User talk:Justanother/Archive6

Welcome to Countering Systemic Bias in Religion!
I like you! NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs ] • email ) 03:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the song - I'm going to check that guy out. You're right, that would be an excellent theme song. I like the second verse:).
 * As for my troubles - worry not my friend. I got my computer professionally set up with all the latest (should have done it a while back, though). Cheers and sunshine! NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs ] • email ) 03:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply
First off, you know nothing about the situation under which I said that. Second off, do NOT try to 'scold' me and evaluate my behavior. You sound like someone who has done some Scientology training or processing and has let it go to their head a little bit, and now takes every thing they learn extremely literally. If somebody is repeatedly undoing the improvements in structure and layout I have done to a page because they started the page and they don't like someone fixing 'their' page, but using the reason that it just doesn't need to be changed (when it does because of recent progress in the subject changing the matter of importance), it bugs me that they would be so petty, and yes,someone who is letting something like that get in the way of what would be better for wikipedia, yes that IS a bit of a power trip or a bit of a control issue, or something along those lines, and I am not okay with things like that. Johnpedia 06:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow
Thanks! You are SO amazing! I am in awe of your skills and everything you have learnt in Scientology! You really are a hero, and I wish all of us could be a bit more like you! Continue this subconscious feeling of superiority to other people and eagarness to show off, it's great. You're abusive to everything that Scientology is about. It's about learning things for your own and adapting them into your own and using it as a tool for yourself, not becoming what you learn and getting further away from yourself, so you come off quite ridiculous without even realizing it. Oh yeah and all the lies about Scientology on wikipedia don't even really matter,if someone is going to get into Scientology, they're not going to be thrownoff by an encyclopedia that is known for being inaccurate because its written by anyone with a computer, and you take it so seriously like it's really going to affect things and this is some warzone we need to fight, it's not going to stop scientology so don't worry about itJohnpedia 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Wrong target? Don't tell me what the 'target' is, you don't decide that for people. I barely come on wikipedia as is so threaten me all you like, and what is the purpose of telling your friend about this and asking him to come say something to me on my talk page? are you trying to bore me ? Johnpedia 09:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, my last post, is cause for you to post something on mine saying last warning I'm going to be banned? I didn't 'accuse' you of enlisting someone else, I thought you had but you didn't it turns out, so basically by saying "are you trying to bore me?" that is why you are threatening to ban me? YOU KEEP POSTING ON MY TALK PAGE. STOP POSTING AND COMPLAINING AND THEN POSTING AGAIN. I'm not doing anything wrong. Take some responsibility Johnpedia 11:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Keeping my distance
Just moved my note from above down here to avoid confusion with Johnpedia's replies: Hey, I hope you have no objection to my jumping into that discussion--I spotted the exchange and thought that it should be made clear to him that the problem wasn't restricted to a question of what makes a good Scientologist. Of course, others had asked him to be civil already, so maybe it wasn't needed. I've been poking around Wikipedia again the past few days--procrastinating on multiple projects, I won't be able to do this for long--and I find myself growing increasingly frustrated by the large number of users, including admins, who don't seem to have reached the age of majority, and behave accordingly... If I stick around, I'm afraid I'm going to turn into the cranky old man with the shotgun, screaming "get off my lawn!" at the neighborhood kids. BTfromLA 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re personal attacks and incivility
As far as I can see, there's no hard and fast rule about going one route or another. Putting a clear and concise note on WP:AN/I along the lines of 'I'm having trouble with persistent incivility and personal attacks from User:So-and-so and he has received warnings from me and other editors (link, link, link), can someone keep an eye on this editor?' will usually result in a rapid investigation and response.

If an admin has had previous dealings with a particular editor (in their 'admin' hat and not as part of a content conflict; the latter may create a conflict of interest), then you can also notify them. Otherwise, asking for a single specific admin to review a case is a bit of a murky area. You run the risk of creating a perception – deserved or not – that you're cherry-picking an admin who is predisposed to treat your side of the dispute more gently. (Which leads to the 'ZOMG! Teh cabal is repressing me!' paranoid ranting.)

