This is an archive of past discussions about User:Anyeverybody. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hehe, very neutral title I've come to post under... but let's be honest, it was shot down; I think we can be pretty certain of that, regardless of what the government were saying. Y'know, although it is likely just rubbish being spouted by the authorities to cover up the dangerous aspects of their country, and I don't believe a word of my own theories, it's got me thinking... It does seem at least theoreticaly possible that, if a heat-seeking SAM struck the engine direct or even if a chance RPG shot got it, and the engine flamed-out immediatly, it could seem just like an internal problem - something blew in the engine, shut it down quickly, pull the extuinguisher, leave the autopilot to keep going. If you get the shut off vaves quickly, you probably wouldn't notice the differecne on your valves, but the engine's still soaked with flammable liquid. That's probably more than the extuinguisher can cope with, but even so, residual engine heat could make it re-ignite. No-one notices the extra drag because the autopilot is compensating, and they may even be distracted by discussing the recent 'engine failure', since they'd know it was big 'coz they'd have obviously felt it. Meantime, it's either burning a little or heating through, and the foam from the extuinguisher (Or do they use CO2? Makes little difference here.) is being blown away by the air flow. After a few minutes, some sheltered bit deep inside the engine erupts into flame; the heat from that is sufficient to make any other fuel, oil, hydraulics if routed via the engine etc ignite pretty quickly. Of course, that's a problem big enough to cause an audible warnign, and maybe even cut the autopilot out. Realising how much trouble they are in for the first time, and by this relatively late stage already at 10,000 ft, they turn round for an emergency landing. By then, though, fire is spreading along the tubing for various things - fire can burn round shut-off valves, and the inside of even a cut off tube is still wet - and compromising the structural integrity of the wing. The rest is history (even if the linked accident does involve the horizontal stabiliser instead; same idea). Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)17:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me first say that I never assumed you thought the plane wasn't shot down, merely proposing a way which the original text would work. (Essentially acting as a devil's advocate, which I appreciate unlike many people. I also assume that we both realize the improbable, but not impossible, nature of the situation you're proposing.) Here is how I envisage a chain of events like this, and it's based on two basic assumptions;
1) The aircraft had no cargo, so the loss of an engine might not be as perceptible. With a heavy cargo, losing an engine would cause a drop in airspeed impossible not to notice.
2) The flightcrew were incompetent/poorly rested/drunk/etc. enough not to notice the instruments for engine 2 showing no power right away.
Even in an aircraft with four engines, a smart crew would turn back when noticing the loss of an engine right after takeoff. (If the engine craps out and the flight is 3/4 of the way to it's destination it'd keep going of course.) Actually, if an engine went out without the crew noticing right away, when they eventually did the question might be; "What happened to stop the engine dead with no warning, is it about to happen with the other 3 engines? Is the fuel contaminated, etc.)
Again, though I think it's improbable, it's certainly still within the realm of possibility. According to the USAF when the second XB-70 collided with a F-104 during it's appearance in a photo op; approx 70% of the right and the entire left vertical stabilizers were torn from it. The pilots didn't notice right away, and it flew straight for 15 seconds, due to the plane's unique wing design. Then there was the 737 incident where the pilots deactivated the good engine and didn't realize until too late. Anynobody06:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you come online at the same time as me! (Early start here, I'm on UTC+1). Yeah, I can envisage such an event happening; confusion regularly occurs in minor ways in cockpits without us ever realising, and, as in the examples you give, does escalate sometimes. I've heard tales of people not noticing a problem even when competent and alert until they slowed for landing, and the lower airspeed messed up the aerodynamics of what turned out to be a crippled plane. And, according to at least one documentary, the pilots on United Airlines Flight 232 took about 10 secs to notice complete hydraulic pressure drop because they where too busy shutting down no. 3, another possible factor here. Only when they tried to realign it did they realise; curiosly, it took about 30 seconds to begin phugoid gyrations. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)06:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The hydraulic situation on that flight was one that indeed made itself obvious without having to look at a pressure gage, but not immediately of course, after the fluid has drained. Now that you mention it though it's a great example of how easily shrapnel from a damaged engine in that situation caused new difficulties. The hydraulic failure was their main problem, engine two dying by itself would not have been as serious an issue. (I thought engine numbers started on the left and increase as the position moves right. DC-10: #1 under left wing, #2 in the tail, #3 under the right wing, Il-76: #1 under left wing outboard, #2 under left wing inboard, #3 under right wing inboard, and #4 under right outboard.) I'm actually UTC-7, every day of the year since I live in Arizona. Anynobody07:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It's allways struck me as a strange way of numbering it and I've often wondered if it's right, but without actually looking for it I've never seen it described as anything other than no 3... although checking the article, it agrees with logic, and calls it no 2. Sometimes, though, people have no idea of such a failure. I once saw an NTSB document regarding an uncontained engine failure on a FedEx cargo jet, where although I believe (not positive) they were aware that it was an emergency engine failure and not just a standard flameout/shut down job, I do know that it was only on inspection after landing that they discavered the full extent of the damage: punctures to the cabin (which fortunatly didn't explosivly decompress), punctures to the wing, to the cowling of the nearest engine to the failed one, and even to a fuel tank - all without them noticing. Pretty worrying. Dunno if you gathered - probably from my strange spellings and my time zone - but yeah, I'm UK, so UTC+1 for now, UTC exactly later in the year. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)16:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, logic that established a system where an engine in the tail comes before one under the right wing eludes me also. I used to think number 3 was the aft engine too, it just made sense; number forward to aft, left to right (like reading a book I guess). Then I started reading crash reports, here's a nice looking FAA site about American Airlines Flight 191, the DC-10 that lost an engine on takeoff at O'hare. The FAA and Douglas reports all mentioned the way engines 1 and 3 were mounted to the wing (There are links to what I first read, this site overall is geared more towards the general public.) I figured Douglas must've had an odd way to number their engines, surely Boeing and Lockheed called the aft engine number 3. Nope, I was wrong and later found out that the numbering sequence factors in pilots having to fly aircraft from different manufacturers.
I did indeed assume your dialect to be English English but don't really see y'all's spelling as weird except for the word armour. I don't know if you have them in the UK, but here in the states we have a brand of hot dogs called Armour which makes me chuckle when one describes 12"s of armour. Anynobody06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk page box
Minor point I suppose, but is there a reason you tagged my post as out of sequence on the evidence talk page? It's the most recent thing before the next subheading. DurovaCharge!18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed there was, but no offense was meant to you. Su-Jada didn't use headings but instead simply placed the "header" in bold and this didn't include an [edit] option, which implied to me that even though he/she signed it a couple of different times it was still one post. I know that posting in the middle of another user's longer messages is allowed and there is a good chance Su-Jada probably meant to make them === type headings. Rather than editing his/her posts I figured this was a good compromise to avoid confusion, no offense to Scientologists but I've found them apt to complain about such actions for questionable reasons. (I've read through several older arbcoms and afds where the posting gets so out of order I've just stopped reading. I'm trying to keep that from happening here.) Seriously though, I meant nothing against you, I posted in the box too. Anynobody20:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not as time consuming as you might think. If you remember Terryeo pretending to not understand the topic on a talk page, try seasrching just his/her contributions to Talk pages, like this:
{{user3}} > Terryeo (talk·contribs·logs) > [1]. If you remember a controversial edit, narrow the search to only (Main) space: [2], or here for User talk pages [3]
I used this method to find a comment I remember: CSI LA making to Tilman I thought I'd never find in just a few minutes. I appreciate your help, did this procedure make sense? Anynobody05:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
1. Make an edit to any page, I'll use this one as an example.
1a. Here's what you'll get (I'm going to use this example for others so I have to include stuff I know that you know, sorry if it sounds condescinding).
