it won't be visible anyway to users, but it may appear in whatlinkshere and search lists, thus causing confusion. If your intent wasn't to remove the content, you should probably add a link instead of making a redir. HTH! (Radiant) 12:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't quite follow that discussion you linked to. It appears to be arguing about the proper way to create subpages following policy? I'd say that it's more important to have an arrangement that's practical (such as it is now) - in particular, keeping the debate on one page instead of four. Product trumps policy. (Radiant) 14:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done!

I know we've not always seen eye-to-eye, and all too often simple disagreements turn unfortunately personal for no good reason. However I just wanted to say that this edit is outstanding. Keep up the good work. Friday (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Justanother 19:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Err?

You put this back? Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing we can do with this. There's not even a question to be answered. What purpose do you think can be served by this? Friday (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A request

Hi Justanother. Can I request that you take a look at User talk:StuRat#AGF and BITE, and have a word with him about it if you think appropriate? I worry that StuRat continues to try to polarize the debate (e.g. by categorizing everyone into his two list headings), and that this will get in the way of other users who are trying to compromise... But what it is imperative to fix quickly are incidents in which his polarized view causes him to be rude to new (or possibly new) users. I tried to explain this, but (perhaps understandably) he has no desire to listen to me. I'm hoping that, since in his view you're kind of "on his side," a comment from you would be more productive. Thanks for your consideration. SCZenz 05:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- SCZenz 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Chips

Example sidebar discussion --Justanother 02:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Is borscht cheap ? I've never checked out the price (because the thought of it just leaves me cold). StuRat 12:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is borscht cheap? Heck, its price can't be beet! Atlant 13:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you red too much into my reply. :-) StuRat 01:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Countering Systemic Bias in Religion!

I like you!NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 03:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the song - I'm going to check that guy out. You're right, that would be an excellent theme song. I like the second verse:).

As for my troubles - worry not my friend. I got my computer professionally set up with all the latest (should have done it a while back, though). Cheers and sunshine!NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 03:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply

First off, you know nothing about the situation under which I said that. Second off, do NOT try to 'scold' me and evaluate my behavior. You sound like someone who has done some Scientology training or processing and has let it go to their head a little bit, and now takes every thing they learn extremely literally. If somebody is repeatedly undoing the improvements in structure and layout I have done to a page because they started the page and they don't like someone fixing 'their' page, but using the reason that it just doesn't need to be changed (when it does because of recent progress in the subject changing the matter of importance), it bugs me that they would be so petty, and yes,someone who is letting something like that get in the way of what would be better for wikipedia, yes that IS a bit of a power trip or a bit of a control issue, or something along those lines, and I am not okay with things like that. Johnpedia 06:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Thanks! You are SO amazing! I am in awe of your skills and everything you have learnt in Scientology! You really are a hero, and I wish all of us could be a bit more like you! Continue this subconscious feeling of superiority to other people and eagarness to show off, it's great. You're abusive to everything that Scientology is about. It's about learning things for your own and adapting them into your own and using it as a tool for yourself, not becoming what you learn and getting further away from yourself, so you come off quite ridiculous without even realizing it. Oh yeah and all the lies about Scientology on wikipedia don't even really matter,if someone is going to get into Scientology, they're not going to be thrownoff by an encyclopedia that is known for being inaccurate because its written by anyone with a computer, and you take it so seriously like it's really going to affect things and this is some warzone we need to fight, it's not going to stop scientology so don't worry about itJohnpedia 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Wrong target? Don't tell me what the 'target' is, you don't decide that for people. I barely come on wikipedia as is so threaten me all you like, and what is the purpose of telling your friend about this and asking him to come say something to me on my talk page? are you trying to bore me ? Johnpedia 09:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, my last post, is cause for you to post something on mine saying last warning I'm going to be banned? I didn't 'accuse' you of enlisting someone else, I thought you had but you didn't it turns out, so basically by saying "are you trying to bore me?" that is why you are threatening to ban me? YOU KEEP POSTING ON MY TALK PAGE. STOP POSTING AND COMPLAINING AND THEN POSTING AGAIN. I'm not doing anything wrong. Take some responsibility Johnpedia 11:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Keeping my distance

Just moved my note from above down here to avoid confusion with Johnpedia's replies: Hey, I hope you have no objection to my jumping into that discussion--I spotted the exchange and thought that it should be made clear to him that the problem wasn't restricted to a question of what makes a good Scientologist. Of course, others had asked him to be civil already, so maybe it wasn't needed. I've been poking around Wikipedia again the past few days--procrastinating on multiple projects, I won't be able to do this for long--and I find myself growing increasingly frustrated by the large number of users, including admins, who don't seem to have reached the age of majority, and behave accordingly... If I stick around, I'm afraid I'm going to turn into the cranky old man with the shotgun, screaming "get off my lawn!" at the neighborhood kids. BTfromLA 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re personal attacks and incivility

As far as I can see, there's no hard and fast rule about going one route or another. Putting a clear and concise note on WP:AN/I along the lines of 'I'm having trouble with persistent incivility and personal attacks from User:So-and-so and he has received warnings from me and other editors (link, link, link), can someone keep an eye on this editor?' will usually result in a rapid investigation and response.

If an admin has had previous dealings with a particular editor (in their 'admin' hat and not as part of a content conflict; the latter may create a conflict of interest), then you can also notify them. Otherwise, asking for a single specific admin to review a case is a bit of a murky area. You run the risk of creating a perception – deserved or not – that you're cherry-picking an admin who is predisposed to treat your side of the dispute more gently. (Which leads to the 'ZOMG! Teh cabal is repressing me!' paranoid ranting.)

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, by the way. I've been quite busy in the real world of late. I'm assuming that your question was about Johnpedia, in which case it appears that the matter is being monitored. (Incidentally, if you have a question about how to handle a specific situation, it's often best to simply come out and say so; couching the issue as a hypothetical, general question can make things needlessly complicated.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So (and at the risk of putting words in your mouth) I am taking your reply as that it is generally best to post the problem on the noticeboard. Cool. No prob with the delay. I appreciate your taking the time to answer. I did not mention Johnpedia because I was not particularly looking for you or anyone to intercede there but left it general as I doubt that this is the last time I might need admin help. Re Johnpedia, I just asked him again to stop and hopefully he will respect my wish. If not I will post it on the noticeboard. So I do not think I was complicating anything, in fact I was trying to simplify. Sorry if it did not come across that way. I was not asking how to handle Johnpedia, just what is the etiquette on individual admin vs. noticeboard. I decided to cut him one last bit of slack as I had "asked for it" a bit by scolding him and so I gave him a few more free shots at me than I usually do (I usually only give one free shot). BTW, why do you say "it appears that the matter is being monitored"? Later --Justanother 15:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Lucas cells for radon measurement.

