Jump to content

User talk:Justanother

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JustaHulk (talk | contribs) at 13:45, 8 February 2008 (→Ungrammatical, lame: boo boo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

My first name is Bob and I graduated from Texas A&M in 1978 with a B.S. in Dairy Science is an SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.*


Warning Warning: According to one editor (here) reading User:Justanother's posts may cause you to literally become brainwashed, presumably because these posts contain Secret Subliminal Scientology Mojo®.

READ AT YOUR OWN RISK

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
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

* Note: that is a j-o-k-e; none of that info is true
Archive1/Archive2/Archive3/Archive4/Archive5/Archive6/Archive7/Archive8/Archive9

Watchlist

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Voorts 35 1 3 97 Open 21:06, 8 November 2024 6 days, 19 hours no report

Warning

Warning, this user has a somewhat warped sense of humor. See * Note above. --Justanother

Mot du jour

I tend to latch on to a "new" word and overuse it just 'cause I like it so much. Sometimes the word is just so apropos and sometimes it just tickles me to use.

Yeoman's Award for Lifetime Service

This year's Yeoman's Award goes to an unassuming word whose quiet manner belies its strength and usefulness. This word is not fancy or esoteric, it doesn't even end with "ous", but when you need a word to describe anything from an edit to an editor to an administrative action and you want to do it in a manner that can rarely be called into question, few words will serve. This is one of those words. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you . . .

inappropriate

Today's word

Extremist
From extreme
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin extremus, superlative of exter, exterus being on the outside -- more at EXTERIOR
1 a : existing in a very high degree <extreme poverty> b : going to great or exaggerated lengths : RADICAL <went on an extreme diet> c : exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected <extreme weather conditions>
2 archaic : LAST
3 : situated at the farthest possible point from a center <the country's extreme north>
4 a : most advanced or thoroughgoing <the extreme political left> b : MAXIMUM
5 a : of, relating to, or being an outdoor activity or a form of a sport (as skiing) that involves an unusually high degree of physical risk <extreme mountain biking down steep slopes> b : involved in an extreme sport <an extreme snowboarder>
(http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/extreme)

Previous words

Gratuitous
Etymology: Latin gratuitus, from gratus
-adjective
1 a : given unearned or without recompense b : not involving a return benefit, compensation, or consideration c : costing nothing : FREE
2 : not called for by the circumstances : UNWARRANTED <gratuitous insolence> <a gratuitous assumption>
(http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/gratuitous)

Polemic
Etymology: French polémique, from Middle French, from polemique controversial, from Greek polemikos warlike, hostile, from polemos war; perhaps akin to Greek pelemizein to shake, Old English ealfelo baleful
–noun
1 a : an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another b : the art or practice of disputation or controversy -- usually used in plural but sing. or plural in constr.
2 : an aggressive controversialist : DISPUTANT
–adjective
1 : of, relating to, or being a polemic : CONTROVERSIAL
2 : engaged in or addicted to polemics : DISPUTATIOUS
(http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/polemic)

Taint

Candidate words

vociferous

acrimonious

and the ever-popular, mendacious

The 'Ous family.

A suggestion

I have a suggestion, which I'm hereby spamming on the talkpages of Smee, Justanother, Lsi John, and Anynobody. (Hi, Lsi John, I don't think we've met.) I don't really expect it to pan out, as it depends on four people agreeing to do something. But please give my proposal some thought before rejecting it, guys. I think some of you might otherwise be headed for the less dignified fate of a community page ban from WP:AN and ANI. My suggestion has two legs:

  • First, that you all voluntarily agree to stop posting on WP:AN/ANI. Conditionally on the other three doing the same. The way you're going on now isn't doing some of your reputations—or, I bet, stress levels—any good. Smee and Justanother, you're boring everybody. Most of the time, those ANI threads of yours aren't really requests for admin action—which is what the noticeboards are for—they're simply, well, self-expression. And as such, they seem to be getting more and more extreme. For instance, Smee, where do you get off claiming Justanother is in the habit of violating WP:TROLL? And Justanother, when you say Smee has "a history of complaints for tendentious editing," don't you mean a history of complaints from you, hmm?
  • Secondly, that you also stop posting on each other's user talk pages, other than by express invitation. From what I've seen, you're not really discussing articles there, you know? You're, essentially, trying to make each other look bad. In good faith, no doubt. But what's the point?

Note that I realize Anynobody and Lsi John haven't posted excessively on ANI at all (that I've seen). So in a sense it's unfair to ask them to stop. But obviously—well, it's obvious to me—it wouldn't work to shut out Smee and Justanother while leaving the other two free to take over some of their, uh, functions at the noticeboard. So I'm simply asking Anynobody and Lsi John nicely to do this for the general good and everybody's peace of mind including their own.

So am I suggesting that you stop discussing stuff with each other? No, not at all. I only think it's time to stop discussing your resentments and each other's characters and past histories. As for editing and articles, those are best discussed on article talk pages. It's up to you, collectively. Could you just think about it, please? Wouldn't it leave you a lot of lovely spare time? Mightn't it even be a relief?

