From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Anynobody)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Redirected from User:Anynobody
To see what the graphic means look at Image:Lockedmyselfout.gif

Language boxes
en I am a native speaker of  United States English, and prefer referring to myself in the first person. No offense meant to those who do not.


Hablo muy poco Flag of Mexico.svg Español Mexicano.

¡Donde está el baño?!

01:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
But it's 18:39 23 April where I live

About me[edit]

Anynobody (talk · contribs · logs)
Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · logs)

What I have done here worth mentioning

Sylvia Seegrist a did you know? article.
May 2007 Wikipedia:Featured picture candidate:

Diamond (gemstone) into a did you know? article.
Flight 19 Tbf-3c.png Flt19.png into a good article.

Significant contributions:

As of 04:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC) my more popular images are:

About how I interact with other editors[edit]

About my interest in L. Ron Hubbard[edit]

I feel a brief explanation of why I'm editing this article may help other editors understand what I think it should be. A little over six months ago I happened into the article, read it, and some of the sources listed. (See my blurb above about how I use Wikipedia for research.) I noticed that both sides of the argument were incorrect about various aspects of his career in the United States Navy which could be proven with proper sources, thus making said article more accurate.

It happens that Scientology sources tend to be skewed in favor of Hubbard, and the non-CoS sources are tilted against him more often than not. Of the non-CoS sources some just want the truth to be told, others are out to destroy Hubbard and his creation. The people out to show the CoS as the greatest evil spawned from the brain of a monster are just as biased as those who refuse to believe anything which goes against his assertions.

I don't think he was as terrible as some would have us believe, but I do know from government and private sources that he was certainly not the friend of mankind he claimed to be. The choice we have is to A) use the CoS' POV B) use the anti-CoS POV, or C) simply report the facts available in valid sources.

and the article Church of Scientology[edit]

I understand our neutral POV rule to work in relation to subjects such as the CoS begins with the type of source used. Divided among three types; subject, critic, and media. Subject sources are those from the subject itself, critic sources are obviously those from critics of the subject while media would be news/books/tv etc. This was the article before I started editing, it literally ignored at least two controversial subjects and over 10 sources like TIME, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times.


Original Barnstar.png Purple Star.png Wifflebat.png I've received some, but I don't like to brag about my accomplishments. (The descriptions of work done above are meant to be a sign that I am somewhat productive.) This doesn't mean I don't support the recognition program here; to the contrary I've actually designed a few awards too. Dyk100.png Dyk200.png Dyk25.png Dyk50.png Dykbb.png I don't know why but recognition through awards hasn't really ever been my cup of tea. I do appreciate feedback though, be it positive or negative. Obviously I prefer the former, however the latter is important too.

The smartest ways to use Wikipedia, aka advice Books-aj.svg aj ashton 01.svg[edit]

Since an article is really only as good as its sources, one must remember this while doing any kind of research here. A good article will have many references from reputable sources [1] If the source is available online, definitely look at it to gauge for yourself whether you believe the site. This is especially important for students using Wikipedia for a research project/paper because a student must ask themselves if their teacher would believe the site in question. I predict that more than a few students have already learned that the hard way. Be wary of statements with the words: [citation needed] after it. These statements are in dispute and another editor has asked for a source to back up the assertion being made. This can also be explained here: Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer:

Other advice[edit]


Green check.pngPolicies, Blue check.svg guidelines, Text-x-generic.svg essays, and proposals are underlined

(1 Common sense should be used here, if an amateur writes a report with irrefutable references and evidence which contradicts a report written by a professional would be one example of an exception)

Green check.png Copyright can be easily violated. A person may for example take a picture of their TV to post. That person could think, since they took the picture it's theirs to release. It's not, the image on the TV actually belongs to Action News

Useful Rules[edit]

Blue check.svgWikimedia sister projects - How to link articles to other Wiki projects.
Blue check.svgWikipedia:Article size - When creating content for many computers, who's emphasis is universal accessibility, it's best to assume that most users have older or less capable technology available. One aspect of this is the size of Wikipedia articles. Larger articles take a longer time to load, so whenever possible article sizes should be kept small.
  • Blue check.svgWikipedia:Summary Style - Is a related guideline which is the way articles can be kept small without sacrificing the amount of information Wikipedia offers.

Flawed Rules[edit]

Green check.pngWikipedia: Ignore All Rules - Is a good concept, carried out in a highly flawed way. Since there is no determination when ignoring the rules helps Wikipedia, or situations where one should, individual editors may decide this is the only policy they need to know.
Green check.pngWikipedia: what it is not - One aspect is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be an indiscriminate depository of random info. Category:porn stars, Category: Star Trek, Category:High schools in the United States and Category:Shipwrecks show that to be incorrect.

Useful, but Flawed Rule[edit]

Blue check.svgWikipedia: Be bold - Don't be afraid to try out an edit before discussing it on the talk page. If your edit is reverted, then you know it should be discussed on the talk page.


Other Tools[edit]

[[Image:Example.png|thumb|right|Example image caption]]
  1. Category:Wikipedia editor handbook
  2. Logs
  3. Wikipedia:Glossary
  4. HTML color names
  5. Edit Counters


  1. ^ This is what a reference looks like, preferably with links to the actual source itself whenever possible. This is what a linked source looks like