User talk:Anyeverybody/Archives/2007/October

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Harassment

Your edits are coming coming close to harassment of me as an editor and are minimally disruptive, maybe even vandalism, per its definition here. Keep your cool and Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to L Ron Hubbard, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. . Shutterbug 06:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly no harassment is intended, but if you think that's what I'm doing report it on the arbcom enforcement page. Anynobody 06:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Did so. This is a boring game. Shutterbug 07:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Odd, I was just there to report my post about you on WP:AN3 and didn't see anything about harassment on the thread. Anynobody 07:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. Shutterbug 08:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Game? Like just messin around or l Ron Hubbard's definition? Whatever the case, I do not enjoy having to enforce the rules. Which all games have, if you want to look at editing as a game then please try to play by the rules. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, which trump all of our individual POVs.
Subject My POV Source POV Correct POV
Scientology I feel it is a set of ideas some people look at as a religion. If it makes them happy, great. I honestly think people should be able to believe spiritually as they wish, I just also happen to think they should not expect me to believe it. Time Magazine: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power Time Magazine: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power
I'm not saying this is the only source or final judgment, the point is that NPOV is determined by the sources not us as editors. Anynobody 06:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "NPOV is determined by the sources not us as editors". Here is where something called responsibility comes in. If you know that the media report is a lie, why would you quote it? Shutterbug 18:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


The sources could be incorrect, but we still have to use them. Take Krakatoa for example, actual name Krakatau, which is/was what the natives called it. Western journalists screwed up on or intentionally substituted an easier to say name resulting in Krakatoa when reporting its 1883 eruption. The error has been fixed for the most part in current sources like the USGS on their page site describing the 1883 eruption. Yet here we still call it Krakatoa because lots of old sources and common perception know it as Krakatoa. Until some geologist or author writes about the screw up, I have no way to trump arguments from editors saying we should keep the old name, right or wrong.

If I did think Time and Money were lying about Hubbard, I simply wouldn't edit the article anymore since I'm not eager to pass on what I think is a lie. I'd do the same if I was sure they happened to be mistaken, again not wanting to pass on wrong information. Doing anything else would be violating several rules, primarily WP:NPOV. Anynobody 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 3 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Diamond (gemstone), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 19:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) Anynobody 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Barbara's article

Hi Anynobody/Anyeverybody. Do you think it might be possible to come to some agreement on a couple changes in this so that we both could free up our time for other things? Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to do just that, (come to some agreement) on Talk:Barbara Schwarz where others can easily partcipate. Let's keep discussion about the article on its talk page. Anynobody 00:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Good edits

Nice, cited bold edits.--Fahrenheit451 05:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it's nice to be appreciated :) Anynobody 05:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Terra Nova Expedition, 2nd opinion

I felt much like you did before plunging in and doing my first GA review, but I encourage you to be bold. The comments you made on your request for a 2nd opinion seemed perfectly reasonable; the article clearly isn't there yet.

So give the editors your feedback, and work together with them to sort out the problems. The review shouldn't be a "them and us" experience, it should be a "how can we work together to make this article better" experience.

I'll happily give a second opinion (if you'd like me to) once you've given the first opinion. Go on, go for it. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 23:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your vote of confidence :) However, assuming all my suggestions were followed would the article then be WP:GA? (Also what's the rule on just fixing it myself?) Anynobody 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

4RR on L. Ron Hubbard

You are not such a greenhorn that I would have to warn you. But I do anyways. Misou 05:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mean to sound threatening, but I was debating reporting you for edit warring. You're actually reverting sourced material which is not exactly smiled upon here. Moreover, as I've said, I'm open to positive WP:RS for the section too. Anynobody 05:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Get real, you are opposed by 4-5 people with your biased opinion. You break rules, you get kicked. Simple. You ignore talk page consent, you get kicked. Also simple. Believe me, I know. Misou 05:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Uh, here's what's really happening:Foobaz, FOo, and GoodDamon actually seem to support the addition. Not counting CoS POV pushers, anti-CoS POV pushers, or myself, only Wikipediatrix doesn't support it. Anynobody 05:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol

Haha, don't you love it? Oh, and the time is 05:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC) :P. Cheers, The Hybrid 05:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed, lol! Anynobody 05:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I've considered changing my name to just "Hybrid" in the past, but it doesn't roll off the tongue as well, and I am THE Hybrid ;). Cheers, The Hybrid 05:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Just like Chronic, there's it and The Chronic... whereas I prefer less specificity * Anynobody 05:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I do think that just Chronic sounds better, mainly because it bothers me that chronic is an adjective, and thus shouldn't be used with an article specifying it (weird reason to dislike something, eh?), but as far as my name goes I think that it sounds better with The in front of it, but to each his own. So, how are you, Anynobody? The Hybrid 05:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually chronic could be a noun or an adjective depending on the meaning (the noun is slang, I think). As for me, life's the same how about you? Anynobody 06:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much the same for me as well. I've just "graduated" from physical therapy meant to bring down the inflammation around my rotator cuff, so I get to go talk to my surgeon whenever he has a time available. Other than that life is pretty much normal. WP:PW looks like it will be shaping up soon. I've just secured MiszaBot for its use, so hopefully we will be able to improve project communication and keep everyone informed of the goings on. This should dramatically speed up to "Reformation" taking place. So, how's life on the 'pedia? I noticed that you were recently involved in an arb comm decision. What's that about? The Hybrid 06:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It was weird, started out about a group of editors using Scientology IPs to edit Scientology articles; Ended up forcing one of em to change their user name, and that I had harassed another Scientologist editor. Frankly I don't think the arbcom was paying attention, given the WP:COI implications of sanctioning such editing (might as well allow Microsoft, the BBC, etc. to do the same thing). The harassment deal is funny because the supposed victim would never actually cite a time he had been harassed. I'm not making a big stink about it because if he couldn't point to any situation, then as I had said all along I never harassed him...therefore I can actually prove the arbcom wrong by not changing anything. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's impossible for me to have harassed him because like all humans I'm not perfect. However when an accuser can't/won't cite an actual case the accused has no way to know what behavior to change.) It really is a funny situation, and I don't mean it in a bitter sense, I'm talking in a comedic sense. Anynobody 06:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought that was weird. You don't seem like the kind of person who would harass people. Well, I'll just take this strange circumstance as proof that any kind of bureaucracy sucks, and it should be shrunk to the smallest possible form while still preventing chaos. I think that people were misunderstanding the situation between the two of you. After your editor review and chaotic RfA I would occasionally check in on you two, and to me it just looks like two people with similar interests but differing views getting into conflicts. If a conservative and a liberal keep getting into disputes on articles related to FOX News, that isn't harassment; that's just two people running into each other constantly and coincidentally because they are interested in the same things. I think that it's pretty much the same deal here. The dispute didn't branch off into other topics, did it? The Hybrid 06:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I don't think I've ever run into him outside two articles. (You are correct about bureaucracy, the experience is actually in an odd way gratifying... I've been saying for years bureaucracies breed problems like this.) The main irony is I don't even care about Scientology that much, since I fixed L. Ron Hubbard's military career I feel obligated to help with the rest of the article.
The only other article kinda-sorta related to Scientology is Barbara Schwarz who deserves an article here despite what Scientologists (and one other guy, unrelated to the CoS "issue") say. Personally I think they are trying to get rid of her article because mental illness doesn't exist in whatever they study, but her (Schwarz) actions seem to shoot that theory down. (I think she deserves an article because she's a non-us citizen taking advantage of FOIA and the government in a pursuit for evidence which doesn't exist at the expense of tax dollars and time. So I'd be editing her article regardless of which religion she affiliated her delusions with. I don't mean to sound hostile to her, I actually feel incredibly sorry for what life must be like for her.) Anynobody 07:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll post my reply tomorrow, as I have to go to bed. It's late where I am, and I have plans in the morning. Cheers, The Hybrid 07:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
That's cool, it was 00:30ish where I live so I totally understand. Anynobody 07:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't sleep D,: Anyway, there really isn't much to say. Your isolated experience with him drives home the point that I made before about it not being harassment, but two editors with similar interests. Anyway, just out of curiosity, exactly where do you swing on the political compass? Peace, The Hybrid 09:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
All over the place, trying to sum it up in a liberal/conservative sense is tough. I would say independent but that's what people who refuse to accept their liberal/conservative nature tend to call themselves, so lets just say I'm unique and can vary by issue. Anynobody 00:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I fit the definition of a libertarian pretty well. I'm generally socially liberal, ie legalize gay marriage and marijuana, do not limit free speech for any reason, etc. I am fiscally conservative, so I say lower taxes as much as possible, do not limit international trade, the idea of a welfare state is terrible, and such. The only time that I really stray from libertarianism is on abortion, but even then I'm just conservative enough to alienate the liberals and libertarians while still being liberal enough to alienate the conservatives :P. The Hybrid 00:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I too manage to alienate everyone, for different reasons but similar causes. I know enough about the military to make liberals think I'm pro-war, but because I'm not and think the administration is frankly fucking up how the world sees us, I REALLY alienate conservatives. (Also, and I find this amusing, I put off a surprising amount of liberals because I believe a bunch of guys from Saudi Arabia executed a plan conceived and funded by Al-Queda rather than a false flag operation by the Bush administration. Aside from all the obvious stuff such people refuse to acknowledge is the fact that the Bush administration hasn't really gotten anything right...giving them credit for such a bizarre and difficult conspiracy makes no sense to me which doesn't exactly impress conservatives.) Oddly, I prefer being alienated. Anynobody 00:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Finally, someone who understands me, sort of. Being educated on something doesn't mean that you support it; it just means that you wanted all of the information before making a decision, rather than just assuming that someone was correct because of their party affiliation and following them like a sheep. For example, I was flabbergasted back when I first met you on the Bill O'Reilly talk page, when that one guy got pissed off, because he (basically) said I like O'Reilly and that's why he doesn't like me. I hate O'Reilly. He's an uneducated loud-mouth, and I can barely stand to hear his voice, but he's moderately entertaining to watch when nothing else is on. I was just trying to be fair with the policies, and give a relatively new user some advice on not offending people in disputes. I hate it when people jump to conclusions. The Hybrid 01:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I do understand, and agree, I really dislike O'Reilly but if you play by the rules here you have to write about the WP:RS which back him. (Doesn't mean that you do, just that you understand NPOV.) I also agree with you on people jumping to conclusions, I guess I wouldn't mind so much if people were equally quick to realize their mistake. I have similar issues with the two Scientology related articles I mentioned above, because Time calls them The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, and I used their article as a source, I must be anti-CoS. Anynobody 02:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, knowing both sides of a discussion seems to anger those who are too close-minded to educate themselves on the side that they have taken. I find that younger authoritarian liberals (socialists IMO) are more guilty of this than anyone else (this surprises me since you'd think the religious right would be more venomous; I guess that's only when they congregate). The older ones are far more tolerant of other views, but the younger ones tend to be rather militant, and will even call you an evil racist right to your face for not supporting socialized medical care. After the experience on O'Reilly's talk page I decided that I wouldn't ever edit articles related to politics on Wikipedia actively. I'll occasionally chime in on a discussion, as I did once on the article about Media Matters, but not over anything major. For that I just put someone's comment in different words because I thought that they were correct, but I'm not interested in starting up new discussions or attempting to resolve disputes or anything like that. Politics really bring out the worst in people. The Hybrid 03:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah they do, but you might consider not letting others opinion of you matter as much. I know it's easier said than done, but once it occurred to me that their "slings and arrows" proved two things, I found it easier. 1) They want you to feel bad 2) They have no counter for whatever point you're making, which is why they resort to labels/insults/etc. Handling point one; Why should you feel bad just because someone you'll never meet wants you to? Point two means that as long as you're able to maintain a cool head, and keep on subject, you have a real chance disproving their argument. (People don't like to be proven "wrong", so the closer you get to doing that the more likely they are to become hostile.) The point is, you did a good job on the O'Reilly article, don't let somebody's idiocy keep you away from something you're interested in. Anynobody 04:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I generally don't let it matter to me, especially in the past two months. The car wreck, my shoulder injury, and a previously unmentioned wrist sprain that canceled out the progress I was making in physical therapy showed me that getting angry about things you can't control just makes everything worse. Nonetheless, dealing with illogical and angry people isn't something that I enjoy. Since this site is just my hobby I'm not really interested in trying to deal with them. (If the past sentences sounded strange it's because they were all one sentence that made no sense, so I divided them up :P) Trolls are easier to deal with than these people since you can just block a troll, but these people are editing in good faith, and there isn't a policy against being an idiot with anger issues. I may join the fray again someday, but at the moment I don't have any plans to. The Hybrid 06:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you may like this revision of an old friend's userpage. Peace, The Hybrid 06:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(Responding to your last post first), I do like it, he's right too. :)
That's cool, there's a difference between not feeling like dealing with angry people and being afraid to (especially considering your situation). I haven't been editing there or Ann Coulter for a while since I get enough angry people with the two articles I mentioned earlier. (However if one or the other says something really stupid that supporters try to cover up, I might be inclined to get involved there before I finish either article).
A wrist injury sucks, actually any injury interfering with use of hands makes typing such a pain in arse. if you have the means you might look into some kind of naturally speaking system so you can just talk what you want to type. Anynobody 21:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the means :(, but I have an acceptable tolerance for pain, so it isn't that big of a deal. As far as Coulter goes, I don't understand why anyone supports her. I can understand not violating the unspoken code of honor by actually attacking another party member, but as far as actually supporting her goes I just don't see it. Her attacks damage the entire party's credibility; I don't understand why more of them don't denounce her. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 23:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Eh, that's another reason I don't affiliate with a party; I would speak out against members of my party if they were stupid or intolerant (otherwise I'm tacitly condoning their stupidity/intolerance). On the other hand, I'm sure she has her uses to the GOP we aren't aware of as we fall outside her "demographic". Anynobody 06:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

