User talk:Justanother/Archive5

In case you missed it...

You might be interested to know that Terryeo has now been blocked entirely from Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Terryeo_indefinitely_blocked. BTfromLA 18:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think you did influence him toward moderating his behavior but, even then, he was beyond the pale--the final episode had him posting "religiousfreedomwatch" slurs on particular Wikipedia editors and pretending that he was just innocently curious about whether the claims were true: as he'd done that sort of thing before, an administrator finally decided to pull the plug. By the way, that religiousfreedomwatch page, which appears to be produced with the full blessing of the CoS, reflects very poorly on the character of Scientology in my view--it strikes me as downright sleazy and creepy. I'd be interested in your perspective on that "dead agenting" side of Scientology, should you care to share it. BTfromLA 16:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have responded in turn on my talk page. BTfromLA 00:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And again. BTfromLA 18:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Another follow-up, trying to clarify the dead-agent question, awaits. BTfromLA 15:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to your recent question (though I'm not sure I fully understood what you were asking for) on my talk page. BTfromLA 07:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your recent comments on my talk page and would like to continue the discussion, but work demands won't allow me time for a thoughtful reply at this point. Please bear with me, I will pick up the thread within a few days. BTfromLA 17:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I haven't forgotten about our conversation--I remain bogged down in work for a few days yet, though, so I ask for your further patience. I see that there seems to have been a bit of strange and faintly scandalous behavior from Wikipediatrix while I was away--I sure didn't see that coming. What's next? BTfromLA 22:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Justanother! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ref desk reminders

In regard to your recent comments on the reference desk, I just want to reiterate that for the moment I'm proposing reminders, as you say, and not removals. In the long term, users who continually don't listen to reminders will have to be dealt with somehow, of course, but as I've said I'm more inclined toward the dispute resolution process.

Your help with reminders, in cases you think they're appropriate, would be greatly appreciated! -- SCZenz 03:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course. That's one of the reasons I'm calling for many users to work together on this. -- SCZenz 04:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment requested on User:light current's one week block

I, and User:Gandalf61, and others, feel that the action of User:Friday in blocking User:light current for a week was unwarranted and excessive: [1]. We would appreciate your comments in this matter. Thanks. StuRat 10:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice Work

Great job on the Lisa McPherson article. It is reasonably neutral and readable now. Well Done. ---Slightlyright 15:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A word to the wise

Just to say not to get too angry with Friday (unless of course youre and admin too)--Light current 01:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Paid in BS?

Hi, I thought I'd reply to your first comment on the "Paid in BS?" section here because the discussion on the page is too complicated to fork...

