User talk:Anynobody/Archives/2007/April

AN/I again

And AN/I again for you, my friend. --Justanother 13:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort at informing me, but going through the whole WP:ANI list is a pain, so in the future would you please provide a link to the section you're referring to? You can do this by adding a # after the main page name in a wikilink, and the section name. Like this WP:ANI#Another weird one User:Anynobody using Editor Review as a back-door User RfC on me. If you want it to not show the whole name, but still link there the format would be like this: [[WP:ANI#Another weird one User:Anynobody using Editor Review as a back-door User RfC on me|And AN/I again for you]], my friend.

The WP:ER is not an attempt to back door RfC you. Perhaps you didn't read it very carefully, so I'll point out that it is asking for uninvolved editors to give me feedback on the whole issue we seem to have. Honestly, from the first disagreement I've just been trying to point out mistakes you are making in your reasoning for certain actions, your attitude towards those who don't agree with you, and your inability to either pursue or accept WP:DR.

Either I'm grossly wrong about these issues, the system doesn't work, or prhaps a combination of both. When in a situation like this an outside opinion is the only way to get the real story. I don't agree with any of your points about my motives, and you've mistreated many of the editors I know so editors who know nothing about the situation can give me an unbiased opinion.

Do what you have to on the AN/I board, the ER is about how I dealt with you. I don't need a back door to a RfC for you, frankly several editors are willing to go through with one on you. Before I go any further this seemed like a good idea. Anynobody 02:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• You were involved in a related deletion, and as such, you may wish to comment here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova). Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 03:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Sounds good. Smee 06:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Your WP:ER

As an admin, I can see the deleted text of your request. While you did say you wanted input on your behavior, the questions focused on Justanother's behavior to such an extent that it was clear what you really wanted (and what you really do want, from your comment to me just now) is community input on his behavior. RFC is the appropriate venue for this kind of thing, and a new RFC can achieve that purpose. If you want to try the editor review thing over again, some advice: (1) don't make your interaction with Justanother the only thing you want to know about, (2) don't get into his behavior in detail (or your own, really: just sum things up). And (3) as feedback from me: you have concerns that are not totally unreasonable, but the letter & spirit of WP:AGF is that you do the best you can to work with people despite your concerns about them. If (as an example), Justanother removes something in an article and you disagree with it, spend the discussion on how the article should be written and how the change affects that, argue from WP basic policy, and if disputes still come up, you will have tried to resolve them. Mangojuice^talk 11:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor review is much more about your general performance as an editor, not about you trying to minutely examine a specific events even if you do perceive the subject as yourself.

I have read the review as have many others and it comes across as inappropriate and concentrating on the actions of another editor. Editor review is an inappropriate forum for that. The fact that many experienced editors (some admins) are telling you that it was inappropriate yet you continue to pursue it, speaks great volumes about your behaviour in dealing with contetious issues/disputes.

Combine the fact that the main supporter of your RFC springs up to try and help you undelete the review should also send alarm bells as to how it is being perceived, for me it merely comes across an effort to prolong a dispute. --pgk 11:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to thank you both for responding, I honestly appreciate you taking the time to address my concerns. I was presumptuous to assume it would be understood that I'm interested in a review of all my time here, since that is what a WP:ER is for as you've both pointed out. However I was attempting to get those specific questions about Justanother answered because I really think I must be doing something wrong. I included the diffs to mke it easier to spot those edits I'm asking about(I already figured out that the edit summary is good for both remembering what I was doing AND allowing others to figure that out too), I was assuming that in regards to the rest of my work here that any reviewing editor would go over my history and look at what they wanted without suggestion from me. I know I'm making mistakes, but since Justanother is either so afraid of or hates me that anything I say about him is assumed to be an attack that's the possible mistake I am most concerned about). Anynobody 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

pgk I didn't ask, but do appreciate Smee's participation in my request for WP:DRV. I understand how that could look suspicious to you, especially since Justanother is accusing us of tag team harassment. The truth is we both, I think, feel a bit cheated by how the first WP:RfC was terminated the way it was. If I had submitted the RfC and it was rejected by whoever reviewed it, I would have let the situation go because an uninvolved party would have said it's not an issue. That is not what happened, the subject requested it be deleted and uninvolved administrators wouldn't. The administrator that Smee consulted and I attempted to work with did. Since that admin and Justanother have had prior dealings and what appeared to me as a friendship I disagreed with said admin's assessment Smee efforts at WP:DR. I personally think the admin was a bit embarrassed that the RfC in question was in fact approved despite their POV.