Please let me know ASAP if I've missed any editor that in your opinion ought to be included here. And then please take your time to consider my proposal, and let me know if you're up for it. A simple yes or no will do me, in fact I prefer it. You don't have to feel I expect an explanation of the stand you take. And feel free to accept the AN/ANI deal but not the usertalk deal, or vice versa. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 19:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, Bishonen, for your kind interest and intervention. Yes, I agree (almost) unconditionally to stop posting to AN/ANI about Smee or Anynobody and to refrain from posting to their talk pages unless expressly invited to. That said, there is a third condition that might help the situation and that is that Smee and Anynobody (and Lsi john and myself) stop having conversations on our talk pages about the other pair; in effect stop turning our talk pages into some sort of "virtual AN/I" in the hopes that other editors and admins are watching. In furtherance of that, and to take the first step, I will remove my latest "position piece" from my user page. Oh, and that (almost)? I reserve the right to comment in AN/ANI cases brought by these parties against other editors but I will endeavor to limit my comments to the charges, not try to turn the tables against the accuser. Does that sound fair? --Justanother 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent call, Justanother. I originally meant quite literally not post on AN/ANI, not post at all. But I'm beginning to think that posting about one another is all that should be asked (Lsi John has just responded to that effect on my page, too). So I'm content with your conditions.
Oh, you've been trolling AN and S by having talkpage conversations with LJ...? And vice versa? Oh, man. Thanks for calling it to my attention, and yes, I do agree that everybody needs to stop that, too. For badmouthing each other, please use e-mail only. ;-) I'm going to assume that S, AN, LJ will read this. And thank you very much, Justanother, for giving my attempt such an encouraging start. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
float
float
Great! And you would be hard-pressed to find a talk page discussion between LJ and I about "the enemy". Sadly, the reciprocal cannot be claimed but perhaps a new day is on the horizon. Father Mathew Remedy works wonders! Not to discount your kind assistance. --Justanother 21:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

These are just some references as I come across them.

General on Scientology

Sect Commissioner

How do I handle a vandal.

There is a guy deleting stuff from the Scientology main page.Bravehartbear 00:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bear. I am going to give you a bit of a lesson here so please take it in the spirit it is offered, a spirit of help.
1. Please be very slow to characterize another editor's work as vandalism. I saw no vandalism there. You would not appreciate someone calling your edits vandalism or calling you a vandal.
2. Always look carefully to make sure that you understand an edit before you revert it or undo it. It looked to me that the editor was not deleting material, he was changing it into smaller paragraphs but little, if anything, was deleted.
3. Just a tip. Look at the edit history and the number next to each revision is the number of bytes in the article as of that revision. One byte = one letter or space. The entire set of (4) edits removed a total of 30 characters and I could not easily see what exactly was removed, probably nothing of substance. (I saw "methodology" changed to "way", for one.)
So learn from your errors and carry on. That is what we all do here.
And if you run into a real vandal, see WP:VANDAL for how to handle that though you are welcome to ask me for advice anytime. --Justanother 01:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I mess up. Bravehartbear 02:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions and Sorry for my ignorance

Sorry, that I mistrusted all your contributions so badly that I didn't even read some of them fully. I think your contribution was an improvement here. I shouldn't have started arguing! As I began to contribute to the Scientology article, myself and my contributions were attacked in a highly uncivil way and I started to think in "good/bad editors" categories. I will try to be more carefull in my "do-not-assume-good-faith judgements" to editors which oppose my "POV/NPOV". Hope we can stay civil on controversial topics although we may have different POV's on this subject. -- Stan talk 22:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, Stan. My only objection is to editors that perpetuate common lies and misrepresentations about Scientology. I know that BT does not do that and so I was happy to come over and work with him. Hopefully I can add you to that list. --Justanother 23:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who is BT ? -- Stan talk 23:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, BTfromLA, he started that thread. --Justanother 23:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam?

I don't think Common-Nation.com is spam. It is the most trusted name is news. AsherUSA 18:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asher. Nice site you have there. --Justanother 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, Asher has been indef blocked as the sockpuppet of a blocked user. He is in his early teens, but he blew another chance. Give him a few years and he could be a productive contributor. People found him disruptive before, and it looked like things haven't changed. Royalbroil 13:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. --Justanother 13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of WP:PA