2. Use the template.
2a. Preview the edit.
3. Select (contribs).
3a. This is what you'll get.
3b. To narrow by namespace use this drop down.
3c. Also, for those who still edit: Their (contribs) show up on your watchlist among other places.
AN, I think I have been more than patient about my request that you remove the images that conceal your identity and conceal the links to bypass the redirect also, I might add. Please remove them now. Thanks. --Justanother05:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I am simply asking you to remove something that you should not have done and that Durova has backed me up on. So why not quit being a whatever and just save us the trouble and do it. Thanks. --Justanother05:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, here's what Durova said. Had my changes not complied with her requests I'm pretty sure I would have heard back by now, considering she's posted here since. I was going to ask her if she was satisfied with my change of signature, but figured you would have cried foul considering what's happening at the arbcom. Since you brought her opinion up, I assume you'd have no problem with me asking her. Right? Anynobody05:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Common sense says you don't know what spoofing means then, I'm not pretending to be Anynobody I am Anynobody. That's gotta be one of the funniest answers you have given me yet. Common sense is "if it's not broken don't fix it", this is my solution until the password issue can be resolved. It's more than clear who I am and what the problem is, especially if you look at my User page. That is why I found it funny, given that I've made things so transparent you're implying I'm hiding something and that "Common Sense" dictates in order to fix the issue I take off the graphics that make it so clear who I am. Anynobody06:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Justanother said this on Durova's talk page. As I have no intention of moving the conversation there, I'm going to comment on it here:
If I understand correctly, you lost the password on your original account? That sort of thing occasionally happens. The standard solution is to post an explanation on your user page. Thanks for fixing the signature issue and leaving a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. The redirects in your user space are still a bit confusing. I suggest either changing those into soft redirects or posting an explanation at the top of the hard-redirected destination pages. Justanother, would that address your objection or have I missed something? Regards to both, and hoping this is one point where we can all reach agreement. DurovaCharge!08:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Your summary of the problem is more or less correct. The redirects ensure I receive all information intended for me in one spot, when you mentioned fixing the signature it was with the understanding that I should emphasize the Anynobody identity. Anynobody08:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I should also explain that I'm not interested in satisfying Justanother's request on face value, because this type of "concern" seems to pop up as conveniently as his references to WP:AGF etc. as cited by your evidence. Anynobody09:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Off the top of my head I remember him taking issue with the way I worded a post he wasn't able to reply to directly. [4]Anynobody09:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Earlier, there was this. Only two or three people besides Justanother and myself knew he was the author of this comment. He made an issue with not including context, which was probably BS because the other edits he made in the particular conversation weren't really any better and would've only served to make him look more like a jerk. Nonetheless around the time I tried to initiate WP:DR on his actions re: Barbara Schwarz and the comment in question, is when it suddenly became an issue. Yet at the same time he had no problem doing the same thing, less civilly, with other editors comments about him [5]. Anynobody09:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, Justanother does have a legitimate point about username confusion. Although I wish he or she would express it in milder terms and I wish you'd strikethrough the j-word in that post above. Please remember - and I mean this toward both of you - that arbitration happens because one or more editors doesn't exercise enough self-control. Most people who get sanctioned spend their time pointing fingers at others. Most people who don't get sanctioned make a priority of demonstrating that they possess sufficient self-control. This little thread ought to be a minor matter, easily and amicably resolved. DurovaCharge!10:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You have an image that used CSS positioning to cover up the title of this page. That's very bad for usability and could confuse a user. I've taken the liberty of moving the image down slightly so the page title, (and important notices such as "this is a preview") will be visible. JehochmanTalk14:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. That is an adequate solution. Would one of you please do the same on the user page. I am sorry that AN is taking this personally. I asked politely the first time (archived, I guess) and even started a petition to support his identity claim. I called it spoofing because, technically, that it what it is. That is hardly a harsh term like say, jerk. In my second post above I resisted the temptation to call him some name when he objected to my asking him to do something that I thought he understood that both myself and Durova had urged him to do. I repeated my request because I needed to get to the AN talk page and his images were covering up the redirect bypass and created unnecessary bother for me to get to that page. --Justanother15:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
Justanother if you had been more specific about your inability to access the redirect page, I would have gladly added a link for you. But since you said it was "confusing" I couldn't figure out how it could possibly be any clearer than it was.
Don't be afraid to say you can't do something, I won't make fun of you or anything and it could save trouble in the future. Anynobody22:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
Ah, I see what you mean now. The new version does look better. Justanother, although you may have a point about the technical definition, let's assume good faith and call this an honest misunderstanding. It would be a good thing all around if this becomes an example of how we're all able to work out the small stuff. DurovaCharge!20:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps if we ran an RFCU on him, it would establish that he is running socksalternate accounts from the same ips? That might help get his password reset and avoid this whole mess? Peace.Lsijohn21:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't expect you'd mind. It was meant as a helpful suggestion to establish your identity as Anynobody. You already claim its a sockan alternate account. Peace.Lsijohn21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I find your usage of the term sock puppet insulting. Re-examining your first post in light of this comment shows you are trying to cause trouble, or simply don't understand the term you used.
If you look at Wikipedia:Username policy#Doppelganger accounts you'll understand it's not a sockpuppet account but a doppleganger account. Also I should point out that sockpuppets are supposed to be secret accounts used to circumvent a policy. (Given the graphics that confused Justanother, I'm claiming to be Anynobody.)
A quick search of this page reveals that you are the only one to have used the term 'puppet'. Peace.Lsijohn21:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Though after looking at some of your definitions, I can understand why you would be offended. I've seen NUMEROUS users who label their alternate accounts as 'sock of xyz'. So, I'm sorry you were offended. It was not intentional. To me.. sock = alternate account. Peace.Lsijohn21:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm still wondering where you got the idea I seriously called it a puppet account. Do you just make stuff up, or were you confused by a previous comment? Anynobody22:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Considering your usually speedy responses, and the fact that you've been active since I asked this question at [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lsi_john 22:41] I think I've given enough time for you to explain a misunderstanding, if that had been the case.
What you said didn't really offend or upset me Lsi john, it gave me a chance to see if what I suspected was true. Before I get to that, I'll explain what you could have done to make me think I was wrong about you.
If you had been editing here in good faith it would have been a simple matter to say something like, "I'm sorry I used the term puppet, didn't mean to imply anything sinister etc.", or at least expressed that it was a simple mistake of terminology. It shouldn't take hours to say that. If you were posting to WP:TROLL, the LAST thing you would do is apologize since you came to bait me into something. In that event, coming up with a good story would take some time since I asked for specific info you can't provide.
That's the difference between a WP:TROLL and a WP:AGF editor, the latter can explain everything upfront and doesn't need a cover story. When I factor this, with your edits on the arbcom talk pages, and your past behavior:
My question was whether or not anyone involved in the discussion had issues with the "government" status of reports from the FBI and GAO. At this time a debate over whether or not a report from the CRS, a division of the Library of Congress, is a "government" report. The argument, that the CRS isn't part of the government and doesn't write reports for it, was ludicrous to me but since WP:AGF applies I did my best to see things from the perspective of those that disagreed with me, which is why I started the section. This is what happened next, in diffs.