Honestly it's not just Smee and I who've had difficulty with Justanother. I hate to trouble anyone else, but would it help if I invited a few editors who haven't joined in say a few words about his style of editing? (I assume they haven't weighed in because neither Smee or I have asked them and like all of us have much better things to do than deal with just him). Seriously, I just want a shot at WP:DR and am willing to live with whatever comes of it. The issue here is that hasn't happened in a way that WP:RFC or WP:DR say it should. Anynobody 23:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Anynobody here, I was simply requesting that the Editor Review be allowed to run its course. This seemed like an unduly hasty maneuver... Smee 02:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

RfA

Thank you for the support vote in my recent RfA. Although it wasn't successful I appreciate your vote of confidence. Anyway, I'm continuing on with editing Pacific War-related articles and hopefully you'll see several of them on the FA nominations page in the future. Cla68 23:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem, we seriously need more admins. Hope you run again sometime. Anynobody 23:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I attempted to fix this. [1] Lakers 08:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Close, the puppeteer is The real Barbara Schwarz blueblueswhatever is the sock. Anynobody 08:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Lakers, I've noted {{Sockpuppet|1=name}} for the future. Anynobody 08:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Lakers 08:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Akhilleus gets new weapons.

April, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance, or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools, please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome, and congratulations :) Anynobody 23:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Returned to sender

You are confused, AN. I did not put that there. You did [2]. Again, you are wasting your time over there but you have already demonstrated that you will not listen to me (or anyone else, for that matter, at least on this subject). Enjoy the holiday. No need to reply at my page please. Reply here if you care to but no real reason to, I am not looking for a reply, just returning your mail erroneously addressed to me. Good night. --Justanother 08:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We're actually preparing the RfC on your behavior so your diff and comment are out of place there. I'm not saying you aren't entitled to your opinion, or to explain your perspective but that time will be when the RfC is submitted. I promise you that we will let you know before we submit it so you can get prepared, I realize you think my WP:ER was going behind your back somehow (I wanted people to tell me if I was wrong about you). On anything where I'm asking for comment on you I would never just submit it without some sort of mention to you.

It's not so much about "you" as it is about your actions on Barbara Schwarz and refusal to accept WP:DR by asking for the first RfC to be deleted. I'm not looking for any kind of punishment, since it would probably be unfair to punish you so long after the fact. Anynobody 02:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

diff Really sorry to be here again but his relentless creepy preoccupation with me just seems to have no end! Looks like clear misuse of the Editor Review process...Justanother 13:34, 1 April 2007

Why would you post something without expecting a reply? Sorry about the confusion but you do understand that it would be appreciated if you not "help" over there. As I said above we won't blindside you with it. Anynobody 08:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, this is an official warning to stop trolling and provoking other editors. You were the one who posted Justanother's text in User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3. Justanother wrote it on ANI on April 1 (UTC), you posted it—quoted it—in Orsini's sandbox on April 3. I don't blame you for getting it wrong originally. It was a natural mistake, since you had included Justanother's actual signature in the post, without setting it off typographically in any way. I put that down to inexperience. But it's incomprehensible, and unfortunately of a piece with the rest of your behavior, that you continue to insist, after Justanother has given you a diff demonstrating your error. Here it is again. See the text? With JA's signature in it? See where it says "Anynobody" at the top? I don't know how to make it any clearer. Now apologize nicely and leave him alone. Bishonen | talk 10:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm glad to hear from you, Bishonen since you're familiar with much of the background between Justanother and I. We also never got a chance to discuss our differences, which really is a misunderstanding. First to the issue you are posting about, I did say that I am sorry about the confusion,(not only here but in the edit summary too, unfortunately the a didn't make into about because of the age of my keyboard and my failure to double check.) Honestly I am sorry about my error. I noticed he edited the page and assumed that was his edit. I honestly would have posted an apology on his talk page, but since he said "No need to reply at my page please." I was afraid it'd come off as sarcastic or trolling, so despite his claim to not be looking for a response I tried here anyway.

This is the reason though, that I didn't want to argue the validity of Smee's attempts at conflict resolution regarding Justanother with you before. I noticed that you had and still have a friendly relationship with him, which explained the irritated tone of your reply to our questionsdiff recent action on his behalf by you. I don't mean to accuse you of actively doing anything wrong, but you're bound to turn a blind eye to the actions of a friend. That is the reason I asked for a WP:ER, since many of my friends here have had similar trouble with Justanother I'm not likely to get a truly neutral and therefore truthful opinion from them. Editors who have never heard of either of us are more apt to give me a truthful perspective. (fyi you made a similar mistake as I did by saying Smee ignored your advice since I did the actual ignoringdiff). I also understand that it was probably infuriating to have editors ask for your advice and then discard it, I can only apologize for that. I had hoped by submitting the RfC for an uninvolved party to evaluate it might stop this kind of disagreement.