I suggest that you keep your own hands squeaky clean and remove the veiled personal attack in the warning box at the top of your user page. Keep your harassing comments off my talk page.--Fahrenheit451 20:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a real good idea to turn down the thermostat here. F451, it would be a sign of good faith if you would refactor your comments to be more polite, regardless of what JA may have done. Jehochman Talk 20:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, since you're a fair and impartial one around here, mind taking a look at User talk:Tilman, where F451 is, incredulously, vandalizing the page by rearranging other people's comments and adding his own POV header to them, and then accuses others of vandalism for the simple act of reverting his damage? wikipediatrix 20:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
F451, AN/I in 5 - 10. I am not much into wasting time so if you care to self-revert at Tilman's then that is the end of this episode. --Justanother 20:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has been accused of vandalism. Looks like obfuscation to me for their pal User:Misou violation of WP:NPA--Fahrenheit451 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I asked you why you were rearranging people's posts on Tilman's talk page, your reply was "I watch pages for vandalism and other violations of Wikipedia policy." If your reasons have now changed, speak up. wikipediatrix 20:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatrix, please point out exactly where I accused any of the editors on that page of vandalism. I made a statement, not an accusation. Reread it.--Fahrenheit451 21:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F451, please don't remove or edit other people's talk page comments when there is any chance of controversy. Do what you want with your own comments. If you have a problem with what somebody else is saying, you can ask them politely to refactor. Jehochman Talk 20:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipediatrix, please feel free to restore comments to the way they were left by their authors, but don't touch anything originally written by F451. Jehochman Talk 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I haven't. Unless you mean his insertion of a header called "Obfuscatory remarks" which is putting words in another editor's mouth. Generally speaking, the title of a header is determined by the editor who starts the thread, which is of course usually the thread's first poster. F451's creation of a header and inserting other editor's comments into it against their will makes it look as if User:Misou was responsible for the header/phrase "Obfuscatory remarks". wikipediatrix 20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now back to the matter at hand. I would like the veiled personal attack at the top of Justanother's user page removed. The one in the warning box with a link to a statement I made. --Fahrenheit451 21:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say please. --Justanother 21:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

F451, it is on AN/I. Wikipediatrix and Jehochman, thank you for your concern and I apologize for the waste of time. --Justanother 21:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted and responded to.--Fahrenheit451 21:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fellows: Why go to AN/I when you already have a perfectly good Arbcom case pending where you can go and lodge these complaints? Better yet, just avoid pestering each other because there's always a chance that Arbcom could get fed up with this drama and ban everybody involved. Jehochman Talk 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly hope Arbcom would be more sensible than to take a "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" approach. wikipediatrix 00:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anti

By the way, just noticed your comment "Wikipediatrix is anti-Scientology, just not rabid about it" on the you-know-what for you-know-who. We've been thru this before: I am neither pro- nor anti. There really is a middle ground, and I am it. I think most of Scientology is silly, but then again, I think most religions are also silly. I wouldn't make a very good Scientologist because I don't get into chains of command, hierarchies, levels, orders, protocol. Some people are attracted to that sort of thing - fine. Let them be Scientologists. Let them be Freemasons. Whatever. I couldn't care less. It's a free world. Let me be perfectly clear: no matter what I may say about them, I do not oppose the Church of Scientology and what they are doing. This doesn't mean I necessarily approve of everything they do, it just means I think they have every right to do it, at least in America.

But as far as Wikipedia goes, I'm a stickler for accuracy and fairness. That's all. Nothing more. Hubbard lovers? Hubbard haters? In the immortal words of William S. Burroughs: "fuck 'em all, squares on both sides." While I don't want to see these articles turned into mouthpiece advertisements hawking Dianetics courses, I also don't want to see a relatively small group of malcontents turn it into what one critic excitedly called an "entheta-palooza" and taking special glee in noting that their additions to the Catherine Bell article were "none too flattering". Sounds uncannily like the "fair game" philosophy they claim to be against. I won't align myself with such people, and object to being lumped in with them. wikipediatrix 03:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 'trix. I am not sure how comfortable you are discussing you past editing history in this open forum so I will not do that pending word from you. It is not really important anyway. If you want to discuss that privately feel free to drop me an e-mail. First, let me apologize if I have again mischaracterized you. I know that you do not like that and that was not my intent. While you are not "middle ground", you are an intelligent and informed editor that brings needed balance to the equation here. I consider you a mirror image of myself in that you are as far on your side of "middle ground" as I am on mine. We, neither of us, like the abuses on either side and do not want to be "lumped in". While you think the subject matter (not the actions) is all nonsense and derivative, I think that it is not. I happen to think that I have the advantage of having actually studied it, used it, and seen and felt the effects of it. Just one example, I did a touch assist on a woman dying of cancer and both she and I felt something quite transcendant, a laying on of hands, if you will. I achieved that because, in that instance and for the first time, I discarded everything I hade been "taught" and coached on how to do that assist and instead I did it exactly the way Hubbard said to do it. And did Scientology "cure" her cancer? No. Did it extend her life, give her strength, and ease her suffering? I think so, certainly the latter two. What you must understand, 'trix, is that there is something that scientific instruments cannot measure; there are capabilities of the human spirit that James Randi cannot capture on film. Hubbard did not "invent" those capabilites; he attempted to discover them, characterize them, and invent techniques to handle them directly and powerfully. Thousands of Scientologists attest to the success he had. So whether Hubbard was a braggart or a bit of a con man or whatever, it is not all naked emperor stuff. There is something there, something powerful. Something that speaks to the human spirit and addresses it powerfully. For better or worse, 'trix, in the subject of human spiritual potential, Scientology may well be the best thing out there. So it is Scientology or something less effective, something with less "truth". Or it is nothing. --Justanother 16:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