Listen, we do what we do for the reasons we do it. It is really not up to anyone to judge our reasons, only our output and contributions. I like the BS and consider it part of the recompense for my efforts here; the other parts being satisfaction of "getting it right", the enjoyment of helping another and my "knowledge buff" tendency. No particular order there. So I, for one, get partially paid in BS. You get paid in what you get paid. The BS is normal banter that happens when people get together and have fun doing useful work. It should not be suppressed. If you don't like then don't read it. Or do you think that you should dictate the working conditions here? Is that what this is about? --Justanother 23:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... I think Wikipedia policy dictates the working conditions here, yes. I don't know of any other page where Wikipedians are required to accept users' unhelpful contributions along with helpful ones, or where there is so much active objection to removal or even criticism of unhelpful content. The reference desk is very public; it should look like it's a place whose primary purpose is the asking of questions and giving of answers. And in fact, usually it does—but if asking it to look like that is "dicatating the working conditions," then yes, that's what I want to do. -- SCZenz 01:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just that you seem to have objected to the fact that some might enjoy the lighthearted banter. Maybe I misinterpreted your attitude. If so, sorry. I don't think wikipedia policy says anything about that. Other than that a sense of lighthearted irreverance pervades the entire project and I can point you at many many policies and advices that are written in a lighthearted irreverent vein ex. WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:SNOW, many more. Regarding the real issues I think that we have already decided that we agree that abuse of the RD is inappropriate so a lot of this is now starting to seem like redundant. Not you particularly, just this whole intermittable dialogue. All of us, me included but I think I am done now anyway, I've said what I have to say. Last word, if you are trying to make the RD all serious looking, if you are trying to make the RD look like article-space rather than community-space then I think you are fighting a losing battle. I think it is community-space. The best it will be is effective. I think we agree that actions which seriously reduce its effectiveness are inappropriate. --Justanother 01:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be community space, but it is not just community space. It's also part of the face we show to the world, in a way that policy pages like WP:SNOW are not. Lighthearted banter is fine if it doesn't interfere with the question... unless it's potentially offensive, at which point it puts off users and is bad. But when I cite banter being offensive as a reason for it being bad, I get accused of censorship and having ulterior motives. So I would genuinely like your input: is the best way to deal with offensive banter to a) reduce all banter, b) disallow banter that can reasonably be expected to offend some uses and doesn't really contribute, or c) something I haven't thought of yet? -- SCZenz 02:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you said it yourself "Lighthearted banter is fine if it doesn't interfere with the question". The question is deciding when it interferes with the question. I think a very light touch is called for. I think that if someone makes a non-offensive joke that seems on the "flow of consciousness" then leave it alone, maybe leave two in a row alone. If a thread of jokes or indeed any disruptive off-topic thread starts then just move the thread to the talk page and note the removal in the answer stream. But it needs to be obviously off-topic or obviously jokes that are not addressing the question (i.e. non-offensive joke embedded in valid attempt to contribute is always OK) and it need to be a contiguous thread before I would consider that it is interfering with the question. Hope that helps. --Justanother 02:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat's comment

I believe a new sub page is about to be born on the Purpose of the RDs. Perhaps you both would like to join in the discussion?--Light current 01:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Rules for deletion

Would you care to comment on my proposed Ref Desk Rules for Deletion: [2] ? I would like to build a consensus on which rules should be followed. StuRat 07:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Rules for Ref Desk opinions ?

Would you care to comment on rules for Ref Desk opinions: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Next_item_for_consensus_discussion:_Opinion ? StuRat 17:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinions on Ref Desk template removal ?

Sorry to bother you again, but would you care to comment on: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Opinions_on_template_removal ? StuRat 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Outlawing responses

Any notion of "outlawing" a certain kind of response misses the point- we have no ability to enforce such a rule. We're all volunteers, and some people do sometimes answer with things like "try google". If you think this is bad, feel free to explain what a better answer would be, but any desire to "outlaw" a certain answer is completely misguided. Friday (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Hope you are not thinking I am getting personal with you? Because I am not. We are having a lively discussion on policy related to the Ref Desk. --Justanother 21:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all- and don't worry about offending me in any way- I'm usually fairly thick skinned. Friday (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Good deal cause I am way too fat to tiptoe. --Justanother 21:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, general comment not very relevant to WT:RD. Use of language like "let's outlaw this!" demonstrates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia. I'm really not trying to insult anyone, but I can't get past the thought that almost all the discussion at WT:RD is only happening because people are trying to make policy without a proper understanding of how we do things here. Friday (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Many things are "outlawed" at wikipedia. Disruptive sockpuppetry. Original research (in articles). Personal attacks. On this issue, I think that you need to readjust your thinking, not me. It is totally OK for the community to decide that some questions and some answers have no place here, i.e. they are outlawed. We just don't use that term. --Justanother 21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't because of rules- it's because our goal is the encyclopedia. By simple common sense, behavior that hurts the encyclopedia is severely frowned upon. This point is subtle but vitally important to understanding what we do here. See WP:5P where it says "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." Friday (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, and saying "Go Google" hurts the RD, IMO. Should be outlawed. Excuse me, should be discouraged. BTW, discussing this on two fronts is giving me headache. --Justanother 21:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Accidental Deletion

Sorry Justanother, the edit look alot like vandalisim, and I appologize for my actions, I still must develop the ability to discern ligitimate edits from vandalisim. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sick Puppy

Hi, and thanks for your "PROD" message.

