User talk:Justanother/Archive2

Edit summary
Justanother, I'm a little concerned about your edit summary: "even a "wog" judge saw him as a liar ..." Perhaps you were quoting someone. Could you explain, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi; What exactly is the issue here? What are you accusing me of?--Justanother 22:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm asking what the phrase "even a 'wog' judge" means. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wog is an inside term to both Scientologists and critics of Scientology that means a non-Scientologist. I was making the point that even a non-Scientologist judge saw this guy as a liar; that this opinion was not exclusive to Scientologists.--Justanother 22:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of its use by a critic [I provided the writings to Omar Garrison, a wog ® writer with whom $cientology had contracted to write Hubbard's "authorized biography." http://www.holysmoke.org/ga/ga07.htm] (the ® mark is the critic's little joke as he has created "The Church of the WOG" or somesuch).--Justanother 22:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's probably best to avoid it, especially in edit summaries out of context; the Scientology def appears to have derived from the other one anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of its use by a critic I provided the writings to Omar Garrison, a wog ® writer with whom $cientology had contracted to write Hubbard's "authorized biography." (the ® mark is the critic's little joke as he has created "The Church of the WOG" or somesuch). Sorry if I seem a bit defensive; perhaps it is understandable. You are right, I won't use it again. Also I have resolved to be "kinder and gentler".  BTW, would you please unblock me? Thanks--Justanother 22:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin; I am not blocked - did you unblock me or did it run out? BTW, please unprotect the Celeb page. There is no current dispute and I am appreciative of Antaeus' last edit. Thanks--Justanother 22:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The block should have expired by now. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I had hoped that you had unblocked me. OK, thanks--Justanother 22:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images
Hi. I have removed Image:Scientology new style logo.png from your user page. Please see BigDT 23:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. OK, I wondered about that. I grabbed it from the "I am a Scientologist" userbox in the userbox archive. Did you get that one too?--Justanother 23:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That particular image was only being used on your user page and an article. If there is another Scientology image being used on a userbox somewhere, by all means, remove it and leave a note that the removal is persuant to WP:FAIR. BigDT 04:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

BLP policy violations
Please place BLP policy violations notices at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard rather than dealing with them yourself. Thank you. WAS 4.250 16:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on Jimbo's talk page
Hey, two things. ;-) First off, it was EngineerScotty, not Jimbo that answered you. Second, you forgot to sign your comment. Happy editing. --D e lta Tango | Talk 23:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I fixed it. Jimbo responded on the article talk page. Best wishes--Justanother 23:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Advice: Just be Cool
Justanother, I think you will find that if you stay diplomatic here on wikipedia, you will, for the most part, stay out of trouble. Stay out of edit wars and take disputes to the talk pages. --Fahrenheit451 22:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks 451, I am endeavoring to be "kinder and gentler" and that certainly includes being more diplomatic. Whether that will lead to staying out of trouble, well I doubt that.  But I am not afraid of trouble. I will, however, try to not bring it on myself by indulging in sarcasm as I have on occasion done previous; that is certainly not helpful. My only defense is I was a bit surprised by my reception here as I was unaware of the history and thought that Scientology was oddly presented simply because there were not many Scientologist's taking any responsibility for the presentation. It felt a lot like ARS there for a moment and I gave up posting there many years ago. Maybe I got a bit restimulated. Take care--Justanother 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Request
I have no problem whatsoever in helping you and I have read the articles in question. They do transcribe well, however I am concerned about these letters and how they deduce to "accredidation". It seems to me that the government is simply allowing these people to undergo training in AS should it be required for them to do so. It doesn't cite any particular approval or merit of AS as a fruitful method of teaching. I'm not suggesting that it isn't, as I don't have much knowledge in the practise, I'm just acknowledging that no implication can be derived from the text. Religion and philosophy are very interesting faculties, and I'm glad to see that we have that in common. One thing I will say from experience however, is that it's important to approach everything with a sceptical eye and not to rush to "logical conclusions". Coincedence is something exploited by all faculties, and before asserting that one is part of any organisation, one must first make sure that our conclusions are our own. Even the smallest piece of information can be bent into propaganda, so whatever decisions you make (and I respect them either way) just make sure it is well informed and that you have read both arguments. If you require any help or assistance on other articles don't hesitate to contact me :) xo Girl-razor 14:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

DBTN
OK, I'm guessing you're referring to this edit. I don't see how it's "biting" anyone to say that these underscores are not needed and their use sometimes makes people think they are, and that then they sometimes add them to visible links. If I fix a typo in a newly added paragraph, and summarize the edit by saying "typo", that in no way implies that all the person did was create a typo where none was before. It would never have occurred to me that anyone would interpret my words that way. Michael Hardy 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is funny. I think I am too sensitive from editing in the Scientology series and being chewed on from my first edit (laff).  I misinterpreted your "sometimes make newbies think they're needed" - I thought you meant that newbies added unnecessary underscores (i.e. unnecessary edits) to feel needed. I see it the other way now, sorry for the mistake. But a good example of why it is best to mention upsets with another editor; often it is probably just a misunderstanding. Better we switch to Lojban, I guess. --Justanother 20:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive
I moved your new archive out of the main space to User talk:Justanother/Archive1. &mdash;Xezbeth 14:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was just trying to figure out how to request that! My bad.--Justanother 14:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Scientology

