User talk:Justanother/Archive9

ANI discussion

Please make an effort to discuss things with other editors before taking them to ANI. There was no need for the ruckus that just went down on ANI. I'm frankly a little embarrassed that I reacted to your complaint so quickly. ··coelacan 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you embarrassed yourself. I, and others, have a ton of experience with Smee. If you look at her user page you will see that I just called it quits on a very long attempt on my part to deal with her WP:TE by means of an agreement worked out between the two of us. I have again and again seen the futility of others trying to deal with her, two that come to mind are User:Lsi john and User:Jossi (diffs available if you want them but you can look in her talk page history too). My history with her puts this latest evasion of page protection right in character and she knows perfectly well that you do not create contentious articles as an "example". I do not think that my talking to her would have done any good. I have talked myself silly already. And in actual fact, I will not be editing further until I prepare the RFCU User RfC or ArbCom that, hopefully, will address her WP:DE and WP:TE once and for all. She soapboxes in the articles relentlessly and in complete disregard for the project and makes editing here extremely unpleasant for anyone that opposes her soapboxing. She is a WP:SPA with 21,000 edits. --Justanother 00:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If Smee's intent was only to WP:POVFORK, then a preliminary discussion would have established that: "Justanother: Please move this to userspace. Smee: No. Justanother: It's a POV fork and it has to be moved. Smee: Make me." As it is now, Smee was fine with the move and there's no indication that it would have gone otherwise if you had just asked. As to whatever ongoing issues you're having, you haven't mentioned anything of sockpuppets so I don't know how WP:RFCU would be helpful. WP:ARBCOM generally doesn't accept cases until other methods like WP:RFC, WP:M, or WP:CEM have already been tried and failed. ··coelacan 00:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was premature. I felt I knew how it would go and it was my bad for not trying. I meant User WP:RFC, not WP:RFCU. My mistake. Re ArbCom, I say that because her WP:TE was the subject of an ArbCom case early on in her career. I may try User RfC first, though. --Justanother 01:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleared my watchlist

Please note that I have cleared my watchlist of all but my own user pages, two pending issues, and a couple somewhat open conversations on other users' talk pages. I will not be editing further until I come back from preparing an action off-wiki. I will be soliciting interested parties at some appropriate time; on-wiki and in the clear. I will watch my talk page and will address issues of import that others alert me to but right now the only pending areas of interest I have are the AfD for Stacy Meyer and the Groups referred to as cults in government reports issue. --Justanother 16:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And again

Cleared everything but my user pages - except for those covered by Bishonen's suggestion, feel free to post anything urgent. Just remember that I am an eventualist so nothing is too urgent. I better be an eventualist. And Wikipediatrix, how 'bout knocking off the POV forks like Scientology and sex. --Justanother 22:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

wikibreak

I know you're on wiki break, and I'm sorry to disturb.

If you get a chance could you take a peek at my recent merge for Youth for Human Rights International. I'd like to have a little bigger concensus before we delete the other YHRI articles.

Thanks. Lsi john 14:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Done - I am not watching it, though. --Justanother 16:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to watch it. I just wanted someone with more of a pro-CoS opinion to put eyes-on and give an opinion, as there was already input from CoS-critical editors which supported the merge. And, I'm not saying you're pov Scientologist, I'm saying you have a pro-Scientology viewpoint. So if you didn't find the merge/edits objectionable, then it would be reasonable to conclude they are not (from a Scientology perspective). Thanks. Lsi john 17:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we must first always remember that I speak only for myself and would only say that something is "objectionable to Scientologists" if I felt very strongly about it; ex. the use of a volcano as the symbol of the Scn project - volcanos clearly indicating the Xenu mockery to critics and non-Scientologists. Usually, when I find something objectionable, I find it objectionable simply as an editor here that happens to be a Scientologist and is interested in an accurate and NPOV representation of Scientology. And, in those cases, I feel that any neutral editor would have the self-same objection and my intuition there has been borne out time and again when 3O and RfC bring neutral editors into the picture. I am not talking here about AfD discussions. The issue of what belongs in this project, what is notable, do we even care about "notability", etc. is contentious and I never hold a non-involved editor's "keep" vote on something that I feel should be deleted as meaning anything special other than that they voted to keep the article. In other words, I see little "right" or "wrong" in AfD votes as I understand that that is a highly divided area with editors of good-faith and good-will holding disparate viewpoints. Where I do not find much disparity among non-involved editors is in these questions of POV-pushing and poor sourcing that we so often come across. In those cases, my instincts are almost one-for-one validated. Thank you for your interest in the Scientology articles and your fair-mindedness. --Justanother 17:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you felt all that was necessary, and as we are not contentious with each other, permit me to *yawn* and *smile*. I didn't say, suggest or imply you spoke for anyone but yourself. I respect you as an editor and I respect your right to believe in Scientology. As there were no Scientologists (that I was aware of) in the discussion regarding the merge, I did not want the appearance of any impropriety. I wanted to make sure that someone from a Scientology viewpoint had an opportunity to bless or dispute the merge, prior to deleting and redirecting the old pages. Sometimes wiki-politics sucks, and I'm sorry that we've both had to go to such lengths to make sure nobody misunderstands or inadvertently misrepresents either of our actions.