:(PS Cool sig) Anynobody 06:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Lights made it for me in his signature shop. Yeah, I know that some people enjoy reading her books because apparently she's a bit of a comedian, but I don't understand how calling John Edwards a fagot helps the party. Anyway, that's all that can really be said about her. What are your thought on Glen Beck? The Hybrid T/C 07:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Never heard of him before your link. This quote sums him up for me:"Either you think that we should have never gone there in the first place and we should get out immediately, or you're like me and you think we should finally start fighting this with everything we`ve got." I think he's a dickhead, who obviously has no idea what the situation in Iraq is. (Fight who with everything we have, Sunni militias, Shi'a groups?) People like him are why Bush won twice... Anynobody 07:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, wait until you hear this. On his show I heard the greatest argument for pulling out that anyone has ever presented. He played a clip on his show where a spokesman for Hezbollah stated point blank that their strategy for defeating the United States is to funnel money out of the US economy with the Middle Eastern oil, and get the US into wars that they cannot win until they just collapse financially, exactly like we did to the Soviet Union. I forget how, but somehow he turned the fact that the US walked right into a trap and is continuing to be weakened by that trap into an argument to stay in the war. I watch his show because in his attempt to defend Bush's foreign policy he provides damning evidence against it that no one has ever seen before. He's so stupid that he makes people smarter :P. The Hybrid T/C 08:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
(Uhm, try to imagine a tone of voice conveying "it's even worse than you think" but in a darkly humorous way when reading this.)
It's a good point, and we should remember it before going into anymore "pre-emptive" defensive actions. Thinking the only options are pulling out or fighting is a false dilemma. We never should have gone in the first place, but since we did and made a big mess, we ought to clean it up before leaving. Otherwise history will record that we went in, ousted a despot looking for weapons we knew they didn't have, opened Pandora's box and then bailed. (Al-Queda formed because bin Laden had some issue with American troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, nevermind that the Saudis asked us to come. Now we are in two Muslim countries, can't forget Afghanistan though Bush seems to have, and innocent people are dying every day...Bush doesn't realize it but when, yes when, a nuke goes off somewhere in the US the people behind it will cite our actions in those two countries.) Anynobody 08:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the situation over there is terrible (understatement of the century), but the economic state that we are in is worse, IMO. We are legitimately at risk of falling apart like the USSR soon, sooner than anyone realizes, and it is time to go into self-preservation mode. What people over here seem to think is that the US is invincible if it has smart leaders, but it just isn't so. There is a reason that Dick Cheney said that defeating al-Qaeda would be like the war on piracy; it will take the entire industrialized world chipping in, and it will still take an eternity to finally pull it off. This will be incredibly expensive, and we can't afford to foot the bill for both Iraq and this. We are now $9,000,000,000,000 in debt, and honestly, it isn't all Bush's fault. War is expensive, and even if we hadn't gone into Iraq we would still be trillions in the hole just from fighting al-Qaeda. Since there isn't a country called al-Qaedia for us to fight them in, we will be spending the next few decades chasing the leaders around the Middle East and probably India, and trying to prevent attacks around he World. If we don't start saving as much money as possible as soon as possible, then we will collapse, and the majority of the public will never see it coming. Does it suck that we would be abandoning the Iraqis? More than can be stated. However, until the European Union fuses politically, if America fails then the World has lost the most important beacon of democracy the World has. What kind of message would it send to have the World's only superpower toppled by a theocratic fascist minority group who could barely even infiltrate the country that they toppled? The Hybrid T/C 09:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I should clarify, there's what I'd do and what I think Bush is capable of. Realistically I don't think Bush and his team could pull off a salvaging of the situation. However if it can be salvaged, the monetary concerns would actually take care of themselves based on the one thing they have gotten right about Iraq possessions, oil. I'll write more later, I'm usually in the middle of stuff while I'm on here and it's worse than usual today. Anynobody 23:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that al-Qaeda will ever let us stabilize Iraq, and I do believe that they have the ability to prevent the stabilization on their own, even if the insurgences are defeated. We will only be able to get at the oil after al-Qaeda is defeated, so I say we should stop putting so much focus on Iraq, and shift our focus to al-Qaeda itself. Since al-Qaeda is currently in Iraq, I don't support pulling out entirely until al-Qaeda pulls out. We need to change the mission back to defeating al-Qaeda, and put all other missions on hold until we've succeeded. The Hybrid T/C 03:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Al-Qaeda isn't as big a problem as the sectarian violence between armed groups. It's like a Muslim version of The Troubles, only with oil and control of a country at stake. The militias want us out so that they can "win" their wars (American troops won't let battles and ethnic cleansing happen because they tend to show up when the shooting starts. I'm not saying we haven't caused our share of innocent deaths, but that wasn't part of the plan like ec.) This makes it hard for the Sunnis to eliminate Shi'a and vice versa. If/when we leave the violence will get worse until one group dominates. I think the Shi'a will win, which would just be sheer irony since Iran will end up thanking us for doing what they couldn't do in the 80s AND Al-Qaeda will get kicked out of Iraq by other Muslims (since they are a Sunni group). Anynobody 04:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