I am very sorry that it has gone this far, but please understand when you set your wikimood to "rain of frogs" and now "bishzilla" you aren't encouraging me to seek out resolving our dispute. Since you're here though, I wanted to give it a try. Anynobody 00:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

KFP's RfA thanks

Thank you for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a tally of 45/0/0. Please let me know if I can help with something or if I make a mistake. Cheers! --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for the offer. I've actually decided not to request favors or intervention from anyone I voted for though. I don't want anyone to feel they owe me something and thus back me up for the wrong reason. (I'm not saying you would, just explaining why i don't ask in general). Again congrats and good luck! :) Anynobody 01:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That was weird

I gotta say, man, that you refusing to allow your ambiguous use of my username to be corrected is just too weird. You even say in your ES that it can be misinterpreted. I happen to think that my username at the end of a statement, even without a datestamp, looks like I signed that statement. I AGF'ed a simple error on your part but your restoring it makes me wonder why I bother with AGF as far as you are concerned. What were you thinking when you restored that? --Justanother 01:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Out of sequence comment re: WP:TPG:I couldn't find this at the time, but it's what I was thinking, to answer your question specifically: Talk page guidelines, editing comments. Anynobody 11:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much the idea, but your lack of courtesy in approaching me about it first. Since I've been linking to your user page the whole time we've known each other, I find it weird that you chose to change one of my edits rather than address the questions I was asking you.

Now that you've mentioned it though, why now is it suddenly an issue after the past couple of months? Anynobody 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I should also mention that I don't plan on changing Antaeus Feldspar's compromise.Anynobody 01:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a minor change and a pretty polite ES to go with it. Other than that it weirded me out to see my name at the end of that line. So I fixed it. If roles were reversed, I would have had no problem at all so I did as I would have another do with me. All I did was move my name from the end to the beginning of the sentence to clarify that you were addressing me and I was not signing it. Could I have asked you first? Sure. Sorry if I upset you. That was not the intent. --Justanother 01:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not upset at you Justanother, I just feel that editors should not edit each others statements on talk pages. Honestly, if I had taken this statement you made:

::::The problem with L. Ron Hubbard is that as a human being he had an incredible amount of flaws - See Anynobody, you are hopelessly one-sided. Hubbard had a few flaws, ...

and changed it to what I was actually saying:

::::The problem with L. Ron Hubbard is that as a human being he had an incredible amount of flaws,not the least of which was at best a bad memory of his life at worst his bald faced lies about it. - See Anynobody, you are hopelessly one-sided. Hubbard had a few flaws, ...

I seriously doubt you would have seen it as acceptable. Anynobody 01:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, no problem then. Yes, your example is unacceptable but it is a straw man as that is not nearly what I did. If you actually wanted to make an appropriate analogy, it would be:

::::The problem with L. Ron Hubbard is that as a human being he had an incredible amount of flaws - See Anynobody, you are hopelessly one-sided. Hubbard had a few flaws, ...

to

::::The problem with L. Ron Hubbard is that as a human being he had an incredible amount of flaws - See, you are hopelessly one-sided, Anynobody. Hubbard had a few flaws, ...

Right? And if there was an actual reason to do that I would have no problem with it. But I am to blame for all this wasted time as I did not ask and since you are "opposing" me, I should have asked. If we were not being "opposed", you would not have thought twice about it and would likely have thanked me for clearing up the ambiguity. Sorry, again. --Justanother 04:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, I would have reverted anyone who edited my comments without mentioning it to me first (aside from an obvious typo or spelling error).

I'd still also like to encourage you to please respond to the question/points I made on the talk page where the incident in question happened. I'm still curious to know why the issue of linking to your page when mentioning you, as I do with everyone else, has suddenly become an issue now? Anynobody 05:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I a fool for talking to you, AN? Why are you pretending to not understand my issue there? Antaeus saw what I meant and made an effort to fix it. My fix was better, IMO, but I appreciate his effort. So if I am so stupid as to play games with you about something as simple as this, how stupid would I have to be to continue a discussion on a much more nuanced subject. I have already said plenty. Makes me pretty stupid, I guess. --Justanother 05:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps my question was unclear:

1. This is your signature in bold to compare with the statement below:

   --Justanother 05:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

2. This is the post you edited, I've added bold text to highlight the specific statment you edited:

I've actually come to that conclusion based on his own writings, several primary sources, and the ever changing biography the CoS puts out. Here are a few examples of the info which convinced me that Hubbard was a liar Justanother.