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, by the way. I've been quite busy in the real world of late. I'm assuming that your question was about Johnpedia, in which case it appears that the matter is being monitored. (Incidentally, if you have a question about how to handle a specific situation, it's often best to simply come out and say so; couching the issue as a hypothetical, general question can make things needlessly complicated.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So (and at the risk of putting words in your mouth) I am taking your reply as that it is generally best to post the problem on the noticeboard. Cool. No prob with the delay. I appreciate your taking the time to answer. I did not mention Johnpedia because I was not particularly looking for you or anyone to intercede there but left it general as I doubt that this is the last time I might need admin help. Re Johnpedia, I just asked him again to stop and hopefully he will respect my wish. If not I will post it on the noticeboard. So I do not think I was complicating anything, in fact I was trying to simplify. Sorry if it did not come across that way. I was not asking how to handle Johnpedia, just what is the etiquette on individual admin vs. noticeboard. I decided to cut him one last bit of slack as I had "asked for it" a bit by scolding him and so I gave him a few more free shots at me than I usually do (I usually only give one free shot). BTW, why do you say "it appears that the matter is being monitored"? Later --Justanother 15:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Lucas cells for radon measurement.
A tag has been placed on Lucas cells for radon measurement., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

unneeded redirect of odd usage

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Justanother 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That redirect is not a candidate for speedy deletion because it satisfies none of the speedy deletion criteria relevant to redirects. Its target is an existing page in the article namespace, and it is not the result of an implausible typo. Therefore, if you really want to see it die, bring it up on Redirects for discussion.
 * Better yet, just leave it alone, because it's not hurting anyone. Redirects are cheap, and there are plenty of more important things to worry about.
 * In any case, why bother me with it? I didn't create anything with that title, I merely moved the existing article at "Lucas cells for radon measurement." to "Lucas cell". —Keenan Pepper 17:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Hey Smee. Good job on starting the RfC. Where in the world did you get the idea that you should divide the comments into vested or "neutral"? That is insulting and deserving of an RfC of its own. Please knock it off and remove them. Thanks --Justanother 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove these sections. They are not insulting at all.  Comments are only supposed to be made by uninvolved editors coming from the RFC request, not from individuals who have previously commented on the talk pages.  This is a common practice.  Thanks.  Smee 20:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Please see User:Pastordavid's comment below on this issue. Thanks. Smee 20:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
 * As an aside, I find the division of this RfC helpful. I have found, on other RfCs, that the involved parties often dominate the comments, making it difficult to tell what is an "outside opinion" and what is an "involved party."  - User:Pastordavid.

Johnpedia
I am not confrontational. I am not uncivil. I feel you are being extremely dramatic. Do not threaten me. If you actually want this to stop, you would not keep posting on my talk page, correct? Yes, correct. I'm not interested in this anymore. Johnpedia 10:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Practice what you preach
It's a shame that you cannot apologize to StuRat for saying that he made a "fishy pussy" joke when he never used the word "pussy". You don't understand subtleties? He said the question was fishy. You're the only one who ever used the word "pussy" either in the original page or on StuRat's talk page. Your comment on his page was an error and you should admit your error and apologize, just as you admonish him to do. You set a poor example for him to follow. t h b 12:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I only used "pussy" instead of "vagina" on Stu's page, not on the original page, and because, at that moment, I was ticked over the mercury thing and I apologized to Stu for using that term. I really do try hard to apologize when I have erred; I just don't think that my interpretation of his "fishy" comment was an error. --Justanother 15:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's absurd, THB. Justanother made a fair and reasonble judgement about StuRat's intended joke, and he was right that the joke was not appropriate.  Your argument here is an effort to game the system and get on peoples' nerves; in other words, it fits the classical definition of "trolling."  Please stop; Wikipedia is not a place for stupid games. -- SCZenz 12:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * SCZenz is right. Justanother, thanks for your helpful and mature actions here, and I wouldn't worry for one second about THB's objections if I were you. This game of "You can't prove what I meant" was already old the first time I saw it.  To continue it now is just childish and unhelpful.  Friday (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No prob. --Justanother 15:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the inflammatory comment using pop-ups before I realized that there was already a discussion of that comment elsewhere. My talk page is reserved for insulting me, not others*, although I do not object to civil disagreement which is why I only removed the last comment. (*before someone chimes in that uncivil, insulting behavior is inappropriate here as well as elsewhere, please realize that I am being sardonic.) --Justanother 01:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Apostate not pejorative?
That is untrue. It is sometimes used as a word of abuse by certain faiths. Andries 21:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was under the assumption that it was more value-neutral as someone that has left (or given up on) a faith and that is how my American Heritage describes it but I see from here that it definitely can also have negative connotations as often used. --Justanother 22:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Like you I am interested in describing religious movements aka cults without exaggerating its faults. I think this is the case for most if not all editors here, but of course these good intentions do not stop strong disagreements. I have to admit that due to a very bad experience, I tend to distrust a certain type of NRMs. I had several colleagues who were into Scientology. Andries 22:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly some valid criticisms of cults are simply special cases of criticism of religion. Andries 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and some criticism of cults can be simply special cases of criticism of single-minded, demanding, purpose-driven groups such as the USMC. I do not know if we have an article on that (smile).