[6][7][8][9][10]
Then there was this time:
Lsi john in the middle of trollingSmeeI interrupt and answer his question for Smee.
Lsi john gets angry and accuses me of trolling him
SmeeLsi john insists my answer did not answer his question, which to me implied he didn't read it and simply got angry when seeing my signature. (He asked why Smee linked him to an archived version of am article when discussing it as a WP:DYK entry. I said because the current version could be different than the DYK version.
Given the trivial nature of the question, and your reaction, it seems obvious that you were being a nuisance; just like in the prior example. Anynobody01:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Was I somehow unclear above? You are the only one who has used the term puppet (other than my (now two) responses to your trolling. And, yes, I get to call it trolling, because I was clear about a) that I didnt use the term puppet and b) what I meant by sock. Since I didn't use the word puppet, it is unreasonable to anticipate that I'd be able to provide an answer to your question. It's impossible for me to explain why I felt something that I never felt. Therefore no response was necessary. Tally-ho the fox. Peace.Lsijohn02:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Your answer was clear, you say I used the term first to seriously describe this situation. Perhaps my question wasn't clear enough: When did I say that? (2) Anynobody02:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
When you say "sock" the term puppet is implied. (Also, suggesting WP:RFCU as an option when I've already gone to the WP:BN and found out the correct way to get this resolved, is a pretty transparent attempt to drive home some WP:POINT. Probably regarding the question I asked on the evidence page of the arbcom about WP:RFCU on Justanother that caught your attention.)
I didn't expect you'd mind. It was meant as a helpful suggestion to establish your identity as Anynobody. You already claim its a sockan alternate account. Peace.Lsijohn 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
People will now see two names Anynobody and Anyeverybody on each page. The idea of reducing confusion to me indicates removing disambiguation (which is what two User names are.) Like I said above, if it can be shown in a policy or guideline I would of course change my attitude. Otherwise I frankly don't see why I'd have to address the confusion of an editor who already knows of my existence; I geared the graphics and redirects to minimize confusion in editors who DON'T know me.
In my solution a "new" editor who sees a comment I made under the locked account in the past, said editor would click on my signature and be directed straight to the User page I'm now using. Since I am still signing Anynobody21:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC), covering up the Anyeverybody and replacing it with File:Lockedmyselfout.gif, the editor would then have the whole story.
Here is why it was confusing, Justanother didn't communicate his inability to access the redirected page. The frustrating thing about this incident was that he said I was doing this in good faith, yet at the same time citing his concern about spoofing (he must've misunderstood what the word means. and in the interest of WP:CIVIL leave it at that), which was puzzling since I'm not faking or deceiving anyone.
Had he just said "I'd like to look at the redirect page and your image is covering the link." this whole issue could have been avoided. The lesson is, say what you mean. Anynobody01:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Venn diagram
The venn diagram you made on or looks better than the old style. Could you make 15 more of them? Check out the rest of the logical connectives diagrams. The convention for the rest of them is that the light part interprets to true, whereas yours is the opposite. That's okay! We can use the one you made already for nor, which would be consistent. Be well, Gregbard08:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure I'll give it a try, do you mean opposite like this? I'm not mathematically talented, and I was kinda afraid I'd misapply it somehow so don't be shy about putting them where they'd be most appropriate. (I was just messing around and thought the end result looked cooler than the original.) Anynobody09:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean, yeah I think I can do this. It'll take a bit of time of course, but now that I see what you mean I can make it happen. Anynobody06:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's what I have so far
I'm not entirely happy with all of them, but figured you'd be interested in how it was coming along.
I do not think it is in the best interests of this project to have one page disguised to look like another. I find it, frankly, weird, and do not think it reflects well on Wikipedia. So I am asking you to stop doing it. Again. Please. Thank you. --Justanother05:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to assume you are not technically savvy when it comes to computers in addressing your concern about "disguising" my page based on what happened above. If you look at the very top of your screen you'll notice it says User talk:Anyeverybody - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I imagine if I really REALLY wanted to I could make that say Anynobody too, if I had gone that far you'd have a point.
Secondly I had already planned a replacement image, with you in mind, to remove any doubt.
Lastly, if the image of the project truly concerns you a tenth of as much as Scientology does there are quite a few actions you could undertake to remove all traces of impropriety from your account. I'm not sure it does though, because the answer involves a contradiction I'd be surprised (though happy) to see you somehow balance.
1. Stop accusing neutral editors/admins of having it in for you or Scientology. (Ie Durova, who despite your rants really does mean what she says; If you have real evidence of neutral or anti-Scientology editors embarking on a campaign on smear tactics against the CoS Durova really would be willing to act on it. You are merely proving the stuff in the articles true by attacking someone who isn't attacking you or the CoS, criticism in the proper form is not an attack.
2. Practice what you preach about being ultra careful not to disguise your identity, JustaHulk.
3. Read up on the concepts you are discussing here, your whole point about WP:AGF trumping WP:COI shows how misinformed you really are. To show that this isn't a personal attack I'm going to quote WP:AGF directly as proof of my assertion (emphasis is from the page itself, not me);
This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence.
4. Curb your editing of Scientology topics. If I was really making a case against you at the arbcom, I'd point out that the number of edits you've made rivals or even beats all the CoS IP editors combined on Scientology pages. The 77% of your top 15 edits belies this. I understand that to a Scientologist it's conceivable that a person could return from the dead, evidently the church keeps a house for L. Ron Hubbard in case this happens (again, not an insult: Christians are waiting for Christ so the concept of returning from death isn't unique to Scientology). If Jim Jones returned somehow and started editing People's Temple articles do you suppose he'd be able to keep a WP:NPOV while doing it? Do you suppose someone like Jim Bakker could edit The PTL Club articles without a WP:COI. Lastly, just to show you it isn't just religion and business; Do you suppose a hypothetical editor who's username and opinion is KORNblows could edit the article about korn into a WP:NPOV article worthy of WP:FA? You feel so strongly about Scientology that you are willing to overlook things neutral people aren't, and it shows in your edits on those articles.
If you really care about the project these points should give you reason to doubt whether your actions have been in the best interest of Wikipedia or Scientology. (That's the contradiction I was mentioning) Anynobody07:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Boy, you sure do love to make a big deal of things, don't you? You know, the only reason that time is being wasted on this is because YOU are wasting everyone's time instead of complying with a simple request that I originally made and that was seconded by Durova and possible thirded by Jehochman. I laugh because you, predictably, try to turn this into some RfC on me (I knew you would!) You will perhaps forgive me for not bothering to read any of that. I do not think it has anything to do with the image issue and if you have some objection to me then you need to get a neutral third editor involved as I have suggested ad nauseum. --Justanother11:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, maybe it's better to tread lightly on this one. Anynobody is taking steps to remedy the situation and it could look quarrelsome for you to continue pursuing this aggressively, seeing as you're both in the same arbitration case. If this is a serious problem then uninvolved editors will step in.
They were in agreement that the redirect page should be accessible, and now that I have ensured that the pages are available seem fine with it. (Remember I've been to the WP:BN about this, don't you think they'd of mentioned it if there was a problem like you claim?)