(It really is all Bush's fault, by that I mean him and his A-Team. Like most Americans, the man probably couldn't find Iraq on a globe by himself. The reason it's his fault is that the military knows war is expensive, there are papers, books, projects, etc. discussing all aspects of war. Those that do never recommend it, yet the administration ignored this and made up excuses to "effect regime change in Iraq". That's another irony, Bill Clinton inadvertently gave Bush a mandate by calling for just that in 1998 or 1999.) Anynobody 04:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Kicking al-Qaeda out isn't that simple. Pakistan can't pull it off, Britain can't pull it off, and we are failing to keep our own pockets from forming in the US, if they haven't already. That is because this isn't a war with people; it is war with an idea. It is a war to keep Muslims from becoming radicalized. As long as Islam exists, there will be radical fundamentalist Muslims, just like there are radical fundamentalist Christians. This is because the so-called moderate stances are in direct contradiction of their religious texts. The Bible says that homosexuals should be stoned, so a true Christian would believe that, while a moderate Christian would not. The Qur'an states that all infidels should be killed, so true Muslims believe this while the moderates would not. As long as the religious texts exist, there will always be a pocket of adherents to that religion who read their holy book religiously, no pun intended, who radicalize themselves, and work to radicalize others. That is why kicking a group out isn't just that simple; you literally have to wage war for the hearts and minds of the population caught in the crossfire. Keeping in mind that they realize they wouldn't be in the crossfire if we hadn't invaded, who do you think they are more likely to side with? The Hybrid T/C 04:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Pakistan and the UK are very different than a Shi'a run Iraq would be. Pakistan has a broader cross section of faiths than Iraq, so Al-Qaeda has places to hide, plus they have a rather unique tribal section of their country where the government actually has no ability to enforce anything. The UK is a tolerant multicultural country, just like us, Al-Qaeda will have no problem setting up terrorist cells for operations here or there.
As I said, the Shi'a want us out, and since Al-Qaeda attacks could help make that happen, the Shi'a tolerate them. As soon as we're gone, the Sunnis will be taken care of, including Al-Qaeda.
Islam is not the problem, groups like Al-Qaeda are no different than the Army of God, both look to get their way through subversion of religion and violence. (I should probably explain that I'm agnostic). Sunni and Shi'a are just like Catholics and Protestants, for some reason they believe most of the same things, but really let the little stuff divide them.
I don't mean to sound authoritarian, what I've read and my opinions are of course subject to error. Anynobody 05:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a real chance of al-Qaeda coming out on top. While the Sunni are the minority, they still make up 20% of Iraq's population, so that in addition to control of oil is the reason for al-Qaeda to focus a tremendous amount of their forces on finally overthrowing Pakistan's government. With control of the Pakistani military, they would have a real chance at preventing the ethnic cleansing of their brethren, and taking control of Iraq instead of Iran. They are already successfully subverting the Pakistani power structure, and are legitimately a threat of being able to declare themselves rulers of the country before the decade is out. I think that al-Qaedia would be much more dangerous than Iran, so I say we simply pursue al-Qaeda mercilessly an without distraction to prevent the overthrow of the Pakistani government, and then worry about Iraq. We should do everything we can to keep Iran's claws off of the oil, of course, but al-Qadea is more dangerous than anything since they don't have a capital to protect. I say let the ethnic cleansing take place so al-Qaeda doesn't already have their foot 20% of the way through the door, secretly encourage an Iran-Israel war so we can finally be rid of the pesky Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei, and set up Pakistan as the regional power, while helping India reach superpower status to make sure that we have a close (geographically, not emotionally), more powerful ally when (not if, when) Pakistan chooses to turn on us. The reason that I say pull out is so we can go back in later with things a little more smoothed out, though the mass loss of life is a hard pill for some people to swallow. I, on the other hand, do not see that as a major drawback, since we know there isn't any way to win without massive loss of life. The Hybrid T/C 07:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to keep not agreeing with you, I'd say disagree but I don't think we're quite that far apart. The thing is Al-Qaeda isn't trying to take over Iraq or any other country; if they were they'd be attacking Shi'a groups and begging the US to stay like many Sunnis are. (They're actually attacking us and screwing their Sunni brethren at the same time.) If they somehow got hold of Pakistan it would actually hurt them since they'd be making a transition from terrorist tactics to those of an actual nation. The US could probably count on India to help take out an Al-Qaeda regime there (for certain concessions of course, Kashmir being one I imagine) since nobody wants to see nuclear armed terrorists in their backyard. (That said, in such a situation I could also foresee China helping take care of a Pakistan under Al-Qaeda).
Pakistan also lies east of Iraq, after Iran and Afghanistan, so getting troops to Iraq could be a challenge since I doubt NATO (who's in Afghanistan) would let them make it. If NATO couldn't stop them, I know Iran would.
Whatever happens, I can agree with you completely that massive loss of life is now unavoidable no matter what. (And that's why I hate the Bush administration so much, they've started something that will not end until countless innocent lives are lost. If he had a shred of competence, this would have been something he knew. Instead he set up an Office of Special Plans to cherry pick scary sounding intel to justify the war for him.) Anynobody 02:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I blame Dick Cheney more. H.W. Bush wanted to do this during his presidency when it wouldn't have been a preemptive strike, but then-Secretary of Defense Cheney told him no even though we could have had the World and the entire Middle East on our side. It would have been one thing if he had just told him no, and then told our Georgie-boy no, but to tell Dubya yes after all this time even though nothing had changed except that we wouldn't have the World and the Middle East on our side is just stupidity. I don't hold malice towards them like you do, though, as I don't think they are evil. Anyway, we know that al-Qaeda is subverting the Pakistani government, and I can't think of any other reason for them to subvert it other than to get a hold of their weapons. I didn't put emphasis on the Pakistani nuclear weapons like I meant to in my last post. I also made another mistake in my statement, which I will often do when I type faster than I'm thinking. Making it to Iraq isn't the issue; it is having Iran surrounded and invaded. They don't have to get through Afghanistan; Iran's major borders are with Turkey, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If al-Qaeda comes into possession of the Pakistani nuclear weapons, well, need I say more? Iran is tolerating al-Qaeda setting up base in their country since they have both taken an anti-American stance on the US being in Iraq, so with Pakistan at their disposal, and positions in both Iraq and Iran, the Middle East or at least the area around the Persian Gulf will just erupt into Shia-on-Sunni chaos. This is why we have to go after al-Qaeda, and abandon Iraq temporarily. If we pull out (keeping the Iran-Iraq border sealed of course), then the Shia will drive al-Qaeda out of Iraq, Iran will drive al-Qaeda out of their country, and we will be able to focus our forces on preventing the overthrow of Pakistan, completely foiling al-Qaeda's plans. Then, we can turn our attention to setting up a stable government in Iraq independent of Iran, maybe even allowing Israel to go to war with Iran so we don't have to worry about them anymore. The Hybrid T/C 03:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I should clarify, Cheney is part of the administration (and problem), I don't think GWB is evil, I just think he's made many (MANY) stupid mistakes. (After all Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice. is what I'm doing. It just turns out that by doing stupid things, thousands of people can be killed.) Like you said, in 91 the world may have supported toppling Saddam, but they sure didn't in 2003. Iran is only a "threat" because Bush (like I said, when I say Bush I mean the whole admin) lumped them and North Korea into the "axis of evil".