Important to me at least. I am having technical problems editing from home. Until I sort it out, I can only edit from my office and that is something that I should not be doing. So I will not be posting much until I sort out my technical problem at home. --Justanother 16:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I switched back to my old DSL modem and I can edit again. I installed a new DSL modem a bit ago and even though I disabled the firewall in the modem there is still some issue that needs to be addressed. But for now all is well. --Justanother 21:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

A proposal has been made to merge Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge into I-35W Mississippi River bridge. The matter is being discussed at Talk:Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Please feel free to comment. Thank you. Kablammo 18:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Got an interesting little editing problem, maybe you can help

I'm doing a little work over at the David Miscavige article, and I decide to check the veracity of this reference that's used to justify the line "(in which IRS tax analysts were ordered to ignore the substantive issues)". I went to the NY Times Website to try and compare the article to make sure it was correct. I've been trying to buy the article, and I've been running into trouble doing that. However, I discovered that the website owner changed the article title from "Scientology's Puzzling Journey From Tax Rebel to Tax Exempt" to "The Shadowy Story Behind Scientology's Tax-Exempt Status ". Without being able to verify the veracity of the information being referenced, I did the least extreme edit I could think of and changed the article's title within the ref tag.

My quesiton is, is that enough? It seems to me that the website owner's willingness to alter information to push a point of view does not make him a reliable source. Sure, it's a NY Times article, but how do we know that it's really the article? What do you think should be done?HubcapD 22:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is really quite simple and a subject that I have addressed time and again and have found that most editors agree with me. The point is the the source is the source. Not some illegal copy of it on a parochial, biased, website. And we, as editors, are expected to do our work and do our research and base the article on the real source, not some suspect copy. So the "right" thing to do is to buy the article or go to the library and read it for free. And the correct way to cite it in the article is to cite the real source, not some suspect, illegal, copy. And we should not link to that suspect copy either for "convenience". We are expected to act and research and edit professionally here. That said, I realize that many of us do not want to buy the article or go to the library. We are cheap and/or lazy. Fair enough. If we want to take a chance and use the suspect copy ourselves then do as you will. But keep it to yourself. As far as the projct is concerned you did it the right way. Does that answer your question? --Justanother 02:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ps, you didn't get this from me. Wink. Nudge. Lazy. Cheap. Me. Too. --Justanother 02:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, look what I found on this dead Chinaman! This helps immensely! Watch for what I do!HubcapD 03:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close . . . but no cigar. The source is the source. The NY Times. Not holysmoke or any other site other than the NY Times. And you do not need a website at all. Just cite the article. There is absolutely no rule that references need be available online. Most are not. --Justanother 07:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Barbara Schwarz

I came across that article today. I don't assume bad faith with the creator of this article but think that some editors overestimated the noteability of this woman due to personal expieriences. The article is not noteable but really inappropriate for WP and really does harm to an individual. An article wich has apperently no more usefulness than suggesting that Scientologists are not all supermen but the opposite and for that literally may destroy a persons life has no place in WP. The first thing wich came to my mind was "don't be evil"(google). It is not a WP:Policy but WP has a similar for living people (:."don't harm" I really want to delete the entire article but noticed already 4 AFD's. However, I will make a new one if I am able to bring up new evidence and WP policy. I noticed you made the last one wich was maybe with too much arguing and less evidences not well presented. It was easy for some critics to make plausible objections against your afd. To make the next AFD a success I invite you to participate on my. I've created a sandbox especially for this reason and already wrote some thoughts down. Feel free to edit it, giving usefull advices and policies or make grammar corrections if you are interested.-- Stan talk 12:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stan, that is a great idea. You are right, I was too wordy. I will contribute as I can but am very busy these days. I will also let User:Steve Dufour know, he also thinks along these lines. --Justanother 16:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not bring it up too fast anyway and only if it is reasonable at the end. Everything else would be a waste of time for many editors. At least a week or two to make sure that it is wikified. Don't have to much time too and it will be a quite controversial AfD wich should be placed thoughtfull. Next weekend I will probably draft the AFD if I findd enough evidence and policies wich agree with it.-- Stan talk 18:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Stan. I will give my full support. The main problem the other AfD's ran into was that the issue was decided by a vote count, which was dominated by lock-step anti-Scientologists. Steve Dufour 16:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little bit more optimistic. I still believe that most editors are commited to WP guidelines. Lets see! (: -- Stan talk 18:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both of you! If you like and have time just go ahead and add any ideas,arguments or policies to the sandbox or even write a draft. (: -- Stan talk 18:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you have seems fine to me. Steve Dufour 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I drafted it. But one of you should go over it first because it might need some rewording and grammar. Also a hint what I might have forgotten or what is redundant is appreciated. -- Stan talk 09:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The workshop