A tag has been placed on Lucas cells for radon measurement., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

unneeded redirect of odd usage

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Justanother 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That redirect is not a candidate for speedy deletion because it satisfies none of the speedy deletion criteria relevant to redirects. Its target is an existing page in the article namespace, and it is not the result of an implausible typo. Therefore, if you really want to see it die, bring it up on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.

Better yet, just leave it alone, because it's not hurting anyone. Redirects are cheap, and there are plenty of more important things to worry about.

In any case, why bother me with it? I didn't create anything with that title, I merely moved the existing article at "Lucas cells for radon measurement." to "Lucas cell". —Keenan Pepper 17:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Smee. Good job on starting the RfC. Where in the world did you get the idea that you should divide the comments into vested or "neutral"? That is insulting and deserving of an RfC of its own. Please knock it off and remove them. Thanks --Justanother 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove these sections. They are not insulting at all. Comments are only supposed to be made by uninvolved editors coming from the RFC request, not from individuals who have previously commented on the talk pages. This is a common practice. Thanks. Smee 20:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

• Please see User:Pastordavid's comment below on this issue. Thanks. Smee 20:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
  • As an aside, I find the division of this RfC helpful. I have found, on other RfCs, that the involved parties often dominate the comments, making it difficult to tell what is an "outside opinion" and what is an "involved party." - User:Pastordavid.

Johnpedia

I am not confrontational. I am not uncivil. I feel you are being extremely dramatic. Do not threaten me. If you actually want this to stop, you would not keep posting on my talk page, correct? Yes, correct. I'm not interested in this anymore. Johnpedia 10:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Practice what you preach

It's a shame that you cannot apologize to StuRat for saying that he made a "fishy pussy" joke when he never used the word "pussy". You don't understand subtleties? He said the question was fishy. You're the only one who ever used the word "pussy" either in the original page or on StuRat's talk page. Your comment on his page was an error and you should admit your error and apologize, just as you admonish him to do. You set a poor example for him to follow. t h b 12:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I only used "pussy" instead of "vagina" on Stu's page, not on the original page, and because, at that moment, I was ticked over the mercury thing and I apologized to Stu for using that term. I really do try hard to apologize when I have erred; I just don't think that my interpretation of his "fishy" comment was an error. --Justanother 15:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's absurd, THB. Justanother made a fair and reasonble judgement about StuRat's intended joke, and he was right that the joke was not appropriate. Your argument here is an effort to game the system and get on peoples' nerves; in other words, it fits the classical definition of "trolling." Please stop; Wikipedia is not a place for stupid games. -- SCZenz 12:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

SCZenz is right. Justanother, thanks for your helpful and mature actions here, and I wouldn't worry for one second about THB's objections if I were you. This game of "You can't prove what I meant" was already old the first time I saw it. To continue it now is just childish and unhelpful. Friday (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No prob. --Justanother 15:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the inflammatory comment using pop-ups before I realized that there was already a discussion of that comment elsewhere. My talk page is reserved for insulting me, not others*, although I do not object to civil disagreement which is why I only removed the last comment. (*before someone chimes in that uncivil, insulting behavior is inappropriate here as well as elsewhere, please realize that I am being sardonic.) --Justanother 01:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Apostate not pejorative?

That is untrue. It is sometimes used as a word of abuse by certain faiths. Andries 21:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was under the assumption that it was more value-neutral as someone that has left (or given up on) a faith and that is how my American Heritage describes it but I see from here that it definitely can also have negative connotations as often used. --Justanother 22:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Like you I am interested in describing religious movements aka cults without exaggerating its faults. I think this is the case for most if not all editors here, but of course these good intentions do not stop strong disagreements. I have to admit that due to a very bad experience, I tend to distrust a certain type of NRMs. I had several colleagues who were into Scientology. Andries 22:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly some valid criticisms of cults are simply special cases of criticism of religion. Andries 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and some criticism of cults can be simply special cases of criticism of single-minded, demanding, purpose-driven groups such as the USMC. I do not know if we have an article on that (smile).

Not sure this was a good idea

Not sure this was a good idea. We probably only encourage more of this by responding in a chatty way. Friday (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am insulted by Hipocrite's preemptive strike which assumes that the RD editors cannot add to the discussion of those questions without violating the principles that we have spent months discussing! Especially as the worst offenders are seriously chastized. I am insulted. If the question or part of the question is offensive then remove it but don't try to "be the boss of us". I am a grown-up and the only boss-of-me pays me a lot of money. That was mild compared to what I really think. --Justanother 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you disagree, there are better ways to express that. I don't see that anyone was chastised- I just see someone trying to nip this in the bud. If everyone had the sense not to respond to trolling, that would be ideal, but we've seen over and over that this isn't the case. I don't see why you'd take this personally- is there something I missed? This could have been removed IMO but removals have raised a huge stink. I thought the preference lately was to do things other than outright removal. Friday (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

PS- Actually, I suppose the merits of Hipocrite's template ought to be discussed at WT:RD. Friday (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal but the implied assumption that "OK, one grownup answered the question and I don't trust the rest of you." But I am not a on a crusade and I expressed my displeasure already and to the degree that I care to. I just want it on record that, as a precedent, IMO Hipocrite's action stinks. I think removal of the porn part or division into two questions would have been better had someone wanted to address it. I never even saw it before Hipocrite did his thing so I do not know what I might have done; likely divided into two questions. --Justanother 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't think we should discourage people from responding in cases like this? Is there some better way to do it? Friday (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Development of policy and enforcement of policy, in a nutshell. Removal of inappropriate questions and inappropriate responses. Exactly the direction we were moving in, I thought. --Justanother 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved to RD Talk Page

--Justanother 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Labelling someone as a "zealot" or a "fanatic" is a personal attack. I don't care if you euphemise it by saying "sounding like a... " in front. Please do not restore that comment again. Proto::► 15:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. I think that is your opinion. The opinion he expressed is the very definition of those terms. Please do not remove my answer to his question. --Justanother 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, the comment was misplaced, and should not have been made. I do believe you meant it in the way you state above, but it didn't quite come across in that way, it did come across as a personal attack. If you have to explain why a comment isn't a personal attack, the comment probably shouldn't be there ... I've made that mistake before. It's no big deal, just please try and think about how you use such labels, and how their use can be misconstrued by others.