Not sure this was a good idea
Not sure this was a good idea. We probably only encourage more of this by responding in a chatty way. Friday (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am insulted by Hipocrite's preemptive strike which assumes that the RD editors cannot add to the discussion of those questions without violating the principles that we have spent months discussing! Especially as the worst offenders are seriously chastized. I am insulted. If the question or part of the question is offensive then remove it but don't try to "be the boss of us". I am a grown-up and the only boss-of-me pays me a lot of money. That was mild compared to what I really think. --Justanother 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you disagree, there are better ways to express that. I don't see that anyone was chastised- I just see someone trying to nip this in the bud.  If everyone had the sense not to respond to trolling, that would be ideal, but we've seen over and over that this isn't the case.  I don't see why you'd take this personally- is there something I missed?  This could have been removed IMO but removals have raised a huge stink.  I thought the preference lately was to do things other than outright removal.  Friday (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * PS- Actually, I suppose the merits of Hipocrite's template ought to be discussed at WT:RD. Friday (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal but the implied assumption that "OK, one grownup answered the question and I don't trust the rest of you." But I am not a on a crusade and I expressed my displeasure already and to the degree that I care to. I just want it on record that, as a precedent, IMO Hipocrite's action stinks. I think removal of the porn part or division into two questions would have been better had someone wanted to address it. I never even saw it before Hipocrite did his thing so I do not know what I might have done; likely divided into two questions. --Justanother 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't think we should discourage people from responding in cases like this? Is there some better way to do it?  Friday (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Development of policy and enforcement of policy, in a nutshell. Removal of inappropriate questions and inappropriate responses. Exactly the direction we were moving in, I thought. --Justanother 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved to RD Talk Page
--Justanother 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Labelling someone as a "zealot" or a "fanatic" is a personal attack. I don't care if you euphemise it by saying "sounding like a... " in front. Please do not restore that comment again. Proto :: ►  15:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly. I think that is your opinion. The opinion he expressed is the very definition of those terms. Please do not remove my answer to his question. --Justanother 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, no, the comment was misplaced, and should not have been made. I do believe you meant it in the way you state above, but it didn't quite come across in that way, it did come across as a personal attack.  If you have to explain why a comment isn't a personal attack, the comment probably shouldn't be there ... I've made that mistake before.  It's no big deal, just please try and think about how you use such labels, and how their use can be misconstrued by others.


 * Others agree (note the question has been closed), and please note how the anon who also had their comment removed accepted it with good humour . I do want to apologise for threatening to block you, though - that was out of line, and I am sorry for that.  Take it easy.  Proto ::  ►  18:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. No hard feelings, then. --Justanother 18:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment to BabyDweezil
Justanother, thank you for your comment to BabyDweezil on Brainwashing. Tanaats 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No prob. --Justanother 21:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC
Thanks for the heads up, but I'm not able to weigh in at this time--I'm dealing with the sudden death of a close family member... I'm sure you'll understand my non-participation here for a while. I'll be back, sooner or later. Best wishes, BTfromLA 07:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. My heartfelt condolences. --Justanother 14:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mye quesstion
Why tuou remoobed my quaaestion? What means this wordd "Scam""? Please tell me urgenatily!!