So you arrived at Sick Puppy because there is a link to aphrodisiac from it. Looking over your contributions, I see that you have never edited a single literature page, your edits mainly concerning matters of Scientology and your own user page.

I suggest you carefully read Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum and the most important pages related to the novels project. There are hundreds if not thousands of similar pages out there which concern a single work of literature: Are you planning to tag them all and subsequently have them all deleted?

We're moving in ridiculous circles here. Anyone can classify any piece of any information as "indiscriminate", especially if they are on unfamiliar ground. I suppose we're trying to build rather than destroy an encyclopaedia here. And I suppose we're working together, not against each other. "Only" a plot summary may mean the article is not finished yet, but is that a reason for deletion? You can't have a stub first begging people to expand it and then, once it has been expanded, want to delete it. I remember that in the old days anyone complaining that an article lacked something was given the advice: Well, go change it!

Please tell me precisely what you want me to add to the plot summary, and I'll try my best. I am usually very reluctant to remove a tag, but in this case I think I'll have to make an exception (and anyway, I'm practically invited to do so in the wording of the tag itself). And the deadlines are getting shorter all the time: now it's only five days.

I'd appreciate a thorough answer from you because to me this process really deviates from the norm. All the best, <KF> 22:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, editor sees article that violates WP:NOT, editor tags for delete, is very "normish". I just don't see every book ever written as notable for this encyclopedia so, IMO, you gotta give more if you want it here. --Justanother 00:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been enlightened on the consensus that almost all books belong here (my paraphrase) but have agreement that Sick Puppy, as a bare plot outline, is in violation of policy and needs work if it is to remain so the PROD was fine though another might have handled it elsewise. --Justanother 01:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile and the laugh! -- Karen | Talk | contribs 03:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (who is still not a tengrem)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Bridge Publications (Scientology) Squirreling Galaxy Press Criminon Association for Better Living and Education AMC Publishing Mark Rathbun World Institute of Scientology Enterprises Scion xB International Association of Scientologists Operation Freakout Gas leak Scientology terminology Reactive mind Andreas Heldal-Lund Heber Jentzsch Science of Survival Hubbard Association of Scientologists International Concerned Businessmen's Association of America

Cleanup International Churches of Christ Christopher Masterson Traumatic incident reduction Merge Firebomb Timex Sinclair 1000 Land of Sunshine Add Sources 3D projection Liquified petroleum gas Los Angeles Free Press Wikify New Acropolis Jeffrey R. MacDonald Sukyo Mahikari Expand National Forensic League The Righteous Brothers Howrah Bridge

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to your email;

You state my site is "beneath me":

For a start, all my site does it take statements Tom has made himself and put them back to back, and also some satirical material that has been produced by others - all of this already exists on the net and all of it is freely available. Nothing here has been produced by me. Not one single thing.

So, does bringing Tom's own statements and the work of others together make me anti-Cruise? or does it simply mean that there's a lot of people who have a lot to say about him, his actions, and/or his religion and here's a place they can freely and anonymously express them. It's amazing how many emails I get stating that they are so grateful because they have been too scared...

But my reasons were/are as follows: I believe the statement Tom has made recently stating that people should not be using (certain) prescribed medication is not only ignorant but darn right dangerous. Life threatening in fact. Tom states that Brooke Shields and Matt Lauer are ignorant about the history of psychiatry - well he is most certainly ignorant of the circumstances of every medicated individual in the world, and as such his comments were outrageous.

No one could possibly argue that it was not completely irresponsible for Cruise to effectively tell every man, woman and child on prescribed medication for any mental illness (or other 'chemical imbalance' such as depression, bi-polar, schizophrenia, ADD/ADHD...) to suddenly stop their medication and "start exercising and taking vitamins"

Think about how many people his statements could have (and from the dozens of emails I've received HAS HAD) on those who are unwell?

But to be clear I am not "anti-Cruise", and I have at least 6-8 of his films. But, his statements were irresponsible, ignorant and dangerous and if my site pokes a little fun at him for doing that and possibly makes those people think twice before following his advice then I'm happy.