Others agree (note the question has been closed), and please note how the anon who also had their comment removed accepted it with good humour ([5]). I do want to apologise for threatening to block you, though - that was out of line, and I am sorry for that. Take it easy. Proto::► 18:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. No hard feelings, then. --Justanother 18:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment to BabyDweezil

Justanother, thank you for your comment to BabyDweezil on Brainwashing. Tanaats 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No prob. --Justanother 21:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Thanks for the heads up, but I'm not able to weigh in at this time--I'm dealing with the sudden death of a close family member... I'm sure you'll understand my non-participation here for a while. I'll be back, sooner or later. Best wishes, BTfromLA 07:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood. My heartfelt condolences. --Justanother 14:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mye quesstion

Why tuou remoobed my quaaestion? What means this wordd "Scam""? Please tell me urgenatily!!

Dr.Ing. Remmino skala. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.120.193.125 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Haha Doc. See here. Happy 419 (though I know you are just fooling around). --Justanother 20:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How did you know I was fooling aarounnd? Col.Dr.Ing. Ren Min Zhuo Skala IV 89.120.193.125 20:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing you did not put a contact e-mail which you would have had you been "serious" and for another, I've done the scammer-baiting thing, and they are not that illiterate. Too many errorrrrrs. --Justanother 20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. However, the reference desk explicitly states "don't post your e-mail address" (or something like that). I couldn't just go ahead and blatantly break the rules like that. And the errors are just fun to type. Greeting you from Romania and wishing you the lucky clouds of Enki, Colonel Engineer Prof.Univ.Dr. Rimini Scala & Kolacny Brothers the Fourth (or maybe Fifth). Cheers and Mucha suerte, hermano! 89.120.193.125 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a 419 scammer would not want to break our rules (laff). Muchas gracias. Vaya con Dios, amigo. Pero no jodas mas, OK? --Justanother 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I knew that you speak Spanish, but I just did. Either way, I had just read some BJAODN and felt like having some fun with my IP. Now I feel bad for taking up server space. Oh, well. Thank you for keeping your calm. Matei Tache 20:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am glad that you feel some remorse (smile). No harm done. Good guess on the Spanish. I can get by in Spanish when I need to. I would love to live in a Spanish-speaking country for a bit and polish it up. --Justanother 20:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Response

• Responded on my talk page. Smee 04:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Out of curiosity, what is your level on the road to total freedom? Smee 05:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Quite sufficient but, sorry, I do not go into more detail than that. --Justanother 05:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, did not mean to be short but I was in the midst. Did you have a question other than about personal details that I have decided to hold close to my chest? --Justanother 05:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also curious, why is your OT-Level or lack thereof personal for you? Is this something also considered "personal details" by other Scientologists or information they share freely with each other and with friends? If so, why or why not? Smee 05:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Read my user page. --Justanother 05:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Does not address my specific questions from my last posting. Acknowledging your own OT-level would not be that revealing, would it? And if so, is this something that most Scientologists reveal about themselves proudly and publicly, or not? I am curious. Smee 05:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I do not talk about myself in that way. End of story. --Justanother 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not though? Or do you also not talk about why you don't talk about it? And what about other Scientologists? Do they? Or is it a general practice not to? Smee 05:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh. No, Scientologists are proud of their progress up the Bridge and are happy to discuss it. I have chosen to remain anonymous here though and so have chosen to not reveal much detail about myself. I can see no upside to it. --Justanother 05:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly respect that. But I gather from other sources and reading that if Scientologists were to be editing the article Xenu for example, those Scientologists would have to be OT-III or higher, according to doctrine? Smee 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

No, a Scientologist in good standing cannot edit the articles on OT from a first-person perspective. That would constitute revealing material that they have sworn to keep confidential. --Justanother 05:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh. So according to doctrine, really no Scientologists should be editing articles on Wikipedia pertaining to levels OT-III and higher, unless they are specifically told to by some sort of office like OSA or something probably...  ? Smee 05:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Don't know about OSA but any Scientologist could, however, wear his editor's hat, and work to see that materials such as Xenu conform to wikipedia policies of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, i.e WP:PILLARS.

So in more direct response, I cannot see any Scientologist in good standing making the confidential material "right". Personally, I usually don't mess with it. What I might do on occasion is clean-up in relation to wikipedia policies. There is a whole lot more to Scientology than the confidential materials so there is plenty of work to be done and I wish a few more Scientologists would come on board here! --Justanother 05:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Do Scientologists lower than OT-III know enough to know that they are not supposed to know anything about Xenu and try to avoid it, or do they just not know anything at all about this? Smee 05:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I really don't know enough to generalize. The confidentiality of the upper levels is serious business in Scientology. I think that most non-Scientologists cannot really grasp what it all means anyway so when they walk in the door it would likely be handled as "the internet is full of misrepresentations; now let's see about getting you on course so we can do something about . . ." And that is the truth: "the internet is full of misrepresentations" and worse. And it has little to do with whether Scientology can help someone live a better life. --Justanother 06:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I checked out the Hein quote on Scientology being a hate group in the "NRM" article that you referred to on another user discussion board. As I understand it, "hate group" is a term with an established meaning--it refers to far-right groups which spread open, direct hatred against Jews, blacks and other ethnic groups. Period. It is inapplicable in referring to Scientology's policy of harassing opponents; it is also inapplicable in referring to ex-member critics of various purported cults. Both of these usages are cheap analogies representing a highjacking of an established term. The citing of "hate group" accusations in the context of the pro and anti cult debate should only be for the purpose of showing how heated rhetoric gets out of control on both sides. It is worth no more than a sentence in the NRM article, and if indeed the use of such rhetoric is not widespread I would advocate removing it altogether as useless information. I should add that I am opposed to Scientology's theological doctrine re harassment of opponents, but I think your church has probably suffered a lot more from its application (through negative publicity that has made millions of people regard Scientology as a "scary" organization) than its critics have. L. Ron Hubbard was always a man who changed with the times (look at how his science-fiction themes and styles changed). Maybe you need to change on this (just as the Mormons changed their doctrines on race, leading to a large upsurge in membership around the world).--Dking 18:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your thoughtful commentary. Thank you. --Justanother 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Justanother,

How can I contact you by pm? I can't find your talk page. Tried to delete the block warnings on Antaeus and Tilman, but it did not work.