Go back to your wikibreak! :) and thanks again. Lsi john 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is what it is. But I do not mind clarifying my position from time to time. OK, I ALWAYS clarify my position. --Justanother 18:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean without denigrating? Lsi john 11:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Justanother 12:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Meat bodies?!!!! I'm not even going to ask.. I don't want to know and you can't make me. Some of y'all's articles are outlandishly amusing, I must say that. Lsi john 16:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Had a good steak lately? Where do you think it came from?? Bodies without "thetans" are simply "meat bodies"; animated by theta (life force or what we call the "genetic entity") but not by a thetan (higher-level spiritual being). There, you said you wanted to know, right? --Justanother 16:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems that your glasses are dirty. *cleans screen to uncover nt on Don't want to know*. ;) get back to work. Lsi john 16:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, bit of A1 sauce on the screen, missed that. --Justanother 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, this is cool - you can get free psychic readings on allexperts.com [1]. Amazing what you can learn when you Google a mis-spelling (entitiy). --Justanother 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I wonder if he'll write about his astro projected orgasm? Though I'm a bit troubled that he wasn't aware if it was female. I'd like to think that I'd know the difference. Lsi john 17:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

/justanother gets unsavory images of ass-tro projection. Thanks, Lsi john, ol buddy. --Justanother 18:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you like catsup and mustard with that? Pickle? Lsi john 18:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk about "meat bodies". On a different subject, here is one - don't piss off the psychic!! --Justanother 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My gift is special . . . dammit [2]. OK, last chat from me. --Justanother 19:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That last one was funny.. she repeats herself repeats herself and answers twice twice. Reminds me of some wiki-article discussions. Lsi john 20:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Do know why

Ack. It's because I linked to the page through the earlier diff and threw up my own welcome note. Not intentional. Marskell 13:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought you missed my bit. Thanks for your help and your input. --Justanother 13:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I should also mention that deliberately setting out to find new things to disagree with Smee over is not a good idea. It's fine, of course, to welcome someone who may have felt unwelcome, but your "Actually" at the bottom has the potential to enflame. Marskell 13:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from but as someone that has stood in that same position as a n00b (running up against embedded WP:TE "cult-fighters" that misuse this project), I thought it valuable to clue the user in that the behaviour of Smee is not appropriate and, hopefully, not a portent for the treatment that they can expect here. I do not think that I overdid it. --Justanother 13:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Marskell check the deleted edit history on the page User:Lsi admin if you want to see newbie biting. Lsi john 13:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The block

I have said all I need to say on Smee's talk. But I do need to say something to you: because you're dealing with an editor with a troublesome revert history does not justify your own third and fourth reverts. You still need to be as careful as you'd always be. Marskell 05:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Smee and I used to have a mutual 1R agreement that we worked out between ourselves but she violated it so many times with me that I finally called it broken (see). It is not my intent to edit-war with good-faith editors no matter their POV. --Justanother 12:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

An Open Letter to Smee

I have something nice to say. Watch this space. --Justanother 12:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I will say this for now. Please do not buy into the ramblings of a troll about who or what I am. You do yourself a disservice and what I am going to talk to you about has to do with celebrating the best in you. Love. --Justanother 12:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Smee,

Smee, I was pleasantly impressed by the shows of support for you on your talk page. I invite you to consider carefully the fact that you have a lot of friends here. I invite you to consider what those friends see in you. Please.

Here is a possibility,

Those friends do not know you in the context that I know you. They know you as a helpful and considerate Wikipedian. A hard-working editor and kind.