Like being pecked to death by ducks, isn't it? Been there. Sympathies. Bishonen | talk 11:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It never ends and never gets anywhere. That is why it needs 3rd-party enforcement. Thank you again. --Justanother 13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dianazene: RFC

Just a quick note to inform you of this current RfC concerning the Dianazene article. Raymond Hill 19:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Raymond. --Justanother 20:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of this article, just a friendly note to watch your reverting. There was no way in my right mind that I would block you for this, but in the future, remain on the safe side of things please :) Cheers, and good luck with everything, Daniel 08:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Obviously, a disruptive editor on a little-trafficked article puts one in delicate situation. On the other articles that he was going 3RR and 4RR there were other editors interested. But point taken. --Justanother 13:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see that this was something else. It was Anynobody. Interesting as he is just about to be prohibited from being "interested" in me as per the current arbitration. I thought this was a byproduct of my report on RookZERO. OK, thanks. --Justanother 13:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Youth for Human Rights International‎

March in the morning, coffee and chocolate in the afternoon. --Justanother 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orangerhymes, why are you still harping on this? I assumed Justanother's invitation to march was an obvious joke. wikipediatrix 19:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this here cause it was getting way too long in the article talk. --Justanother 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, are you tired of me already? --Justanother 20:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarz

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of merging it with Freedom of information in the United States. Keep the two Salt Lake Tribune, and one Oregonian sources, and dump the rest. The only problem I see is creating an undue weight situation in the FOIA article. Are there other abuses of FOIA that can be documented as well? Perhaps another section on notable failures of govt. agencies to comply with legitimate requests would be called for as well. - Crockspot 20:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I will support a merge but I do not consider myself the right person to initiate it so if you care to then please do. Thanks. --Justanother 01:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RookZERO

I am sure you will be sad to hear that RookZERO has been indef blocked for edit warring and disruption. As I promised, we are going to restore civility to the editing of these articles. - Jehochman Talk 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad to know that an apparently intelligent editor was not able to engage in discourse here in a fair and moderate manner. I do not like that on any side of the issue. It is good that admins here are addressing such in a fair-handed manner. That has not always been the case, in my experience. Thanks for the update. --Justanother 11:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope he will agree to mentoring and make a speedy return. - Jehochman Talk 15:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medcab case involving you

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation
Dear Justanother: Hello, my name is Arknascar44; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-31 David Miscavige

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, Arky ¡Hablar! 21:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have not edited in the article since 25 June 2007 but I should certainly be able to speak intelligently about the issues involved. So sure, I'll help. --Justanother 22:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS

The above arbitration case has recently concluded. COFS (now Shutterbug) is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics. Anynobody is prohibited from harassing Justanother, and Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. All Scientology-related articles are placed on article probation. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Thank you and thank you for clerking. --Justanother 03:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article slated for deletion

If anyone is interested the article Psychiatric abuse is slated for deletion. Please read the article and vote on whether to keep it if you are so inclined.S. M. Sullivan 19:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-hem

Yes, stupid, I know... However, may I direct your attention to an exciting discussion on AndroidCats Talk page? Shutterbug 18:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who you calling "stupid"? --Justanother 18:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Myself, the circumstances, something like that. Full sentence: "Yes, that was stupid, I do know that, please don't remind me.". Shutterbug 02:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I reverted a harsh response to you, see my history. Reason I reverted it is that, upon reflection, I think I understand what you saw in that one revision that I reference but you went about it wrong, IIMBSB. The commie paragraph. What you see in that paragraph is an OR exposition loosely based in the source material. There is more there than the given source has. Better would be to leave the source in place for the bits it covers and {{fact}} what it doesn't. --Justanother 02:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I had not seen the "harsh" one, thanks for your info and ideas. Please watch not to be provoked the same way. Some guys count on your, my and others impatience in view of lies and obvious falsifications, and will continue adding them in just for the hell of it. After all this is Wikipedia here and nobody is responsible for anything anyway. Shutterbug 06:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of good people here and fair people, some of them are even critics of Scientology. If you set yourself against the project as a whole then you are sure to lose. And we need all the help we can get here so I do not want you to lose. Be careful. --Justanother 13:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible deal