There is more to Pakistan than Al-Qaeda, Pakistan is an entirely different issue. It sounds like you think it is in imminent danger of takeover by Al-Qaeda. I agree that if someone succeeds in killing Pervez Musharraf that country will probably fall apart. However for Al-Qaeda to "win" they'll have to deal with Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and other religions as well as different ethnicities. Anynobody 04:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This map is pretty old, but it does illustrate the diversity of Pakistan.
This map is pretty old, but it does illustrate the diversity of Pakistan.
They aren't a threat because of Israel's own program
They aren't a threat because of Israel's own program
I believe that anyone who denies the holocaust in addition to stating that their goal is to destroy Israel with the nuclear weapons they are building is a threat. I believe that anyone who has committed countless acts of war against this nation, such as laying siege to our embassy, and killing our Marines without provocation is a threat. I believe that anyone who captures unarmed UN workers and holds them hostage is a threat. As far as Pakistan goes, al-Qaeda doesn't need to conquer the country; they just need to determine the locations of the nuclear weapons, and seize them and the launching mechanisms. As you pointed out before, they have no intentions of conquering a nation, since that type of warfare would be to their disadvantage. The Hybrid T/C 06:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying they haven't caused problems, but really when it comes to big stuff the aren't a threat. Here's an illustration I made for a family member, to explain exactly this point. Anynobody 06:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess that's really the pivot of our disagreements. I think that al-Qaeda can pull almost anything off if we give them the time to do it, and you don't. As far as Pakistan goes, I don't think that they need the support of the people like they do elsewhere, since they are already successfully subverting the government and the military. All they need are the computer records to tell them where the weapons are, and some time to gain physical possession of the weapons. For that they just need some spies on the inside, which they are acquiring with great success. The Hybrid T/C 07:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Good job on the illustration, BTW. I'm quite impressed. I think that I will print myself a copy to tape to my wall next to my world map. The Hybrid T/C 07:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'm not saying that anyone is a threat to Israel; Israel is the undisputed dominant force in the region. The Hybrid T/C 07:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to minimize Al-Qaeda, it's just that since 9/11 their prominence has actually worked against them. They weren't in Iraq before we were there so their overall affect is minimal. The thing about Pakistan and nuclear proliferation is more a question of information leakage than missing warheads. (Could a warhead be stolen, sure, it'd just be really hard considering how much easier it's getting to build their own weapon. Building a bomb is not as hard as it used to be, getting the fissile material is the hardest part.) I guess I've already resigned myself to accepting that someday nuclear weapons will be accessible to anyone (in a terrorist/national sense not you and me) because of advances in technology and knowledge. For example, it was once thought that only certain Uranium and Plutonium isotopes could sustain a nuclear chain reaction, aka Fissile. Now it is believed other element's isotopes like Neptunium could be used too. Frankly the bigger worry would be them buying Pu or U from North Korea and building a crude bomb, but that's a whole other conversation.
PS Thanks, my cousin thought is was cool too. :) Anynobody 21:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Everyone knows how to build a bomb; they just need to come and read Wikipedia ;P. Like you said, the problem is fissile material. I think that they want to get it from Pakistan, and bring the rest of the bomb with it. Even if they can't steal the bomb, they could just take the material from the bomb. Either way, the effect is the same, and we need to do everything we can to keep Pakistan from being overthrown. What I'm saying is by temporarily pulling out of Iraq you've foiled their plans across the board. The Hybrid T/C 22:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Al-Qaeda could be fought more effectively, and that Pakistan could be a weak link in countering nuclear proliferation. However, if we leave, I should say when we leave without fixing Iraq they'll have more manpower for other operations elsewhere. (One thing is for sure, invading Iraq wasn't the right move in fighting them.) It's a pretty crappy situation all around. Anynobody 02:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but if we can stop nuclear proliferation before it starts, and pit our Shia enemies against our Sunni enemies more effectively, then we should. Increasing the majority the Shia have in Iraq would also help us to stabilize them when we returned, assuming Iran provokes Israel to war in that time, or the al-Qaeda cells formed within Iran already put up a fight when Iran tried to force them out, causing Iran to have its own internal problems that would hinder their ability to stand in our way of stabilization. The Hybrid T/C 03:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Returned? Once we leave we should be gone, going back would be another invasion. Going into Pakistan to get Al-Qaeda wouldn't do any good for two reasons; 1) They can simply escape to another country(or shift their center of gravity as it's known), 2) The Pakistanis are bound to have a problem with us just waltzing into their (albeit not under their control) territory. Al-Qaedainfo from Globalsecurity.org, Islam info from the Army (I feel sorry for people who write stuff like this, since policy makers don't read it they may as well not have written it in the first place). Anynobody 03:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Or discussion looks like it would only be wasting your time, since you have some other things that you need to deal with right now. I'll just say that I don't propose invading Pakistan by any means, and port my full reply when you don't have so much on your plate. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 02:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It's all good, the amount of "food" on my plate isn't as much as it appears. I'm actually more concerned about misunderstanding in continuing it, this is a super complicated issue which can be easily misunderstood. However I think we can agree that the war on terror is not being fought properly, Iraq was a big mistake, and it's only going to get worse before it gets better. Anynobody 02:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, and I think we also agree that we have more to lose by simply letting Iraq be taken over by the Iranians then we have to lose by continuing to fight. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 10:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, as long as that's what the Iraqis want. (Which I'm sure it is, although the Shi'a have a majority in Iraq as they do in Iran, religious ties only go so far after all.) Anynobody 19:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again

