Jump to content

User talk:Justanother/Archive7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tea

Don't forget I take mine with cream. :-) All jokes aside some one I am associated with is a Scientologist and didn't mention it until well over a year do to the "stigma" so I try to work on parity and fairness. My main point is open, truthful accessible information and if after that they want to dive in,"Cheers" I say! PEACETalkAbout 23:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you live in Germany? --Justanother 00:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, shucks...but I will be in the UK in couple months. So, cyber tea it is until they have or organize a wikipedia editors convention. PEACETalkAbout 00:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you misunderstand me. I was just wondering as Germany is one of the few nations that pursues active discrimination against Scientologists (and has been called on it by the US and the UN) so there is certainly "stigma" there. France, too, I hear. But here in the US, there is no stigma in general, wikipedia being a somewhat different atmosphere but not really terrible; there are just a few bigots and a ton of wannabe's here. The huge vast majority of editors here are not that way at all. In real life, I am a professional and I work in a large professional setting where I am the only Scientologist. I am very public about it; never experienced the first bit of "stigma". In fact, lots of people over the years have said things like "You are a Scientologist. That is so cool. Every Scientologist I have ever met has been blah blah blah (modesty prevents)". In the US, and here on wikipedia, "stigma" (for a Scientologist) is what you make it, what you allow. I joke around here with bigotry but it doesn't bother me much. What it has been is a humbling and worthwhile experience to realize that there are people that have to live under truly oppressive bigotry and discrimination every day of their lives. For that lesson, I truly thank our junior bigots here. Other than that I am a Scientologist, I am pretty much a WASP and might never have had the privilege of that lesson elsewise. It is truly humbling lesson. And it has changed me. Today, in my office, a gal, a fellow professional, said "Mexican trash" kinda loud and I called her over and asked "Did I just hear you hollar out bigotry?" I might have hurt a friendship a bit but I totally called her on it. I do not think I would have done that before. I might have not even paid it a second thought. --Justanother 01:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was surprised that our friend/associate didn't mention it. He only did once the Rolling Stones article hit the office and naturally we were all talking. Once he said he was one, we didn't so much as blink and he knows I am not on board with the mental health issues (medications....I say anyone who advocates that has not interviewed anyone in a locked ward). Well, in honesty at potlucks it looks more like a cult convention:Ekenkar, Scientologist, Holly Roller, kabbalah, Wicca, BK(maybe ex-Bk not sure), someone dear to me is a Mormon etc. Well, my take is as mentioned above, being I was on the complete left prior(served on as a board member that advocates religious freedom), I think I try to be fair and part of me would most likely be just a tiny bit more on the left still. Besides we are counting on our scientologist to bring forth the launching of our latest venture. So, as long as we have all the information, I say pass the salad. PEACETalkAbout 02:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "My main point is open, truthful accessible information" but if you can respect that your friend 1) likely has a great deal of respect and admiration for Hubbard and would not really be interested in someone looking to tear him down and 2) that your friend likely agrees with the Scientology concept that some "truths" should be withheld until a person is truly ready to hear them. If you can respect that then good for you. --Justanother 02:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Truth be told we don't discuss his religion, but have gotten into universal discussions (humanity). I am always respectful of people, will defend folks but alas I strive for the truth. Holding the "truths" until a person is ready, may well take someone on a very long journey. I would rather know now and see if I want to opt out here rather than years later. I must say I should give this person some flowers as I didn't realize how special(class act) this person is in that he is accepting of me, knowing that I am not motivated by any ill will but simply seeking the truth. He is Good PR for your team I say.PEACETalkAbout 16:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The only real "Truth" in Scientology is that you are a spiritual being and can come to know more about yourself and can improve your abilities to be at Cause in life as a spiritual being and not as the effect of your mind or your body or your past decisions. That Truth is evident in Scientology from the beginning. Some tiny fraction of lesser and highly specific "truths" (small "s") are withheld until the person is ready. That is simply part of how Scientology works, it is no big deal to the Scientologist. I am glad that you know a Scientologist much more closely than through the filter of those that oppose them vehemently. I wish more did. --Justanother 16:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian Purchase Question

Well here's the deal. The store accepts credit cards, but the website is entirely in Portuguese, and when you enter personal information, it requires a Brazilian city/state, etc. and some Brazilian ID numbers akin to a driver's license or Social Security number as we have in the US (though probably not so secure). Also, while a money order might work, it seems unlikely to me that they would really want to go through the hassle involved in that whole process (also I could see the money getting lost in a black hole). I will try, though. What I don't understand is that after copious amounts of research on my part, how can there not exist a service that simply buys items from within a country on a foreigner's behalf and then ships them to the foreigner? The next best option would seem to be to develop a very trusting friendship with someone who lives in Brazil. (The item in question is a CD box set from the Cultural Center of São Paulo--believe me, it is not available any other way.) --Gladstone88 10:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Couple ideas for you. 1) Have you "talked" to them by email or phone. They may not be able to ship international for wahtever reason. Do that first. If they can ship international then just give them the cc info over the phone. 2) Find an admin here that is from Brazil and ask him to help and pay him by money order. 3) There are firms like "freight forwarding" or "courier" firms that specialize in enabling business bewtween Brazil and US. Try to find one and ask them. Good luck. If you get stuck let me know and I will see if I can help more. --Justanother 12:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
For 3) I mean like http://www.forwarders.com/home/international.html#Brazil While they may not do what you want, they may know someone that does. --Justanother 13:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Lessons" response to Anynobody (moved from article talk)

Sometimes life hands you lessons in ways that you least expect. When I was a fairly young long-haired hippie-type, I had my ass handed to me by two rednecks in the parking lot of a sh*tkicker bar where I had been dumb enough to stop for a drink and a "smoke" with a friend. My friend had been giving one of the 'necks a bit of a hard time and when he left they decided to take their revenge on me. Funny thing is (and this was years before I encountered Scientology) the next day (or maybe the one after that, laff), I felt a strange relief. I found that getting pretty badly beat up was not something that I could not "confront" (as we say in Scientology); that it was nothing to be afraid of and I was never afraid of a fight again after that. Course, I am a lover not a fighter, but you know what I mean. Now that is a good lesson to learn, I think. I would not recommend that you or anyone else learn it the way I did. --Justanother 13:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I recall at least one such assault we foolish teenage kids having stayed after hours at a public beach impinging into the evening time when the local rednecks laid claim. The ensuing brick, bat, rock and general debris bombardment and the blood-curdling taunts of get outta heah ya commiejewfaghippiehomobastards (any and all of which were generally more or less true amongst us) were likewise good preparation for the true, unspeakable barbarity I would encounter decades later on...on...on...the Internet! :).
Of course, there was also that encounter with the killer rabbit... BabyDweezil 16:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey. I have an after-hours beach story too but it does not really relate (laff). Sorry, but for the second time my office filter has blocked one of your links. Oh well, I will take a look when I get home. --Justanother 16:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression though, that because you are a Scientologist, you get a lot of people that treat you like your friend was treating the guys that handed you your posterior. Don't get me wrong, fighting over something like that is not acceptable so they were even worse than your friend who taunted them. My suggestion about forming a Scientology style guide to curb the insults or offense was actually meant to help those Scientologists that may not enjoy the experience. (I don't mean to imply you are a masochist or anything like that, I find abusive people interesting too and it's easy for me to have a thick skin online. I assume you feel the same way, otherwise you wouldn't welcome the occasional barb. Anynobody 01:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In Real Life? No, Never Ever, Unimaginable. Here? Happens every day and ten times a day. I could care less, personally. I close the browser and that is that. I am here of my own volition and I can leave anytime I like. Doesn't make it right and I still make sure that I label it for what it is. No realy point in discussing it more. The very vast majority of editors here are fair-minded people and that is that. Some anti-Scientologists are fair-minded people too, I am sure. Style guide? Maybe. --Justanother 02:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I mean on Wikipedia, it sounds like Scientologists get treated with disrespect. (A note about me, I would almost never give anyone advice on what to do in real life without knowing them on a personal level. Especially where religion is concerned.) I'm pretty sure I've seen other Scientologists on here making similar complaints. Perhaps some of the disrespect comes because certain people don't know how to discuss Scientology in a respectful manner. (Bear in mind, I also mean disagreeing in a respectful manner too. If I were to decide to take issue with or question the tenets of a religion I'd want to know how to do it in the most respectful way possible. I gather that was the motivation for other religious groups like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) to establish as a group how they prefer to be addressed or written about. Granted this won't solve all PA Scientologists receive, but it could help reduce them. Anynobody 06:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you are absolutely right that a lot of editors here have bought into the internet lies about what Scientology is and think that all Scientologists are the devil. It goes waaay beyond how LDS or Islam is treated here, IMO, and could be be equated to Salem witch trials or, at least, Selma, Alabama in 1930 to a black. Some editors here definitely think that Scientologists should sit in the back of the wikipedia bus. And the other editors/admins here, by and large, don't seem to have the gumption to tell the bigots to knock it off. Who, for instance, turned to Orsini, and told him to stop running his bigotry on me ("affinity with scientology" as a charge; exclude me from the bus altogether when it comes to Scn articles, just because I am a Scientologist). But if I call another editor a "nazi", for example (and no, all you hopefuls out there, I am NOT calling anybody a nazi, nor implying anything, that is an example of something I would not call someone), any number of editors will jump in and tell me how inappropriate that is and I will probably get a block. You know, when bigotry is being practiced in any environment, who is really to blame? The minority of overt bigots? Or the majority of so-called "good people" that stand by and watch (or don't watch) or who subtly or openly enable the bigots. That is a question that has plaqued society for a while now and wikipedia is nothing if not a microcosm of this society we live in (or perhaps a microcosm of the middle school playground with its bullies). Good idea on the manual and if you would like to start something I will be happy to help. --Justanother 15:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer, but I try to not participate directly in religious activities. Making suggestions is about as close as I get, besides the manual should be set up by Scientologists. I'm not into learning enough info about it to be of any use, but don't get me wrong there are a lot of religious groups I don't care to learn about. While that may sound dogmatic or close minded, please understand that my disinterest in religious specifics can be likened to my disinterest in major sports or British comedy: I'll read about it if I have to in order to give me a better understanding of historical events. I hope this makes sense and doesn't offend you, after all I'm willing to abide by a manual of style by Scientologists. Along those lines, how do you view L. Ron Hubbard's naval career in relation to the Church of Scientology? For example is it possible to use the submarine incident as an example of how difficult ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare) is without implying anything negative about the CoS? I've been looking at examples throughout WW2 of people making mistakes, on all sides. For example during the Battle of Midway a Japanese scout plane report was received by the flagship Akagi but not reported to Admiral Nagumo for 45 minutes due to clerical errors. If you ever saw the movie Midway, they kinda messed that part up by omission. Another error I've been looking at is HMS Glorious allowing herself to be caught by two German battlecruisers with no planes in the air. There are dozens of mistakes documented by high level officers, but actual recorded blunders of junior officers, ncos, and gis are harder to come by. Lt. Hubbard has two or three examples in his records. Anynobody 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I am not too interested in the "he said, she said" of Hubbard's military career. As far as I am concerned, Hubbard volunteered to serve his country in time of war, did his job honorably, and was honorably discharged. Anything more is basically just PR, whether for LRH or against. --Justanother 00:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree he did serve his country, and did his very best. He resigned his commission under honorable circumstances and after having been asked to reconsider an earlier request. I agree that any discussion about military blunders that focuses on just Hubbard (outside of his biography) could be looked upon as a dig at the CoS. I'm not trying to paint him as the worthless reject a lot of people try to. If that were true he would have been kicked out, court martialed, or executed for cowardice it could be said his military career was a total failure. On the other hand he wasn't exactly JFK in his accomplishments either. Anynobody 01:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not even sure JFK was "JFK". He certainly was not Audie Murphy. But had the circumstances been different, who knows. I do not think anyone ever called LRH a coward. He did his job, like millions of others have and do. --Justanother 01:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You may be forgetting Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109, I used JFK as another example of someone who became more well known after the war. They both embarked on careers not necessarily because of their war record, but where both were looked at. Had Kennedy not become President, PT-109 would have been just another entry in the DAFNS, the same could be said about PC-815 because Hubbard went on to found the COS. They were also both in the Navy. Audie Murphy is famous for his war record and not so much for what happened later in his life. (Let's face it his biggest movie was about his military career. I suppose the closest Army example would be James Stewart (actor)) Anynobody 01:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I ain't forgetting that at all. Kennedy landed in the drink and did a good job of caring for his crew. That is about it. Blown way out of proportion, IMO. Would Hubbard have done as good a job caring for his crew under similar circumstances? Who knows. Point is that PT-109 was nothing special other than the care, bravery, and competence shown likely by hundreds or thousands of equal incidents in time of war. We just know about PT-109 for PR reasons, IMO. Not to detract from what JFK did. He helped save his men. He was not alone. He was far from the only hero in that story. He got the lion's share of whatever glory there is in it. PR. You seem to have been comparing LRH's history against JFK's and I say who knows. JFK had a minor assignment and took a hit and discharged his duties well. LRH had a minor assignment and discharged his duties honorably. Did he really sink anything? Who knows, who cares? --Justanother 02:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Who knows...the Navy. Who cares...naval historians. Please don't focus on JFK too much, remember I am citing him as an example to illustrate a point. That point being that anti-Scientologists don't give Hubbard enough credit for his service, often claiming him as an abysmal failure as an officer. I don't think he was. On the other end some people want to paint him as a war hero in the same vain as JFK, Audie Murphy, or other distinguished veterans which is also inaccurate. The truth is in the middle. Anynobody 02:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Which leads us back to where I was before "As far as I am concerned, Hubbard volunteered to serve his country in time of war, did his job honorably, and was honorably discharged. Anything more is basically just PR, whether for LRH or against." --Justanother 02:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe U.S. Naval documents are prejudiced or inaccurate in regard to Lt. Hubbard? Anynobody 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot the other part: "I am not too interested in the "he said, she said" of Hubbard's military career." Really, all due respect, but I am not. --Justanother 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess I just want to know that you have no problem with strictly naval discussions involving his career using official Navy documents including his own reports without offending you? I realize you find the ASW subject boring, but I'm not looking to insult Scientologists who are interested nor am I trying to say anything that's untrue. Anynobody 02:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I really could care less providing it follows WP:PILLARS. I am not the arbiter of anything but my own actions. A disputed report of enemy engagement during WWII seems hardly to be notable to me but hey, whatever floats your boat (to be naval about it). --Justanother 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I think you are probably right that there are quite a few lies about Hubbard and Scientology out there. As long as I stick with Navy sources I think I avoid the lies, but I don't know how Scientologists look at the Navy as a source for information. Anynobody 03:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Like anyone else, I guess. With reading glasses. (smile) --Justanother 03:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we're cool then, thanks for the input Justanother. Anynobody 03:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My tips

Justanother, A bigot is an obstinate and intolerant believer in a religion, political theory, etc. That I am not. I am not a "cult fighter". I am not opposed to religious practices as long as those practices do not infringe on human rights. I have first hand experience with the cofs and can argue that it infringes on human rights. If you had a dispute with another editor who used my essay in an argument, then you need to take that up with that editor, not me. My essay does not violate any wikipedia policy.--Fahrenheit451 03:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. How about rewriting it as simply "Abusive editing practices" without the inference that that is how members of the CoS edit here. I know that it say CoS-directed but, to most here, that does not mean what you and I might understand it to mean. I imagine that to most here, that would include any CoS member that edits here. That is the air of bigotry I see. If you re-title it you can still direct someone to it if you or they see an abusive editor. --Justanother 03:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is about abusive editing practices, however, it has been rare that those practices have been used by editors other than cofs folks. Just for your information, I have no objection whatsover to Freezone Scientology. CofS stuff like Fair Game, enforced disconnection, SP declare, enforced "KSW", comm evs are clearly human rights violations that harm people, destroy families, and disrupt businesses. The cofs seems to be full of bigotry in that respect. I will consider your suggestion, though.--Fahrenheit451 16:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. If you don't mind I will suggest a change later when I have more time. By suggest I mean edit it in a way that I think removes what I find objectionable about it while still making mention of OSA. If you don't like my change you can edit or revert it and we can go from there. Thanks. BTW, on those issues, and FWIW, I find things to be noticable better in those areas now than they have been in the past. --Justanother 16:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW again, Modemac, don't know if you ever saw this from my "writeup"

Realize that there is another side to the Scn story. Many people have been harmed by SP declare and disconnection policies, "fair game" harassment, overzealous reges and MAA/Ethics Officers. There is quite a history of "outpoints" in Scientology and little evidence of the Church addressing them in a verifiable manner. I know that they do get addressed often by staff going to cramming or ethics but the disgruntled people, many of them having invested many years and much money in Scn were never handled, were they? The fact that they remain disgruntled is the pudding for that.

--Justanother 16:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, if you wish to suggest a revision, please put it on my discussion page as a suggestion. I caution you NOT to edit my user page.--Fahrenheit451 20:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, but the bold and caps was hardly called for. --Justanother 21:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised you are offended by my using bold lettering in a sentence and capitals on a three letter word. You stated that you were going to edit my user page, which you have no place doing. I think that is not called for.--Fahrenheit451 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I said "If you don't mind". Sorry if you thought I would do that without clearing it with you first. --Justanother 02:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I did instruct you to propose the changes on my discussion page, not create a new page in my userspace. I do not appreciate that. I did remove one sentence, but that is all I am doing.--Fahrenheit451 11:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry. You did invite me to "suggest a revision" in your user space. and my experience here is that suggested revisions are often done by simply showing the new edit in a sandbox rather than a laborious explanation. And I think it was clear from my sandbox suggestion that my intention was not to screw with you but simply to make a measured and reasoned suggestion. I really do not see a huge and offensive difference between your exact request and what I did. A difference yes, but not one that I expected you to object to or I would have not have done it. But you are certainly entitled to your feelings and I apologize. ps, to anyone on "my team"; thanks and no offense meant but I really do not need anyone to come over here and "support me". This was a simple matter between me and another user with some appropriate help from an admin. And finally, I appreciate the change you made and would also appreciate it if you would reconsider the first revision, also. Changing CoS-directed to OSA-directed. Thanks. --Justanother 12:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have edited that page to my satisfaction. OSA is part of the Church of Scientology. The CSI supports OSA operations, as the CSC supported the Guardian Office. What was abusive was your misuse of my userspace, which borders on vandalism. If you ever do that again, I will request you get blocked. I requested a warning this time, which you were given. --Fahrenheit451 05:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please

Do not create pages in other users' userspace as you did at User:Fahrenheit451/test - please use your own Glen 11:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking care of the delete for him. --Justanother 12:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

email not working

hey, can you resend? my mail has been funny today.

thx--Izaakb 23:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK --Justanother 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC set up

Would you please add your view of the general situation, thanks. WP:RFC Anynobody 00:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anynobody and Justanother - better link Anynobody 00:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything I can do to assist...

... you with in relation to your dispute with User:Anynobody? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough..

I hear you, but geez. Do you really think it's a good idea for you to be popping up on this guy's talk page? Seems to me like you guys ought to be steering away from each other. (I say this with no opinion on who's right or wrong, or anything like that- just in the interest of keeping the peace.) Friday (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have asked User:Bishonen to send him a clue. He thinks highly of her and maybe it will help. I could really care less, myself, about staying away from him. I have to edit with this guy so I will just deal with it. I am not giving him the articles by default and he will not chase me out of them with lies. Thanks for your interest and your input and any help or good word you can provide is certainly welcome. --Justanother 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

...about the L Ron Hubbard comment. Ad Hominem comments are never acceptable. I was just jokin' around. Won't happen again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulhorner (talk • contribs) 05:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Apology accepted but that was pretty far out there. --Justanother 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Why don't Scientologists ever have a sense of humor? It was far out there but ...... well, maybe it was a little too far out there lol :) BTW- I'm enjoying this debate on the Bridge film external link. You being so adament about not having it really makes me question your open mindedness to the other side of the coin.... I'm starting to ask questions (I'm a curious person). Paulhorner 05:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulhorner (talk • contribs) 05:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
I have a great sense of humor. The intention of your site is defaming Scientology with little or no regard for truth. While I might go look at it and laugh that does not make it appropriate for here. This is an encyclopedia, Paul. It is not YTMND. Your site is between you and the Church. Not my problem. Keeping highly biased crap like your website from being presented here as anything but one man's attempt at parody is acting in the best interest of this project. I am sure that there is an article "Scientology parody sites" or something where your site is appropriately listed. If not, feel free to start such an article. --Justanother 06:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject updates

I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 20:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 20:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Thanks --Justanother 20:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
No prob. All the stuff I did as far as upkeep was just neutral, technical wiki stuff. I mean, it is to everyone's interest to bring the quality of as many articles in the project to Featured Article status as possible. Perhaps this will stimulate some discussion on the project's talk page. Smee 20:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
OK, are you going to add yourself to the list of participants in the Project? --Justanother 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yea, probably, at some point... Smee 21:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Added myself to list of participants. I'll probably add the WikiProject userbox: {{User Scientology project}} to my User Page as well - I just don't want to be the only one with it, hehe (since it's so newly created). Smee 22:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Smee, the volcano is offensive to me as it is an obvious reference to he who must not be named . . . . I mean Xenu. Glad to see you have your hehe back. --Justanother 22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll change it. But curious, the volcano is right smack on the cover of every Dianetics book, why do you assume it is a referral to Xenu? Smee 22:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Changed it. Actually, the formatting of the Userbox looks better this way, at any rate... Smee 22:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC). It is also more uniform in keeping with the template, and the project as a whole. Again, I will add it to my userpage, just don't want to be the only one :). Smee 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
I'm curious about that too, I remember seeing a commercial sometime in the mid to late eighties for Dianetics with an animated volcano eruption. If there was a spaceship or alien figure drawn in it too I could see your point. Anynobody 22:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
(EC) Thanks. I assume because I trust my "gut". And to a non-Scientologist 'netizen at all familiar with how Scientology is widely (mis) represented on the internet. Well, come on. I really do not know what you can use. I do not mind the e-meter. I use a phrenology image but that is pretty much my little joke so it would not be appropriate either. Other images I can think of are either copyrighted or you might consider them POV. Like some kind of shiny glow to represent a thetan or ?? Best to go with the e-meter. --Justanother 22:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The E-meter is fine with me, but doesn't Dianetics mention volcanoes in a non-Xenu way? I've never actually read it so I could be wrong, but I thought the erupting volcano was supposed to symbolize a person releasing their hidden potential. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm assuming you've read it (if you haven't please pardon my assumption). Anynobody 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody, no disrespect meant but there was a certain condition that I asked you to agree to before posting here. And that condition was that you not make my religion an issue in any dispute you have with me. Is that condition agreeable to you? Yes or no, please. If you want to discuss it a bit please start a new topic. But I do not want to "dev't" myself too much with additional discussion about it; just a little bit. Thanks. --Justanother 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to add the Userbox to your page? Smee 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

With the meter? Sure --Justanother 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, how would you feel about having 2 diff styles of Userboxes for members of the WikiProject - one with the E-meter, and one with the Exploding Volcano? I think this is a fair compromise, and I may go set it up. Smee 23:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Not appropriate Smee, you cannot have an offensive userbox, especially for a project. This is my religion. I have a lot of say as to what is offensive, IMO. --Justanother 23:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, I am not doubting that, I just don't understand why the symbol of an Exploding Volcano would be offensive - if it is on the cover of every book of Dianetics? Please help me to understand this. At any rate, why don't you add this one {{User Scientology project}}, which yields: <removed as it add my talk> - to your user page and I will to mine, and that might get the ball rolling on other people adding it as well... Smee 23:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Smee, why would you restore something I removed? That is very strange. --Justanother 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, I asked you to open a newtopic if you want a brief discussion. Thanks --Justanother 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was a mistake, we are honestly trying to be very polite here. Won't put it back... Still don't understand why an Exploding Volcano is offensive if it is on the cover of every copy of Dianetics. I mean, I have a copy right here. Smee 23:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Yes, but we both know what would be the common interpretation of the volcano in that template - the Xenu story. So it makes no difference that it is on DMSMH; it is offensive as used in the template. The thing between Anynobody and me is between us and I would appreciate if you let us settle it without interference. Assuming it is to be settled at all. --Justanother 23:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree regarding your common interpretation of the volcano . However, as I stated above, the current version of the Userbox if fine by me. I respect your request and will let y'all continue the rest of the discussion from here... Smee 23:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Userbox

Heads up

I see you put an AfD tag on Barbara Schwarz. I still think you have a COI issue regarding editing this article:[1] Anynobody 06:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. No more now, please, I am trying to take a break and just wanted to make sure that I did not leave that AfD undone. If you want to settle our dispute (not talk about a volcano) we can do that when I fully return. Thanks. --Justanother 06:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, Justanother you can't be on a break, and editing at the same time. When you edit at all, you run the risk of causing someone to questioning what you are doing. In a true "break" one doesn't edit, comment, or respond to questions. You honestly can't expect editors to honor your being on a break if you are still making edits. Anynobody 06:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I am only attending to administrative matters, not articles edits, nor discussing your issue with me. If you have a question for me relative to the AfD (but not your COI delusion) feel free to post it. As far as the COI Noticeboard, if I have anything more to say, I will say it there but I am not going to say much more than I just did. --Justanother 06:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I really did want to take a break but I wanted to start the AfD on Ms. Schwarz too so I will pull the wikibreak tag. I will try not to do any article or article talk edits and just whatever little bit I might still want to add to the AfD. --Justanother 06:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW I think the process is going very well. I am looking at quality not quantity. :-) Steve Dufour 07:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It is getting a fair hearing. If we could throw out the 8 - 10 "anti-Scientologist" "Keep" votes that I see then I would be happy to throw out mine, as I am sure you would be. Theoretically, this is not an election and you are right, quality is certainly on our side. I am not going to post anything frivolous there but the obvious answer to your question is that you don't post to alt.religion.scientology. I am all talked out over there and now I'm just going to let it run its course. --Justanother 15:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Oddly enough I sometimes do post to ARS. I haven't for a while since I've been here. When I posted my AfD the word about it went out there too. Steve Dufour 02:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Thakns for fixnig my tpyo! ;-) Smomo 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome! I was afraid that you were doing something deliberate there that I was missing. Take care! --Justanother 18:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Religious Freedom in Scientology

Why are sites like religiousfreedomwatch.org created by The Church of Scientology? Why does the church make the people on that site out to be "religious bigots" when it is only Scientology that they speak out against?

Isn't religious freedom having the right to speak out against a certain religion? Isn't religious freedom having the right to educate someone about a certain religion?

L Ron Hubbard himself said that Scientology is neither a religion nor a science. Where do Scientologists come off saying that they deserve "religious freedom" when their "religion" is not even a "relgion".

To quote Harry S Truman: I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and they think it's hell.Paulhorner 03:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You're spinning your wheels here Paul by engaging in "Dev-t", as Justan calls it.... It would be best if you concentrate on the content of Wikipedia articles and of this user's edits here, rather than getting mired in the mud with this sort of discussion that will most likely lead nowhere. Smee 04:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
You're probably right. Just thought I could help. Paulhorner 04:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Your best bet is to try to follow WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as best you can. If you feel you have made mistakes, please apologize to offended parties, including Justanother. That does not mean you cannot point out gross personal attacks by others, but it is always best to focus on content, not the contributor... Smee 04:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
Paul, I could care less arguing with every "Scientology-hater" that shows up here. Read my user page if you want my answers to your arguments. If you and OSA want to scratch each other's eyes out you go right ahead. I don't like lies spread about my religion (and a community of like-minded believers in some specific spiritual teachings is often and properly called a religion; sorry if you don't like that). So, as long as you "keep it real" you will find me easy to work with. If you spread lies and bigotry here or seek to defend the lies and bigotry already in place here against the efforts of fair and neutral editors (and I do not mean me there because I do not expect you to grant that I am fair and neutral, perhaps you will later) than we'll see. --Justanother 04:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a "Scientology-hater". Don't say things that are not true. I find Scientology extremely interesting. I also enjoy educating people about it's evils so they know both sides before joining. As a Scientologist, you should word-clear "assume". Just because I wouldn't join you're "religion" that does not make me a "Scientology-hater" or "religious bigot" as you've called me.Paulhorner 04:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Paul, your site is full of petty hate and lies and bigotry. Not exactly the Library of Congress.

--Justanother 04:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Petty hate and lies and bigotry? Name it and I'll remove itPaulhorner 05:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Petty hate and lies and bigotry? OK. Let's see if your word means anything. Pull "Catch Tom's Crazy pills" Petty hate and lies and bigotry. --Justanother 05:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Refering to Tom Cruise "Jumping the couch" and my opinion of the large amount of Niacin pills that he takes.Paulhorner 05:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Quite a stretch. Didn't think you would make good. --Justanother 05:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Dude, c'mon, let's have it. I have nothing but love for Scientology. If I'm representing any kind of hate or bigotry, I want to know about it and remove it from my webpage. Paulhorner 05:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You proved what your word is worth, Paul. --Justanother 05:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, well then explain to me how "catching Tom's Crazy pills" is hate or bigotry? Scientologists never seem to have a sense of humor especially when it deals with their "jesus christ" Tom Cruise.Paulhorner 05:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess we agree that it is lies, then. Good. That is a start. Does it have to be all three for you to pull it. Because, while a neutral person would likely consider it hateful and bigoted, I doubt that you will admit to it. Actually, that is the problem isn't it? You would not consider any lie about Scientology or Cruise to be hateful or bigoted, would you? --Justanother 06:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least I beat it. "Thanks for rescuing Nicole, I mean Katie." --Justanother 05:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

<left>Scientologists never seem to have a sense of humor especially when it deals with their "jesus christ" Tom Cruise. That is just silly, Paul. I have a great sense of humor and I got a laugh out of the game but that does not mean that it is not hateful. Your site is full of hate and lies and bigotry. That it might also be funny does not overshadow the fact that the intention of the site is to forward this hate and lies and bigotry. And do you believe this Cruise as Jesus crap? Are you really that gullible for your own (critic) lines of bull? --Justanother 06:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The intention of "Catching Tom's Crazy pills" does not to lead to lies, bigotry or hatefullness. It's to make light of Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch, impregnating a non Scientologist and turning her into a Scientologist. I removed it anyway because it's a little out-dated. There's a "Win" for Scientology :) Paulhorner 06:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I beat it anyway. I guess that your site is marginally better now. For the moment (laff). I want to say thanks but you had to qualify the removal but I will say it anyway. Thanks and good night. (edit conflict) Win? OK. Too bad my only stat is as a VM (Volunteer Minister - and that is just a yes/no stat) and I already have a nice VM cycle for this week so I am already at "yes". --Justanother 06:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
No prob, Smee. Good advice on your part. Keep it up and you will move further toward leaving the gray area I describe in the thread on Paul's page. --Justanother 04:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I try... Smee 04:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Freedom to practice your Scientology

As a Conservative and as a Jew, I've always made it a policy to not criticize another's religion. This changed on the morning of September 11th, 2001, in that my position on respecting others' religious beliefs solidified for any faith that does not believe in flying jetliners into our skyscrapers. Discpad 05:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good. Thank for the support. (Sorry, I am slow tonight) --Justanother 05:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve Hassan Article

Hey Friend,

I have been looking for some different perspectives on an edit war that I have become involved in on the Steve Hassan article. I have approached various members of varying experience to seek different viewpoints. Could you review the article and discussion page an provide any feedback? I would appreciate it. ThanksJohn196920022001 11:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I will be taking a wikibreak and am on a semi-break now. If I can offer something worthwhile without extensive study then I will. Otherwise no. Thank you. --Justanother 13:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I am now in mediation with Tilman and Smee over this article. Anything worthwhile that you can offer could be directed to my Cabal page. ThanksJohn196920022001 04:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tilman Hausherr Article

Considering you claim to be a Scientologist, that was a very unbiased thing to do. It certainly does not reflect what Tilman claims about Scientology. I think that scientology's side of the issue should be inncluded. What would be a good way to approach this issue? John196920022001 05:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That is true, I am not a hypocrite. Thanks. The issue of that site? This might sound rude and I apologize but I really do not care about that site. If the Church of Scientology wants their complaints about Tilman (or anyone) to appear here then they had best figure out how to make them appear in a reliable source. I looked at the Hassan dispute but 1) I see that you are in mediation and I would not interfere in that and 2) I am not a cult vs. anti-cult kinda guy so I cannot speak to the issue. I practice my religion, live my life, and, on the side, just try to clean up a bit of the bias here. Drop in the ocean but doing my part. Your help is appreciated so thanks! --Justanother 06:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting edits by banned user

Barbara Schwarz and her sockpuppets have been banned from editing in Wikipedia. I have reverted the edits by a user banned from editing Wikipedia, and noting your inappropriate restoration of these edits to ANI. Orsini 04:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, saves me the trouble. I will be right over their. Thanks! --Justanother 04:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of WP:NPA warning with uncivil edit

Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to the NPA warning on this Talk page, you will be blocked from editing. You removed a WP:NPA warning and did so with a clearly uncivil edit summary here. Please examine your own behavior.

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.I have asked you in the past to stop your personal attacks and making false claims before, as you did in the cited edit. Please stop. I insist you withdraw or amend these accusations. [2] Orsini 01:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by making personal attacks, hostile edit summaries and creating a single-purpose account. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail [email protected]. --Jersey Devil 01:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing admin, please regard this edit [3] for my reasons for blocking. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 03:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
And please note User:Shenme's support of my claim of User:Orsini misinterpreting Shenme's remark, here, and that I correctly pointed that out to Orsini in my post. Orsini has a pattern of misrepresentation and I simply called it for what it was, as in: You know, Orsini, that your misrepresentation is disrespectful of the board if not downright trolling. Funny thing is that I am not even the "lead lemming" in that AN/I posting. Oh well. --Justanother 04:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see also "... someone fell for that premise" by User:Shenme over here. --Justanother 04:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
And my response, over here. [4]. Orsini 05:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
And for Shenme and others, I see that Orsini provides no diffs in that mini wall-of-words, just the promise that if you slog through "Archive 10" then you will figure out that Tilman did not mean what Tilman clearly said. The simple fact is that Tilman has an off-wiki personal animosity towards Schwarz that gives him a clear COI. BabyDweezil called him on it with off-site linkage and I seconded BD. I also removed the WP:BLP violating rant here of Tilman's that is clearly indicative of his COI. His COI prompted Tilman to call for me to be blocked for putting the article up for AfD. That is all the history there is. Me and Tilman get along OK for a member of a religion and a person that actively attempts to blacklist members of that religion and whose government does blacklist them. He just has a COI with Schwarz and allows it to influence him inappropriately, IMO.
  • Oh, and what is this thing with calling someone a propagandist? Why is that such a big "offense". All that means is that they are using the articles for advocacy. Please see WP:NOT a soapbox which prohibits: "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind." I do accuse Smee of soap-boxing in the articles, using them as advocacy pieces, what else but propagandizing. It just means that I think he is breaking the rules here. No-one seems to have any trouble with slinging "disruptive editor" about. I don't see a qualitative difference, myself, but if someone wants to point one out to me, I would be happy to consider it. The term is not important, only handling the offenses. I would have thought that if an admin objected to my use of the term they would have given the "WP:DR is that-a-way" or "Show me a diff that supports that" or "please don't use that term". Not a prefunctory block in the midst of a dispute. --Justanother 04:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And finally poor User:JustaHulk. He had nothing to do with this. He was created over a week ago just to play around with User:Bishzilla. JustaHulk not bad. --Justanother 04:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, I kinda thought you were trying to ridicule my description of your behavior and temper on User_talk:Bishonen#Clue-o-gram_needed which I took as you at least understanding what I said enough to mock it. Quite a coincidence, especially coming from an editor who accuses others of representing facts in an intentionally false way. I'm not trying to "kick you while your down", or seek an apology regarding how you chose to react. i just want you to see that if you could make an honest mistake in retelling the facts, perhaps you'll be more understanding in the future when others make similar mistakes. Anynobody 07:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Anynobody 07:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Anynobody, I was mocking your clueless attack on User:MrDarcy for just doing his job as an admin. Similar to your clueless attack on User:Bishonen for doing her job as an admin. And please don't worry about "kicking me when I am down" as I am hardly down. I always AGF admins unless it is clearly proven that I should not. User:JerseyDevil bought into Orsini's line of bullshit - any lie repeated loud enough and long enough will find believers. That is a basic law of propagandizing. The reviewing admin, User:Sandstein, could not be expected to sort out the wall of words and was influenced no doubt by the fact that I get acerbic with clowns and that I use strong and direct language. I did not really expect another non-involved admin to undo this. The only admins that would know what a crock this is are, IMO, the anti-Scientology admins, User:Glen and User:ChrisO, who, while it might be a nice gesture, cannot really be expected to unblock the most vocal, respected, and productive Scientologist that has ever shown up here and User:Bishonen who is in a rest home after dealing with you and me and Smee and BD and I do not ask her to reinvolve herself. So don't worry, Anynobody, I will be back in a few hours. As for you, I again recommend that you review my previous good advices to you and find any other hobby than trying to "prove me wrong to myself" as you like to call it. That presupposes that you are "righter" than me and while there are no doubt people "righter " than me here, you, my friend, are not one of them. Please do not reply before my block is up - see below. --Justanother 13:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Note to all my "friends" (especially you, Anynobody) - unless you are here to unblock me please leave my talk page alone until I am unblocked because I really want to enjoy my time off and it would be pretty rude for you'all to be over here bothering me further before the block is up. As to my real friends, feel free to post here. --Justanother 13:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Justanother (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No SPA created, just User:JustaHulk, an allowed alternate account that has never placed an edit anywhere other than its own user pages and the user pages of User:Bishonen (AKA Bishzilla) that had no objection to the edits. Neither was there any blockable PA. I named no-one as a bigot in AN/I; I named Smee as a propagandist which means someone that propagandizes, which I do accuse him of and will back up with diffs and, additionally, Smee's inappropriate behavior is noted on AN/I by neutral editors even if they might not share my characterization as propagandizing without looking at my diffs (WP:DR, 2nd door on the right); and I said that Orsini's misrepresentation of Tilman's call for my block could be construed as trolling (me and anyone that takes it seriously) and I stand by that too. Please see further discussion and diffs to support from a neutral editor below under "Blocked for 24 hours". Thank you.

Decline reason:

Looking at the verbiage this has produced here and on ANI, the short block appears to be justified. That others may have misbehaved does not give you licence to. Consider settling your disputes with other users in a more calm manner. — Sandstein 06:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Further WP:DE by User:Smee

Speaking of the lead lemming (lead shark is more like it). Here and here is User:Smee again disrespecting the tags and concerns of another editor; pulling my merge tags. Pulling valid tags without appropriate discussion or agreement (consensus) is one of Smee's WP:DE practices. Sure wish you admins would quite enabling this disruptive editor. Just because someone has a smooth tongue does not forgive their WP:DE and my acerbic tongue does not make me the bad guy in this little drama. --Justanother 04:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick note to Shenme

Hi. While it is totally appropriate for you to rethink your wording, it is also strongly suggested in policy guidelines (see WP:TALK#Own comments) that you strike out rather than remove your previous verbiage so as not to cast replies to the original verbiage in an odd light. So your correction should look like this (italics optional):

For what it's worth, I believe that Orsini did completely misinterpret misread my comment, which was a face-value opinion.

I saw something about adding another timestamp to your sig but I have not yet totally figured out that nicety. I will though. Well, thanks for your continued self-honesty. I do not expect you to figure out the "wall-of-words" though I do think that Orsini is an interesting cat given his next-to-nil editing activity. Obviously, he is not here to edit articles and we see here what effects he is really interested in creating. But again, I would not expect another to involve themselves in this smelly mess. Unfortunately, as a Scientologist of 30 years, I have to do what I can about the propagandizing advocacy and soap-boxing in the Scientology articles along with the gross misundertandings of what Scientology is and how it works. Take care my friend. Guess my note ended up being not so "quick". --Justanother 14:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Quick note to Shenme

Ah, thanks. To see something in practice, doesn't necessarily mean it is a recognized guideline. So now I know yet another page to read - thanks. I love how it says use "Show preview" . Ha! I've kept pages open for more than an hour, trying to "say it right".     It ... doesn't always work ... :-(     Shenme 04:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No prob. But you can see the problem, I am sure, when you change a remark invisibly after another has responded or referenced it. The strike-out is the only important part, just highlight and hit str button, only takes a sec. Take care. --Justanother 04:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Justahulk account

I suggest that you post a request on AN/I for unblocking the account. I don't object to another administrator over viewing the block and considering unblocking. On a side note, I have told User:Smee to stop following you around on Wikipedia to begin fights, I suggest that you as well not be easily instigated by the user and try to remain civil and not use personal attacks or hostile edit summaries when dealing with him or any other users. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Take care. --Justanother 04:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Thanks for the tip. I will take another look and see if I can figure it out when I am not so tired. One good thing is that now the article makes Barbara sound like an important historical figure, so she should be happy about that at least. :-) Steve Dufour 06:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I was think that you may well want to take it to DRV for a few more sets of eyes as that close was odd with the closing admin changing after being petitioned by a highly involved POV editor. --Justanother 06:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that is a good idea. For me doing things here is not so easy. I don't have any experience with computer programming and that kind of thing. Steve Dufour 11:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the unique nature of this place can be off-putting. It has some parallels in moderated user forums but only to a limited degree. But you do not have to be fancy and, on admin boards, simpler is better anyway. A simple request to take a look based on the odd-closing and perhaps the question if it was closed a bit early (but I would not stress that and might leave it out). What this place is more about is diplomacy and tactfulness. I think you have those qualities. Believe it or no I, can be very diplomatic and I am usually the one chosen in my professional business to handle delicate situations. I allowed myself a bit of a luxury to lampoon inappropriate editors but I am done with that now as it allows the ill-intentioned to muddy the waters of what should be a clear debate by repeatedly pointing at and exaggerating my harsh words. I know that you have no such problem. If you want to put your request in a sandbox on your user page I will check it over for you. --Justanother 12:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I have to run now. Catch you in a few hours. --Justanother 22:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please post the link to the DRV message board, if that is what it is called, and I will mention Barbara's article there. I was planning on just giving the link to the deletion discussion and saying that although the vote was around 3 to 1 in favor of keeping, the people in favor of deletion brought up some serious issues that were not answered by the other side. What do you think about that? BTW I don't plan to vote on Tilman's article. He is clearly not notable enough but he likes his article and I don't want him take my vote personally. Steve Dufour 22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

Sir, you're rare, in my experience - I've seen people flog themselves over AfDs when they don't go their way. I'd share a beer with you, but...well, here's a barnstar instead. =^_^=

<move to user page>

A note, by the way, I caught the queries on this as well post close. To be perfectly frank, I hope Barbara contacts the appropriate people soon, so she can get it removed. --Dennisthe2 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that barnstar means something to me. We can have the beer later. Best. --Justanother 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

New Category

  • Thanks! Yes, I have read the Intro, and considered it before adding anybody. I am fairly well educated on this subject, so I could clairify anything I add if you want. Just ask on my Talk page. Zazaban 20:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No prob. There was one Roman that the article did not clearly indicate had started a religion or belief system and then there is Adam, that did not teach anything that I know of. I did the sort thing already for Moon and Crowley but if you want to do others it is easy to do when adding the cat. Thanks again for jumping in. I was really surprised that I could not find a cat like this extant. --Justanother 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD discussions

Please don't use harsh sarcasm in afd discussions (e.g. Tilman Hausherr)--whichever side you are supporting, this doesnt aid it.DGG 00:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. --Justanother 01:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Justanother/Archive7&oldid=210817048"