Hi Justanother. I just made an offer on Talk:Barbara Schwarz‎ which could take me out of Project Scientology. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Steve Dufour 07:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I might be finished with the project. Anyway it's been great working with you and I hope that I have done some good here. Steve Dufour 09:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good meeting you too. I agree that the article has improved and I made mental note of that the last time I edited in it. But there are no "deals" to be made here except possibly those that are made by the arbitration committee or Jimbo. Anything below that level (AfD, mediation, etc.) can be revisited easily. You know what we say in Scientology? "The price of freedom: Constant alertness, constant willingness to fight back. There is no other price." Keeping this project free of bias carries the same price. I think you know that. However, if you have had your fill then so be it. You are, of course, welcome to soldier on at any level of involvement that suits you. All the best! --Justanother 13:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It really has been great working with you. I'm going to keep my side of the "deal." I expect that other people will come in to take my place on the project.Steve Dufour 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. Later. --Justanother 17:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they will break their side of the deal and then I will have to come back. :-) Steve Dufour 21:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justanother, Steve. Sorry that I gave up my intention to place a new Afd for now because I think it would be contraproductive and fail anyway. For now I will just try to help that her article presents her with the respect that every BLP in Wikipedia deserves. Steve, if you are really leaving the project... was nice to meet you, wish you the best ! -- Stan talk 22:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It looks like more people, like you, are coming into the project so maybe I am not so needed there anymore. Of course, like I told Justanother, I might have to come back. I do have some other things to work on now. Steve Dufour 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

Ready to swab the decks!   
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew.
Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh!

- - Jehochman Talk 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shiver me timbers and pass the grog, me hearty! --Justanother 03:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to talk accepted

Let's talk Misou... I saw the public results of the checkuser, and it confirmed those accounts as socks. I don't want to believe it, but I find it very plausible. Their editing styles are all very similar, and both Shutterbug and Misou attacked me on a couple of occasions in edit comments in very similar manners. They edit from the same IP address. I know, it's claimed to be a shared address, but if three accounts edited Microsoft's page from the same Microsoft IP with the same editing styles, wouldn't you be suspicious? Anyway, I trust you to be fair, so what's your take on this? --GoodDamon 07:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damon, I will need to draft a very cogent response as a number of editors and admins here are under a misapprehension that was specifically addressed in the checkuser case and was a bit of a given during the arbitration, i.e. they seem to not realize that we are not talking sockpuppets here and never have been except at the very start of the checkuser. I will alert you when I post it and where. It will likely be late this evening. --Justanother 13:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damon, please see Misou's talk page; the blocking admin has it right now and withdrew all the new blocks and what we have now is all three under the original 30-day ban on Shutterbug that ends on Nov 1, I guess. The basic idea being taken is "multiple editors speaking with one voice". --Justanother 17:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly updated Personality section

Hey-o, just a heads up that I've thoroughly updated the Personality Sandbox, and was hoping you could take a look at it. Also hoping you've dug up some additional positive refs to add. --GoodDamon 15:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References on Hubbard's personality

Hey, I've thought a long time about this before sending this your way. Please don't take any of this the wrong way... I'm still hopeful that you can point me towards some reliable sources on Hubbard's personality that put him in a positive light, but I have to admit I'm beginning to wonder if they even exist. So far, I've turned up bubkes. In the well-known negative articles about Hubbard, there are minor notes about his personality here and there (he was "charming," he had a certain charisma, etc.), but there just don't seem to be any positive articles about him that pass muster as reliable sources, and I'm stumped. The refs you dug up just don't qualify, and Church sources definitely don't. I've managed to pluck a few choice citations from the mostly negative refs, but they're like a drop in the ocean.

So anyway, at this point I'm asking for help. I really don't want to side with Anynobody in this, because the L. Ron Hubbard article is already very negative, and positive portrayals of his personality would help balance it. But only if those portrayals come from non-Church, authoritative, reliable sources. No press releases, no gossip columns. Basically, what we need is nothing short of the equivalent of a Time or Newsweek article that casts some positive light on him, and I haven't found a single one.

And the walls of awards and citations you posted (preserved in the archive here) are worse than no help here, unfortunately. Without being able to even see a single one of them clearly, none of them can be remotely verified, even the ones that aren't pretty obviously photoshopped.