Dr.Ing. Remmino skala. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.120.193.125 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Haha Doc. See here. Happy 419 (though I know you are just fooling around). --Justanother 20:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How did you know I was fooling aarounnd?   Col.Dr.Ing. Ren Min Zhuo Skala IV  89.120.193.125 20:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing you did not put a contact e-mail which you would have had you been "serious" and for another, I've done the scammer-baiting thing, and they are not that illiterate. Too many errorrrrrs. --Justanother 20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. However, the reference desk explicitly states "don't post your e-mail address" (or something like that). I couldn't just go ahead and blatantly break the rules like that. And the errors are just fun to type. Greeting you from Romania and wishing you the lucky clouds of Enki, Colonel Engineer Prof.Univ.Dr. Rimini Scala & Kolacny Brothers the Fourth (or maybe Fifth). Cheers and Mucha suerte, hermano! 89.120.193.125 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, a 419 scammer would not want to break our rules (laff). Muchas gracias. Vaya con Dios, amigo. Pero no jodas mas, OK? --Justanother 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I knew that you speak Spanish, but I just did. Either way, I had just read some BJAODN and felt like having some fun with my IP. Now I feel bad for taking up server space. Oh, well. Thank you for keeping your calm. Matei Tache 20:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I am glad that you feel some remorse (smile). No harm done. Good guess on the Spanish. I can get by in Spanish when I need to. I would love to live in a Spanish-speaking country for a bit and polish it up. --Justanother 20:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Response

 * Responded on my talk page. Smee 04:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Out of curiosity, what is your level on the road to total freedom? Smee 05:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Quite sufficient but, sorry, I do not go into more detail than that. --Justanother 05:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did not mean to be short but I was in the midst. Did you have a question other than about personal details that I have decided to hold close to my chest? --Justanother 05:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am also curious, why is your OT-Level or lack thereof personal for you? Is this something also considered "personal details" by other Scientologists or information they share freely with each other and with friends?  If so, why or why not?  Smee 05:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Read my user page. --Justanother 05:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Does not address my specific questions from my last posting. Acknowledging your own OT-level would not be that revealing, would it?  And if so, is this something that most Scientologists reveal about themselves proudly and publicly, or not?  I am curious.  Smee 05:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I do not talk about myself in that way. End of story. --Justanother 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not though? Or do you also not talk about why you don't talk about it?  And what about other Scientologists?  Do they?  Or is it a general practice not to?  Smee 05:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh. No, Scientologists are proud of their progress up the Bridge and are happy to discuss it. I have chosen to remain anonymous here though and so have chosen to not reveal much detail about myself. I can see no upside to it. --Justanother 05:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can certainly respect that. But I gather from other sources and reading that if Scientologists were to be editing the article Xenu for example, those Scientologists would have to be OT-III or higher, according to doctrine?  Smee 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
 * No, a Scientologist in good standing cannot edit the articles on OT from a first-person perspective. That would constitute revealing material that they have sworn to keep confidential. --Justanother 05:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. So according to doctrine, really no Scientologists should be editing articles on Wikipedia pertaining to levels OT-III and higher, unless they are specifically told to by some sort of office like OSA or something probably...  ?  Smee 05:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Don't know about OSA but any Scientologist could, however, wear his editor's hat, and work to see that materials such as Xenu conform to wikipedia policies of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, i.e WP:PILLARS.