A bit of a random thought: on Wikipedia, there are people who give it a great deal of time and effort, and those who treat it more as a hobby.

If you give it a bit of time, and you're not a complete idiot, by the law of averages you are going to start collecting DYK and (possibly) FA boxes on your User page.

Problem: if you've got enough time to spend on Wikipedia doing constructive work, you've also got enough time to start involving yourself in the petty politics. And this is when the problem arises: the good work that you do is seen and noted by Admins, who then become reluctant to pull you up when you're being unconstructive, hurling allegations of bad faith about, and basically being a pain-in-the-arse.

Here, on a without prejudice basis, is an example. Regrettably a friend of <sigh>!

By the way, an interesting discussion on the Iraq war, above. God, what a mess. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

One need not be productive in order to earn protection from that particular person. Unfortunately whether the protected are productive or not calling them on unconstructive behavior will likely incur action by their friend. That's pretty frustrating because you know who is so popular that most everyone assumes they are right without even reading others arguments.
I have a question about The Troubles though, does Ireland want Northern Ireland back? I've been trying to figure out if the IRA could be called partisans instead of terrorists. (If Dublin isn't trying to get the territory back then they should be called terrorists since they aren't fighting for anything but themselves. If Ireland feels like the land is occupied, they may be more akin to French, Polish, or Russian partisans in WW II.
Iraq is indeed a horrible mess, I feel sorry for everyone involved... the Iraqis, our troops, your troops. I know he isn't "human" enough to understand what he's done, but I hope George W. Bush never gets a good nights sleep again. If I had the amount of blood on my hands that he does, I may contemplate suicide to escape the guilt I'd feel.
How was Polska? Anynobody 02:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, when I edit Wikipedia, I increasingly view my own involvement as a sociological project. I just find the dubious logic of 'he's had an FA, therefore he's not going to be censured for his behaviour' rather ridiculous. That's as far as I want to go!
I'm sorry about your own ArbCom judgment. My own, rather too extensive, dealings with lawyers have persuaded me that the majority of them are rather idle. Judges often throw a carrot to the losing side; eg. 'although we find for A, B has produced a thorough and convincing case and has valid grounds for complaint' (translation: although A's won the case, we're sweetening the blow for B). I rather suspect that your sanction falls into this category. "In war, there is no substitute for victory".
Regarding Ireland, you need to see the Belfast Agreement: the short answer is that up until 1998 the Republic of Ireland's constitution included claims to the whole island, ie. including Northern Ireland. Since 1998, these claims have been abandoned and the IRA has similarly 'abandoned the armed struggle'. The likely truth of the matter is that by this time (from the early 1990s onwards) the IRA was so well penetrated by informers that it was impossible for the organisation to pull off a proper armed campaign and it was limited to separate, distinct, bombings in London, which never really rose above the nuisance value. The real root of the issue is that after the separation of Ireland (1921) a de facto process of ethnic cleansing took place, with Protestants moving North and Catholics moving South. However, the Catholics remaining in the North have a higher birth rate than their Protestant neighbours; you therefore get the problems associated with an indigenous population (subscribing to its own identity) gradually becoming a minority in its own homeland (see also: Fiji and Serbia/ Kosovo). I'm afraid that the whole issue of the Troubles has aroused the interest of a series of nutters - you've probably seen that I've been dragged into an ArbCom. Frankly, I think one can only laugh - see here ('32' having its own connotations) - otherwise we'd all go howling mad!
Your comments about George Bush almost exactly mirror comments made to me by a friend of mine about Tony Blair. It seems astonishing that after an effective military campaign - which was a 21t. century version of the Battle of Omdurman - such chaos was allowed to follow in its wake that, within a short period, a worse situation had been created than previously existed. Almost all of the blame, I suspect, must lie with Paul Bremer, in particular his mad decisions to disband the Iraqi army, purge Ba'athists, and impose immediate free-market reforms. It's extraordinary to me that, given the successful experience of denazification and the Occupation of Japan, such a mess has been made in Iraq. Anyway, there's an interesting book review here (it's one of the instances, I suspect, of the review being more interesting than the book).
Polska I find a very interesting country. From the late medieval period (when Jews were permitted to settle in Poland) onwards, it was a multi-ethnic/ multi-religious country with (although there's a lot of rubbish written about it) a high degree of tolerance (there even remains a small Muslim minority who represent the high-water mark of Genghis Khan's invasions). However, because of the war, most of the Jews were killed (and those left later emigrated), and the Protestants (associated with Germans) left/ were expelled, and so the country has become, for effectively the first time in its history, homogeneous: Catholic, Slav, speaking Polish: in other words, almost completely the opposite of the British and American experience. The influence of the English language is considerable; and if you're the sort of person who has some spare $ to invest, I'd suggest Poland!--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more about FAs buying one "immunity", it's just that kind of logic which sums up the problems here. It's quite human not wanting to tell a friend they are screwing up, so either we tend to overlook their behavior or rationalize what we know to be wrong. In this case, it reminds me more of a "teacher's pet" situation.
Interesting point about my arbcom results. I had thought they simply weren't paying attention. Whatever the actual reason, it doesn't bother me much.
I once respected Tony Blair, but he has indeed earned some sleepless nights too. The problem was that the higher ups assumed the Iraqis would act according to their script. (The irony is that there are studies by CIA and DoD pointing out that Saddam had his hands full keeping Sunni/Shi'a issues from flaring up. One likened an overthrow of Saddam as like a rapid decompression and all hell would break loose, which people like Bush and Bremer evidently didn't read.) I agree Bremer made some shocking errors, but he seems to typify the kind of person Bush appoints to do important jobs. (Like Mike Brown and the religious guy he appointed to NASA.)
I'd love to travel to Europe someday, and there is much in Polska I'd love to see, mostly WW II related. Actually I'd like to start in France, move on to the Netherlands and Germany, then finish up in the UK. I'd love to see HMS Victory, talk about living history. Anynobody 02:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
PS Speaking of MacArthur, what do you think of his insistence to prosecute General Yamashita for war crimes? Anynobody 02:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to see about your block; the usual rule concerning ambiguities is that they are interpreted in a way favourable to the weaker party and not relied upon (see: contra proferentem). A polite request to desist might have been more appropriate; blocking at that stage was simply shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted (and it's fairly obvious that you're not a vandal). I have a theory that if you decorate your User page with a pretty picture that this sends the subliminal message to Admins of maturity, scholarship, and connaisseurship [spelled wrongly], so they don't tend to go in with all guns blazing. Cynical? Of course, but it works for me!
The problem with Tony Blair is that while the war in Afghanistan had widespread public approval, the war in Iraq did not have any anything like such broad support, so the British government embarked on a spin campaign to sell the war to its own population (see: September Dossier and Iraq Dossier) and, when this campaign started to unravel, started a witch-hunt which ended with the suicide of a transparently good man, David Kelly. The whole episode reveals the worst of the Blair government: cynical lying to the electorate and laziness (in production of the dossiers and in policymaking). Having helped create the disaster of Iraq, Blair's now embarked on a mission to bring peace to the Middle East. God knows whose paying for this follie de grandeur. I suspect, to paraphrase one of our Queens, when he dies we'll find the word 'Iraq' inscribed on his heart. Why Bush and Blair couldn't appreciate who the real enemy is is beyond me.
If and when you embark on your European tour, do drop me a line. I've traveled quite a lot in Central Europe, and Krakow, in my opinion, is the most interesting and attractive city of the region (with the caveat that I have never visited Budapest). Prague is rather over-rated (but still attractive). It took the Czechs 1,000 years to put up their cathedral, and it's not particularly interesting! Barcelona is also a very interesting city with the Sagrada_Família. HMS Victory is also well worth a visit: you need to brush up on your loblolly boys and powder monkeys - and look at my sub-page - the book cited there is very good, by the way.
MacArthur, I don't really know a great deal about. Oddly enough, I'm supposed to be distantly related to this Macarthur - we have his dinner plates - but we spell it 'McArthur'. I read somewhere (probably Engage the Enemy More Closely! - another interesting book and good for your aircraft carriers sub-page) that Douglas was an anglophobe, which is why he was posted to the Pacific and not to Europe. Poor old General Yamashita; I suspect some of the atrocities committed were so disgusting that they required a scapegoat. He seems to have gone to his death with considerable grace.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at L. Ron Hubbard. Please be more careful to discuss controversial edits or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. The duration of the block is six hours. If you believe this block to be unjustified, you may contest it by placing {{unblock|reason here}} on this page to request review by another administrator, or contact me by email. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

About your comments on the WP:3R board; what part of my discussion on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard seemed insincere or like flaming to you? How is removing new cited material not a reversion yet adding new cited material is? (It's not like I was adding my opinions, it's all in the sources) Anynobody 07:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Of the four cited reverts, only two were actual reversions in the strict sense, moreover when a neutral editor reverted me I simply set up a RfC"

Decline reason: "Reversions are not defined strictly for the purposes of WP:3RR. And be glad the block is only 6 hours; most would have blocked you for 24."

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

-- But|seriously|folks  10:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this message a template? Or did you just not look at the article's talk page? User:Anynobody/snafu

:4. discuss controversial edits or seek dispute resolution despite Setting up a Request for Comment and discussing on the talk page. Anynobody 06:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's something I copy and paste in with minor changes. At some point I'll bother coding a template. As to only two edits being reverts, I recall seeing the personality section re-added each and every time? How is that not a revert? Remember, reverts must not be an exact restoration of an old page, just substantially similar. You have a link to and description of the 3RR on your user page, so I'm going to presume you're aware of it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You should consider changing the way it's worded, it comes off as either insulting, confusing, or makes you look like you aren't paying attention to editors who've actually done what it suggests.
I'll explain the first one, if you want to hear about the second I can certainly discuss that too. Justanother removed it by reversion citing Wikipediatrix as his reason for reversion. She simply didn't feel adding citations, which was her reason. (If one knows the sources exist, but doesn't feellike gathering them, it doesn't seem like the appropriate thing to do is remove the section, especially when it already has sources.) Being that Justanother was citing the same reason, it sounded just as invalid coming from him as it did her.
Not to point fingers, but Misou and some other Scientologists are in the habit of removing cited text they feel portrays Hubbard in a false light. The personality section is new and sourced, Misou and others were reverting the changes rather than correcting them.
Help:Reverting says: A revert is to undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical in content to the page saved at that time. However, in the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article. In other words a revert is removing new information, be it valid or vandalism.
It also says, emphasis mine: Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
As to edit warring, like I said above some editors have a bias on this subject. When a neutral editor expressed reservations, I set up a WP:RFC instead of putting it back. Anynobody 02:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Thank you. --Justanother 13:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) Anynobody 02:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

Ready to swab the decks!   
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew.
Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh!

- - Jehochman Talk 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. Anynobody 05:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

Hi. Please note that I have posted a warning for you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Bishonen | talk 18:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

Do you honestly think you are able to act as an enforcer of arbitration in a neutral way? It was my understanding that admins aren't supposed to use their tools in disputes they are actively involved in. Seriously, given our history of disagreement it seems incredible that you would try to act as an enforcer in this case.
"If you feel harassed..." from you, it'll be block time. Comes off as a threat, he said he felt "negatively" and I told him to pursue enforcement if that's how he felt. (I couldn't help noticing the lack of any words for you know who about the actual nature of his edits at the time, which were not exactly helpful. Did you actually look to see what he was doing on the page, or just get pissed off I had the nerve to express concern with his behavior?) Anynobody 02:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there any possibility that you will stop commenting on Justanother's actions, so that further enforcement action of any sort by any administrator will not be necessary? Newyorkbrad 03:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Uh yes, if someone explains why they aren't an issue worth concern. Anynobody 04:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, It would also be helpful if somebody could explain the difference between what you're accusing me of and what other editors, including Justanother, do every day:
[1], [2], [3].
If there is no problem with his behavior, all you have to do is explain why. Again, what you and Bishonen are suggesting is that it simply not be discussed, which is shortsighted and will only prolong rather than solve the problem. Anynobody 05:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I see little of relevance at those links. More important, you are under a specific restriction imposed by Wikipedia's highest dispute-resolution body because you appear to have lost your sense of perspective regarding this particular editor and pursued your grievances with him over a period of months to an excessive and alarming extent. You are required to abide by the ArbCom ruling from this point forward, irrespective of whether you agree with it or whether you accept that the reasons for it were valid or not. Newyorkbrad 11:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll show you the relevance of them,
You seem to buy into Bishonen's belief that I am out to get Justanother and thereby assume anything I bring up must be part of that campaign. You are wrong, in this case he was being disruptive while other editors were genuinely trying to resolve a dispute. If this isn't being disruptive, all that needs to be done is give a brief explanation why answers like this are acceptable:
Q:Using reliable sources, should this article have a section discussing Hubbard's personality? Anynobody 06:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
A:Rephrase:' Should a one-sided, POV analysis of Hubbard's "personality" based on a small number of critical sources and bordering on WP:OR synthesis be posted in the article as a "work in progress" or should a balanced, NPOV, and non-OR piece be developed in a sandbox by interested parties from all sides of the issue. Which one benefits the project? There, that is a more accurate statement of the issue. --Justanother 13:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please put aside your assumptions about what you think I'm doing and ask yourself if the arbcom meant to give Justanother a free pass from having to abide by any rules that I happen to point out? For crying out loud by your logic I couldn't report ANY violation of policy by him whether it's valid or not. Does that really make sense to you? Anynobody 21:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Brief block

You have been blocked for 24 hours per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement for violating the terms of the COFS arbitration. By engaging in ad hominem instead of discussion, you have repeatedly harassed other users. You are welcome to edit again, of course, after the 24 hours have passed, and I wish you well. Geogre 12:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|I understand that pretty much everyone disputes a block but in this case I have to simply because of the nature of it. A valid concern about an editor not abiding by Wikipedia policies can not be harassment. In this case I simply asked Justanother to please focus on the task at hand and when Bishonen asked why don't I stop calling him a biased editor, which I answered. Nobody, including in this block, has ever said why the behavior I pointed out is not a cause for concern which is obviously what everyone must be thinking because I am accused of harassment and the issues I point out are ignored. The easiest way to get me to stop is for someone to explain why I'm wrong about him being biased. So lets assume I'm wrong, please explain how/where I went wrong. If that assumption is incorrect then the block seems like a mistake. Anynobody 21:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)}}

An outside opinion. You block will expire in 10 hours from this edit. A 24 hour block is really nothing to sneeze at. VoL†ro/\/Force 02:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding your perspective, I think I understand your point (by nothing to sneeze at I took as meaning not a big deal) but it's more a matter of principle. Am I being blocked for asking someone to focus on the article's issues or for saying that person has a COI? I don't mean to sound indignant but either way there are other ways of handling things, but at least I should know what the deal is.

I mean the blocking admin accused me of making ad hominem attacks, which I have most certainly not (especually if one goes by the definition in the wikilink: An ad hominem argument, consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, It'd be nice to know what exactly this admin saw as one. Anynobody 05:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Block expired

Request handled by: SQL(Query Me!) 06:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Flight 19

The Original Barnstar
I herewith present the original Barnstar for your work on the Flight 19 article Jdrewitt 09:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much :) It's nice to know others appreciate the article as much as I do. Anynobody 20:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard/Sandbox

Hi. Draft revisions of articles should be placed in the talk namespace rather than the article namespace, as there are no "subpages" (slashes are ignored) in the article namespace, thus all pages are treated as articles. See Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses point 2. Please move L.Ron Hubbard/Sandbox to a suitable location in the talk namespace, or into your own userspace if you are the only person who intends to work on the article. Thanks – Gurch 17:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only one editing it, actually the whole thing wasn't even my idea, but I'm not sure what has happened to the other editors who were also editing there. Anynobody 00:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Armoured carriers

Helly Anyevery-- Your article is interesting and a good read. I have posted some comments and questions on the talk page. Regards, Kablammo 17:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(Answered on the talk page too, but expanded a bit here) I can't take credit for the bulk of it, actually what is there appears to be the result of a POV war about the merits of each with minimal actual research. Anynobody 21:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation-- I may dabble in it from time to time but like you have other projects. Kablammo 22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
With the two of us dabbling, it should get fixed a bit faster :) Anynobody 21:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dash 8 redux

You might want to tak a look at Talk:De Havilland Canada Dash 8#Merge proposal, and weigh in. I got an admin to recover the data of your merged page of the two crashes, and it is at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Q400 if you'd like to continue work on it. As several Dash 8 incidents have occrred again in the last week or so, more info has been added to the Dash 8 page. I think it's time we tried to split that off again, and include the two major crashes, if possible. Thanks. - BillCJ 00:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I definitely agree. Anynobody 02:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)