My question for you,

Smee, who are you really? Are you the soap-boxing edit-warrior that I have battled with lo! these many months? Who do you want to be, Smee? I daresay that the kind, considerate, hard-working Smee will always find Wikipedia a warm and welcoming place while the alter ego will find it getting chillier and chillier indeed. Who are you really, Smee? Is the "nice" persona simply a front that you create so that you can do your dirty work with a minimum of interruption? Or is the "nice" persona the "Real Smee" and this darker side of you simply a bad habit? A habit you can perhaps break?

Because,

Because I see you right now at a cusp in your career here, Smee. Smee, I am not interested in changing your mind about est or Scientology or about any subject that we may write about here. You are entitled to your opinion, your POV, and I do not fault you for wanting to see your POV represented in the articles (please see the How I Edit section on my user page - or rather in earlier versions of my user page). I do fault you for aggressively WP:OWNING articles; for trying to maintain articles in POV states; for edit-warring over any change that you do not like or do not understand (i.e. "nonsense") because it does not suit your POV. Smee, I do not trot that stuff out to criticise you so much as to help you see what the real objection around here is. I have been singing that song for a long time, Smee, and I think that you have been ignoring it because of the source. I am beginning to hope that you begin to see that others; neutral others, non-involved others; are telling you the same thing.

Please,

Please Smee, consider who are your true friends, not me perhaps (although I am willing), but also not those that will incite you to further controversial actions and further blocks. You make many points on your talk page that indicate that you are starting to "get it". You also make comments that show that you do not. You are at a cusp, Smee.

My invitation,

Smee, I invite you to consider what is best in yourself and what you want to be known as here. You are at a crossroads, Smee. The choice is yours.

The nicest parts,

I know that I have been a bit rough here so let me end with the nicest bit. I too see those good and admirable qualities in you, Smee. And I really do think that you are a bright person and that you can make the needed change. It is not really that much of a change, you know. Simply respect the edits of those that you might disagree with generally to the same degree that you respect the edits of those that you do agree with generally. If someone that you generally agree with makes an edit that does not sit well with you you would likely address it on the talk page. Or you might tweak their edit. I do not think that you would revert it, certainly not multiple times. So if you can extend the same courtesy to those on the other sides of the various and sundry fences then you will do just fine. I think that you are capable of making that change or I would nor have written this.

Love,

--Justanother 03:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

John Hochman

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hochman. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Without even checking the article history I can guess who created it. --Justanother 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I was mistaken. Not who created it; who expanded it. --Justanother 19:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

;) Lsi john 19:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR notice

You are on the verge of breaching WP:3RR on Large Group Awareness Training – [3], [4], [5]. Please be careful. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but the first is a legitimate edit well-discussed on talk (Talk:Large Group Awareness Training#Better lead). Yes, I put it back against a WP:OWNER that will not let anyone edit an article that she is invested in unless they agree with her POV. I can show you lots of objections by other editors but here is one; Talk:Large Group_Awareness Training#Must you revert Everything?. Nick, what else am I do to? I did not think two reverts was excessive in the case of a POV-warrior with no respect for the process. I tried to have a 1RR agreement with her but she would not honor it and played me for a fool. --Justanother 15:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nick, if you take a look at the diff's you provided. the middle one does not appear to be a revert. It appears to be new text, from the discussion page. I believe JA has only 2RR on the article. Lsi john 15:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It appears he may unknowingly have hit 3RR. Just on different text, and due to a much older version (related to a single word).

New text: new text

First revert: revert 1

Second revert: revert 2

Third (possible) revert: revert 3 This edit removed the word 'many' which had been discussed quite a while ago and was found to be inappropriate Original Research. He was probably unaware that a version of the article had existed with this word removed. However, technically, that may count as 3 reverts. Lsi john 15:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

He removed a single word from a new paragraph that he had just added (per discussion). He was only 2RR. Lsi john 16:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

From Indyfitz

On my talk page, you left a note to me to read the trolls info page. Why? My edit to the Scientology page was to remove a clear vandalism that cited Scientology as ridiculous. While I agree it is, that had no place in the article. I'm not sure why you were directing me to the trolls page. Indy 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I said WP:DFTT; your "I agree with Mr. Troll" edit summary is called "feeding the trolls". --Justanother 16:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am

I suppose its better than being bug-splatted. !! Lsi john 16:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is better to be the wall than the bug . . . but I don't feel very wallish. --Justanother 16:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you're a bug, its better to hit the wall, than be hit by a windshield. Lsi john 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Prolly. There is another "internet word". Like "meh", I guess. --Justanother 17:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Too Funny

I was crusing around and ran across an article on Andre Tabayoyon. I removed what appears to be both original research, and an attempt to self-justify notability. Then I saw that you are editing there already. Why did you let cheezy editing like that slide by? Shame on you.