Its had over 10 millions visitors, literally saved one life that I know of, and helped hundreds see the stupidity in his statements - so no, its far from "beneath me"  Glen  18:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Did he really say "I can fly around and move stuff with my mind"? [3] --Justanother 18:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats not mine - thats a copycat http://www.scientomogy.info  Glen  18:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (for some reason the link isnt working... will fix or see [4]

Oh, then I will not say another word against it until I have a chance to look it over better. On first glance I must say that yours makes more "sense" to me as simply putting Tom's statements and actions up for people to judge as they will. Perhaps you see why I might find the other considerably more objectionable and would wonder whether it was "beneath you". --Justanother 18:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For background, here is my email in full (personal info removed)

Hi Glen

Aren't you the body builder at (removed)?

I would think that someone with as much "on the ball" as you would consider creating a site dedicated to denigrating and mocking two other fellow human beings, Tom and Katie, to be beneath him.

I can respect Operation Clambake and Andreas Heldal-Lund because there I see a forum for presenting what might be legitimate criticism of Scientology and/or the CoS.

Don't you think that your site is beneath you? Aren't you lowering yourself to maybe what you perceive the level of the CoS to be?

Anyway, that is my only point.

Take care.

Justa Notherguy

--Justanother 18:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote on attempt to delete new Ref Desk rules

Vote here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules. StuRat 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding?

That is transparent trolling. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No prob with removing the Santa question the first time if done politely but the explanation is plausible so we must AGF. --Justanother 19:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, we must not. "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Do you think the series of questions from this editor present evidence to the contrary, in the light of what is currently ongoing on the RD talk page? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Legit question about piles (which you sloughed off and gave a "no answer", BTW) followed by the Santa question. OK, looks strange; delete. OK. IP comes back with a totally plausible explanation (I have kids). You blow him off. Please knock off the crusade. If this guy was trolling then he won that round. Big deal. If he trolls again we will have him. --Justanother 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not real, but even if it were.. What reasonable parent would allow their 6 year old near the "edit this page" button? Ned Wilbury 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He said he helped he. I can totally see that happening. Please let's do this in one place - the talk page. --Justanother 19:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"woops - should look before I leap"

Heh heh heh. (That is, I got a big grin out of your double-take, there. And don't feel bad -- *I* had a big huge double-take at Hipocrite's paraphrasal, too!) —Steve Summit (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I did not realize that his was an answer to yours as I had not read yours. Both straw men point out valid issues. --Justanother 22:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruption (from Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guideline#Disrepute)

Replying here since Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guideline is strictly for talking about Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline, and this is turning into a side conversation about disruption at this point. Yes, you're right- we need observable disruption to conclude that there's disruption, not just suspected disruption. This is already a widely accepted idea. Ned Wilbury 00:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But I observed a tendency to delete posts based on suspicion. It is not big deal to pull them once the troll is confirmed. Why hurry? --Justanother 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

People will frequently disagree on when to decide someone is no longer worth the time. However if a few different people agree that something is trolling, they're usually right. If you wanted to be extra sure, you could at that point give the editor in question a "last warning" along the lines of "Look, several of us think you're just trying to cause trouble. However a few people wanted to give you another shot, so that's what we're doing, this last time." Then you re-explain the problem to the user and give them another shot. Honestly, the whole issue of problem editors is mainly something admins deal with, and unless you want to be one, you may want to avoid that whole mess. Ned Wilbury 00:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

To be blunt, this occurred because one editor deleted questions because he did not AGF the OP's totally plausible explanation. That he was right is irrelevant. There was no "first warning", let alone a "last warning". Again, we have to avoid getting "too smart" here. It is OK if we miss a few. "Fool me once". We have to let them fool us once if they do a credible job of fooling us. You can be suspicious; check their history; even "tail them" (keep an eye on their contribs) if you like; but do wait for them to make the telling mistake before taking any action, either as an editor or an admin and any editor can help out with trolls and vandals. Usually it does not take long for them to reveal what they are really about. --Justanother 00:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, an editor does not have to be an admin to help out in that way. If you're into giving people that extra benefit of the doubt, that's good- the project needs people willing to do this. Best thing to do in that case is leave them a friendly talk page message asking them to clarify, or whatever is relevant to the situation. I specifically recommend leaving the message on THEIR talk page instead of on the reference desk, because it's more relevant there. With so many contributors, pages can become difficult to edit and read if off-topic things are going on everywhere. Ned Wilbury 00:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