Sourced text from article:

1. Hubbard became the protegé of "Old Tom, a Blackfoot Indian medicine man ... [who] passe[d] on much of the tribal lore to his young friend" and that at the age of six, he was "honored with the status of blood brother of the Blackfeet in a ceremony ". Blackfeet historian Hugh Dempsey has commented that the act of blood brotherhood was "never done among the Blackfeet",
2. Church biographies routinely state that he was "the nation's youngest Eagle Scout."[10] According to the Boy Scouts of America, however, at the time they only kept an alphabetical record of Eagle Scouts, with no reference to their ages — thus there was no way of telling who was the youngest.

Off Wikipedia info: #Documents on Wikimedia Commons

1. Flash of 5 inch guns He said his eyes were burned by the flash of a 5 inch gun firing. If he was standing close enough to be burned by the flash, the concussion would have probably killed him.
2. Document 1
3. Document 2
4. Reply to Document 2
5. Document 3
6. Document 3-2
7. Document 3-3

With all due respect, you are only citing Scientology sources for his "exploits" and those have changed as previous ones proved inaccurate or outright lies. Frankly the difference between us is that if one can find proof from a neutral source that he WAS everything he said he was I might change my opinion. You will probably never change your opinion of him no matter what sources can be found, since you seem to believe people who don't believe everything he said are editing here under an agenda. I guess you don't realize it, but you are actually the one who is editing from a one sided view and editing with an agenda. Point our recent edit counts:Justanother Anynobody. I've noticed that it takes a much longer time and more edits to get anything done on a Scientology related page not inline with the views of the CoS no matter how well sourced. Anynobody 03:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please helpme understand why you confused part of my post with your signature? (Especially since mine didn't have the time, --, and I've been doing it since we met.)(diff).

I'm sorry you're getting bent out of shape, but you brought this up and to keep a similar situation from happening again I'd like to know what caused you to edit my comments this time? Honestly, it doesn't sound like too much to ask considering I still can't understand how you confused this Justanother with this --Justanother 00:00 Month Year? At times I've started to get the impression you stop reading my posts after the first sentence or two, so if I'm confusing you somehow we should address that. Anynobody 05:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You really should thank...

Antaeus Feldspar. There have been times where you have been less than civil with him and as such he still went to bat for you. :diff Anynobody 05:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would, except I never get to the bottom of posts so I didn't see your suggestion. But seriously, I do apprepciate his effort. So thanks, Antaeus. --Justanother 11:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I nominated him for a Wikihalo, I'm not sure why you couldn't thank him before but maybe it'd be better to vote in favor of him. (Should he accept the nom, of course). Anynobody 01:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard's drug use

You've deleted things DeWolf, however, said; and he talked a lot. I don't know when he retracted all that? Don't you think we could come back to the first version, and then you could add the acurate reference and subject of retractation. Sometimes people make a retractation for false reasons (fear, for example). Did he explain why he has retracted his statments? That should be interesting.. Thanks. 16 April 2007

I should probably explain that I think most of what you wrote is true, Hubbard's "imagination" really "changed" around that time and it makes total sense that he was trippin. (It explains a lot too). That being said, the first version was heading for a one way revert from some of the other editors on the page, I figured better to thin out as much "questionable" info as possible to save the parts that aren't, like the references to APOB etc.

De Wolf was a chip of the ole' block :) Recently the CoS affiliated editors pointed us to a legal declaration De Wolf made before he died.

You can go ahead and put it back the way it was, and I'll leave it alone. Just understand I think it'd be like throwing a side of beef into a piranha tank. Anynobody 07:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Here's a link to the retraction available on Jr.'s article:link. Anynobody 07:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, your informations are useful and I agree with you; I let the text like it is, and the piranhas starving to death... Thanks for the changes you've made for the much better wiki format.:-) 16 April