Heh, anyway, I thought it was funny, bumping into you again.

peace in God. Lsi john 12:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I did a little editing this morning before leaving for work. As I was driving to work I was thinking about that article and realized that it is likely 90% based on non-RS material. I do not think that affidavit is available in RS. I also do not think that HollywoodInterrupted is an RS site. So I will look at it more later but feel free! Thanks. --Justanother 13:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd hope that experienced editors wouldn't use nonRS sites (or allow them to remain). That would look bad for their credibility. Lsi john 13:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I met Tabayoyon in 1986. Actually had a bit of a run-in with him when I allowed someone to do something he did not like. Too much testosterone! You know the sort; always projecting like he wants to fight you. Trying to intimidate physically (he is a big guy). I held my ground and he gave me the old "one dog to another" thumbs-up. Sheesh, as a friend of ours likes to say. --Justanother 13:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Just an FYI, that was a very classy end to the ANI thread, kudos. And don't forget that you can always check in with an editor, admin or project that might be able to help you figure out what you don't know you don't know before you escalate it to AN. User:Bishonen, me, Editor Assistance, Helpdesk, etc. Happy Wednesday. Anchoress 04:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and true. But I did not know what I did not know and that is what always bites you in the ass. Thanks for closing it. --Justanother 04:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

If you have a problem with a nom, take it back to the suggestion page and comment on it. Do not blank it and do not replace it with one of your own. Yomangani^talk 14:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am doing that now. Thanks. --Justanother 14:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that AGF and CIVIL apply to edit summaries too, so please refrain from comments like this. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 07:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize for that. I apologized on Yo's page for losing my temper. --Justanother 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 16 June, 2007, a fact from the article KRC (Scientology) , which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 16:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Justanother 16:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh Woo hoo.. i know a famous person!!!!! Congrats! Lsi john 16:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. Now the fun begins, already had the first vandalism. Please help me watch the page. Thanks. --Justanother 16:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You're on ANI

You're the subject of an ANI thread here. I guess Anynobody forgot to tell you. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

Now there is a DY(F)K for ya (smile). Thanks. I made my (only) response. --Justanother 14:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jojo (disambiguation)

Hi, I'm just curious, why did you revert your speedy tag here? It seems the page is orphaned. I was thinking I should have deleted it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Actually it was a confusion on my part. I saw that an anon had posted nonsense in the talk page and then I wondered why the disamb was at Jojo and not Jojo (disambiguation). I was going to del the latter and ren the former, basically undoing what you had just done. Luckily I spotted that the page had previously been moved and so I checked the WP:MOS on disamb and saw that I was mistaken about what the disamb should be named. Incidentally, the MOS mentions that a page and redirect as we have now is appropriate. Sorry for almost screwing up. --Justanother 14:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal Pictures

I took pictures of the Scientology cross and the Scientology symbol from a Scientology building. Because these are pictures of buildings structures I don't think they are protected by copyrights law. How can I post these pics in Wiki? Bravehartbear 01:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It is easy. Just click "Upload file" on the left. --Justanother 01:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Help

I got an issue in the main Scientology page. In the talk area. Bravehartbear 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Though we may not agree on the best place to put that info. My comment is there. --Justanother 04:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Recommendations

Hi. I'm fairly new to this game, and I don't agree with the recent reversions that have been made in the David Miscavige page, particulary in light of Biographies of Living Persons policy. Can you look it over and let me know what you think?Su-Jada 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My comment is on the talk page. I will leave it to you and other editors to decide how to best represent the book sources. The Prince bit is a no-go. If you need in-depth help, go to WP:BLPN. You may want to lurk there and pick up how that works. --Justanother 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Theme

Mentorship and 3 month blocks/bans seems to be a theme here with the facsinating hobby.Lsi john 17:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration notification

Per recommendation from the WP:CSN closure I have initiated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#COFS. You are a named party in the request so you may wish to submit a statement to the Committee. Durova^Charge! 02:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. --Justanother 03:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, Bish. What do you think of this edit? I thought it was about the only thing I could do given the totally unsourced WP:BLP nature of the page. Not that I doubt the veracity but it needs sourcing! --Justanother 20:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good move, Justa. I've reverted, cleaned up, and sourced. Bishonen | talk 09:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. --Justanother 11:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The odd edit summary, "funny", had to do with a response that I decided to keep to myself but I forgot to change the ES. --Justanother 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Similarities (from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration)