I feel like I'm spinning my wheels. I do want the articles to have more balance, and I keep getting told positive refs about Hubbard's personality exist, but I'm just not seeing it. Help me out. --GoodDamon 23:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damon, I appreciate your effort. Let me tell you what is going on here. The only "reliable sources" that you seem to have (easy) access to are smear pieces where they went and interviewed everyone that they could find that had a bone to pick with Hubbard or Scientology (or rehashed same old same old material) and did not try to interview anyone else. That is evident because there are tons of pepole that think extremely highly of Hubbard. How do I prove that to you? Well there is primary materials that will give you some insight. I am thinking right off the bat of recommendations for Hubbard's appointment to the military. I am also thinking of a fairly recent deposition or cross of his old XO in the navy. I will find those for you but they are not RS or not available in an RS archive. Meanwhile, did you look through the links that I have above - they are pretty unorganized but maybe you will find something and at least you will see some more favorable press. --Justanother 01:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable? Yes. Easy? No. This has been bothering me so much, I ended up going down to my local library, and searched for everything they had on Hubbard. Then I stripped out all the Church and Church-related sources, Bare-Faced Messiah and all the other usual negative sources, and was left with very little, all of it negative. They had a microfilm with his military records and some detail about the Freewinds, but the rest was negative article after negative article. If I used even half of the reliable sources I found just in the public library, the article would become practically a comedy of well-sourced negativity. I'd be happy to see any primary materials you've got, but you must know none of it is trustworthy and none of it can go in the article.
So here's what it comes down to... If Hubbard really did get a lot of awards, degrees, honors, and so forth, if he really did get "tons" of non-Scientologists honoring him at every turn, if he really has amassed an incredible number of proclamations and such from reputable, non-Scientology organizations, and so on... someone must have reported on it. It could be newspaper articles, it could be documents from governing bodies, it could be verifiable records from the organizations bequeathing the honors. These would be much, much better than any primary materials. They could go right into the articles almost instantly. If they exist, where are they? --GoodDamon 02:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you forgetting the stuff I put on the talk page already. Granted it ain't the Pope but we had a couple of community leaders praising him. Though I guess that is not exactly "personality". The main problem being, of course, that presenting Hubbard as a genius that created a philosophy that perhaps millions of people have found helpful and who was perhaps a mercurial fellow of extremes both good and bad does not sell many books or newspapers. Or maybe he was not so extreme, maybe he just had a temper - I certainly know about having a temper, at least my own! Sorry, I am not any great archiver of things Hubbard, I just have a lot of experience in the subject of Scientolgy and in the criticism of it. --Justanother 03:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It's just that the stuff you put on the talk page already didn't qualify as reliable sources for Hubbard's personality. I hate to keep pointing that out, but it's true.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "does not sell many books or newspapers" comment. When notable people -- and I'm sure we can both agree that Hubbard was notable -- do much of anything, it ends up in the newspapers, because it does sell. If, for example, Hubbard got an honorary degree from a reputable university, wouldn't you think that would at least make the local news? Or even just the student newspaper? Or if he received a citation or the key to a city for humanitarian work, like feeding the homeless, wouldn't that merit at least a blurb? You're asking me to trust that he is the man you represent him to be without any reliable evidence. And with considerable evidence to the contrary. Whether or not its the truth is beside the point for the purposes of an encyclopedia. It has to be verifiable. Unfortunately, if the verifiable record is extremely negative, then it's not POV to present the prevalent position. AndroidCat is right. I'm not happy about that, because I was really hoping the article was biased, and it could be neutralized, but that doesn't appear to be the case. --GoodDamon 06:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh (as we say on Wikipedia). It is a situation that the Church has IN PART brought on itself. The Church will generally not communicate with the press if they think that the ensuing article will be at all critical and no journalist seeking to write in-depth on Hubbard or Scientology will ignore the well-sourced criticisms. So those Scientologists that knew Hubbard personally (a dwindling resource) are not made available to the press. I have spoken with a few of them personally, heard a few more in small meetings, and seen many more on video (seen many non-Scientologists praise Hubbard of video too) so I have a different perspective. Can't prove it though. I will find you that testimony by his old XO as the loyalty and respect for Hubbard that he has 40 years later is very representative of what I have seen. Going back to the IN PART, when we are talking strictly about Hubbard's personality we are, as I mentioned, talking about a fairly small universe of people that can testify to knowing him personally. The critics and haters are very vocal and are easy to find. Current Church members are not accessible for reasons as I mention above. There are lots of others that knew him but they are not easy to find without expending a considerable amount of effort and having specific data as to Hubbard's history and whereabouts, data again that the Church guards. So we have the inevitability that articles and books will be negative. As I said . . . Meh. --Justanother 14:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of that makes good sense, and thank you for noting the Church's own responsibility for it, but that's still just a partial explanation. The loyalty of friends and comrades is certainly something I can believe, and would be a great resource for Hubbard's personality if you can turn up an interview with, say, his XO. But would the Church even be involved with the press if Hubbard received, for instance, an honorary degree? I still don't see an explanation for the lack of news articles about notable events, regardless of Church involvement. Let me put it this way... The only degrees or certificates I know for sure Hubbard actually received after starting Dianetics and Scientology are like the Sequoia one and the Blackfeet document, known forgeries or degree mill diplomas. You say there are many, many real ones. Where? Who granted them? Where are the news articles about them? Or the campuses, city governments, and statesmen who can be contacted to verify them? Do you see my frustration, here? I want to help, and it's pretty obvious you and editors like Misou, Shutterbug, etc. feel the pages about Scientology are hopelessly biased, but the only way to change that is to come up with reliable bona fides for Hubbard.
If I want to look up Nelson Mandela's humanitarian work, it's easy. Try googling nelson mandela human rights and you get 740,000 hits, one of the first few being a reference to the Kaiser Family Foundation naming a human rights award after him. Proving Mandela a great humanitarian takes about three minutes. If you go to a library and pull up a list of his humanitarian works, maybe another twenty minutes or so, but you end up with enough material to fill a book or three. The news articles about awards he's received are practically limitless.
Now, if Hubbard was a humanitarian in the same league as Nelson Mandela, and his contributions to society really have received accolades as humanitarian endeavors from authoritative, prestigious institutions that aren't already aligned with Scientology or one of the Scientology-associated groups like Narconon, I have to wonder how the newspapers could all miss it, even accounting for the Church's aversion to negative press. You'd think this would be the kind of positive press they would promote to the very heavens, and it would go a very long way towards countering the negativity in Wikipedia's articles about Hubbard.
But it sounds as if those sources just don't exist, and I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that for Scientologists, Hubbard's extraordinary life is a matter of faith, not proof. Please don't take that as derogatory, because I really don't mean it that way. There's nothing wrong with faith that lacks proof (frankly, all religions are similar in that regard), but you can't write an encyclopedia that way. Sigh... Guess I'm just venting now. I've found this whole thing very disappointing and frustrating. --GoodDamon 18:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving out Nelson Mandela and Mother Teresa for a moment, do you mean that you doubt he received recognitions such as this? You seem to be making the point that because you cannot find these recognitions in the press that they are somehow forgeries or myths? Hey, they ain't the Nobel Peace Prize but they are not fake. You seem to be mixing up three issues; 1) whether Hubbard led an extraordinary life and 2) whether he received extraordinary recognition as a humanitarian and 3) how Scientologists generally regard Hubbard. Those issues are not related. I think that even critics will agree that Hubbard led an extraordinary life. And neither 1) nor 2) are really related to his "personality" either. I mean, was/is Mandela a bad husband? Did/does he have a temper? Who knows, you certainly won't find out in our article on him. But if someone decided to write a smear piece on him I am sure that they can find as many people that will say something bad about his "personality" as we see in our Hubbard pieces. Re 3) This is not about my having some "faith" or other, this is about how I view Hubbard after intimate experience with his creations, Dianetics and Scientology and reading, IDK, millions of his words, and listening to hundreds of hours of lectures. I think that entitles me to have an opinion without getting all mystical and talking "faith". I am sorry that you are getting frustrated but the simple point is that so long as the "truth" about Hubbard as I see it (which, incidentally, factors in the criticisms) does not seem to be in the press then I will feel that what is there is undoubtedly one-sided. You want me to somehow persuade how that what I have come to feel based on a LOT of experience (and extensive research into the criticisms) is "truer" than what some journalist wrote after talking to some few critics? You know that I cannot do that. That is why I am left with "Meh". --Justanother 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of ironic that in the act of writing all that, you actually did include an example of the kind of thing that could establish some credentials for Hubbard. I have to admit, when I saw on the Scientology site that March 13th was L. Ron Hubbard day in some cities, I was skeptical. It would be better if it were one earned by him while he was still alive (this one was in 2004, and I would guess came about from lobbying by the Church), but it's certainly legit.
Boy, we've bounced around on this a lot. We've definitely gotten off the topic of Hubbard's personality, and at this point I've been basically just trying to find anything positive I can on him. Thanks for putting up with my endless querying. :) --GoodDamon 20:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re the "Hubbard Day", I thought you might like that. I will see if I can fnd some more of them but they likely are not often put on the web and rarely, IMO, noted in the press. --Justanother 20:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary life