These were WP:POINT trolls by unlogged users. I almost always discuss issues I have with editors on their talk page or leave some sort of message there if they are not clearly cognizant of what is transpiring. Most issues are ongoing ones and the parties are watching everything. --Justanother 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The "calculus" of criticism

Hold on - I am going to write something here. --Justanother 15:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi! Thanks for the message. You have no idea how happy I am to see another Scientologist editing the Scientology pages on here! REally cool. Sorry if I did it wrong, or did this message here wrong, feel free to change it, I think I just saw something that was written wrong that I wanted to changed right away. Feel free to message me if you want to discuss any Scientology pages that should be edited and how we could re-write it! Bye!<Johnpedia 16:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)>

^_^

Haha, I'm not the kind of person to attack people like that so don't worry, but I will edit other pages first, and I will try and get sources. I'm a busy person and when I have the energy, I'll be going through the Scientology pages and trying to correct them. It'll be fun. Considering it's something that has pretty much nothing but positive things about it, and pretty much everything on here about it is negative, it's a little odd, so I'd like to change that. <Johnpedia 04:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)>

What are you doing ?

Can you please let me know what is being moved where ? StuRat 15:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am doing what I suggested earlier which is to put it all on one page where it can be sorted out. There are redirects. I am in the midst so please give me a few minutes. --Justanother 15:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're in the middle of something. But, what we have right now is all screwed up. The proposed policy itself should be on the Wikipedia:Reference desk/whatever page. It's talk page would be Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/whatever. Right now you've got the policy ON the talk page, so there's no place to talk about it. Ned Wilbury 16:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Salt

Yup, you're probably right. Something does smell fishy around here... Ilikefood 22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice answer

HAHAHA Nice answer to that question on the reference desk about questions that waste time. That was hilarious. Ilikefood 00:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --Justanother 00:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi there! If you turn a page into a redirect, you should remove its contents. If you don't, it won't be visible anyway to users, but it may appear in whatlinkshere and search lists, thus causing confusion. If your intent wasn't to remove the content, you should probably add a link instead of making a redir. HTH! (Radiant) 12:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't quite follow that discussion you linked to. It appears to be arguing about the proper way to create subpages following policy? I'd say that it's more important to have an arrangement that's practical (such as it is now) - in particular, keeping the debate on one page instead of four. Product trumps policy. (Radiant) 14:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done!

I know we've not always seen eye-to-eye, and all too often simple disagreements turn unfortunately personal for no good reason. However I just wanted to say that this edit is outstanding. Keep up the good work. Friday (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Justanother 19:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Err?

You put this back? Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing we can do with this. There's not even a question to be answered. What purpose do you think can be served by this? Friday (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A request

Hi Justanother. Can I request that you take a look at User talk:StuRat#AGF and BITE, and have a word with him about it if you think appropriate? I worry that StuRat continues to try to polarize the debate (e.g. by categorizing everyone into his two list headings), and that this will get in the way of other users who are trying to compromise... But what it is imperative to fix quickly are incidents in which his polarized view causes him to be rude to new (or possibly new) users. I tried to explain this, but (perhaps understandably) he has no desire to listen to me. I'm hoping that, since in his view you're kind of "on his side," a comment from you would be more productive. Thanks for your consideration. SCZenz 05:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- SCZenz 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Chips

Example sidebar discussion --Justanother 02:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Is borscht cheap ? I've never checked out the price (because the thought of it just leaves me cold). StuRat 12:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is borscht cheap? Heck, its price can't be beet! Atlant 13:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you red too much into my reply. :-) StuRat 01:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)