Justanother, I believe thats the second (or third) time I've seen a similar reference to Scientology. Are you suggesting that wikipedia and Scientology are similar? Peace.Lsi john 12:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

They are similar in that they are both groups with a mission that a large number of people have come together to support; they both are "open-format" in that anyone can join; they both are controlled by an extemely small group of individuals with a larger group of dedicated insiders that enforce the common mission and maintain order; they are not "democratic"; they both hold "reason" in the highest regard although they may disagree on what the limits of "reason" may be (the Wikipedia community being overwhelmingly given to ontologies such as materialism or Michael Shermer's version of scientism, IMO, while the metaphysics of Scientology is more dualist - theta/MEST - and mystical); perhaps because of these similarities, they have both evolved amazingly similar methods of dealing with disruptive elements. So in a social sense, there are similarities. Of course there are vast differences and I am not trying to downplay the differences, I simply find the parallels in how the two groups deal with disruptive elements quite interesting given that much of the criticism of Scientology has to do with how it deals with disruptive elements. --Justanother 13:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and because of another similarity, they are both composed of people - by and large well-meaning people but people nonetheless - there are abuses of power and of process. There are also remedies for such abuses although they may grind slowly, be biased toward the status quo, and require large amounts of effort (and self-restraint) on the part of the disputant. And, in both cases, there is little internal recourse if you think the very small controlling group at the top is evil. Sorry. --Justanother 14:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Note to self

Note to self: NEVER say "putsch". --Justanother 14:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Today's headline

Edit

Editor

"I just posted something that was at that time a piece of wrong unsourced information that is typical on wikipedia, as it is done all the time."

--Justanother 15:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

swift work

good work removing this. My eyes almost popped out of my head when I saw it! --Fredrick day 20:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please add this one to your watch list also. diff --Justanother 22:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 22:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Later

I'm back. --Justanother 13:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why is it on the Johnny Lee Clary page, you said I can not put the Kevin Sullivan-Chris Benoit opinion on the page, but there is an entire section of opinions made by Johnny Lee Clary, but you removed the Johnny Lee Clary opinions on the Benoit case, but allowed the others to stay? Please give an excuse for this. ReaganRebel 22:42 July 2nd, 2007

Hi. You cannot accuse someone of murder on these pages. If those accusations are reported in the mainstream media then you could mention them here but unless and until that occurs you cannot. This is an encyclopedia, not some sort of talk page. The most key policy is WP:BLP. You can also look at WP:V and WP:A. The fact that a person that has an article here made those claims is not sufficient to include them. If you have further questions, don't take my word for it, please post a question at WP:BLPN. Thank you. --Justanother 03:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just looked again at the article. And you are right that there are lots more opinions posted there that have no place in this project. In actual fact, probably all of that opinion stuff should come out. There is a BIG difference, though, between saying he doesn't like Harry Potter and saying that someone committed a heinous triple murder. If I had more time I would remove more of his opinions but I do not have the time. You can remove them if you care to or perhaps someone else will. --Justanother 04:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Feeding Time

Feeding Time
At the
Scientology Articles!

Hope you had a good vacation! Peace.Lsi john 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of a 3 dimensional objects that have a logo

File:Scientology Symbol 2.jpg

The Scientology Symbol

I took a picture of a 3 dimensional objects that have a logo. Can I use this pic in Wikipedia?

Image use policy It says: "Photographs of three-dimensional objects almost always generate a new copyright in addition to copyrights of objects."

There are many instances of the logos apearing in many pictures.

My problem is that that e-meter is being used in the Scientology table and that doesn't represent Scientology. Bravehartbear 23:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

See the comments on my talk page. Short answer, the logo can only be used under fair use provisions, and we're not allowed to use fair use images in templates. -- ChrisO 23:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Bravehartbear, the key words being: "in addition to copyrights of objects" - I believe this means, your copyright for your picture is in addition to the copyright of the object. And your copyright can't trump theirs. Peace.Lsi john 23:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It does, and you're right. I've clarified the wording in this line to reflect this: "Photographs of three-dimensional objects almost always generate a new copyright, though others may continue to hold copyright in items depicted in such photographs." -- ChrisO 23:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris, BHB does have an interesting question on their talkpage, regarding ford. and others. Are those templates in violation? Peace.Lsi john 23:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not used in templates - they're incorporated into infoboxes in articles. The Coca-Cola and Colgate logos are OK, because they're used only in the articles about those companies. There may be a problem with Ford, though - I'll look into this tomorrow when I'm a bit less tired! -- ChrisO 23:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thus, following that line, BHB could use their photo in an article infobox, just not the scientology template. Next Q, will be, how many articles (infoboxes) before its too many for fair use? Peace.Lsi john 23:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Realistically speaking, the only articles where it's likely to be reasonable fair use would be Scientology, where I note it's already being used, and Church of Scientology. -- ChrisO 00:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration workshop