Now that's what I'm talkin' bout (Willis)! ;) There's some real detail in this one, some actual statements about his personality and interests, many of them positive! And finally, it's a real reliable source. If you can't mine good material for the Personality section from that, I'll eat my hat. There's a lot of confirmation that he, shall we say, "exaggerated" about himself, too. But on balance, I'd call it a generally positive piece. --GoodDamon 22:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting piece that speaks to many aspects of Hubbard's personality, both "good" and "bad". --Justanother 22:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proclamations

Sorry it took so long to respond to these, I missed the update on my watchlist somehow. Anyway, no, I don't think they fabricated that. But like the earlier one you mentioned, it's a shame these all happened after Hubbard died. They carry a lot less weight, and judging by the wording in the first one -- Through the breakthrough technology of study researched and developed by L. Ron Hubbard, over three million people have been empowered to read and write; -- were written by the Church of Scientology, and given to these mayors to sign. Only Scientologists use the word "technology" in that manner, and I seriously doubt Hubbard's study instruction has really been instrumental in three million people learning to read and write. At least, I would want a good source on that.

Guess you'll see this when you're back from your wikibreak. --GoodDamon 23:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other

I'm not sure a councilman's bio page is the best source for that information, as it's a primary source, not a secondary one. Do you have a newspaper article about it? That could be useful. --GoodDamon 23:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Justanother on break, ask JustaHulk to watch his page. --JustaHulk 23:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a Halloween break and get rid of the ghosts haunting you ;)! JustaHulk, take care of him, you are responsible now. Shutterbug 02:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ungrammatical, lame

"I will leave the warning in place tho for your terrible choice in quotes. That one is ungrammatical and and lame." - you

Thus was the point - ungrammatical & lame. You get a golf clap. Natasha Amazing (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nanner nanner --JustaHulk (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Justanother&oldid=189953001"