So in more direct response, I cannot see any Scientologist in good standing making the confidential material "right". Personally, I usually don't mess with it. What I might do on occasion is clean-up in relation to wikipedia policies. There is a whole lot more to Scientology than the confidential materials so there is plenty of work to be done and I wish a few more Scientologists would come on board here! --Justanother 05:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do Scientologists lower than OT-III know enough to know that they are not supposed to know anything about Xenu and try to avoid it, or do they just not know anything at all about this? Smee 05:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I really don't know enough to generalize. The confidentiality of the upper levels is serious business in Scientology. I think that most non-Scientologists cannot really grasp what it all means anyway so when they walk in the door it would likely be handled as "the internet is full of misrepresentations; now let's see about getting you on course so we can do something about . . ." And that is the truth: "the internet is full of misrepresentations" and worse. And it has little to do with whether Scientology can help someone live a better life. --Justanother 06:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment
I checked out the Hein quote on Scientology being a hate group in the "NRM" article that you referred to on another user discussion board. As I understand it, "hate group" is a term with an established meaning--it refers to far-right groups which spread open, direct hatred against Jews, blacks and other ethnic groups. Period. It is inapplicable in referring to Scientology's policy of harassing opponents; it is also inapplicable in referring to ex-member critics of various purported cults. Both of these usages are cheap analogies representing a highjacking of an established term. The citing of "hate group" accusations in the context of the pro and anti cult debate should only be for the purpose of showing how heated rhetoric gets out of control on both sides. It is worth no more than a sentence in the NRM article, and if indeed the use of such rhetoric is not widespread I would advocate removing it altogether as useless information. I should add that I am opposed to Scientology's theological doctrine re harassment of opponents, but I think your church has probably suffered a lot more from its application (through negative publicity that has made millions of people regard Scientology as a "scary" organization) than its critics have. L. Ron Hubbard was always a man who changed with the times (look at how his science-fiction themes and styles changed). Maybe you need to change on this (just as the Mormons changed their doctrines on race, leading to a large upsurge in membership around the world).--Dking 18:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I truly appreciate your thoughtful commentary. Thank you. --Justanother 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Justanother,
How can I contact you by pm? I can't find your talk page. Tried to delete the block warnings on Antaeus and Tilman, but it did not work.

Also I would like to know, how does one give someone a barnstar?

Much obliged,

S. M. Sullivan 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan
 * Hi. You can email me through the wikipedia system. But be aware that I have no secret email information to impart that I will not impart right here on wikipedia. Nor do I co-ordinate editing wikipedia by use of private email. I can do all the co-ordinating I need to do right here. I have nothing to hide. However, if you need help with something personal or have a question that you are not comfortable posting here then go right ahead. Re barnstar, you just go to WP:BARNSTARS and find one you like and copy it to the talk page of the person you want to give it to. Also, please use the talk pages for communicating with editors, not their other user pages. --Justanother 20:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)




 * Thanks S. M. Sullivan! I appreciate it. --Justanother 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Justanother, this place is overwhelmingly strange to me. I will be doing LOTS of reading and very little editing for a while. My tendency IRL has always been to jump right in and take over, but in a place based on consensus that obviously won't work. Besides, I still have no clue what needs doing around here. I saw things that were obviously wrong and tried to handle unilaterally (Now we both know what happens when editors do this...) Any suggestions about work that needs doing? I'd like to help.

S. M. Sullivan 00:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. My best suggestions are in my welcome message and on my user page which has a link to my "write-up". You cannot "unilaterally" change things if that means put in what is important to you without citing sources and nor can you remove stuff that is important to others that is correctly cited. You can put in things that are important to you if you cite them and you can challenge stuff you don't like and insist that the folks that want it there source it properly. Just watch and stay polite and you can, to be honest, make all the mistakes that you need to. You will get corrected and will eventually get it. What will get you in trouble (and banned from here) is getting personal or upset or retaliating. You gotta be Teflon, let it all slide off (I do not always take my own advice . . . but I try to.) --Justanother 01:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

RV
I have seen that an edit you made using popups to Dalip Singh came out like this "(Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups)" ,I have the same problem..do you know what might be causing the problem..???-- Cometstyles 14:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Just some bust in the server-side script most likely. I am sure it will be repaired soon. have a nice day. --Justanother 14:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're both missing the  popupQueriedRevertSummary=  command at the end of your monobook code. Mine looks like this below.