Justanother, let's wait until the arbitrators respond at workshop talk before posting to the workshop itself about my talk page comments. If I painted with too broad a brush regarding your post you're welcome to clarify. I meant my words to express a degree of justification for your actions and reactions on that point. And if there's any doubt about the end of my post, allow me to set it to rest: I refer to other people who participated in banning policy discussions this spring when I suggest some editors may have been placing themselves above the Committee. Durova^Charge! 20:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. This is not really about your talk page comments; it is about the problem that I have had and that I have expressed about what I perceive as a use of the CSN board that is contrary to its mandate in policy and to its instructions. As I already said, I was going to look for clarification of that on WP:AN but certainly this is a better venue, do you not agree? --Justanother 21:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If that's what you mean then your post may clarify matters and be helpful. Despite your disagreements with me about the handling of this case, I suspect we share similar opinions on some policy and process level issues there. I've been in an uncomfortable position since March-April doing my best to abide by and work within some structures that I think were poorly conceived. Durova^Charge! 21:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I think that it would be helpful for the arb to clarify how the WP:CSN should be used in reference to relevant policy. Have a nice weekend. --Justanother 21:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've operated with the understanding that the banning policy's silence on the subject of community topic bans does not constitute rejection of the practice. Bear in mind that the noticeboard page's instructions refer to WP:RFC in part because WP:CSN isn't meant to duplicate a request for comment. Occasionally an editor confuses the two. It seems that the most salient point where you and I disagree is about short term topic banning. ArbCom hasn't specifically addressed short term topic bans before this case. The Committee endorsed the community's right to give indefinite topic bans when GordonWatts requested an appeal.

I suggest you consult with Newyorkbrad about the scope of the Committee's mandate before you post evidence on these topics. Some points where I suspect we agree are probably more appropriate for policy level discussion. I'd rather leave those areas alone while the case is underway. Durova^Charge! 22:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I read your hat write up

Greetings from a fellow Scientologist! I read your hat write up regarding editing here at wikipedia, and I found it very helpful! I don't know if I'll be doing too much editing in the main Scientology articles, as it seems that the contentiousness between editors is more hassle than I care to deal with! However, your write-up helped me deal with this page. Take care!HubcapD 23:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am glad that you found it. I am going to develop it into a more general article on editing against the grain here. And any help that you can offer on the Scn articles will help as it is, in part, a numbers game and we cannot have the Scientologists "wussing out" at every turn (smile). --Justanother 00:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed

Just fyi, I've removed the arbcom from my watchlist. I think it will be easier for me to avoid the baiting this way. Since I don't really have any direct evidence to contribute related to the case, and my only objection all along has been that nobody else has provided any 'real' evidence, and since I've now made that point on the talkpage, there really isn't anything more for me to contribute. Give me a nudge if you feel I need to be aware of something there. Thanks. Peace.Lsi john 14:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will let you know if you are mentioned. Assuming I read the post where you are mentioned. Big assumption. So I accept no liability if I fail to see where you are mentioned. --Justanother 14:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

hahahaha.. check. I didnt say to tell me if I'm mentioned. "Give me a nudge if you feel I need to be aware of something there.". Ciao. Peace.Lsi john 14:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I only think I need to inform you if you are mentioned. Otherwise, all love but if you want out then you should stay out. --Justanother 14:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Minor thing, but don't forget to sign your posts, especially on ArbCom pages. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I usually do, I missed there. --Justanother 15:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIV

Hello. Why would you remove an active shortcut from the list of shortcuts? The point of that box is to list shortcuts, no? So if one can type WP:TRIV instead of WP:TRIVIA that saves two keystrokes and that is what shortcuts are all about. I did not invent WP:TRIV; but if it works then it should be in the box. --Justanother 00:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello! The purpose of the shortcut box is not to document all of the page's shortcuts. It's to list the shortcuts (ideally one or two) that are the most useful (typically an initialism/acronym and a word) for people who already have found the page. Otherwise, these lists grow out of control (and including more than two links can look terrible at higher resolutions; the lines of text don't wrap as much, so a ridiculous amount of whitespace appears in the policy box).