I wikified it a bit more, and moved the description of the "Wall of Fire" to the end of the section. (I thought it seemed more believable after the comments and quotes of the people cited in Madman or Messiah?. Just wanted to say good job on the research, maybe this time the section can survuve :) Anynobody 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, I don't think that the drug section will survive like this if you don't put the documentation somewhere online. Some years ago I did research about Hubbard (that is how I got here in the first place). Still have a lot of material sitting in some boxes. But that claim I never saw. There is plenty of documentation what Hubbard did around the 1960/70s and his "output" is documented as well. It does not fit. The source - in all secondary stuff you put - is always "Nibs". And he was a disgruntled lost son who took back most of his accusations. By the way, that was YEARS before he died. Misou 04:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice, Misou. I guess you could say it's a work in progress, but the anon's text references others too besides just "Nibs". (That was LRH Jr.'s nickname right?) Indeed a lot of the posted info the anon gave appears to have occurred around 1967, Hubbard had 19 years +- yet to live. I'm not sure how that's relevant to his drug habit/experimentation and the controversy it causes due to Hubbard's stated view of drugs in general. (Nobody is saying drugs killed him, just that he took them sometimes more than others). Anynobody 05:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "Nibs" was the junior's nickname. He was cheated by Corydon that time but that's a different story. How about moving this over to the article talk page? Misou 21:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we can move this to the talk page. I'm not sure if you want to include the anon's comments too or not, so i'll let you move what you think is appropriate. Might I suggest Talk:L. Ron Hubbard#Drug consumption of Ron Hubbard as the destination? Anynobody 01:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. See you there. 3-2-1-jump. Misou 02:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi Anynobody, I have been busy with real-life matters for some time and I apologize for not being able to put some words forward during recent events, particularly on AN/I. I see our friend has been busy and is up to the same old tricks. Oh, my. Kind regards and best wishes, Orsini 09:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm regards Orsini, there is no need to apologize though as I understand how life can be :) Things have been pretty calm at Barbara Schwarz regarding the pro-deletion editors, though Barbara continues to be herself as you know. In other news...

Smee created the excellent Elli Perkins page, but has been getting the short end of the stick when it comes to dealing with other editors interested in Scientology lately. Some of the same editors called Tilman a Nazi, which made me chuckle (people who don't want to be called "cultists" calling a guy from Germany a Nazi, the irony).

Aside from keeping an eye on Barbara's page, I've moved on to L. Ron Hubbard with the goal of updating his military career and making the article presentable again. Our old friend seriously says that Hubbard's Naval career was "successful". I guess if you mean honorably discharged, it was a success in that he didn't fail. Needless to say he and some new friends have made editing the article an adventure. Though I must admit I actually expected MORE crap from Justanother than he's been giving me, I guess it's hard to argue with references and citations. Anynobody 09:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA, please Anynobody. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." ps, I told you a loooong time ago that I had little interest in Hubbard's military career; he volunteered to serve his country in time of war and that is what he did. Did he have trouble limiting himself to "just following orders"? Looks that way, don't it? BFD. If you really knew anything about Hubbard you would have seen that coming a mile away. After all, this is a guy that tackled the biggest job there is, the whole human condition, and did a pretty bangup job of working it all out for others to follow. You don't wanna benefit from his work, that is your business. Many do. --Justanother 13:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel offended by me explaining my understanding of your opinion, however what I said to Orsini is not a personal attack on you, please see WP:NPA, What is considered a personal attack?. You did put forward the opinion that his career was successful, as he (and I thought you) saw it. Were you saying his career was unsuccessful? diff. Since the discussion is about your opinion on a matter of some dispute, the "content vs contributor" argument doesn't apply. Also I call your attention to the fact that this is a user talk page, not the article talk page in question.

On a separate matter, I've noticed over the time we've interacted, that you seem to be confused about some aspects of WP:POLICY. Please understand, I'm not just talking about our interactions. This is an example of misquoting a violation of WP:NPA against you. From here on out, I'm going to be recording times you quote a policy or guideline incorrectly, are doing the exact same thing elsewhere, or sudden unusual "issues" like the recent sig problem. To me it appears that when you are unable to support your view against the points I and others make, you begin to allege a host of unrelated "attacks" against you or a friend of yours.

The reason I will be doing this is simple, the more often you ignore questions by raising unrelated issues the more it will prove my point. I don't just mean between you and I, if I happen to see you behaving in the same way towards another editor I'll be noting that too. Frankly, I find the distraction tactics a fascinating study in delusion (you can't argue against my point, you still know your opinion can't be wrong, ergo go after me to prove my argument wrong.) The aspect I can't understand is that you seem to be reasonably intelligent, surely you know that even if you are successful in finding something to complain about my behavior towards you it still doesn't change the fact that my point is still just as valid (unless your intentionally making ad hominem assertions). Anynobody 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, give it a rest, man. Calling my opinions CRAP is the incivility. Perhaps doesn't rise to the level of PA of certainly it is a reflection on me. Sometimes I do not know if you are really are as confused as you seem - actually most of the time I wonder. --Justanother 22:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel confused, Justanother if you think there is something I'm missing please point it out. In this issue you've already confirmed my point that you tend to mis-apply policy. To be honest, the statements about you here are as civil as I could make them while still conveying relevant information about your opinion. Anynobody 23:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So calling my objections "crap" is not uncivil and the best you could do, huh? Right. --Justanother 01:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are confused, I wasn't calling your objections on the talk page crap. The crap I was expecting was this type of issue from you, accusations and innuendo rather than discussing the actual issues we started to discuss on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard. Here are two diffs to catch you up over there: context diff and then the question.