Also I would like to know, how does one give someone a barnstar?

Much obliged,

S. M. Sullivan 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan

Hi. You can email me through the wikipedia system. But be aware that I have no secret email information to impart that I will not impart right here on wikipedia. Nor do I co-ordinate editing wikipedia by use of private email. I can do all the co-ordinating I need to do right here. I have nothing to hide. However, if you need help with something personal or have a question that you are not comfortable posting here then go right ahead. Re barnstar, you just go to WP:BARNSTARS and find one you like and copy it to the talk page of the person you want to give it to. Also, please use the talk pages for communicating with editors, not their other user pages. --Justanother 20:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

<Barnstar moved to my user page>

Thanks S. M. Sullivan! I appreciate it. --Justanother 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, this place is overwhelmingly strange to me. I will be doing LOTS of reading and very little editing for a while. My tendency IRL has always been to jump right in and take over, but in a place based on consensus that obviously won't work. Besides, I still have no clue what needs doing around here. I saw things that were obviously wrong and tried to handle unilaterally (Now we both know what happens when editors do this...) Any suggestions about work that needs doing? I'd like to help.

S. M. Sullivan 00:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. My best suggestions are in my welcome message and on my user page which has a link to my "write-up". You cannot "unilaterally" change things if that means put in what is important to you without citing sources and nor can you remove stuff that is important to others that is correctly cited. You can put in things that are important to you if you cite them and you can challenge stuff you don't like and insist that the folks that want it there source it properly. Just watch and stay polite and you can, to be honest, make all the mistakes that you need to. You will get corrected and will eventually get it. What will get you in trouble (and banned from here) is getting personal or upset or retaliating. You gotta be Teflon, let it all slide off (I do not always take my own advice . . . but I try to.) --Justanother 01:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

RV

I have seen that an edit you made using popups to Dalip Singh came out like this "(Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups)" ,I have the same problem..do you know what might be causing the problem..???--Cometstyles 14:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Just some bust in the server-side script most likely. I am sure it will be repaired soon. have a nice day. --Justanother 14:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You're both missing the popupQueriedRevertSummary= command at the end of your monobook code. Mine looks like this below.

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]]

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
popupQueriedRevertSummary='Reverted to version by $3 on $2 - Using popups';

- X201 17:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. Was working fine up to yesterday or today. It is already noted on the User:Lupin/popups.js talk page. --Justanother 17:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Lupin has this

'defaultpopupQueriedRevertSummary': 'Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using [[:en:Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups|popups]]'

and

newOption('popupQueriedRevertSummary', popupString('defaultpopupQueriedRevertSummary') );

Maybe the error is in there. --Justanother 17:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup I agree, it was working fine till yesterday but I dont know what happened and I thoughtit was because of that updating messages we were getting by Topaz..Anywayz mine is not fixed and now Iam getting "Reverted to last edit by $3"..Lupin should fix this..--Cometstyles 17:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You can try adding that line as a workaround. I am not really too concerned as the function still works. I am sure it will be repaired soon. If not I can use VP or try the workaround. --Justanother 17:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just found out that Lupin has change his User:Lupin/popups.js(check in the History)

yesterday to Development version and thats whats causing the problem..Iam not sure what to do..I think I'll wait till someone complains to him about his changes..--Cometstyles 17:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Try using Mozilla or try using IE7 because the popup error only has a problem with IE Version 6...Iam using Mozilla Firefox right know and its working quite fine..cheers--Cometstyles 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I will see if it sorts out by tomorrow. If not I will try the workaround. Take care. --Justanother 19:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

awrite, waddabout this

Am I being thickheaded as usual, or is this mess sheer mendacity? n.b. the admin's actions. BabyDweezil 20:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I did glance at it quickly earlier today just to see what it was all about as it was mentioned in your "block" (BTW, you may want to go over to the ANI board and note that the block was unwarranted, just for those admins that do not know the story - keep it clean). Anywho, this is just another dirty little corner of Wikipedia that I have not much taken an interest in (of course, I have seen most of her story over the years). I feel bad for her as she is obviously unbalanced and that is sad. Her major "notability" lies in that she is the laughing stock for an insular group of individuals that would publicly mock an unbalanced person. Yeah! The article should be cut down to what notable parts it may have and then perhaps AfD. But first clean it up so we can see what we have. Re Tilman's editing it. Hmmmm, tough call. My quick read of WP:COI would seem to indicate that he might want to stay away from it but, to be honest, so long as he stays very neutral on it (not taking sides in talk debates), I don't see a problem. Of course, I have no idea of how he edits there. --Justanother 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

and yet anudder one

ok lookie here, cuz they're trying to bait me into 3RR yet again over a perfectly legit edit I made. BabyDweezil 23:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a process. You are a good editor, BD, and when you contribute, as you did there, rather than delete, you will be much more effective. You cannot expect a partisan website to stand as RS for what should come from a 3rd party. The net effect of your edit was improvement of the article, so continue! --Justanother 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RDAC

<Moved Lady award to user page>

It has its own shortcut now too! For this brilliant flash of an idea to create the project, Sluzzelin is issuing you the Lady of the Lightbulbs' approval stamp. ---Sluzzelin 10:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Super-duper! Thanks, that is really cool! --Justanother 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-WP:RS sources in article intro that need to be replaced

See for details. I tried to replace them with fact tags but of course was reverted. BabyDweezil 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; though I do not think I can fit that into my "busy schedule" for a while (laff). Just persist, keep a good count, and improve the article. There is a lot more wiggle-room on non-BLP articles for OR-ish material to find its way in. --Justanother 16:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, BD, you may want to adobt WP:1RR. Or not (BRD will generally fail if there is a preexisting consensus against the specific change you'd like to make. is a problem). Your choice. But at least take a look at it. --Justanother 16:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out, but absent some sane admin interventions against the silly POV pushing, which simply don't seem to be forthcoming, I'll probably have to settle for being constantly amused at this not uninteresting case study in group dynamics. Later BabyDweezil 16:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a job for Goo Gone (what, no article). --Justanother 16:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And just in case that reference went by you:

Goo Gone is a combination of Citrus Power and scientific technology designed to eliminate the very toughest problems.[6]

--Justanother 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I got it...btw, is it good for getting soot stains off of flat-painted indoor walls? (don't ask) BabyDweezil 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It might attack the latex paint. Read the site. I use it on plastic and metal to remove sticker residue. There are other cleaners that might be better for you. Have you tried some laundry soap in water (test in inconspicuous area first). --Justanother 17:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ask this on the RD. You will get good advice! --Justanother 17:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Awrite, I'm going with the Krud Kutter. BabyDweezil 23:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI

"Revert to the revision prior to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups"

Your monobook seems to be acting up--70.107.112.158 03:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a glitch in the source that a number of people are experiencing and that User:Lupin has not addressed. --Justanother 03:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont know what happened but now whenever I make changes using popups it works very well with Mozilla Firefox but when I try to "restore this revision".it gets updated same time without doing it manually and it says it has been reverted using WP:TWINKLE, which VOA Says he uses and its the best thing he has done. I strongly urge you to use Firefox or Opera because IE seems to lose its edge when it comes to editing Wikipedia..Cheers..--Cometstyles 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I go back and forth between IE and Firefox and for now am on IE7. Maybe I will switch back. --Justanother 04:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User: Jobstbrandt

Hi there

I see you are dealing with him now -- he debuted on Wikipedia by adding a huge amount of unsourced information to the desmodromic article. I and others kept asking him to state his sources, but he refused and kept arguing that it was "true" etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desmodromic_valve&diff=103240301&oldid=103167892

Not sure how to deal with it. I am sure you saw the discussion on his user page. Definite communication issues. Have fun...

Izaakb 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess you deal with it by dealing with it or you let him have the article. I just read some of his material elsewhere and he is a bright guy and could be a good contributor if he gets off the "I'm right and you'all are wrong" thing. There is plenty of room here for everyone to be right! Do me a favor please and keep an eye over on brake fade in case I need some back-up. I would rather be patient with him then be a WP:DICK. Thanks.

It just seems that he just doesn't "get" wikipedia. I kept referring him to the editing guidelines, but I don't think he is bothering to read them at all -- he just gets offended when you tag the claim or remove the post. I agree that he could be a good contributor, but that's a big IF.. Will do on the article. Good luck. Izaakb 19:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Justanother 20:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jobstbrandt

Izaakb 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will shoot over there in a bit. --Justanother 17:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

BD

Hi Justanother, thanks for your message. Yes, I considered that there my action may appear to be a conflict of interest and I still decided that to take action was the best course. There were several factors to my decision. One of them is that BD's behavior is consistently bad. This was not an isolated incident. Another is that I had previously blocked a different editor for the exact same thing. BD came along and made the same edits. It was a clear violation. Another factor is that BD has received many warnigs and even previous 24 hour blocks. Yet another is that the project favors action, and that any decision can be undone. In short, I was confident enough in my actions that I didn't feel it was beneficial to the project to delay while waiting for another admin or set of admins to review the case. I stand by my action. I also note that no admin has yet found issue with the block. Johntex\^talk 15:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For the exact same edits in Ike and LRH, I guess? Well, I did not know that; how was BD to know? And if he did not know then why would you increase the penalty on that account? There is a point raised on AN/I if BD ever contributed anything or is he just a PITA. Well, I think that BD should respond to that when or where he can. I am no expert on BD nor on his edits. I do see him as bright and perceptive and I cetainly think that he can be a valuable editor here. So if he has not made contributions then I suggest to him that he take a break from the wars for at least a week and just have some fun editing non-controversial articles. He can go over to brake fade, where I just finished up with a disruptive editor and work on that. I put some links in the talk page to good sources. If he has not made contributions and promises to take a week off and contribute elsewhere, would you lift his ban? Of course, I do not know if that is agreeable to him. Other than that, not much to say. --Justanother 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

POF

Why do you keep reverting changes to the Plenty of Fish entry? The article reads like its blatant advertising, and completely biased on promoting it. Yet anyone who visits the site, upon checking the forums or even other web-based feedback forums on POF will see there are problems with accounts vanishing. This is a POF issue, and should be addressed in the Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.186.67 (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The problem is that wikipedia is not about "THE TRUTH". Wikipedia is about "the truth (or some approximation of it) that has already been presented in reliable sources". I am sorry, but if you cannot find a reliable source that supports your claim then I, as a diligent editor here, cannot allow it to remain in the article. Please see WP:PILLARS, WP:V, WP:RS]]. We have to follow our rules! Otherwise this place would be complete anarchy. --Justanother 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Tea