In this instance, WP:ATS serves as a short keystroke-saver, while WP:TRIVIA serves as an actual English word that can easily be remembered by people who don't care for initialisms. Additionally, "WP:TRIV" is mentioned at the top of the page. —David Levy 00:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAIR WP:ENOUGH; I will probably not remember WP:ATS but I can remember the others. --Justanother 00:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Desperation

Rules to follow when you're desperate:

"That which you seek to destroy, you must first make controversial."

"In order to be right, it is important to discredit the other person."

"If I can't provide any real evidence, distract the process by pointing at someone else."

"If I can't find anything with substance to use against them, find something silly and imply it 'might' be sinister." Note to self: even a smiley face can be used to imply MEAT PUPPETRY if properly misinterpreted.

"Always present the most suspicious answer as the only probable explanation."

"Never attack directly, but instead, make a clear 'innuendo' and leave it up to the good listener to decide for themselves."

"Never answer any question directly. Instead either incorrectly reword the question and answer that, or point somewhere odd and imply that it answers the question."

Peace.Lsi john 19:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Very true. --Justanother 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Well now we'll get to see just how neutral and unbaised she is.

Based on this, she says Anynobody looks bad and has overdone it on the notice boards and on his talkpage with you. So if she's neutral, we should see her findings posted as evidence that he's a bad boy.

Wana place a wager that she doesn't post a single negative thing about him? Peace.Lsi john 04:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pressie

3/4" preferred

I much prefer the 3/4" ID hose over the 1/2" or 5/8", though admittedly you'll need 3/4" lines in the house feeding it or you probably won't have sufficient head pressure. Peace.Lsi john 15:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I finally figured out what this refered to (I thought maybe it had something to do with brainwashing). I ain't sharing a hose with anyone! You can catch something nasty that way. I want my own hose. God save us from over-simplification. --Justanother 15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to respond with something apropos in Latin, but I think I'll stick with French. Latin is too legal sounding, and after all we aren't adjudicating ad hominem, or are we? oops. it sneekeded in anyway. Peace.Lsi john 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So what is it in French? --Justanother 16:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Après quelqu'un, le déluge? Durova^Charge! 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. That is what ran through my mind earlier today when I first saw Lsi John's reference to French. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Perhaps the Wikipedia anthem. --Justanother 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

c'est la vie. c'est la guerre. c'est la pomme de terra. Peace.Lsi john 00:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Les pommes de terre. That reminds me. Tommy runs a great little taco stand, I'm taking Joannie over there for a bite later tonight. --Justanother 00:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheer up

You've made some good contributions to Wikipedia and obviously know something about how to use this site. If we can find a way to reduce the level of conflict, I see no reason why we can't work together. I am actually sympathetic to your problem. The Scientology articles do seem excessively negative, and it's quite possible that they have NPOV problems you could help to resolve.