 * It's a simple descriptive piece, verbatim from the Scientology first paragraph. But I don't want to get involved in this whole debate, I'm not an expert on the issue.  I would prefer you don't revert, I think my edit is a fairly neutral compromise between what you want and what your opposing camp wants, but I will let this edit hopefully shift the conversation a little bit towards compromise/neutrality.  Thanks for the friendly comment, and nice to make your acquaintance!  (By the way, I love some of your commentary on your user page, I heavily agree with you on the "wikilawyering" thing.  I have been accused of that too, when all I usually want is to discuss an issue.  And though I don't get Scientology lingo, I like your "hat-writeup" piece, very informative).  Yours, Smeelgova 16:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the comments, I'll take a look at the CPR article when I get a chance. Perhaps email would be a better medium for me to ask you some more questions about Scientology?  As far as Wikipedia and Scientology and me goes, So far I've just been adding infoboxes on the Scientology articles, not too much controversial there I hope.  Yours, Smeelgova 17:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Barnstar, thanks for being kind
(Feel free to put on your user page if you wish)Smeelgova 18:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

remember what you said about...?
Well last measure now is AFD. Anomo 10:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI: discussion about Terryeo's ban and psychiatry
Hello, Justanother. Wikipediatrix sent me a note expressing her concern, given Terryeo's editing ban, about your appeal to Terryeo to edit the psychiatry article to better reflect the Scientology perspective. FYI, I posted the following on her user page: "Hi, Wikipediatrix. You raise a good question. Given Scientology's anti-Psychiatry doctrine, it seems correct to say that articles on psychiatry fall into the "Scientology-related" category for purposes of that ban. I do think that some sort of communication to Terryeo (and Justanother) about this is called for--in my opinion, it isn't such a self-evident breach of the ban that they should just be censured without warning if Terryeo makes an edit. Disappointing to me that Justanother is suggesting such a thing to Terryeo--in general, Justanother seems the most reasonable and competent Scientologist editor to have appeared at Wikipedia. Enlisting Terryeo to sneak around his ban (indeed, teaming with Terryeo at all) undermines his credibility." BTfromLA 21:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussion is taking place on BT's page. --Justanother 22:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fiat X1/9
You said, "remove odd concept that every mid-engined two-seater is a version of the X1/9. If you really like that idea you need to source it". First of all, not every mid-engined two-seater was listed, so the only odd bit are your own concepts here. The MR2 and Fiero were both well-known knockoffs of the X1/9. If one is even mildy familiar with the X1/9 and Mk1 MR2, you can see that huge segments of the hardware design were simply translated over.
 * No big deal. If you like it, source it and put it back. Otherwise it is what we call "original research", i.e. your opinion and that is not allowed here. --Justanother 13:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A-jacks
Good look on improving the A-jack page.Mikelj 00:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

BitTorrent

 * I saw your trouble on the The Bridge (film) page and I created a section on the talk page. Why don't y'all try to discuss the torrent issue on the discussion page instead of those long edit summaries?  Just trying to smooth things out between you guys.  Yours, Joe1141 19:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

my AFD for Jewish International Defence League
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what the exact difference is... but no worries... I still think its a bad hoax... V. Joe 23:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Cheers, etc... Good luck with the psychiatry controversy as well... V. Joe 23:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Bridge video on BitTorent
I've removed the mention of BitTorrent from the article. I would just advise against calling the other editors' edits vandalism, it's a content dispute. Vpoko 14:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted his changes again. I agree that the user seems like a sockpuppet. If you have time, I would suggest going through the steps of reporting him (I would do it myself but I'm at work and don't have the time right now). Vpoko 15:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

meanwhile...
...I still your time would be better spent helping Scientology by adding doctrinal information to the encyclopedia, rather than harping on words like "controversial" and whether Helena Kobrin is "infamous" on Usenet. Wikipedia still needs more info about The Bridge to total freedom, KRC Triangle, Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology Axioms, Scientology bibliography, Scientology bracelets, Scientology awards, Scientology filmography, etc. .... wikipediatrix

Is this a friend?
Are you chatting with a friend or something at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk? You might want to know that this editor has made repeated nonsense edits and has been blocked for disruption, see User talk:Theavatar3. Friday (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for what I assume is a good faith warning but I don't place preconditions on whom I am willing to communicate to nor do I judge another on anything more than what I have observed for myself. You, perhaps having some experience with the user, may have formed an opinion regarding him that I do not share. --Justanother 01:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a tremendously useful approach to take, in my opinion! Absolutely we should judge for ourselves and not listen to hearsay.  If you wish to look at Theavatar3's talk page, or contributions, you can do exactly that.  Here's a set of links: Theavatar3 (talk • contribs • [ logs ] • block user • [ block log ]) .  Enjoy. Friday (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You will perhaps excuse me if I don't review that material. It has no bearing on my acknowledging him for an idea that I developed to make the point that I cared to make in a humorous fashion. And it would certainly have zero bearing on any friendly or personal relationship that I might have with him. In the unlikely event that I am ever called upon to comment on his history here I will be happy to review it at that time. --Justanother 02:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow you entirely. But, you're saying you do know him, then?  Would you do me a personal favor and try to apply social pressure to get him to cut it out?  It's more effective than technical means.  Thanks. Friday (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not saying anything of the sort. All due respect, but whom I know or don't know is none of your business and I do not really care to continue this discussion as I do not think it reflects well on anyone which is why I did us all the courtesy of archiving this thread and I will do so again as soon as we are finished. I do support your efforts to improve the Ref Desks especially in light of your seeming willingness to change your behavior which is a quality I highly respect. --Justanother 17:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed in general principal- however if you have some connection to vandals, this is of concern to all editors. But I'll not belabor the point- I will ask however that you keep the chatting somewhere other than Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk- we're trying very hard to move forward, and keeping things on-topic is helpful. Friday (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that I am among the most helpful editors on the Misc. Desk and not particularly given to idle chatter (just a bit) so I really do not see the (perhaps gentle) chastisement inherent in your request as justified. --Justanother 18:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh. If this is a rare occurrance I suppose I didn't even need to ask.   Thanks.  Friday (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not say "rare". I just feel "not excessive". --Justanother 18:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)