User talk:Anyeverybody/Archives/2007/November

Just back in the office...

...from a trip to Polska last week, and I find an enormous parcel, sent all the way from Long Beach, California, on my desk, with a label from 'The Way to Happiness International Foundation'. What can it be, I ask myself, as I gingerly open the flap, secretly hoping that one of my disreputable friends has arranged for some porn DVDs to be sent?

Dear Major Bonkers, You work in the insurance industry. You probably know that employee theft causes one-third of all bankruptcies and costs employers billions annually. And that insurance fraud exceeds $80 billion from faked accidents, injuries and illnesses. But what you likely do not know is that an effective and easy-to-implement method exists with a 25-year record of success in markedly raising moral and ethical standards - not by enforcing them, but by instilling them. Blah, blah, blah.

Inside are a couple of DVDs and a dozen pamphlets, 'The Way to Happiness', all now filed in the appropriate container. Is it paranoia, or could it be that I am now being stalked by the Hubbard-istas - for (in small type) the parcel has come from them! Tom Cruise's donations are now being recycled in mass spam-mailings.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply incredible, nigh unbelievable, but above all hilarious :) I've heard that in the past they offered similar services to dentists through an indirect front company called Sterling Management according to Time. I guess the church thinks the field of insurance could benefit from the ethics created by L. Ron Hubbard. (Considering how many people I know feel about insurance companies, making it more like Scientology isn't going to help much. But don't get me wrong, I've worked in insurance so I usually defend them when people I know complain.)

I can understand why the Cruiser (ScienTOMogy's name for him) stays in, they go out of their way to kiss his ass. For everyone else, well, lets just say I think there are better things one could spend their money on than Scientology. (Out of curiosity, did the irony of 'The Way to Happiness' make you laugh? If indeed it lived up to its title then why would anyone else need any more help to be happy?) Anynobody 21:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well,you can imagine my delight when I discovered that it wasn't an enormous box of porn DVDs but the unadulterated word of the lord: certainly a much surer 'Way to Happiness'. It's actually all very banal - be nice to other people, respect their beliefs, do not murder, do not steal, and so on. I suspect that the Prophet Elron plagarised some of it from that more minor figure, Moses. Rather bizarrely:

[Law 1] TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF [...] 1.3 Preserve your teeth: If one brushed one's teeth after every meal, it has been said that one would not suffer tooth decay. This, or chewing gum after each meal, goes far toward defending others from oral diseases and bad breath. Suggest to others that they preserve their teeth.

I just pause here to point out that if I 'suggest to others that they preserve their teeth' I'd be in danger of losing my own.

[Law 2] BE TEMPERATE 2.1 Do not take harmful drugs: People who take drugs do not always see the real world in front of them. They are not really there. on a highway, in casual contact, in a home, they can be very dangerous to you. people mistakenly believe they "feel better" or "act better" or are "only happy" when on drugs. Sooner or later the drugs will destroy them physically. Discourage people from taking drugs. When they are doing so, encourage them to seek help getting off of them.

[Law 3] DON'T BE PROMISCOUS [...] 3.1 Be faithful to your sexual partner [...]. I'm not sure that the Cruiser paid much attention to that one.

Oddly enough, 'DO NOT MURDER' comes in at number 8 on the hit parade, and 'DO NOT STEAL' at number 13 (out of 21, plus two forewords and an epilogue).

In small type on the back cover we get this: This may be the first nonreligious moral code based wholly on common sense. It was written by L. Ron Hubbard as an individual work and is not part of any religious doctrine. Any reprinting or individual distribution of it does not infer connection with or sponsorship of any religious organization. It is therefore admissible for government departments and employees to distribute it as a nonreligious activity. (Reprinting can be arranged with The Way to Happiness Foundation International.)

(That reminds me of a stupid story about the wife of, I think, Giscard d'Estaing, who was interviewed on British television and asked what she wanted in her retirement. 'Happiness', she said, but with a French accent it came out as 'a penis'!)

I was going to bin the whole lot, but I've retrieved one booklet. (If they'd put a photograph of John Travolta in dreadlocks on the cover that would have spiced it up a bit.) It seems to be a minor masterpiece of unintentional humour; eg. (p.45) [...] World War II to get rid of [...] Hitler [...] is described as a very unhappy event[...] for Mankind. Yes, it was a bit. Really, though, Donald Rumsfeld would have created a much more entertaining version of the gospel, with his 'known knowns' and all!--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PS:

This user defends others from oral diseases and bad breath!

--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rarely does junk mail meet the standards for comedy, but when it happens I find myself wishing there was more stuff like that in my mail. These are almost as good as some of the more, unusual tabloids describing B-17s on the moon and Swamis that can go for decades without urinating or defecating. (If true, that guy would actually be full of shit, how ironic.)

One of its statements has an especially baffling oxy-moronish twist, about it being "the first non-religious code". They spend so much time trying to convince people that its a valid religion (Scientology), yet try to introduce it as a non-religion. I've got it, they can call themselves the "un-religion", seemed to work for 7up. (Damn, the forces of tooth decay are everywhere, even in my examples, Hubbard knew everything.)

Though I think the nature of the list actually can make people violate it. For example number 21 (by the way, what was the final point?) probably seems relatively less important than number 1. Imagine a person with limited intellectual faculties who tries to satisfy all points but concentrates on numbers 1 through 5 for important decisions. Lets say this person comes across a Lexus with keys in the ignition ready to go, numbers 1-5 don't seem to have an issue and just think how much easier it'll be to get toothpaste with a car. Of course definitions vary, but I personally think ending up in prison is not taking care of oneself.

I don't know if you've seen it, but the high placement of oral health on the list can't help but remind me of the vital essence provided by our precious bodily fluids. Anynobody 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This user suggests to others that they preserve their teeth!

Ha, ha! Yes - I hadn't made the connection to Dr. Strangelove! Of course the floride in the toothpaste would also sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids! It's a bizarre plot for the Hubbard-istas to render us all impotent - they shall inherit the Earth!

To answer your question, number 21 is: FLOURISH AND PROSPER. Frankly, I'm not sure that the Cruiser made it beyond number 1 - he certainly has white teeth; but number 2 is BE TEMPERATE - the booklet includes footnotes so that stupid people don't have to look up the long words in a dic-tio-n-ary, and 'temperate' is defined as: 'not going to extremes; not over-doing things; controlling one's cravings'. I don't think that in bouncing up and down on Oprah's sofa he was really controlling himself.

PS: yawn. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just it though, he even goes overboard on white teeth. Argh the frustration, a man who flourishes by not being moderate about his feelings or bright choppers.

(I imagine a man off screen shouting "Dear God, he's opening his mouth don't look directly at his teeth!")

Anynobody 01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Argh! Turn it off, for pity's sake!--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lufthansa Flight 2904

Hi. While improving the article, you removed the Expert-editor's-attention-needed template, but you did not remove the contradicted information which prompted me to put it there in the first place. See discussion page for details, as others noticed the problem long ago, but no one has fixed it. Can you? If you can't, please put the template back in the article. Thanks, --Mareklug ^talk 08:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Onee more thing: The new image you made and just added to the article, showing where on the runway the right wheel (blue) and the left wheel (yellow) touched down is spatially wrong. The right-side (blue) information is presented on the left-hand side, and the left-side (yellow) information is presented on the right-hand side. This will cause complete misunderstanding of the situation on other language versions. And please double check that the plane veered off to the right, as is shown in your graphic, in light of the above left-right discrepancy. Best, --Mareklug ^talk 08:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll address your concerns on the article's talk page. Anynobody 20:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(I think it's better to discuss article issues there so others can participate too) Anynobody 21:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply on the article's talk page. You did not, unfortunately, address the second point at all. It pertains to the second graphic, where observer's viewpoint and the aircraft's handedness coincide, not the first graphic where you added an explanation. --Mareklug ^talk 21:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The lines on either side of the runway measure distance from a point to either threshold (depending on the line's direction). Anynobody 04:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Personality section on L. Ron Hubbard

Hello, I noticed you reordered my re-write of that section. I rather wish you hadn't, because there's no need to place the contents of that section chronologically. I think my way of organizing it into a cohesive narrative describing and contrasting the different facets of his personality worked a lot better. Would you mind if I restored my version? --GoodDamon 04:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I really prefer to keep discussions about specific articles on their respective talk pages, GoodDamon. So I'll be copying this question and pasting it on the talk page with my answer. (No offense meant, and I do appreciate discussion about these issues.) Anynobody 06:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:Co-nominee

Thanks, but I'm turning it down. I've lost almost all interest in the tools. I've realized just how much I love being able to call a spade a spade without being taken to arb com. Thanks though :). The Hybrid T/C 23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Have it your way :) Anynobody 04:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Uh...

I know. I just saw the opportunity to explain further so that he completely understands the problem. - Rjd0060 05:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok :) Anynobody 04:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Friendly note on reverting

Thanks for your note on my talk page. If I understood your note correctly, I guess you didn't look close enough to the change I made. I only reverted one part. Please have a look again to the change I made: [1] As you see, what I intended to change was your addition of "Shot down due to incorrect identification as an Iranian F-14 Tomcat" to the summary table. As I described in the short note, that is one side's story. If I didn't understand your point, please feel free to leave me a clarifying message.Farmanesh (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC) :(I prefer to keep conversations in one place, so I'm posting this reply both here and your talk page. Respond where you want this conversation to continue.)

You didn't (understand) I'm afraid, you also reverted this edit. My point is if you feel that the cause of the accident was "Civillian airliner shoot-down", simply edit the page accordingly. When you revert, you also undo non-POV related changes too. Anynobody 02:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As you wanted I gave the answer in my talkpage. Good luck with your adminship...Farmanesh (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Anynobody 05:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words regarding the Robert Prechter remedy. You might want to see what's been done to the article since that time. Smallbones (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem on the support, frankly I really don't understand why the committee didn't want to lift the ban. To be honest, I'm not very interested in Prechter, but am interested in you being able to edit his articles. I came upon your situation because I was involved in another arbcom case and watched still one more which all came to some similar baffling conclusions. (Similar in that they were all baffling.)

Arbcom rulings can be appealed to Jimbo Wales, I was thinking about looking at your case again to make sure I didn't miss something and if not appeal on your behalf. (I'm starting to think that if one appeals anything, people seem to automatically assume that person is simply unhappy with a fair decision, even if it wasn't.) Seriously, adding critical content to a WP:BLP is ok if it's from a reputable source, like the Wall Street Journal, so punishing an editor for following the rules is something which must be addressed. Anynobody 05:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you run for arbcom?! Smallbones (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in making the tougher calls yet, and also wouldn't presume the community has gotten to know me well enough to have a chance.

Regarding the Prechter case, had anyone neutral to the dispute warned you that your edits were overly biased? I think probably the best reason the ban should be lifted is that it was the first "correction" applied, going from zero to ban that fast looks like punishment which is not what the case was supposed to be about. Anynobody 04:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please could one of you provide an up-to-date link here. I've got a bit more time now and I'd like to have a look. PS: Hello, Anynobody! My insomnia has caused us to overlap our time-zones. --Major Bonkers (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find anyone warning Smallbones that their behavior was in any way "topic bannable" so to speak. Pending confirmation of this from Smallbones, I'm going to appeal the ban to Jimbo Wales. However, this weekend is a somewhat major holiday (Thanksgiving (United States), when we thanked the Indians before stealing their land and killing them.) here in the states and assumed Smallbones was probably going to be busy. Anynobody 05:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this earlier. If you want the arbcom link it is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter. Please give me a week before contacting Jimbo Wales. I think if anybody contacts him, it should be me (first). The question above (did anybody warn me about "topic bannable" behavior?) confuses me a bit. Certainly Prechter's PR guy user:Rgfolsom told me (with every edit) that anything and everything could happen to me. Other people noted that we were in an edit war - but frankly I considered that to be a very one-sided view since the "edit war" was just me adding documented facts, and Folsom then reverting them. The mediator and then the mediation cabal guy didn't mention this at all, they seemed to just note that Folsom wasn't doing anything that could result in mediation. I'll write Jimbo within a week. Smallbones (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, you pretty much answered my question but to make sure there are no misunderstandings I'll clarify it; Prior to the arbcom case, had a neutral person warned you about your edits to articles? (Maybe on your talk page, or an article's talk page.) I get the impression only the edit warring was noted, not the edits themselves.

The reason I ask is that I don't have the time to go over your entire edit history to find out if someone not involved in the edit war had warned you. If someone had and it was revealed when I appeal to Jimbo, it could hurt my point. That being, even if there was a problem regarding how you dealt with Rgfolsom, you weren't warned that your actual article edits were "bannable" prior to the arbcom case.

On that subject, if you really want me to I'll wait till you go to him first but I strongly suggest you reconsider. People have been seeing "the war" between you and Rgfolsom, and you're liable to continue that by appealing on your own behalf. Whereas if I appeal, and point out the essential error, without taking sides about how the war was conducted, it would be less likely to deteriorate into a repeat of the arbcom case. Anynobody 22:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear. "Topic banning" was never mentioned before the arbitration. "edit warring" and "incivility" were mentioned by outsiders, but these seemed to be aimed more at Folsom than me.

Thanks for the offer, but I'll contact Jimbo by myself. I'll let you know (in brief) what happens here, and if I think there is anything that you can do. Thanks again. Smallbones (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I don't think that there is anything further that you can do for a long while (I've got serious time constraints). I did send a note to Jimbo and got a very reasonable reply, but I'd think that his time constraints are even more serious than mine. Smallbones 15:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfect (re: Topic ban), that's what I was hoping. :)

Rereading what I wrote below, it occurred to me that you might think I condemn your behavior towards the other editor. I personally don't think you have broken WP:CIVIL, or any of the other allegations, but since the idea of civility is subjective I can't argue effectively against other's perception of what it means to be civil.

It's very important to keep the topic ban totally separate from the incivility debate, because they are two totally different things. Because even if the community feels you were breaking WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA (who knows what they'll say?), any punishment should be regarding how you edit article talk and user pages, not articles themselves.

Whatever happens, good luck. :) Anynobody 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Very much, thank you for the kind words. Well spoken. Best regards. Durova^Charge! 06:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You bet :) Anynobody 06:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding an appeal to Jimbo Wales

Hello Anynobody,

I know that you've taken an interest in the Prechter Arb case. The evidence & workshop pages included copious amounts of material, so I obviously can't know how closely you read them. I'd like to respectfully bring a couple of relevant facts to your attention.

• Here you'll see how Smallbones posted my identity multiple times on Wikipedia, without my consent. I didn't insist that the Committee identify this as harassment in their Findings of fact and Remedies, but I have a hunch that they'd have done exactly that if I'd made a real big deal about it.
• Here Smallbones accused me of "vandalism," which the Committee did specifically recognize. He made the accusation after I had twice removed a falsehood he posted in Prechter's bio. After the first removal I had told Smallbones that his cited source was bogus, but he posted it again anyway. Eventually he admitted that he was "citing" a source he didn't even possess at the time.
• You indicate that you're especially concerned about what belongs in the bio of a living person, so I ask you to please read this exchange. It's really no surprise that the Committee's votes were unanimous. More recently, I don't know what on earth Smallbones was thinking by violating the Committee's remedy even as they weighed his request to lift it. The least one can say is that he didn't help himself.

I do not want to revisit all this again, least of all by telling the above (and more) to Jimbo Wales. The only thing worse would be for me to do nothing as he hears one side of a two-sided story. Thanks,

--Rgfolsom (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to assuage any concern you might've had, I had planned on leaving you a message before I actually did anything. I don't believe in blindsiding people. Nor am I defending Smallbones' dealings with you on an editor/editor basis. However, if there is a problem with how you were treated, then the corrective action should have involved how Smallbones deals with you on talk pages, not his/her edits to articles. Anynobody 22:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I believe what you say about having planned to alert me first. And FWIW, please know I agree with you that misbehavior (whether perceived or real) by one editor toward another should not result in "corrective action" edits in the mainspace. Here is another exchange that may shed more light on my approach to Prechter's bio, and on why the Committee did what it did.

If I read your most recent comment to Smallbones correctly, you appear to believe that civility is subjective -- so in your view, even his posting my identity on Wikipedia did not amount to incivility. I will grant that some behavior fall in a gray zone. Yet other actions are as plainly uncivil as it gets, as in "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." If you think posting another editor's identity is not personally targeted behavior, and that doing so does not cause an atmosphere of greater conflict, then perhaps you can explain how you came to that conclusion -- and from there please address how it squares with the definition of harassment that I've included here again. Thanks,

--Rgfolsom (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the example you gave is perfect for illustrating the subjective nature of WP:CIVIL. Smallbones revealing your identity seems like an uncivil action from your perspective, and I can understand why you feel that way. My reading of WP:CIVIL#Examples tells me that it's meant to address outright rudeness or other overt hostility. From my perspective as a totally outside observer identifying an editor as an employee of a WP:BLP subject in an effort to prove a point about WP:COI isn't a violation of civility. Plus, you used your name as your editor name, it honestly is a bit difficult to understand why it would be insulting to have something so obvious pointed out. (Whereas people like myself who are truly uncomfortable with revealing that info use aliases.)

But again, that's just my opinion, and not what I intended to appeal on Smallbones' behalf for. Assuming I'm wrong, and he/she has been breaking WP:CIVIL in dealings with you, I don't think the topic ban is a good way to address that kind of problem. I honestly don't mean to sound insensitive, but should Smallbones really be banned from editing Robert Prechter articles because he/she hurt your feelings? Instead probation of how Smallbones treats you seems more appropriate. (I'm not saying ANYONE should get away with intentionally hurting anyone else's feelings.) Anynobody 05:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)