Maybe you want to give Durova and me a second chance? You could start by refactoring any unnecessarily harsh comments, and I would do the same for mine. I can't speak for Durova, but I believe that she is very reasonable when people make an effort at reconciliation. Jehochman ^Talk 19:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sure, I am willing to smoke the peace pipe. I would ask that you remove or strike "evidence" about me that is not related to the subject of the arbitration, said subject being a rather straight-forward case of COI not involving me, you, Durova, or Lsi john. There is no reason for "evidence" to address any of us. If you care to also strike unsupported allegations of impropriety on my part that have appeared on the talk pages then that would be good also but I do not worry too much about talk pages. You know, all I ever really "accused" you of is sending SheffieldSteel to CSN when the case should have stayed on COIN. Strike the "evidence" and then tell me specifically what bothers you about my posts (I can obviously guess on some) and I will strike or refactor those bits. You can also, if you prefer, strike all or part of your talk page charges against me and I will strike my responses. In either case I am also willing to remove rather than strike and you are free to do the same. I think that WP:IAR should apply to removal in this case. Another option if you do not care to strike your "evidence" is that we can just leave the stuff between us two as it is and stop contributing to it and stop escalating it. I really hate these sorts of timesinks and would much rather spend that little time I can spare for Wikipedia in improving articles. --Justanother 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want you to waste a lot of time. In looking through your edits I see a lot of potential for good, so I think we should focus on that and work together to make things better. I'll go through my comments and evidence and do a bit of striking. You can do the same if you like, but don't worry over that too much. If you like, make a list of the egregious anti-scientology biases and I will look in to them when I find time. Jehochman ^Talk 23:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I invite you to look at an essay I wrote: Wikipedia: Search engine optimization. I wrote this because many SEO professionals have been coming to Wikipedia and getting into trouble. I am trying to help them by explaining how this site works. This essay is a lot like the page you prepared in your userspace for welcoming Scientologists to Wikipedia. I think you should resurrect that page and invite neutral editors, such as Bishonen and Durova, and maybe me, to review it to make sure your advice represents Wikipedia best practices. This would be a great demonstration of good faith and reconciliation on your part. Scientologists definitely are welcome to edit Wikipedia. Yes, the articles may seem very biased. We need to explain proper ways to deal with that so newcomer Scientologists don't lash out in frustration. Jehochman ^Talk 00:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While I hardly think that I need to make any extra effort to "demonstrate good faith and reconciliation", as you say, (other than my previous offer to adjust my remarks if you adjust yours), I do plan on finishing my essay but am gearing it toward a larger audience than only Scientologists. I created User:Justanother/Grain a week ago for that purpose but most of what little time I have for Wikipedia has been wasted addressing off-topic issues. As far as my essay, I certainly welcome input from other editors and have always had a section for such at the bottom of User:Justanother/writeup. You and Durova (and anyone else) are certainly welcome to post your thoughts there and I would be happy if you did. --Justanother 03:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have adjusted my remarks on the evidence page, and will look at your essay. Thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 11:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will look at it this evening. This is my little bit of time before I leave for work and I am trying to limit editing Wikipedia at work. --Justanother 11:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jehochman, for striking your evidence. I have stricken my replies to it on the talk page. --Justanother 12:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Have a question

There's a dispute over at the David Miscavige article about the use of "tell-all" books as RS in a bio article. It's turned into an edit war between Tilamn and Su-Jada. I think the matter needs RfC. Should I go ahead and request it, or wait for one of them to do it?HubcapD 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You can bring an RfC but you may want to make compromise edits yourself first. You will likely find that you will not dislodge the "yellow journalism" as a reliable source. The most that you can do is note the source and any COI of the author (not in an OR way, just who it is if it is a factor) and ensure that the article is true to the source and that sources are not combined in an OR fashion to arrive at new conclusions. But don't take my word for it and if you can make a good case for another interpretation of WP:POLICY then go for it. Also, it is a good idea to try over at WP:BLPN before opening an RfC as the BLPN people specialize in bios. Hope this helps. --Justanother 03:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'd much rather Su-Jada do it, since he seems much more familiar with the books Tilman is referenceing than I. Quite frankly, I'd rather not read them for the copious amounts of entheta they are sure to contain (ran into the Corydon book when I was a wee Scientologist; that was not fun!). But, if he doesn't do it, I suppose it never hurts to ask.

P.S. Tilman accused me of being a sock puppet over there. Does that mean I've passed my initiation? ;-)HubcapD 03:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he popped your cherry. Welcome to Wikipedia! --Justanother 04:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Careful, the next think you know, he'll accuse you of being Christian. inside humor Peace.Lsi john 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the horror! Anyway, Su-Jada stepped up to defend his point, and wikipediatrix backed him up, so Tilman decided to take his ball and go home for now. My guess is this will all spring up again in about a month or so.HubcapD 18:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the hard core anti-cos folks are keeping a low-profile during the arbcom. They might be POV but they aren't stupid. I'm confident that once arbcom closes, they'll resume in force. Peace.Lsi john 14:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I wish all of the pro-COS folks would be equally restrained during the arbitration. Some of their recent actions, especially Misou's, have unfortunately made fine examples for the evidence page.

2. We will ask for remedies with "teeth" as Bishonen requested, so that if anti-COS POV pushers show up after the arbitration ends, we will be able to deal with them. Jehochman ^Talk 14:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of the aggressive nature of some of the pro-Cos editors. And I'm disgusted with the naive solutions from some people who aren't interested in really digging in and helping. Peace.Lsi john 15:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I wiki-sleuthed *gag* June 1 through June 26 and sent it to you in email. Peace.Lsi john 15:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bob

hi. signed in invisible ink Peace.Lsi john 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi to you. I thought maybe you signed it in a comment format that will only show up in edit mode. --Justanother 19:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)