In the interest of clarity, I think your arguments about the article are invalid but not crap. I'm willing to discuss your ideas about the article, I'm not interested in talking about crap like: Making changes to one my edits, because you thought it was your signature. That argument is crap considering the points I made above you still haven't responded to. The issues not related to the editing of L. Ron Hubbard are "crap" designed to confuse the argument since your point is probably no longer arguable (otherwise I'm assuming you'd be making new arguments). Anynobody 01:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jeff_Weise_5th_grade.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jeff_Weise_5th_grade.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the original uploader, there were two other students in the image that I removed. I don't care one way or another whether it is deleted. Anynobody 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oversight request

Hi, some time ago you requested the oversight of an edit, however, your request was in the wrong place and so hasn't been noticed until now.

Due to the need to keep personal information private, oversight should be requested through e-mail, as explained on the request page. If you still wish for your request to be fulfilled, please e-mail oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org, supplying a diff of the revision(s) which need to be removed. Do not request oversight on Wikipedia itself.

Note that revisions are only removed if they contain nonpublic personal information, or potentially libellous information; see the oversight policy for more information. As the revision referenced by your original request did not appear to contain such information, your request has not yet been acted upon.

Thanks – Gurch 21:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll let it go then. Out of curiosity, for those who don't want to give an e-mail address. Has there ever been consideration of a through Wiki option? Anynobody 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A through-wiki option is impossible, because of the need to keep personal information private. Remember that anyone can view any page, and the history of that page. If there was a page at which users could request the removal of revisions, malicious users could simply watch that page, follow links to diffs when they were provided, and copy any personal information there before it was oversighted, thus defeating the whole point of the process. Of course the information will have been visible anyway to anyone coming across the original diff, but that will be buried somewhere in the page history. Having it on a request page even temporarily would draw attention to it.

It is not necessary to set an e-mail address in your preferences – and even if you do set an e-mail address there, another user can see it if you contact them directly using the "e-mail this user" link. Anyone may send an e-mail from any address to the above mailing list, and since the list is not public, their address will be visible only to the oversight team, who are trusted to deal with personal information and thus are not going to disclose your address. They could even create a temporary address solely for the purpose of sending the e-mail, if they were particularly paranoid – Gurch 11:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to say I appreciate your time and courtesy in responding and answering my question. I've got just one more question, I thought there were some parts of Wikipedia that only admins can view (deleted pages)? It was probably a mistake, but I assumed that each corresponding user status level had it's own "secret area" (bureaucrats having an area unaccessible by admins, etc.) Thanks again, Anynobody 22:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your support. --Shirahadasha 04:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, I'm sure I'll see you around :) Anynobody 23:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Anynobody/Archives/2007/April and thank you for your support on my recent request for adminship. Unfortunately, the request failed, however I aim to improve the concerns that were brought up and hopefully bring myself up to the standards of admin. Once again, I thank you for your support. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 12:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think your RfA was a good example of how the process is flawed, a couple of editors who have a personal problem with you ruined the whole thing. Stick around the ANI boards though, I think you've been doing a good job over there. Anynobody 23:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

quick question

As one of the few people who was able to read my message before it was deleted, I'm interested in some honest feedback.

I am more calm and relaxed than I have been in days, and intended no malice or hurtful language at all.

I understand if you'd prefer not to respond and I'll respect that.

Did you find my message to be hurtful? Lsi john 23:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think your message was a genuine attempt to solve a dispute, so I felt you intended no pain or insult. I can't say whether or not it really was hurtful without looking more extensively into what was said by both editors. The problem with these things online is that misunderstandings happen so easily, and can degenerate to the point that any attempt to broker peace can be interpreted as a sarcastic offer to "give up". I'm not saying that's what has happened with Smee, just that I can't judge actual reaction to one proposal. I hope this makes sense, it's a very difficult subject to discuss without creating more misunderstanding. Anynobody 00:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't offend easily. Your choice of wording give up is interesting. One of the subjects covered during my LGAT experience was the difference between giving up and surrender. In this case surrender means to let go not to quit, where as give up means more to quit. I believe I surrendered, as I experienced peace when the decision came, as compared to frustration and anger. And the offer of truce was sincere. Either way, there will be no conflict between Smee and myself from here out. Lsi john 00:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would serve to answer your question by explaining that if I thought you were trying to do anything other than a good faith attempt at peace I would not have posted. Anynobody 00:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know you. Though I found your prodding to be a bit out of place, though understandable given my 180deg shift in attitude. I held no ill will toward your post and hope you understood why I felt it improper to debate issues at that point.