It's hard to WP:AGF on your "concern" when the issues I mentioned in my last post go unaddressed by you. Common sense dictates editors who put concerns of outside groups ahead of Wikipedia are a bigger problem than "clever" editors who have lost their password. Anynobody22:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
AN, do not think that it is not obvious to me, if not to another, that you are making it appear that Durova posted in this thread when she did not. OK, let's waste a bit more time here since that seems to be your object. In actual fact "uninvolved editors" did "step in"; Durova said:
"Although I'm not sure this goes as far as spoofing, I agree with the gist of Justanother's comments. I listed you by your better-known username at the RFAR but you may wish to change both that and your signature. It does confuse people."
and Jehochman went so far as to edit your talk page to move the images, saying:
"You have an image that used CSS positioning to cover up the title of this page. That's very bad for usability and could confuse a user. I've taken the liberty of moving the image down slightly so the page title, (and important notices such as "this is a preview") will be visible."
but you just moved it right back, albeit with a slightly different image but with the same obscuring of the real page title. So, to be honest, the only "uninvolved editors" that are likely to "step in" without my posting this issue on an appropriate board have already spoken and acted and you ignored them and undid Jehochman's move. Nothing new there, unfortunately. Anyway, this is my final reply to you here. I will post my concern elsewhere and leave it to others if you do not make adjustments to the image placements (or remove them) soon. --Justanother02:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You do realize your quotes are from before the quote I cited right? Here's the bottom line:
There are no rules prohibiting this.
Your perception of the project's image is at best, skewed. Even if I assume you are right, and there is some problem with image placement; It doesn't even come close in comparison next to what I've shown you are doing by editing for the CoS and your WP:COI, let alone the image of the project in regard to alternate "roleplaying" accounts.
As Durova tried to explain, you're actually drawing attention to yourself by focusing on trying to prove minor issues. What she didn't mention, but probably assumed you knew, is that while this is going on you have made serious allegations which you are not even attempting to prove.
I've spent quite a bit of time accumulating evidence to prove my allegations, so I have all the time you want to debate a non issue you are either trying to use as a distraction or that your ego won't let go of. Anynobody02:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Slightly different image, do you intend to be this misleading?
Actually my question was, do you try to misrepresent things that way on purpose? As you originally worded the statement a person reading it would interpret the message to mean that Anyeverybody was still invisible. Anynobody03:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Request ceasefire
Please let the username/image/talk page title issue rest. I mean that to everyone involved. It doesn't look good for anyone to be quarrelsome. Remember, we're in arbitration and our actions are under scrutiny. Editors who can't cooperate with each other voluntarily tend to get involuntary remedies. Please don't give the Committee reason to consider those options. DurovaCharge!06:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I had kinda assumed it was over, did something new happen that I missed? (If this is about my questions on your talk page; To put it in military terms they are for the purposes of debriefing not continuing the engagement. Anynobody07:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless they keep posting, the threads will be archived in a few days. I feel obliged to answer posts to my talk page, whereas if this had occurred somewhere else I would have abandoned the discussion long ago.
Going forward, do you have a strategy for dealing with editors who misrepresent you? When dealing with Justanother I understand why he says the things he does so my feelings aren't hurt; He thinks I'm out to get the CoS because I feel Barbara Schwarz deserves an article here and I've pointed out that L. Ron Hubbard wasn't the hero made out by Scientology. In other words his WP:COI is what's actually speaking. Rather than retaliate with overblown allegations, I instead try to point out the flaws of logic passionate people are liable to ignore. I'm starting to think either my technique needs work, a new strategy might be required, or the COI is simply insurmountable by logic. Anynobody22:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
My only problem with you, AN, is your absurd fascination with me. It is creepy. I could care less how you edit Schwarz or Hubbard and I do not find you a particularly tendencious editor at all and I have no problem working with you. Those disagreements we may have over the articles themselves will wash out by virtue of there being other editors involved; we will neither of us be the sole arbiters of what is "right" or "wrong" - a "consensus" will develop. A great many people agreed with me that the Schwarz article should go away, just not a majority; so what - get over it. What you have to understand is that it is NOT YOUR JOB to prove me wrong or make me see the error of my ways (I can find a diff or four where you stated that making me admit I was wrong or some such as your goal). When is the last time we butted heads over an article, AN? When? Show me the diff? Yet you continue with your creepy attacks on me. Knock it off, why don't you? --Justanother22:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand why it might seem creepy to have instant access to any interaction we've ever had, but that's Wikipedia not me. I have no interest in you beyond the pattern of editing you pursue and the actual harm it causes.
You don't have to be focused on me to have access to the sort of info I use to cite your past. If you like I can show you how, just read the section above where I showed Fahrenheit451 how to. Anynobody23:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Cough cough. AN, what in the world are you talking about?? I said that we have not have had any disagreement in an article since when? Show me a diff, please? Yet you continue to try to make me wrong or get me to admit I am wrong or whatever it is you are trying to do. You are doing that now. Here. And on the Arb. And everywhere you can. Why not just stop, man? Get over it! That is what is creepy. That is what is trollish. That. You. Do. Not. Stop. --Justanother23:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I've actually been saying your conduct on Scientology pages and towards editors(*) which don't share your POV is a problem, you either don't see or don't want addressed. It goes back to what I said after the time you asked what religion/race/etc. I was so you could insult it; even though it was funny to me others may actually be offended. (*If you really want I can show you examples of editors you've treated poorly.) The irony is that if you had not been so aggressive about evading the RFC, and it had turned out I was wrong, you would have been vindicated. If I had been right, I wouldn't still be making the same point as I have since then.
That's why I didn't opt for your offers of Wikipedia:Third opinion, it's geared for disputes between two people, and I wasn't the only one disputing your behavior. (I don't remember you ever offering Wikipedia:Mediation, but if you had I would've explained that such action would be more than was necessary since the WP:RFC seemed to be the most appropriate venue.) Anynobody00:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Your "issue" with me is a non-issue and a waste of everyone's time except, perhaps, your own. Perhaps this is how you like to spend your time (I kinda suspect it is). I may address it more formally or I may not as it is really quite easy to show you for what you are and in fact, the less I say, the better you show yourself for what you are so I will sign off now. I will not post here again. I guess I kinda got into posting here because of the image issue. I should have left it at that but I am by no means perfect and I made a mistake by continuing to post on your talk page. I will endeavor to not repeat that error. Ta ta. --Justanother03:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope you understand I do not enjoy this type of activity. I actually loathe dealing with issues like this, but if I just let what I see as problems "go" it would be irresponsible. When a person voices concern over a problem there are two ways to deal with it decisively; 1) The powers that be acknowledge there is a problem or 2) The same people say there is not a problem. Assuming you believe that you have done nothing wrong, requesting the deletion of the RFC was a mistake since the process would have vindicated your point. The result, nothing was resolved, you kept up the same behavior, and now here we are. Anynobody22:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Pumping up the AGF
OK, AN, I am going to hyperinflate my AGF bladder and squeeze out some for you (laff). This is my only attempt at ending this short of 3rd-party involvement. If you have a problem that I was rough on Smee and perhaps a few other editors a few months back then why not just let that go? I feel that some editors here were/are not editing this project in good faith, and there was a relatively short period where I was overly sarcastic with them. I stopped that and am just back to my normal level of sarcasm (laff). Yes, I am still a bit sarcastic when I feel that someone is being abusive but nowhere near the level I allowed myself to reach during that period. And I usually catch myself these days before it gets too far. So do I have a wiki-temper? Yes, a bit. Does that mean I am not allowed to edit here? No, it does not though I should be expected to moderate it, stay reasonably WP:CIVIL, even with abusers, and certainly avoid WP:BITE with n00bs. Listen, I made the change I needed to make and I apologized to uninvolved editors. That is all that is forthcoming, my friend, as I feel that those on the receiving end of my sarcasm were abusing this project far more than my little sarcasms. But here is the important thing: That is the past - it is over - time to let it go! Unless you think that I wasn't "punished" enough back then and you think that someone should dole out some punishment for me even though the "issue" is a non-issue at present. So when you say "your conduct on Scientology pages and towards editors(*) which don't share your POV is a problem," how about providing a few diffs from the last 30 days or so? Instead of holding a grudge? As far as any COI that I might have? Sorry, but people that hold a certain view that you or another do not agree with are not barred from editing articles. You are wasting your time barking up that tree. So is that what it boils down to for you? One old grudge or idea that I need "punishment" and one wasted bark? Or am I missing something important. --Justanother03:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
You are missing something important, I don't care about how you treat me, and I'm not talking about any of your regular "opponents", here is a sample of what I mean:
Your page, 20 April 2007 The general apology tells me you know that some of your behavior is inappropriate. I'm not talking about Smee either, I'm talking about editors I don't (or didn't know) when I saw various examples.