// User:Lupin/popups.js

document.write(' '); popupQueriedRevertSummary='Reverted to version by $3 on $2 - Using popups';

- X201 17:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll check it out. Was working fine up to yesterday or today. It is already noted on the User:Lupin/popups.js talk page. --Justanother 17:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Lupin has this


 * and


 * Maybe the error is in there. --Justanother 17:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup I agree, it was working fine till yesterday but I dont know what happened and I thoughtit was because of that updating messages we were getting by Topaz..Anywayz mine is not fixed and now Iam getting "Reverted to last edit by $3"..Lupin should fix this..-- Cometstyles 17:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can try adding that line as a workaround. I am not really too concerned as the function still works. I am sure it will be repaired soon. If not I can use VP or try the workaround. --Justanother 17:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just found out that Lupin has change his User:Lupin/popups.js(check in the History)

yesterday to Development version and thats whats causing the problem..Iam not sure what to do..I think I'll wait till someone complains to him about his changes..-- Cometstyles 17:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Try using Mozilla or try using IE7 because the popup error only has a problem with IE Version 6...Iam using Mozilla Firefox right know and its working quite fine..cheers-- Cometstyles 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will see if it sorts out by tomorrow. If not I will try the workaround. Take care. --Justanother 19:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will see if it sorts out by tomorrow. If not I will try the workaround. Take care. --Justanother 19:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

awrite, waddabout this
Am I being thickheaded as usual, or is this mess sheer mendacity? n.b. the admin's actions. BabyDweezil 20:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did glance at it quickly earlier today just to see what it was all about as it was mentioned in your "block" (BTW, you may want to go over to the ANI board and note that the block was unwarranted, just for those admins that do not know the story - keep it clean). Anywho, this is just another dirty little corner of Wikipedia that I have not much taken an interest in (of course, I have seen most of her story over the years). I feel bad for her as she is obviously unbalanced and that is sad. Her major "notability" lies in that she is the laughing stock for an insular group of individuals that would publicly mock an unbalanced person. Yeah! The article should be cut down to what notable parts it may have and then perhaps AfD. But first clean it up so we can see what we have. Re Tilman's editing it. Hmmmm, tough call. My quick read of WP:COI would seem to indicate that he might want to stay away from it but, to be honest, so long as he stays very neutral on it (not taking sides in talk debates), I don't see a problem. Of course, I have no idea of how he edits there. --Justanother 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

and yet anudder one
ok lookie here, cuz they're trying to bait me into 3RR yet again over a perfectly legit edit I made. BabyDweezil 23:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a process. You are a good editor, BD, and when you contribute, as you did there, rather than delete, you will be much more effective. You cannot expect a partisan website to stand as RS for what should come from a 3rd party. The net effect of your edit was improvement of the article, so continue! --Justanother 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RDAC


It has its own shortcut now too! For this brilliant flash of an idea to create the project, Sluzzelin is issuing you the Lady of the Lightbulbs' approval stamp. ---Sluzzelin 10:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Super-duper! Thanks, that is really cool! --Justanother 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-WP:RS sources in article intro that need to be replaced
See for details. I tried to replace them with fact tags but of course was reverted. BabyDweezil 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks; though I do not think I can fit that into my "busy schedule" for a while (laff). Just persist, keep a good count, and improve the article. There is a lot more wiggle-room on non-BLP articles for OR-ish material to find its way in. --Justanother 16:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, BD, you may want to adobt WP:1RR. Or not (BRD will generally fail if there is a preexisting consensus against the specific change you'd like to make. is a problem). Your choice. But at least take a look at it. --Justanother 16:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll check it out, but absent some sane admin interventions against the silly POV pushing, which simply don't seem to be forthcoming, I'll probably have to settle for being constantly amused at this not uninteresting case study in group dynamics. Later BabyDweezil 16:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a job for Goo Gone (what, no article). --Justanother 16:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And just in case that reference went by you:"Goo Gone is a combination of Citrus Power and scientific technology designed to eliminate the very toughest problems."--Justanother 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I got it...btw, is it good for getting soot stains off of flat-painted indoor walls? (don't ask) BabyDweezil 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It might attack the latex paint. Read the site. I use it on plastic and metal to remove sticker residue. There are other cleaners that might be better for you. Have you tried some laundry soap in water (test in inconspicuous area first). --Justanother 17:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, ask this on the RD. You will get good advice! --Justanother 17:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Awrite, I'm going with the Krud Kutter. BabyDweezil 23:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI

 * "Revert to the revision prior to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups"

Your monobook seems to be acting up--70.107.112.158 03:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is a glitch in the source that a number of people are experiencing and that User:Lupin has not addressed. --Justanother 03:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont know what happened but now whenever I make changes using popups it works very well with Mozilla Firefox but when I try to "restore this revision".it gets updated same time without doing it manually and it says it has been reverted using WP:TWINKLE, which VOA Says he uses and its the best thing he has done. I strongly urge you to use Firefox or Opera because IE seems to lose its edge when it comes to editing Wikipedia..Cheers..-- Cometstyles 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I go back and forth between IE and Firefox and for now am on IE7. Maybe I will switch back. --Justanother 04:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User: Jobstbrandt
Hi there

I see you are dealing with him now -- he debuted on Wikipedia by adding a huge amount of unsourced information to the desmodromic article. I and others kept asking him to state his sources, but he refused and kept arguing that it was "true" etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desmodromic_valve&diff=103240301&oldid=103167892

Not sure how to deal with it. I am sure you saw the discussion on his user page. Definite communication issues. Have fun...

Izaakb 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess you deal with it by dealing with it or you let him have the article. I just read some of his material elsewhere and he is a bright guy and could be a good contributor if he gets off the "I'm right and you'all are wrong" thing. There is plenty of room here for everyone to be right! Do me a favor please and keep an eye over on brake fade in case I need some back-up. I would rather be patient with him then be a WP:DICK. Thanks.


 * It just seems that he just doesn't "get" wikipedia. I kept referring him to the editing guidelines, but I don't think he is bothering to read them at all -- he just gets offended when you tag the claim or remove the post.  I agree that he could be a good contributor, but that's a big IF..  Will do on the article.  Good luck.  Izaakb 19:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Justanother 20:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jobstbrandt

Izaakb 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will shoot over there in a bit. --Justanother 17:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

BD
Hi Justanother, thanks for your message. Yes, I considered that there my action may appear to be a conflict of interest and I still decided that to take action was the best course. There were several factors to my decision. One of them is that BD's behavior is consistently bad. This was not an isolated incident. Another is that I had previously blocked a different editor for the exact same thing. BD came along and made the same edits. It was a clear violation. Another factor is that BD has received many warnigs and even previous 24 hour blocks. Yet another is that the project favors action, and that any decision can be undone. In short, I was confident enough in my actions that I didn't feel it was beneficial to the project to delay while waiting for another admin or set of admins to review the case. I stand by my action. I also note that no admin has yet found issue with the block. Johntex\talk 15:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For the exact same edits in Ike and LRH, I guess? Well, I did not know that; how was BD to know? And if he did not know then why would you increase the penalty on that account? There is a point raised on AN/I if BD ever contributed anything or is he just a PITA. Well, I think that BD should respond to that when or where he can. I am no expert on BD nor on his edits. I do see him as bright and perceptive and I cetainly think that he can be a valuable editor here. So if he has not made contributions then I suggest to him that he take a break from the wars for at least a week and just have some fun editing non-controversial articles. He can go over to brake fade, where I just finished up with a disruptive editor and work on that. I put some links in the talk page to good sources. If he has not made contributions and promises to take a week off and contribute elsewhere, would you lift his ban? Of course, I do not know if that is agreeable to him. Other than that, not much to say. --Justanother 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

POF
Why do you keep reverting changes to the Plenty of Fish entry? The article reads like its blatant advertising, and completely biased on promoting it. Yet anyone who visits the site, upon checking the forums or even other web-based feedback forums on POF will see there are problems with accounts vanishing. This is a POF issue, and should be addressed in the Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.186.67 (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2007
 * Hi. The problem is that wikipedia is not about "THE TRUTH". Wikipedia is about "the truth (or some approximation of it) that has already been presented in reliable sources". I am sorry, but if you cannot find a reliable source that supports your claim then I, as a diligent editor here, cannot allow it to remain in the article. Please see WP:PILLARS, WP:V, WP:RS]]. We have to follow our rules! Otherwise this place would be complete anarchy. --Justanother 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)