I know, now, what she misunderstood. I was trying to explain how I arrived at the level I did, and said that "to me".. "she became" the great satan Rick Ross himself... she mis-read it, or at least misunderstood it, and took it that I was calling her satan. Instead of reading it in context, it appears that she skimmed and misinterpreted it. I'm not sure I'd word it differently in another situation, but I can see why she jumped to the conclusion she did and saw what she expected to see. Based on her frequent claims of wp:npa, I guess I might have considered that she really was that sensitive and actually believed she was being attacked.

I was rather shocked to see the entire text disappear and get labeled 'archive hurtful text'. Anyway, at least now I know what upset her. *sigh* Thanks for your feedback and your time.

Peace in God Lsi john 00:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I should explain upfront that I really didn't see your message as a "sarcastic offer to "give up"", again if I did there would have been no reason to try explaining the LGAT name aspect of the disagreement. I also don't want to imply that the current state of affairs is entirely your fault, personal disagreements are a two way street.

In a situation like this, your best bet is to keep your proposals as short and neutrally worded as possible. In the past I've made similar situations worse by trying to over explain myself, and in the process my choice of wording causes other issues. As an example, (please understand before reading this: I am not offended in any way) in your reply you said :"Though I found your prodding to be a bit out of place..." which could have caused problems with some editors replying saying stuff like "I wasn't prodding!" or "Are you saying my opinion doesn't matter?". As I said, I don't see that as what you are saying... but someone who is sensitive or thinks your are out to be less than civil might see that as a "dig". Again, I think you were just explaining your perspective and meant no offense. It's the same with Rick Ross as the great satan, you were directing the comment at Ross but some could infer that you meant Smee is a servant of satan for referencing his site. The point is, stuff like that gets said when one tries to explain their thoughts too much. (Again, I hope this makes sense) Anynobody 01:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am blunt and terse in a very verbose sort of way. Again, you need not apologize nor preface an example. It is truly very difficult to offend me. I really do assume good faith. Yes, my experience of your wording, was that you were prodding me in an attempt to see if I would bite and jump back into a RR debate, and lose focus of the point of that thread. That does not mean that I assumed malice, but more likely gentle nudging to see if I was sincere. I side stepped it and offered to discuss the points elsewhere. no harm, no foul.

I also understand the mis-understanding aspect. For example, until recently, I assumed (bad thing to do) that Smee was merely smug and obnoxious because she would fully copy someone's text when they agreed with her and paste the entire thing back in a thank you reply. Personally, I found it offensive and abrasive and thought it was being done intentionally to show everyone else that she was right. Now, with a different perspective, I realize I was completely wrong about that. I judged her unfairly. I still think her edits are biased and unbalanced, but the point is, I was in judgment and that is a bad place to be. (Another lesson I took from my LGAT experience and was able to apply here to help make a shift).

Personal Growth training doesn't make us perfect. It gives us the ability to recognize and course correct. Lsi john 02:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually appreciate the bluntness you are talking about, which is why I don't want to give you the impression that I took it in a negative or hurtful way when pointing to the prod comment. The way you summarized the mis-understanding aspect is exactly right, and was also what I figured was happening when you were describing my appearance in the discussion you were having with Smee (if you thought I was a prodding jerk, why post on my talk page for more?). My point is that even a small aside, could take on a negative connotation if you happen to be speaking with somebody especially sensitive when that is exactly what you didn't intend to do. I'm actually in the middle of a few other tasks, so I'm going to have to end here for now. I will post more as soon as I can. Sorry to leave an incomplete thought. Anynobody 03:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the interruption. I figured it was better to post part of my thoughts than nothing at all and possibly give the impression I was ignoring this. Essentially I think the best thing to do in regards to Smee is offer a brief statement explaining that you have been extremely misunderstood (without going into specifics) and asking how to be resolve any questions of WP:AGF from her perspective. Anynobody 06:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Smee has asked for space. I will not post again on her page, lest it be interpreted as harassing her. My last message to her was a very strong apology and brief explanation. This did not satisfy her and I'm okay with that. She has to heal in her own way and in her own time.

You were asking about LGAT and other possible terms... seemingly to understand my position. I have written a (not brief) summary on my user page. If you are interested, and have time, I welcome your comments. as always; -Peace in God Lsi john 13:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. Lsi john 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Smee is really a great editor, I think you somehow managed to push all the wrong buttons though. I've asked her to take a look at the possibility that this is a huge misunderstanding. I'll take a look at your page this evening, Anynobody 23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

-

Just an FYI, for feedback, as you've said you appreciate blunt.