I've seen you go from friendly to almost threatening when editors expressed views related to a CoS topic not inline with what you want, or talked to members of the "Anti-CoS" group.User talk: Raeft, 5 May 2007You know a person by the company they keep. --Justanother01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC) and User talk: Raeft, 5 May 2007All due respect Raeft but you are a bit confused as to which way the tide is running... I've even seen you be this way with other Scientologists, for example Johnpedia.
You also have a tendency to be less than the good faith editor you claim to be: User talk: ChrisO, 4 May 2007...every crank with a webpage... Calling anyone an internet crank, doesn't sound like assumption of good faith to me.
This, again, is a sample of what I'm talking about. Your perceptions about those who don't see things as you do, and their motives, cause you to treat many editors this way. Anynobody04:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I asked for diffs from the last 30 days and you have only given me one to work with (makes it in by just 3 days):
So let's look at that one. The others are pretty bogus but I told you I was not interested in anything over 30 days old. Now in that one I quote, whom do you think is the object of my accusations there? --Justanother05:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought you'd say that :) Not Smee, the whole WP:DYK. You were, and still are as far as I know, saying that it's a POV pushing vehicle.
You should be interested in your behavior no matter how long ago because it all forms a picture of who you are now. Since I don't watch every move you make on Wikipedia I just cited stuff I had seen, if this became the subject of a formal action I suppose I'd just go over all your edits to Scientology pages (I don't find you interesting enough to research what you do when I don't see you.) I only edit a few, but you've been the same on those I've edited with you so the chances are good you've been the same on the pages I don't when confronted with a differing opinion and WP:V, WP:RS sources. Anynobody05:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Two points here:
1) So the only diff you can come up with in the last 30 days is one where I am going back and forth with Smee on an ADMIN'S TALK PAGE fer krissake? Do you really think that the admin was incapable of handling something if something needed handling? And this after you say "I'm not talking about any of your regular 'opponents'" and "I'm not talking about Smee either." If you want to talk about how I feel/felt about DYK then just ask about that and I will tell you but instead you misrepresent an out of context line.
2) So, as far as you are concerned, it does not matter that I changed my behavior in that I addressed my tendency to be over-sarcastic because, I guess, in your universe, people cannot control their own behavior? Is that true of you? You cannot control your behavior and thus cannot make the change you need to make to make to just drop this crap? Because if you cannot, under any circumstances, change your behavior and find another hobby than User:Justanother, what in the world am I doing talking to you here? --Justanother10:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
To facilitate clarity, I'll answer you point by point;
1) Not exactly, as I said I don't have the time or interest to go over your behavior on pages I don't edit. (Again if there were a formal action about it, I would do the research though.)
2) I haven't really noticed an improvement in your behavior, I don't mean to discourage you if you have been making an effort. I had noticed a decrease in your editing activity which does reduce the volume of the described issues though, however the arbcom seems to have motivated another surge in posting. Anynobody22:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
To respond point by point:
1) You apparently are not interested in making the effort to discuss this and come to some agreement between the two of us without outside intervention. I see that as a logical extension of your first point.
2) You persist in making claims that I am somehow doing something worthy of sanction but you "are not interested in making the effort to discuss this and come to some agreement between the two of us without outside intervention" (point 1).
1) I am very interested in discussing this, in a formal environment. You may have forgotten, but I have actually tried discussing this is issue with you a few times both here and on your talk page. It didn't accomplish anything.
2) I'm saying that your COI related to Scientology causes you to violate some editor and article policies/guidelines when dealing with Scientology here. (The nature of your point indicated you don't understand or won't acknowledge what I am saying, in case the reason is the former I restated my point.) Anynobody22:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
And again:
1) By "formal" you mean where I can get a major sanction which I take as your real purpose. Please don't bother arguing, that is my take on it.
2) It is not any imagined "COI" that might explain why I occasionally act in a manner that you do not approve of. It is my temper, my sharp tongue, and the fact that I do not suffer fools and bigots gladly. I think that I can still edit here given those aspects of my personality if I contain myself as I previously mentioned. What do you think? Can I still edit here given that? --Justanother22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
1) and 2) I am not interested in getting you sanctioned, Wikipedia is not that draconian. Your temper is a reaction to a stimulus which is aggravated by your COI. Everyone has a threshold which separates complete control and when temper takes over, the COI lowers the threshold you can tolerate before frustration crosses that threshold. (I think I told you this a couple of months ago, but if you go over your contributions and examine your behavior on Scientology pages and unrelated pages like brake fade it's easy to see what I mean (if you assume I'm not trying to get you banned or in any other trouble). Anynobody23:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, you are certainly entitled to your theory but you cannot try to make it policy here without quite a bit of support. So either get cracking on writing that policy and drumming up support for it or drop it. But you really need to leave me alone in either case. Because you are breaking existing policies by focusing on me in the manner that you do. --Justanother00:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think I'm focusing on you? I'm not, remember you posted here about my userpages and that began this incident. Either you had a genuine concern, or you were just playing a game but regardless you initiated this contact. Anynobody00:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, puleese. I posted here about an issue with an image on your page, you are the one that trotted out your dispute with me and trotted it out at the arbitration, too. Please be more honest than that.
OK, but enough on that. Here is how I boil down your claim:
“
People with strong feelings about a subject should not edit in that subject as such strong feelings cause the person to have a conflict of interest.
”
Is that a good summation of your position? Please tweak it or restate it so that we have clean statement of your position. Thanks. --Justanother00:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the first time you've made issues out of nothing, what you call "trotting" is simply proof of the fact such "concerns" aren't an isolated issue. That's where your perception fails you I think; when you make an assertion there isn't usually proof associated with it but when I make an assertion I prefer to cite something to back it up. I'm sorry but "enough on that" is not exactly what I'd expect from someone looking to resolve anything, do you now understand that I'm not "focusing" on you?
COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself, the interests of other individuals, companies, groups or religions. Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, he stands in a conflict of interest. This typically happens when one edits subjects they have strong feelings about.