Don't forget I take mine with cream. :-) All jokes aside some one I am associated with is a Scientologist and didn't mention it until well over a year do to the "stigma" so I try to work on parity and fairness. My main point is open, truthful accessible information and if after that they want to dive in,"Cheers" I say! PEACETalkAbout 23:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you live in Germany? --Justanother 00:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, shucks...but I will be in the UK in couple months. So, cyber tea it is until they have or organize a wikipedia editors convention. PEACETalkAbout 00:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstand me. I was just wondering as Germany is one of the few nations that pursues active discrimination against Scientologists (and has been called on it by the US and the UN) so there is certainly "stigma" there. France, too, I hear. But here in the US, there is no stigma in general, wikipedia being a somewhat different atmosphere but not really terrible; there are just a few bigots and a ton of wannabe's here. The huge vast majority of editors here are not that way at all. In real life, I am a professional and I work in a large professional setting where I am the only Scientologist. I am very public about it; never experienced the first bit of "stigma". In fact, lots of people over the years have said things like "You are a Scientologist. That is so cool. Every Scientologist I have ever met has been blah blah blah (modesty prevents)". In the US, and here on wikipedia, "stigma" (for a Scientologist) is what you make it, what you allow. I joke around here with bigotry but it doesn't bother me much. What it has been is a humbling and worthwhile experience to realize that there are people that have to live under truly oppressive bigotry and discrimination every day of their lives. For that lesson, I truly thank our junior bigots here. Other than that I am a Scientologist, I am pretty much a WASP and might never have had the privilege of that lesson elsewise. It is truly humbling lesson. And it has changed me. Today, in my office, a gal, a fellow professional, said "Mexican trash" kinda loud and I called her over and asked "Did I just hear you hollar out bigotry?" I might have hurt a friendship a bit but I totally called her on it. I do not think I would have done that before. I might have not even paid it a second thought. --Justanother 01:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was surprised that our friend/associate didn't mention it. He only did once the Rolling Stones article hit the office and naturally we were all talking. Once he said he was one, we didn't so much as blink and he knows I am not on board with the mental health issues (medications....I say anyone who advocates that has not interviewed anyone in a locked ward). Well, in honesty at potlucks it looks more like a cult convention:Ekenkar, Scientologist, Holly Roller, kabbalah, Wicca, BK(maybe ex-Bk not sure), someone dear to me is a Mormon etc. Well, my take is as mentioned above, being I was on the complete left prior(served on as a board member that advocates religious freedom), I think I try to be fair and part of me would most likely be just a tiny bit more on the left still. Besides we are counting on our scientologist to bring forth the launching of our latest venture. So, as long as we have all the information, I say pass the salad. PEACETalkAbout 02:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "My main point is open, truthful accessible information" but if you can respect that your friend 1) likely has a great deal of respect and admiration for Hubbard and would not really be interested in someone looking to tear him down and 2) that your friend likely agrees with the Scientology concept that some "truths" should be withheld until a person is truly ready to hear them. If you can respect that then good for you. --Justanother 02:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told we don't discuss his religion, but have gotten into universal discussions (humanity). I am always respectful of people, will defend folks but alas I strive for the truth. Holding the "truths" until a person is ready, may well take someone on a very long journey. I would rather know now and see if I want to opt out here rather than years later. I must say I should give this person some flowers as I didn't realize how special(class act) this person is in that he is accepting of me, knowing that I am not motivated by any ill will but simply seeking the truth. He is Good PR for your team I say.PEACETalkAbout 16:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The only real "Truth" in Scientology is that you are a spiritual being and can come to know more about yourself and can improve your abilities to be at Cause in life as a spiritual being and not as the effect of your mind or your body or your past decisions. That Truth is evident in Scientology from the beginning. Some tiny fraction of lesser and highly specific "truths" (small "s") are withheld until the person is ready. That is simply part of how Scientology works, it is no big deal to the Scientologist. I am glad that you know a Scientologist much more closely than through the filter of those that oppose them vehemently. I wish more did. --Justanother 16:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian Purchase Question

Well here's the deal. The store accepts credit cards, but the website is entirely in Portuguese, and when you enter personal information, it requires a Brazilian city/state, etc. and some Brazilian ID numbers akin to a driver's license or Social Security number as we have in the US (though probably not so secure). Also, while a money order might work, it seems unlikely to me that they would really want to go through the hassle involved in that whole process (also I could see the money getting lost in a black hole). I will try, though. What I don't understand is that after copious amounts of research on my part, how can there not exist a service that simply buys items from within a country on a foreigner's behalf and then ships them to the foreigner? The next best option would seem to be to develop a very trusting friendship with someone who lives in Brazil. (The item in question is a CD box set from the Cultural Center of São Paulo--believe me, it is not available any other way.) --Gladstone88 10:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Couple ideas for you. 1) Have you "talked" to them by email or phone. They may not be able to ship international for wahtever reason. Do that first. If they can ship international then just give them the cc info over the phone. 2) Find an admin here that is from Brazil and ask him to help and pay him by money order. 3) There are firms like "freight forwarding" or "courier" firms that specialize in enabling business bewtween Brazil and US. Try to find one and ask them. Good luck. If you get stuck let me know and I will see if I can help more. --Justanother 12:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

For 3) I mean like http://www.forwarders.com/home/international.html#Brazil While they may not do what you want, they may know someone that does. --Justanother 13:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Lessons" response to Anynobody (moved from article talk)

Sometimes life hands you lessons in ways that you least expect. When I was a fairly young long-haired hippie-type, I had my ass handed to me by two rednecks in the parking lot of a sh*tkicker bar where I had been dumb enough to stop for a drink and a "smoke" with a friend. My friend had been giving one of the 'necks a bit of a hard time and when he left they decided to take their revenge on me. Funny thing is (and this was years before I encountered Scientology) the next day (or maybe the one after that, laff), I felt a strange relief. I found that getting pretty badly beat up was not something that I could not "confront" (as we say in Scientology); that it was nothing to be afraid of and I was never afraid of a fight again after that. Course, I am a lover not a fighter, but you know what I mean. Now that is a good lesson to learn, I think. I would not recommend that you or anyone else learn it the way I did. --Justanother 13:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I recall at least one such assault we foolish teenage kids having stayed after hours at a public beach impinging into the evening time when the local rednecks laid claim. The ensuing brick, bat, rock and general debris bombardment and the blood-curdling taunts of get outta heah ya commiejewfaghippiehomobastards (any and all of which were generally more or less true amongst us) were likewise good preparation for the true, unspeakable barbarity I would encounter decades later on...on...on...the Internet! :).