First, Clearing is something else that I learned from my Personal Growth experiences. A clearing is when one individual expresses his (or her) feelings about an issue and how it made them feel. A proper clearing does not contain blame/shame/guilt. Nor does it contain you should have. A clearing simply states one person's experience of a situation. A clearing does not demand, expect or need an explanation from the other party. A clearing does not and should not be accompanied with any expectation or requirement of an appology from the other party. A clearing, is a one-sided converstation which describes an experience.

For the same reason that you said "(please understand before reading this: I am not offended in any way)" I say "Please do not take this as hostility, I hold no animosity over the events." During the mediation with Smee, I was (still am) new to wiki and very much unaware of the proceedures here. I felt pretty much on-my-own. I experienced the assistance (and support) that you posted for smee, on her talk page, compared to the absence of assistance/support for me, to be less than neutral.

Your postings on her page seemed (to me) to validate her position rather than encourage her to step back and locate the cause of the misunderstanding and work toward compromise. My experience of that was to feel that my opponent had even more resources and I felt even smaller. This only served to help push me deeper into the struggle. (my choice _not_ your fault).

I think I understand your postings. You are smee's friend and you wished to support her. You probably even felt she was being accused unjustly. Yet I did not experience it as a neutral position. (None of us are neutral when it comes to friends and family.) :-}

Anyway, its just something I felt and rather than harbor it inside, I wanted to let you know my experience of it.

-Peace in God Lsi john 13:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand how it could look like I am supporting Smee, she is a wikifriend of mine and I have supported her in the past. She is usually willing to discuss an issue, which is why this is so unusual. You've obviously offended her, and I think it was unintentional, whereas she believes you have been intentionally hurtful.

I don't know for certain what is happening, though I believe it was accidental on your part I must leave the possibility open that she could be correct. As I said on her page, if she takes time to allow you the opportunity to explain the misunderstanding the truth will come out. (People are not very good at creating stories which can't be taken apart by simple discussion).

Honestly, I do have an open mind regarding this situation. Part of that is being open to both good and bad possibilities. Anynobody 22:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Truth eventually makes itself know. I think you will conclude that I am sincere.

Perhaps someday we can discuss it at length. I think it would be inappropriate here and now. Even if you didn't misunderstand, it is statistically likely that others would. Perhaps some day over a beer. ;) -Peace in God Lsi john 23:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sure I would accept your apology if I could figure out what you were apologizing for. But even looking over the discussion you linked, I couldn't find anything I should feel offended by.

But just to be courteous, I will feign offense so that your apology isn't toothless. So, that's okay, just don't do it again. Phiwum 11:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sylvia Browne again

Hi, Anynobody. I have another Sylvia Browne lie rear its head. The problem is the two newspaper articles are only available from LexisNexis. Both articles have been pulled up by a forum member at Randi's forum (found here). How do you think I can source the articles? Maybe just list the newspaper that wrote them or LexisNexis? - Throw 05:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with listing the sources as you found them on LexisNexis, if someone has an issue with it I was looking at the AP website and think they may confirm their article if we e-mailed them. The Providence Journal may be trickier, especially if they don't keep archives easy to access. Anynobody 06:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good detective work

Anynobody, good job on finding the sockpuppet. Thanks and you are rapidly on your way to adminship!--Fahrenheit451 01:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the kind words. Really though the best reward was finding out I wasn't just being paranoid. Anynobody 01:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Just to let you know...I'm not an administrator. But I appreciate your comments. Best wishes.--MONGO 06:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! Used to be would have been more accurate, I see you stopped blocking people in December. Still I'm sure you could have thought of something more aggressive than what they were complaining about if you had wanted to. Anynobody 06:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Noteworthy comments from COFS

Anynobody, did you notice this in your discussion with COFS? "fourth the block seems to extent over a whole IP range with the only purpose to block Scientologists. The latter smells like it could turn into trouble in real life as well." --Fahrenheit451 14:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please see my comments about this strange bit at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, or at User talk:COFS. Smee 14:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

This is indeed very interesting, I've commented on Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. I'm not sure what to make of this development. (I can guarantee I hadn't planned on blocking all Scientologists in general, despite what COFS seems to think). Anynobody 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right...

about this list. ChrisO pointed out it could be coming from a CoS center or something like it. Anynobody 22:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

no prob

hey, for all I knew, I was doing it incorrectly! Tvoz |talk 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand, I'd probably have posted a message like yours if our roles were reversed. (Just because I think I'm doing it right doesn't mean I am.) That said, I knew by being vague to spare the feelings of some I was likely to confuse others. Thanks for understanding :) Anynobody 23:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)