Well, you do not want to admit your "fascination" with me or your trotting out your objections to me at every opportunity but it is well evident to others; that is what I meant by "enough of that", that you will not admit it so why bother. But enough of that.
OK, so you pasted your objection or your "theory of the strong feeling" onto a general definition of COI. Fine, you are entitled to your theory and your (strong?) feelings about it. So now you should go over to the WP:COI guideline and see if you can get your theory added. So why don't you do that? That would seem to be the most efficacious way of addressing what it is that you claim to want to address. I will see you over there. Meanwhile I guess we are done over here. --Justanother03:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
There isn't a "fascination" to admit, as a (formerly proclaimed via userbox) mathematician I would have thought you'd noticed how the numbers tend to support my assertion of disinterest in you specifically. Where we have met in the past did spark lengthy conversations like this, so maybe the increased frequency of contact gives you that impression.
My statement is really what i have thought all along; I've said several times editors who let their COI get the better of them should not be allowed to edit articles related to said COI. (If I thought a COI should automatically disqualify an editor, I'd advocate banning Tilman and ChrisO from the same articles because of their off-wiki websites. They are able to leave their COIs off wiki and play by the rules which is all I'm asking of you and other CoS members.) Anynobody03:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, we can go round and round but I think that your preoccupation with me speaks for itself. Anytime you get the chance you want to talk about me and whatever transgressions you imagine that I have committed. Let me just be clear about what I want from you.
Desired outcome - I want you to stop referring to any of my past edits. If, by some chance, we intersect somewhere and you have an objection to something I did or said in the present (like whatever the present context is, i.e. in the arb you could discuss anything I mention over the course of the arb or the events directly leading up to it) then feel free to discuss it if you feel the need. I will address it with you and other editors as necessary and in its proper time. I want you to quit wasting my time and the time of others by referencing what I may have done in the past. I want you to let the past stay in the past. Because when you, Anynobody, reference the past, you, in my experience, take things out-of-context, misunderstand them, and misrepresent them. This (from above):
"You also have a tendency to be less than the good faith editor you claim to be: User talk: ChrisO, 4 May 2007...every crank with a webpage... Calling anyone an internet crank, doesn't sound like assumption of good faith to me."
is an excellent example of your taking something out-of-context, misunderstanding it, and misrepresenting it; but you would either have everyone involved waste their time by figuring that out or, if they take it on face value, you mislead them into perhaps thinking ill of me or taking unwarranted action against me. That harms me as an editor here and you have to stop that. So we can either do it here or we can do it elsewhere. If you agree to my proposal then we are done here and we will have settled something. If not, we can pursue it elsewhere. Please let me know your preference. --Justanother05:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason you keep making the conversation go round and round is that you are unable to acknowledge your role in the disruption and conflict all comes from your WP:COI/temper.
Justanother as long as you keep repeating your past behavior during our current interactions I will be forced to keep pointing out the fact that essentially nothing has changed in the way you treat others, understand policies, or edit articles. This is what documenting a recurring pattern of behavior is all about. Anynobody05:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Then you are refusing my good-faith effort to settle this. OK. Effort over.
Re the subject comment, since you are the one bringing it up as an example then one would assume that you understand the comment and its context. You say I exhibited bad faith by calling someone an "internet crank". Just whom am I calling an "internet crank"? --Justanother14:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Your effort could be a product of good faith, but it is flawed. A person's past is almost always relevant to their current behavior, and I'll give an example. Imagine Barbara Schwarz were to sue David Miscavige for wrongful death because Mark Rathbun (who she thinks he is, not the real guy who she said isn't him) must have been murdered (again, this is part of an example I'm not really saying he's dead) by him or the CoS. Don't you think the church's lawyers would point out her history of irrational litigation? If you look at the diffs I provided in the begining, they were related to your other "concerns" on my page. It's the same principle...
As to the context issue of your comment, it's kind of funny you'd want me to add context where there was none (based on your answer). When you make vague, attack type comments it's not my burden to point out who I thought you were talking to.The point is that the comment was an uncivil probable attack which for some reason (goes towards context) you added to another editor's talk page. Why did you make the post at all if you don't know who you were talking to? Anynobody23:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I knew exactly what I was referring to and I daresay that the involved parties also knew. That is the problem, AN, when you, knowing nothing of the context, want to pull something out and hold it against me. If I had said something untoward there then one of the involved parties would have likely mentioned it since almost all of them over in that conversation were/are critics of Scientology. My point simply being that you are clueless as to what I was saying or who I was directing it at and you prove that cluelessness by not having the faintest idea of what the context may have been and, I guess, that you cannot be bothered to figure it out before accusing me (wrongfully) of something. Shame on you, Anynobody. --Justanother00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It's actually pretty simple; Either you know who you were calling an "internet crank" and can add context which justifies the the term, or you can't. "Critics of Scientology" as stated by you could mean almost anyone. Anynobody00:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You have it backwards, if you want to accuse me of something then you should inform yourself of the context. Less than that is just careless negligence on your part. --Justanother00:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF then, explain what the context(why who you were talking to deserved it) was and I'll apologize if I misunderstood your intentions. Anynobody01:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh good, I looove apologies and have no problem handing them out myself where warranted. The quote marks, AN! Those were not my words, those were Wikipediatrix' words, diff. I was simply tickled that she said that.
"For reasons already explained to you, it doesn't matter whether Tilman is right or wrong about the NWO issue. WP:EL spells out link criteria in order to keep every crank with a webpage from turning Wikipedia into their own personal linkfarm, and so far the consensus seems to be that Snoeck's amateurish personal sites don't pass muster. wikipediatrix 19:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)" (emphasis added)
Context, my friend, it is all in the context. You would turn a good-natured moment with some of my more respected "opponents" into something nefarious. It is a waste of time, AN. Just let the past stay in the past, assume that if anything terrible happened in the past that there were plenty of editors that would have loved to trip me up, and just worry about the present and the future; that is enough to keep us all busy without rehashing the past over and over again. --Justanother01:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that you have a tendency to use editors words against them, and you know that ChrisO authored a site which could easily be interpreted as who you were talking to, Ron the War Hero. Moreover The quote I'm talking about happened May 4th, and you are pointing out a quote from five days before on a different page.
"The quote I'm talking about happened May 4th, and you are pointing out a quote from five days before on a different page." It ain't rocket science, AN. The link to the discussion with the relevant bit by Wikipediatrix can be found in the same ChrisO topic just a bit above my post. But here is the real problem . . . You ain't the wiki-mommy, AN. We are grown-ups here and ChrisO and Wikipediatix and Tilman are certainly experienced editors that can hold their own in a discussion. If they have a problem with my communication to them then they can and will address it; I can show you plenty of diffs where they did just that. It ain't your job to come by months later and go "oooh oooh, look what Justanother said". That is an awful lot like stalking me and I want it to stop now. I don't want to hear anything from you about my past edits, especially those that did not directly affect you. Because all you are doing is taking material out of context and making mountains out of molehills. So please stop. This is the last time I will ask you to stop here on your talk page. I guess I won't be getting that apology, will I? --Justanother03:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, it's ok to assume some things about editors...
...We are grown-ups here and ChrisO and Wikipediatix and Tilman are certainly experienced editors that can hold their own in a discussion...
I'm sorry you feel "wronged", but your answers didn't convince me I was or am incorrect in what I'm saying. As you know, if you had made a convincing point or had some evidence I wouldn't hesitate to apologize for pointing out your non-compliance with several wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've done it before, remember so please don't think I'm just being stubborn. Anynobody03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Response
In response to your question on my userpage, a few of us were unhappy about some remarks JzG made and there was a heated discussion raging at a few places. Nick warned me several times to stop (which I strongly disagreed with - because it appeared to me they were trying to sweep it under the rug) and when he saw my message to Durova he assumed I was forum shopping. I wasn't forum shopping - I approached Durova only because she was helpful last time JzG had civility problems.
Durova handled it, and it's over. I think Nick overstepped and I disagree with a lot of what he did, but it was in the context of a heated discussion. Thanks, BTW, for your concern. ATren14:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy that the situation itself was resolved, though I have seen that sort of behavior from an admin before. I'm involved in quite a few things at the moment, but I want to get some kind of discussion going to find out who else this has happened to. Would you mind if I mention this incident when I do? Anynobody23:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I really appreciate your time and feedback, I have more specific comments of course but will need bit of time to compose them. (I just don't want you to think I'm ignoring you) Anynobody23:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted you
I have reverted your archive edit to Smee's page. I think it's inappropriate to add archiving on someone's page without their request (especially while they're on wikibreak). If you have had off-wiki communication that requested your edit, then feel free to put it back. Otherwise, I would find it very presumptuous if someone did that to my page. And I would be rather annoyed to come back from wikibreak to find everything archived somewhere. Then again, perhaps you have a closer relationship to Smee than I realize. In either case, I'm letting you know that I reverted it and you can take whatever action from here you deem appropriate. Peace.Lsijohn12:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand your logic, but it is flawed by the fact you do not have all the information relevant to this situation. Basically, Smee asked me to take care of her pages while on break. diff I understand it was an honest mistake, so I'll give you a chance to revert yourself and note your error. Anynobody22:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Given the amount of editing and time that passed, I corrected your mistake as it became obvious you didn't intend to. Durova, I'm not expecting you to apologize, because I know now that your vanity won't permit it. I have to point out your double standard... Nobody (in authority) has actually said Durova did anything wrong so she wouldn't really have a reason to apologize yet Meanwhile you revert an edit, citing your own personal preference, to an away editor's talk page which they asked me to take care of. When it was explained, and proven, you were mistaken the error you made went uncorrected or apologized for.
If it was a mistake made in a honest concern that I was oversteping my role, it would have been a simple matter to say something like ...sorry about that, I didn't know. unless one of these next possibilities are true:
Your vanity won't even let you acknowledge imperfection. or
Hey, I'm just curious: are you still locked out of your old account? It's been months now, hasn't it? Can't someone reset your password for you? ATren12:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Close to it, I think it was like June 21st or somewhere around. I had assumed in the beginning it wouldn't take so long either, but supposedly there is one person handling these requests. At first I was skeptical but when I was referred by both tech support and the WP:BN I guess they are right, if so I don't wanna be one of those "what's taking you so long" people until August. So far the only inconvenience is mine, and I deserve it because if I had just registered my e-mail it would not have been a problem. Anynobody00:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Just Humor Me
Could you move the images that are covering your page titles. They also block things like the "preview" alert message when editing. These images are bad for usability and provide a very silly reason for people to distrust you. But why give them that reason?
If you are concerned about your effectiveness at arbitration, go through everything you've posted, and strike out anything that could be snarky or unfair. If you've made any mistakes, admit them and apologize. JehochmanTalk03:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
About the images, I'll study on it but I have two questions:
That's odd, the preview alert message is visible to me... the only invisible part is where it says Editing User talk:etc. The preview alert shows up below it, and this only happens during page level editing. I'm not trying to troubleshoot or tell you how to work around it, but want to know for the future how the interference is happening on your end. Do you happen to know what screen resolution your computer uses?
2. Who distrusts me, and why? If I was signing Anynobody04:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC) and the link took someone to User:Anyeverybody I'd probably appear more like a hijacker. I contribute more graphics than many editors, and if you follow it's link back to the commons, history shows that commons:User:Anynobody is the author too.
Regarding the arbcom:
I honestly don't mean to sound arrogant but I don't think I've made any related to policy or anything like that. The errors I think I've made have caused misunderstanding of my motives, which another apology is unlikely to fix (but more likely to cause further misunderstanding.) Knowing me the way I do, the wording I use is fair and honest. A person who doesn't know me has to interpret the words for themselves, example (emphasis, italics intended to illustrate verbal tone):
Negative connotation:Nice hat,Bob. or Nice hat, Bob.
Positive connotation:Nice hat, Bob. or Nice hat, Bob.
I feel like a #2 coming off as a #1 because online all that shows up most of the time, Nice hat, Bob. and we decide how to interpret it, if we were Bob. Anynobody04:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thresher GIF
Awesome image! But I can only seem to see it when clicking it on, otherwise in the Thresher article, it's just an outline with an X on it for some reason. Otherwise, cool idea, although it is of course unfortunate that it concerns such a tragic event. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!03:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much :) I forgot to add a pause, and so had to upload a newer version (which is what you see when you select the X). The page usually sorts itself out within a few hours.
I'm happy to know I'm not the only one who thinks of it as tragic. I have another version where the view shakes and lots of bubbles come up once the sub goes out of view. I'm trying to find out where the air discharges on those subs because I want to add a few bubbles to show that a little bit of air got out before the valves froze. When I do update the animation, do you suppose the coup de grâce would be too much? Anynobody05:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would be too much. I believe I read somewhere that Wikipedia is not censored and people should not be given a watered down version of events. If an event is tragic, people should see why. When I show war films in class, I don't censor out violence and gore, because they are part of war. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!05:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
That's an excellent point, and now that I think about it I'm surprised at myself for not including them in the first place. I've believed for a while that depictions of war, for the most part, aren't "realistic" enough. This has the effect of numbing the general masses to just what it means to be at war. I've also wondered if more people knew the reality of World War II was more like shrapnel, "multiple wounds" and "partial decapitation byHE shell" than it was The Longest Day, Patton, or others if the Vietnam War would have gone on as long as it did (or even happened). Anynobody08:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Intro scn.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the duplication of wikilinks on endothermic. I have now removed the duplicate wikilinks from the see also section from both articles as per WP:MOS. WLU11:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The idea of not trying to resolve disagreements sounds very inconsistent with the dispute resolution process. I also find your warning strange since it doesn't seem to say anywhere that one user can ask another not to post on their talk page. If I'm wrong, show me the rule that says so. Anynobody01:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, judging from the comments, I'd say the attempt to resolve the dispute via talk pages has run its course. Politely respecting Bishonen's wishes would be preferable to demanding I point out to you where it says you must. Yomanganitalk01:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The only way to work out a dispute here is by discussion, this and the fact that it's only fair to let her know if if this issue comes up elsewhere. Instead of complying with the unreasonable request I have instead limited posting there unless absolutely necessary.
(On an unrelated note, when posting a warning to a user's talk page it is helpful to refer that user to the policy/guideline which backs up said warning. Otherwise it comes off as your opinion, which more sensitive editors might regard as trolling.) Anynobody01:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
About explaining stuff
Ah, I see you accusing Yomangani of trolling above, that's nice. As for asking him to point out "the rule that says so"—do you really think it's wise to give the ArbCom such a perfect and so to speak live example of what I say about your debating technique in my evidence...? It's up to you, of course. I really came here to ask what's the matter with you, to keep on and on asking me to explain stuff—most recently on the Evidence page itself—instead of clicking on the ever-loving links I give you in my responses? Do you take them for decoration? I'd much rather not try to explain to you in my own words, yet again, what "an uncertified RfC" is, since I know that's the way to get you arguing and assuring me that you know better. Therefore I instead linked you to the official definition of "uncertified" on the RfC main page. Linked here, in my recent reply to you on my page (gee, talk about déjà vu[12]):
I've explained amply and repeatedly; so have others; so does this. Do you recollect my last remark to you on this page in June? The one where I request you not to post on this page any more? Here it is. I accepted your previous post, because it seemed sort of fair that you'd want to comment on my evidence. But that doesn't mean I'm going to be drawn into arguing with you. No, no... been there...[starts to tear out her hair.] Don't post on my page any more, please.
See the link in my post there? The first link. The one that leads to the heading "Uncertified user RfCs" on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page? Sounds interesting? Immediately below the heading is this definition:
"Requests for comment which do not meet the minimum requirements 48 hours after creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users for the minimum requirements. The subject RFC page will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained."
I realize you must have seen it before. But when you're sure you already know, I understand that it can be difficult to take stuff in. All clear now, I hope. If not, please don't come to me for more, read the instructions on the RfC pages and try to have an epiphany. Bishonen | talk15:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC).
Bishonen I assure you I have read your links, as I had assumed you have read the ones I've included.
Here's your policy link:
Requests for comment which do not meet the minimum requirements 48 hours after creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users for the minimum requirements. The subject RFC page will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained.
Here's why I believe you are applying this incorrectly:
You and your friend Bunchofgrapes have never explained why you applied the rule for the uncertified section (red) to the certfied section (green). I'm starting to think you are ignoring my links and just repeating yourself so please if you haven't already take a look at the RfC/U page before you delisted Justanother's.
Also I am not accusing the above editor of anything, when I say more sensitive editors could consider it trolling I mean that. (I'm not that sensitive but some are).
Anynobody, no remedy is available for what is now quite an ancient grievance, even if your position were correct, which I do not believe it is. Why, why, why have you not long since dropped this matter? Newyorkbrad23:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I more or less have dropped it in the sense that I won't bring it up, but will discuss it when someone else does. (Bishonen actually mentioned it in the Arbcom we're involved in, and honestly I've never gotten an answer which addresses my arguments otherwise I'd completely let it go). Anynobody23:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Any, this is the type of situation where it really helps you to have a formal mentor. As I've said before, all of us who are named parties should expect to have our actions scrutinized. There's a point of diminishing returns where it's best to back off and let the Committee evaluate things. One of the things I'd ask if I were an arbitrator is how well you accept feedback and adjust your approach to problem solving. DurovaCharge!04:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I welcome scrutiny from uninvolved editors; Honestly if someone could just explain why what Bishonen did was not an error I'd be satisfied. What would having a mentor do for me in this situation? Anynobody05:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello again
Hello again, Anyeverybody. Last time we communicated, you were Anynobody, so I hope that I'm in the right place. I also see that you're on editor review so I'll add my tuppence-worth in due course.
I've got a small issue which you would be much better at handling than I would because you have more experience and I trust your judgment based on our past dealing; I'd be very grateful if you might please spare 5 minutes getting up to speed and giving some advice.
Basically: a new editor, Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk·contribs·logs), has unfortunately blundered into a nasty situation concerning Provisional IRA-related articles. This whole area has been a running sore for the last year or so with edit-warring and incivility between Irish and English/ Scottish editors. (If you remember, this is where I picked up my ban.) There are 4 Admins involved in keeping a lid on the issue: John, Tyrenius, Rockpocket, and SirFozzie. SirFozzie has started to institute a zero-tolerance policy, and the new editor has begun to find himself getting block warnings, etc., for what would ordinarily be considered fairly innocuous comments.
I've offered Biofoundationsoflanguage some fairly standard advice - keep calm, don't react, etc. (see my Talk page) - but I wondered whether you could give some pointers. It'd be nice not to lose an editor before he's had much of a chance to contribute! Anyway, if you could help, I'd be very grateful; frankly I'd be a bit out of my depth and you not being an Admin would actually be an advantage. If you can help, many thanks. --Major Bonkers(talk)15:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for yours - most of the advice I gave, I simply took from you! I think that the problems with the IRA articles are v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y sorting themselves out. As I said to Biofoundationsoflanguage, however bad you think these articles are now, they're a hundred times better than they were a year ago. Unfortunately - as he found out - those entering forbidden territory tend to get chased away.
One good thing about The War on Terror is that we British don't have to put up with Melvin Gibson movies anymore. Every cloud has a silver lining! And yes, I frequently lock myself out of my house, and have to climb over my neighbour's wall to get in (I've twice had to break my back door down).
Thank you for the link, it is proof that madness and genius are indeed separated by a thin line. He's 100% right about the gameish nature of Wikipedia. It's just like a free MMORPG based on information and communication skills. PS I'm not so sure it's the war on terror so much as Gibson's DUI incident keeping him from assaulting our senses. (Don't get me wrong, Mad Max, Lethal Weapon and some of his other movies were great action flicks). Anynobody22:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of it's AfD status nor it's existence actually but I looked at it, fixed a reference, and voted to keep. Unfortunately I don't know who else you could contact about it, Smee only asked me to keep an eye on her user pages. However I do have a couple of suggestions,
1 You could check the history page to see who else has been editing it, I'm sorry I don't have time to do the research myself but can point you in the right direction. Here is a link to the last 500 edits in the article's history, they go back to October 2006, so it hasn't been edited that much. (I've seen articles where the last 500 edits barely go back a month)
2 Make sure you mention it to editors on all sides of the issue, in order to avoid accusations of canvassing.
This is a time when laziness actually paid off, I didn't even realize I still had your page on my watchlist. I'm glad I was lazy ;) Anynobody22:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The biter bit
I take it that you've seen this. I have never crossed swords with Guy, but I have noticed him on AN/I handing out blocks at the drop of a hat and being bloody rude and dismissive while doing so. A 40-day block, for example, for a relatively minor piece of incivility, was accompanied by a 'fuck off' to the editor in question and a dismissive comment on AN/I: If [...] someone wants to unblock him then fine (see here). And yet, after his own block for wheel-warring, he's reposted his User page and seems to be on a Wiki-break.
I don't comment on the rightness or wrongness of either block; but I do note the irony that, having handed out so many blocks himself and so casually, he has finally appreciated the sense of grievance caused by such summary 'justice'. In point of fact, he has been treated much better by his peers than he ever treated other editors.--Major Bonkers(talk)12:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Your post implies you aren't getting any pleasure out of seeing him receive a dose of his own medicine, and I too appreciate the irony of the situation for the same reason. Throwing a tantrum about it is IMHO even worse than being blocked, it shows immaturity.
I'd really like to think that he learned his behavior has been causing the desire in editors to do just what he's doing now. Cynicism makes me believe it to be more likely he's merely pissed off about this perceived miscarriage of justice given all of his service. Anynobody23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not mathematically talented, and I was kinda afraid I'd misapply it somehow so don't be shy about putting them where they'd be most appropriate. (I was just messing around and thought the end result looked cooler than the original.) Anynobody 09:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The new image
Thanks for uploading Image:Intro scn.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
what I would have told you if he hadn't already.
){kind=link}