Of course, there was also that encounter with the killer rabbit... BabyDweezil 16:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I have an after-hours beach story too but it does not really relate (laff). Sorry, but for the second time my office filter has blocked one of your links. Oh well, I will take a look when I get home. --Justanother 16:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression though, that because you are a Scientologist, you get a lot of people that treat you like your friend was treating the guys that handed you your posterior. Don't get me wrong, fighting over something like that is not acceptable so they were even worse than your friend who taunted them. My suggestion about forming a Scientology style guide to curb the insults or offense was actually meant to help those Scientologists that may not enjoy the experience. (I don't mean to imply you are a masochist or anything like that, I find abusive people interesting too and it's easy for me to have a thick skin online. I assume you feel the same way, otherwise you wouldn't welcome the occasional barb. Anynobody 01:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In Real Life? No, Never Ever, Unimaginable. Here? Happens every day and ten times a day. I could care less, personally. I close the browser and that is that. I am here of my own volition and I can leave anytime I like. Doesn't make it right and I still make sure that I label it for what it is. No realy point in discussing it more. The very vast majority of editors here are fair-minded people and that is that. Some anti-Scientologists are fair-minded people too, I am sure. Style guide? Maybe. --Justanother 02:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean on Wikipedia, it sounds like Scientologists get treated with disrespect. (A note about me, I would almost never give anyone advice on what to do in real life without knowing them on a personal level. Especially where religion is concerned.) I'm pretty sure I've seen other Scientologists on here making similar complaints. Perhaps some of the disrespect comes because certain people don't know how to discuss Scientology in a respectful manner. (Bear in mind, I also mean disagreeing in a respectful manner too. If I were to decide to take issue with or question the tenets of a religion I'd want to know how to do it in the most respectful way possible. I gather that was the motivation for other religious groups like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) to establish as a group how they prefer to be addressed or written about. Granted this won't solve all PA Scientologists receive, but it could help reduce them. Anynobody 06:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you are absolutely right that a lot of editors here have bought into the internet lies about what Scientology is and think that all Scientologists are the devil. It goes waaay beyond how LDS or Islam is treated here, IMO, and could be be equated to Salem witch trials or, at least, Selma, Alabama in 1930 to a black. Some editors here definitely think that Scientologists should sit in the back of the wikipedia bus. And the other editors/admins here, by and large, don't seem to have the gumption to tell the bigots to knock it off. Who, for instance, turned to Orsini, and told him to stop running his bigotry on me ("affinity with scientology" as a charge; exclude me from the bus altogether when it comes to Scn articles, just because I am a Scientologist). But if I call another editor a "nazi", for example (and no, all you hopefuls out there, I am NOT calling anybody a nazi, nor implying anything, that is an example of something I would not call someone), any number of editors will jump in and tell me how inappropriate that is and I will probably get a block. You know, when bigotry is being practiced in any environment, who is really to blame? The minority of overt bigots? Or the majority of so-called "good people" that stand by and watch (or don't watch) or who subtly or openly enable the bigots. That is a question that has plaqued society for a while now and wikipedia is nothing if not a microcosm of this society we live in (or perhaps a microcosm of the middle school playground with its bullies). Good idea on the manual and if you would like to start something I will be happy to help. --Justanother 15:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer, but I try to not participate directly in religious activities. Making suggestions is about as close as I get, besides the manual should be set up by Scientologists. I'm not into learning enough info about it to be of any use, but don't get me wrong there are a lot of religious groups I don't care to learn about. While that may sound dogmatic or close minded, please understand that my disinterest in religious specifics can be likened to my disinterest in major sports or British comedy: I'll read about it if I have to in order to give me a better understanding of historical events. I hope this makes sense and doesn't offend you, after all I'm willing to abide by a manual of style by Scientologists. Along those lines, how do you view L. Ron Hubbard's naval career in relation to the Church of Scientology? For example is it possible to use the submarine incident as an example of how difficult ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare) is without implying anything negative about the CoS? I've been looking at examples throughout WW2 of people making mistakes, on all sides. For example during the Battle of Midway a Japanese scout plane report was received by the flagship Akagi but not reported to Admiral Nagumo for 45 minutes due to clerical errors. If you ever saw the movie Midway, they kinda messed that part up by omission. Another error I've been looking at is HMS Glorious allowing herself to be caught by two German battlecruisers with no planes in the air. There are dozens of mistakes documented by high level officers, but actual recorded blunders of junior officers, ncos, and gis are harder to come by. Lt. Hubbard has two or three examples in his records. Anynobody 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I am not too interested in the "he said, she said" of Hubbard's military career. As far as I am concerned, Hubbard volunteered to serve his country in time of war, did his job honorably, and was honorably discharged. Anything more is basically just PR, whether for LRH or against. --Justanother 00:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree he did serve his country, and did his very best. He resigned his commission under honorable circumstances and after having been asked to reconsider an earlier request. I agree that any discussion about military blunders that focuses on just Hubbard (outside of his biography) could be looked upon as a dig at the CoS. I'm not trying to paint him as the worthless reject a lot of people try to. If that were true he would have been kicked out, court martialed, or executed for cowardice it could be said his military career was a total failure. On the other hand he wasn't exactly JFK in his accomplishments either. Anynobody 01:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not even sure JFK was "JFK". He certainly was not Audie Murphy. But had the circumstances been different, who knows. I do not think anyone ever called LRH a coward. He did his job, like millions of others have and do. --Justanother 01:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be forgetting Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109, I used JFK as another example of someone who became more well known after the war. They both embarked on careers not necessarily because of their war record, but where both were looked at. Had Kennedy not become President, PT-109 would have been just another entry in the DAFNS, the same could be said about PC-815 because Hubbard went on to found the COS. They were also both in the Navy. Audie Murphy is famous for his war record and not so much for what happened later in his life. (Let's face it his biggest movie was about his military career. I suppose the closest Army example would be James Stewart (actor)) Anynobody 01:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I ain't forgetting that at all. Kennedy landed in the drink and did a good job of caring for his crew. That is about it. Blown way out of proportion, IMO. Would Hubbard have done as good a job caring for his crew under similar circumstances? Who knows. Point is that PT-109 was nothing special other than the care, bravery, and competence shown likely by hundreds or thousands of equal incidents in time of war. We just know about PT-109 for PR reasons, IMO. Not to detract from what JFK did. He helped save his men. He was not alone. He was far from the only hero in that story. He got the lion's share of whatever glory there is in it. PR. You seem to have been comparing LRH's history against JFK's and I say who knows. JFK had a minor assignment and took a hit and discharged his duties well. LRH had a minor assignment and discharged his duties honorably. Did he really sink anything? Who knows, who cares? --Justanother 02:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Who knows...the Navy. Who cares...naval historians. Please don't focus on JFK too much, remember I am citing him as an example to illustrate a point. That point being that anti-Scientologists don't give Hubbard enough credit for his service, often claiming him as an abysmal failure as an officer. I don't think he was. On the other end some people want to paint him as a war hero in the same vain as JFK, Audie Murphy, or other distinguished veterans which is also inaccurate. The truth is in the middle. Anynobody 02:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Which leads us back to where I was before "As far as I am concerned, Hubbard volunteered to serve his country in time of war, did his job honorably, and was honorably discharged. Anything more is basically just PR, whether for LRH or against." --Justanother 02:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe U.S. Naval documents are prejudiced or inaccurate in regard to Lt. Hubbard? Anynobody 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot the other part: "I am not too interested in the "he said, she said" of Hubbard's military career." Really, all due respect, but I am not. --Justanother 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I just want to know that you have no problem with strictly naval discussions involving his career using official Navy documents including his own reports without offending you? I realize you find the ASW subject boring, but I'm not looking to insult Scientologists who are interested nor am I trying to say anything that's untrue. Anynobody 02:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I really could care less providing it follows WP:PILLARS. I am not the arbiter of anything but my own actions. A disputed report of enemy engagement during WWII seems hardly to be notable to me but hey, whatever floats your boat (to be naval about it). --Justanother 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I think you are probably right that there are quite a few lies about Hubbard and Scientology out there. As long as I stick with Navy sources I think I avoid the lies, but I don't know how Scientologists look at the Navy as a source for information. Anynobody 03:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Like anyone else, I guess. With reading glasses. (smile) --Justanother 03:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we're cool then, thanks for the input Justanother. Anynobody 03:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My tips

