User talk:Anynobody/Sandbox

User:Orsini I was planning to have this page deleted, as it appears to have served the purpose I created it for. I like your idea to use it as an example to discuss editing proposals. Should a new section be created on the Barbara Schwarz talk page about this? Anynobody 04:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, great idea. Thank you for setting up this page.  Orsini 21:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

First draft
This is a draft mostly by Orsini, I have changed the wording in the section regarding USENET posts for the sake of brevity. Anynobody 06:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention this but naturally I support the page as Orsini has arranged it. Anynobody 06:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Schwarz's Usenet activity and ban from SLC libraries is not inherently notable and, frankly, Orsini's reintroduction of it slants the article towards being an attack piece. That section needs to come out and stay out. -- ChrisO 19:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the section about her USENET flamewar activity in general, or her 92 part autobiography? Anynobody 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Usenet flamewar activity. It's not remotely notable by itself, and I don't see how it has any bearing on her FOIA campaign. -- ChrisO 22:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ChrisO, I'm afraid I still do not agree with your assessment as to the reason for its inclusion. Had her flamewar activity on the Usenet been the core issue, I would agree it should come out, but the core issue of the citation remains one of internet abuse, not flamewars.   Her flamewars on the Usenet are not cited as such in the draft article.  Schwarz's banning from the SLC libraries was due to the abuse of that facility for spamming, and that is inherently notable, by reason that her actions alone resulted in the blocklisting of large amounts of UEN IP ranges.  As previously discussed on the article Talk page, it is not unusual for people to be banned from the use of library privileges; it is notable and unusual however that the action of one user could cause widespread effects upon a State government facility.  It is also notable the UEN were at a loss as to how to deal with her internet abuse until the blocklisting was applied.  While this issue has no bearing on her FOIA campaigns, it may offer some insight on how she treated these public facilities, which were done in a similar manner to how she treated the court system and the FOIA process.  Tilman also stated that he did not agree with the truncation and removal of this section, and Fred Bauder has stated She is a notable Usenet personality. There would appear to be a consensus from contributing editors to support its re-inclusion.  Orsini 22:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Excessive posting on Usenet, or elsewhere on the Internet, is good evidence of a person's unimportance. :-)  Steve Dufour 16:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point
Sorry, but I don't. Why would I want to expend my effort in a fight over here when this is not the article. We know that we have differences. They are not likely to resolve easily as I think they are fundamental differences of understanding of wikipedia basic policies. They will only be resolved on a point-by-point basis by coming to some agreement on what will stand as community consensus and that will likely take a number of visits to the BLP noticeboard but please with a concise question each time and not a bunch of allegations, doubts, suppositions, what-have-you. --Justanother 22:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be right Justanother, the only resolution may be on the WP:BLPN. However i personally have not given up on this being a big misunderstanding, if so perhaps illustrating the edits we've been talking about may help to make things clearer. Of course you don't have to participate if you don't want to, but I noticed the noticeboard is very backlogged. It could take a while before action is taken. Justanother if my belief that you are unconsciously trying to keep information you deem to show Scientology in a negative way out of the article is wrong, I am willing to look at proof to the contrary. Understand that it was your general allegations about editors and their agendas as well as how your attitude appears to change when discussing information that doesn't reflect positively on the church that caused my concern. Anynobody 22:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My attitude changes when I am faced with obvious bigotry, attacks, attempts to marginalize me, and editors that are willing to break any rule here to get as many non-RS slams in against Scientology as they can. Other than that, I am a total pussycat. Witness my dealings with any number of editors and admins here that I have excellent reason to believe are devoted to harming something that I and my loved ones believe in and consider important. But so long as they can control themselves here then I can play nice with them. Obey the rules here and be polite and we will get along fine. Don't and reap what you sow. I do not think that you will find a case where I "started it". But please note that my feelings on this are changing and I am hoping that, as more NPOV editors take an interest in the Scientology articles, that those editors and admins will provide the "social control" needed to restrain the more outrageous actions of the few and I can be more sanguine about it all. Sorry, but I am not interested in proving anything to you. If you cannot figure out what I am about by my words and actions here then I guess you cannot. Or if you think that you already have, then I guess that you do. Think so, that is. --Justanother 23:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Justanother you are correct about not having to prove anything to me or anyone else if you don't want to, but I have two questions for you. 1) You've proven me wrong in the past when I thought the AfD discussion with User:BabyDweezil was only on your talk page, I'm curious why you won't in this case? 2) If Barbara Schwarz was a Christian but otherwise had the same background would you be editing her page and if so why? Anynobody 02:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Some changes
I just made some changes. I hope my edit summaries explained them well enough. Please let me know what you think. (I also considered adding the tags for speedy deletion as non-notable and as an attack article as the finishing touch. :-)) Steve Dufour 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I preferred the article before the edits, however this is part of the point. Is it fair to post a link on the WP:BLPN indicating this is how you feel the page should look? Anynobody 21:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds fair to me. Steve Dufour 03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A link to your version Steve Dufour. Anynobody 05:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)