Justanother, A bigot is an obstinate and intolerant believer in a religion, political theory, etc. That I am not. I am not a "cult fighter". I am not opposed to religious practices as long as those practices do not infringe on human rights. I have first hand experience with the cofs and can argue that it infringes on human rights. If you had a dispute with another editor who used my essay in an argument, then you need to take that up with that editor, not me. My essay does not violate any wikipedia policy.--Fahrenheit451 03:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. How about rewriting it as simply "Abusive editing practices" without the inference that that is how members of the CoS edit here. I know that it say CoS-directed but, to most here, that does not mean what you and I might understand it to mean. I imagine that to most here, that would include any CoS member that edits here. That is the air of bigotry I see. If you re-title it you can still direct someone to it if you or they see an abusive editor. --Justanother 03:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is about abusive editing practices, however, it has been rare that those practices have been used by editors other than cofs folks. Just for your information, I have no objection whatsover to Freezone Scientology. CofS stuff like Fair Game, enforced disconnection, SP declare, enforced "KSW", comm evs are clearly human rights violations that harm people, destroy families, and disrupt businesses. The cofs seems to be full of bigotry in that respect. I will consider your suggestion, though.--Fahrenheit451 16:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. If you don't mind I will suggest a change later when I have more time. By suggest I mean edit it in a way that I think removes what I find objectionable about it while still making mention of OSA. If you don't like my change you can edit or revert it and we can go from there. Thanks. BTW, on those issues, and FWIW, I find things to be noticable better in those areas now than they have been in the past. --Justanother 16:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW again, Modemac, don't know if you ever saw this from my "writeup"

Realize that there is another side to the Scn story. Many people have been harmed by SP declare and disconnection policies, "fair game" harassment, overzealous reges and MAA/Ethics Officers. There is quite a history of "outpoints" in Scientology and little evidence of the Church addressing them in a verifiable manner. I know that they do get addressed often by staff going to cramming or ethics but the disgruntled people, many of them having invested many years and much money in Scn were never handled, were they? The fact that they remain disgruntled is the pudding for that.

--Justanother 16:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, if you wish to suggest a revision, please put it on my discussion page as a suggestion. I caution you NOT to edit my user page.--Fahrenheit451 20:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, but the bold and caps was hardly called for. --Justanother 21:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised you are offended by my using bold lettering in a sentence and capitals on a three letter word. You stated that you were going to edit my user page, which you have no place doing. I think that is not called for.--Fahrenheit451 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I said "If you don't mind". Sorry if you thought I would do that without clearing it with you first. --Justanother 02:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I did instruct you to propose the changes on my discussion page, not create a new page in my userspace. I do not appreciate that. I did remove one sentence, but that is all I am doing.--Fahrenheit451 11:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry. You did invite me to "suggest a revision" in your user space. and my experience here is that suggested revisions are often done by simply showing the new edit in a sandbox rather than a laborious explanation. And I think it was clear from my sandbox suggestion that my intention was not to screw with you but simply to make a measured and reasoned suggestion. I really do not see a huge and offensive difference between your exact request and what I did. A difference yes, but not one that I expected you to object to or I would have not have done it. But you are certainly entitled to your feelings and I apologize. ps, to anyone on "my team"; thanks and no offense meant but I really do not need anyone to come over here and "support me". This was a simple matter between me and another user with some appropriate help from an admin. And finally, I appreciate the change you made and would also appreciate it if you would reconsider the first revision, also. Changing CoS-directed to OSA-directed. Thanks. --Justanother 12:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have edited that page to my satisfaction. OSA is part of the Church of Scientology. The CSI supports OSA operations, as the CSC supported the Guardian Office. What was abusive was your misuse of my userspace, which borders on vandalism. If you ever do that again, I will request you get blocked. I requested a warning this time, which you were given. --Fahrenheit451 05:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please

Do not create pages in other users' userspace as you did at User:Fahrenheit451/test - please use your own Glen 11:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking care of the delete for him. --Justanother 12:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

email not working

hey, can you resend? my mail has been funny today.

thx--Izaakb 23:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK --Justanother 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC set up

Would you please add your view of the general situation, thanks. WP:RFC Anynobody 00:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anynobody and Justanother - better link Anynobody 00:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything I can do to assist...

... you with in relation to your dispute with User:Anynobody? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough..

I hear you, but geez. Do you really think it's a good idea for you to be popping up on this guy's talk page? Seems to me like you guys ought to be steering away from each other. (I say this with no opinion on who's right or wrong, or anything like that- just in the interest of keeping the peace.) Friday (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have asked User:Bishonen to send him a clue. He thinks highly of her and maybe it will help. I could really care less, myself, about staying away from him. I have to edit with this guy so I will just deal with it. I am not giving him the articles by default and he will not chase me out of them with lies. Thanks for your interest and your input and any help or good word you can provide is certainly welcome. --Justanother 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

...about the L Ron Hubbard comment. Ad Hominem comments are never acceptable. I was just jokin' around. Won't happen again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulhorner (talk • contribs) 05:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Apology accepted but that was pretty far out there. --Justanother 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't Scientologists ever have a sense of humor? It was far out there but ...... well, maybe it was a little too far out there lol :) BTW- I'm enjoying this debate on the Bridge film external link. You being so adament about not having it really makes me question your open mindedness to the other side of the coin.... I'm starting to ask questions (I'm a curious person). Paulhorner 05:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulhorner (talk • contribs) 05:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC).