User talk:Justanother/Archive4

What are you saying, exactly?

:::Hi. Your "feel free to delete this from your talk page" caught my eye and it seemed an odd suggestion. Without getting into what might have motivated you to make such a suggestion, I simply mention that asking one or two editors whose opinions are known to you to take a look at something that they have already expressed interset in would hardly, in my opinion, violate the spirit of WP:CANVASSING. Don't know why you got so defensive in your reaction to my pointing that out. You should have stuck with your first instinct rather than rehash how we might not see eye-to-eye on another, unrelated, issue that has not yet to come before a neutral panel (why not wait for that before getting all "high and mighty"; I usually do pretty well before neutral panels). --Justanother 05:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure I wasn't letting emotion get the better of me on this issue, so I slept on it before responding and as such apologize for the delay. I was frustrated at first, but now that has been replaced by curiosity which is why I've decided to go ahead and see if you can make something clear for me. Let me start by reassuring you that if I were still frustrated I would not have posted this, so please understand that this is a genuine question:

Are you really saying that the guidelines which apply to biographic sections of articles do not apply to biographical articles?

This is, so far, the only unresolved dispute between the two of us which is not dependent on third party intervention (like the AfD, or BLPN disputes). Or as you said, when we haven't seen eye to eye. I guess assuming you had realized your error after you stopped responding in our discussion on the Barbara Schwarz talk page was a mistake. I suppose that is why I was frustrated yesterday when you mentioned my acting in a "high and mighty" way by explaining it was not I who made the last mistake about guidelines. Seriously, wouldn't you find it odd if an editor you perceived to be mistaken about one wiki guideline was pointing out possible infractions you may or may not be making related to another guideline? I honestly thought you had understood your mistake about BLP, by not discussing it anymore I figured pride kept you from admitting you were wrong. If you still think you are correct, then I'm willing to find a neutral panel. Respectfully, this is not a difference of opinion on something intangible like religion, it's difference of how we each see Wiki guidelines. Not to sound like a broken record but, one of us is right or we are both wrong. I just want to know what the case is here. If I'm wrong I don't want to run into another situation like this, and clarifying the correct interpretation at this point can help. I would have thought you would feel this way too, after all misquoting Wikipedia policies and guidelines can reinforce a negative image of Scientology. Anynobody 10:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. First, please let me know your religion or other spiritual beliefs (or lack of), your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. so that I can cast aspersions on them (and you) for your misapplying the self-same policy, in addition to your fear of being caught WP:CANVASSING, and any other errors that I happen to catch you in. Talk about offensive! And all with the "goody two-shoes, I'm so pure and holier-than-thou" attitude. Makes me gag. I sure as hell could give a shit if you think I work for OSA. Or if you think I am one rude motherfucker. --Justanother 16:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not "casting aspersions" on your religion. (gender, race, sexuality, etc. haven't come into our discussions yet so please understand that I won't be addressing those.) Also, I must say it isn't the best way to ask for personal info so that you can say bad things about it. If you believe I am pushing a particular religious POV, feel free to follow my edits and see if that's the case. The only religion I have so far come into contact with, is Scientology. If Barbara Schwarz had never been a Scientologist, I probably would not have even met you yet because you probably would not have been editing there. (You've stated a few times that you think she is non-notable and I haven't seen you editing much related to the U.S. government.)

Justanother I have said this before, but perhaps you didn't see it. I have no interest in making Scientology look bad. If I was a person with an anti-Scientology agenda I'd be editing a lot more articles related to Scientology besides Barbara Schwarz and the mis perception of L. Ron Hubbard's Navy career given by both Cos and anti-CoS sources. (This goes back to the discussion we had above on this very talk page.)

You've also not answered my question, do you believe that BLP applies to articles and sections of articles in different ways? If you don't want to participate, would you mind if I took our example to the BLPN or other neutral source. I still want to know. Anynobody 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, if I may be so bold, I think you have two little voices in your head. On a number of occasions now you have seemed unsure of whether you should treat me as as justanother editor (albeit a bit of an asshole) that you might have some disagreement over some policy with. Or whether I am some trollish monster from Scientology-hell. Now you can't have it both ways, you know. So please make up your mind and govern yourself accordingly. Because if you come into my wiki-house and start spewing that crap like "I would have thought you would feel this way too, after all misquoting Wikipedia policies and guidelines can reinforce a negative image of Scientology." then I will kick you out of here on your digital ass. So please make up your mind and when you have then come here and let me know. If you care to. Until such point then please, I really don't have much to say to you here. I will, of course, continue my editing and such remarks as I deem appropriate on talk pages. --Justanother 02:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually relieved to hear you say that, I honestly am not sure which you are sometimes and I will explain what I mean. Rest assured I'd love to "make up my mind" as you put it, it would make things much easier. The problem is, respectfully, there are not two voices in my head but (at least) two Justanothers. There's the one that started this discussion User talk:Justanother#"Lessons" response to Anynobody (moved from article talk) and then there's the trollish monster from Scientology-hell (I can literally list at least five examples here on your talk page alone, but I don't want to make you any more upset than you already are). You appear to experience some kind of Incredible Hulk persona when you really start to melt down (I was gonna say Jekyl/Hyde but the Hulk sounds less like an insult considering many consider him to be a superhero whereas the former is considered a monster). When I was younger I used to go out of my way to try to annoy people to the point I appear to have bothered you by just trying to be honest. The irony here is that it is the last thing I want to do. Then suddenly you'll make a comment on the Barbara Schwarz talk page that makes sense the next day and seem "normal". The cycle then repeats. I honestly suspect that I am not the first person you've alienated with this type of behavior. (If I hadn't seen the barnstar from him/her on your user page I would have thought you and Smee had been enemies forever.) Anynobody 10:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, anynobody. All due respect but you are being just a bit too "touchy-feely" throughout your postings on my page, IMHO. Let me make myself plain. If you bring my religion into the conversation when disagreeing with any aspect of my behavior, I am likely to get offended. So if your intention is to offend me then go right ahead. And the only other editors that I have likely "offended" are those that edit offensively; continually reverting valid edits to forward their uninformed POV while continually inserting and reinserting highly POV, non-RS crap in the articles despite my removals that are then upheld by third party neutral opinion. That is not you. You seem to be a special case that is going out of his way to offend me personally by making a big deal out of some WP that we don't see exactly eye-to-eye on and somehow relating that to my fucking religion. You are being offensive. You need to take my religion out of your conversations with me. Until you can manage that you are not welcome to post here. Is that clear? --Justanother 12:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack on User:Anynobody

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

False accusations and inappropriate language including "shit" and "motherfucker", directed at User:Anynobody. Smee 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Why did you delete this Justanother? Though I am not offended, Smee is correct in warning you that conduct like this could very well offend someone else. You may dislike Smee and myself, but we're actually trying to help by warning you. Seriously, sooner or later you'll offend someone who will put you as an RfC or perhaps more. Disregarding a warning from another editor while putting up warnings of your own has the appearance of hypocrisy. Anynobody 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, anynobody. Since you seem to endorse this then I will not remove it. But, pray tell, what is the personal attack? I was kind enough to tell you exactly what you said that was a personal attack with your attack on BabyDweezil. Thanks --Justanother 01:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Aw shit, methinks I hear one of those damn angry mastodons....where's my muthafukkin' mastodon gun? BabyDweezil 02:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yo bro. Good to see ya. That's right. I think I am going to edit that essay to end it with "Of course if you have a muthafukkin' mastodon gun, just shoot the sumbitch." --Justanother 03:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To address your concerns about hypocrisy, by responding here I was hoping to clarify things a bit. When I made the entry in question, I could tell that you were very angry. Because I understand that your post didn't upset me. Angry people generally aren't concerned about matters of civility and avoiding PA, if I know to expect that it doesn't "hurt". (I don't mean to imply that i don't make mistakes like that when I'm angry, I'm human so I do too.) Please AGF on what I am about to say: There are many editors who would have been devastated by that kind of comment after good faith attempts to carry on a discussion. By disregarding Smee's warning you are essentially disregarding Wiki policies and guidelines.

(P.S. Smee when I say I wasn't offended, it doesn't make your assertion any less valid. I don't want to make anyone feel bad, so in case Justanother had calmed down and regretted saying something in anger I thought I'd make it clear in this case no harm was done. (I know I usually regret stuff I say when I'm angry.) So please don't think I'm discounting you either) Anynobody 03:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Two points, anynobody (maybe three). 1) You did not in the least address the hypocrisy I pointed out. 2) You did not in the least point out exactly what the PA was. The exact words I used that you consider a PA. And 3) You did not in the least address my request for you to make up your mind. I made no mistake because I was angry. I was blunt because I was angry. No mistake made. Quite the opposite, in fact. --Justanother 03:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did address those questions, but in trying to keep you from becoming more offended I tried to address them in a nice way. Perhaps I sugarcoated too much, I'll just give you the basic plain answers. Please don't confuse my attempt to be succinct with a PA or anything like that.

• When one person speaks for another, miscommunication is bound to occur. You are communicating for BabyDweezil and Smee was speaking on my behalf because as far as he/she knew I may have been offended. In order to clear up any confusion I had planned to post on the warning that my feelings weren't hurt but you should be careful about insulting someone else. I'll get to specifically what I consider inappropriate below. If I saw your comment going to another editor I would assume the same thing Smee did. In this case you deleted Smee's warning, which was contrary to several guidelines here.

• The hypocrisy I mentioned you were showing was by expecting me to address your concerns about my treatment of BabyDweezil, yet ignoring Smee's concern about your treatment of me.

• As to what about the statement could be construed as a PA, I'll go ahead and disect this for you. Again, I'm doing this because you asked I'm not trying to drag you through the mud. Hi. First, please let me know your religion or other spiritual beliefs (or lack of), your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. so that I can cast aspersions on them (and you) for your misapplying the self-same policy, in addition to your fear of being caught WP:CANVASSING, and any other errors that I happen to catch you in. You want personal info about me to insult, that seems to be the point of your question. I found it amusing because it's not so much a PA as a request for me to help you make a PA against myself. Other editors may see your statement itself as a shot at their beliefs, because if you want to insult them they must be wrong. Talk about offensive! And all with the "goody two-shoes, I'm so pure and holier-than-thou" attitude. I'm not saying I'm incapable of making mistakes, so your assertion that I am acting holier than thou could be interpreted as another PA for trying to follow the rules. Makes me gag. I sure as hell could give a shit if you think I work for OSA. Or if you think I am one rude motherfucker. Justanother 16:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC) If you don't care to receive advice, that's okay I can certainly stop. However in our conversation earlier you gave me the impression you didn't understand why there was so much hate out there for Scientology. I hadn't really seen it one way or the other. Since our conversation I've noticed how the attitude of distrust Scientologists have for people who are not members, seems to cause much of the public to have a negative view. Bear in mind that is probably not the only cause for the less than friendly situation. I guess I should look at the "why do they hate Scientology" question as a rhetorical one? (Remember I have no issue with your religion, and actually suggested Scientologists put together a manual of style to cut down on the amount of insults you recieve. I also asked you if you knew of any outright lies in the public discourse about Hubbard's Naval career, and thought we agreed the Navy was a neutral source. If I was interested in bringing down Scientology, I would not have bothered to get your opinion or suggest a way to improve your situation and now here we are. You asking me to help bring this discussion into a personal grudge match). I'm hoping you are able to rationally step back and realize that if you treat a person who is neutral with Scientology like this, who would want to be friendly to you besides other Scientologists? Anynobody 04:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, anynobody. All due respect but you are being just a bit too "touchy-feely" throughout your postings on my page, IMHO. Let me make myself plain. If you bring my religion into the conversation when disagreeing with any aspect of my behavior, I am likely to get offended. So if your intention is to offend me then go right ahead. And the only other editors that I have likely "offended" are those that edit offensively; continually reverting valid edits to forward their uninformed POV while continually inserting and reinserting highly POV, non-RS crap in the articles despite my removals that are then upheld by third party neutral opinion. That is not you. You seem to be a special case that is going out of his way to offend me personally by making a big deal out of some WP that we don't see exactly eye-to-eye on and somehow relating that to my fucking religion. You are being offensive. You need to take my religion out of your conversations with me. Until you can manage that you are not welcome to post here. Is that clear? --Justanother 12:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sincerely, I am not trying to offend you. Since you have become offended, and I really feel that you are trying to edit against the guideline of WP:COI and the policy of WP:CONSENSUS on the Barbara Schwarz article, I'd like to set this up as a RfC. I honestly did not want to offend you while trying to explain my concerns to you, about a variety of things. You haven't actually addressed directly many of the concerns I've tried to discuss with you. I believe this can benefit both of us by giving an outside opinion, and I regret that I haven't mentioned the idea of going to a third party sooner. How would you feel about this? Anynobody 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Your personal attacks in edit summaries - As pointed out by third-party, User:Fubar Obfusco in a WP:NPA warning in which user stated: rv - consider this yet another WP:NPA warning. Please adjust your behaviour and inappropriate language accordingly. Smee 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Calling crap material crap is not a PA, Smee. And please stop reinserting that crap. --Justanother 12:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This time your violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks was picked up on a different editor, User:Fubar Obfusco. STOP your personal attacks and foul and inappropriate language. Thanks. Smee 12:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Au contraire, mon frere; my language, while perhaps a bit colorful, is entirely appropriate. What is "foul and inappropriate", IMHO, is blindly and repeatedly reverting valid edits (the validity of which are then upheld by neutral 3rd parties) and continually reinserting highly POV, non-RS matrerials (the nonvalidity of which are then upheld by neutral 3rd parties). Compared to those obscenities, a few fucks on my talk page are kindergarten stuff. --Justanother 12:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You should stop your foul language, inappropriate behaviour, and violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, regardless of your perceived problems with others' editing patterns. Smee 13:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

I can use foul language if I want to, Smee, you are not my mother. If you can't stand the heat get out of the fucking kitchen. Other than that the onliest one with inappropriate behavior is you. And the onliest hint of a PA on my part was in my pretty innocuous description of anynobody's attitude, a description that I stand by and which is hardly a PA. This is just yet another error on your part and I can point a lot of them and will as time permits. --Justanother 15:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Error by Smee: In this diff you seem to be baiting BabyDweezil by misinterpreting his mention of where the material is. He says "page 2-3 of the introduction." which you misinterpret as page 2-3 of the publication as if that would make him look stupid ("Obviously your citation is incorrect"). Actually, there are page numbers on the bottom of each page also that you disregarded. More Smee errors to come. Lots more. --Justanother 15:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Error by Smee: In this diff you are allegedly "waiting" for a 3rd opinion on whether your inclusion of "Letters to the Editor" is appropriate despite my repeatedly telling you that they were not. But instead of actually waiting you "back-door" the content in by referencing the letters and including the content in the tag. Sneaky. But obvious. Needless to say, the 3rd (and 4th) opinions did not go your way. But not for lack of trying (E for effort). More Smee errors to come. Lots more. --Justanother 16:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Error by Smee: On a humorous note, in this diff you misunderstand another editor's telling you that it is NOT inappropriate for me to say "Smee" in an edit summary nor is there any evidence of your oft-perceived "personal attacks" (that sounds familiar). You seem to think the 3rd party is supporting you. I don't include this to be mean, just to point out yet another error. As you seem to like doing in my case (you just don't have as much material to work with as I do, sorry). More Smee errors to come. Lots more.

Smee, I do not really do this to be mean. I am not really a mean person. I am a very kind person, actually. But I want you to knock off whatever this thing you have with me is where you feel compelled to butt-in in every situation that I have with another editor. I would also like you to knock off your abusive editing but that is something we can address elsewhere. This is more personal. Trust me, your actions can stand less scrutiny than mine can but scrutinizing each others actions is a waste of time anyway. This is all I have time for right now. If you want me to keep going on this I can add a bunch more just off the top of my head later but would really rather not and what I really look forward to doing is archiving all this recent crapola. --Justanother 16:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Be nice.

• All it would take to have a more cordial relationship on Wikipedia would be for you to try to comment on content, not contributors, stop using the foul language, and treat others how you would wish to be treated yourself. Smee 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Smee, I would be happy to. Really. But this is not about foul language; that was an extremely isolated incident here on my talk page in response to provocation and to express my indignation. So let's not throw that in the pot please. All I ask of you is what I asked of you already. AGF that my edits and any reversions I do are very firmly grounded in policy, neutrality, and fairness. You see, Smee, they have to be as otherwise I would be cut to ribbons and I have not a scratch on me. My somewhat sardonic edit summary comments are an indulgence of mine certainly but they are comments on edits, reverts, content, contributions, not on editors. I would certainly be willing to forgo them if I thought that after I fixed one of your mistakes with a nice edit summary that you would not then doggedly repeat it. Tell you what, as a sign of my good faith, I will try that. And you can try "Bold-Revert-Discuss". That means you do something, I nicely revert with a clear ES as to why I did and you hold off until we discuss or you get your 3rd opinion or whatever. I thought that was what you were going to start doing when you promised Glen that you would make a change in your editing style but we can do it now, together. Sound good? --Justanother 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If you are proposing to stop the foul language, the personal attacks in edit summaries, and stick to commenting on content and not contributors, then yes. Smee 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Well, I don't promise anything on the foul language but it is not my habit to curse; that was a special occasion, kinda like my birthday. And I am not admitting to any PA's. Let's see, what else. I don't still beat my wife. But if you mean (in your roundabout and somewhat recalcitrant manner) that you are agreeable to what I propose then cool, let's do it. I await your confirmation delivered without further attacks on your part. --Justanother 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Sigh, unfortunately, it sounds like from your past edit summary just now, and your sarcastic comments above, that you are not willing to stop the foul language, the personal attacks in edit summaries, and stick to commenting on content and not contributors. Therefore this does not sound like any actions on my part would be fruitful or worthwhile in this endeavour. Oh well. Hopefully you will attempt to be less abrasive and more polite anyways. Smee 21:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
          • Sigh, indeed!. I make you a nice friendly offer and you return with more accusatory crap. And I ask you to simply respond without more of the same and you just can't bring yourself to do it. Oh well, can't say I didn't try. And the worst part of it, Smee, is I am sure that you see none of the points I make and will just merrily keep going your disruptive way. But others are more perceptive. Of that I am sure. --Justanother 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Can't say I didn't try either. And I am sure that you don't see your foul language, personal attacks, etc. as inappropriate and will continue to do that as well, and keep merrily going your disruptive way as well. However, I will continue to hope that you will change and see the light, at some point, some day... Smee 21:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
              • I have already addressed the foul language issue. The personal attacks are mostly in your mind and at least one 3rd party has already pointed that out to you. I am still holding out the olive branch. All you have to do is take it without spitting in my face at the same time. --Justanother 22:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
                • From your sarcasm and weird non-sequitir comments in edit summaries, even inside this very discussion, it seems that you cannot do the same. Smee 22:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
• Well then, just in case it got obscured in the dust-up, I will put it out there once more. --Justanother 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Smee, I would be happy to (have a more cordial relationship). Really. But this is not about foul language; that was an extremely isolated incident here on my talk page in response to provocation and to express my indignation. So let's not throw that in the pot please. All I ask of you is what I asked of you already. AGF that my edits and any reversions I do are very firmly grounded in policy, neutrality, and fairness. You see, Smee, they have to be as otherwise I would be cut to ribbons and I have not a scratch on me. My somewhat sardonic edit summary comments are an indulgence of mine certainly but they are comments on edits, reverts, content, contributions, not on editors. I would certainly be willing to forgo them if I thought that after I fixed one of your mistakes what I felt was an error on your part with a nice edit summary that you would not then doggedly repeat it. Tell you what, as a sign of my good faith, I will try that. And you can try "Bold-Revert-Discuss". That means you do something, I nicely revert with a clear ES as to why I did and you hold off until we discuss or you get your 3rd opinion or whatever. I thought that was what you were going to start doing when you promised Glen that you would make a change in your editing style but we can do it now, together. Sound good? --Justanother 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I would love to have a more cordial relationship with you. But even in this discussion itself you have resorted to using weird sarcastic comments, both in edit summaries and on the talk page, not agreed to either apologize for your foul language or say you will stop it in the future, etc. I don't think this is sincere. Smee 22:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Smee, I think you need to brush up on basic diplomacy. Oh well. Seeya 'round. --Justanother 22:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Ha ha, you too. Regardless of whatever tactics you continue to use, I myself will strive to stay polite, and not use foul language, or sarcastic remarks in edit summaries myself... Later. Smee 22:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
          • And if you could strive to address your own faults instead of promising not to engage in what you think mine are, well that would be fine, too. Later --Justanother 22:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Same goes for you Justan, same goes for you. Nevertheless, I will continue to not use foul language, sarcasm in edit summaries, and try to stay polite on talk pages and not attack the attacker. Later. Smee 22:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
              • And I promise to never continue to revert another editor's good faith edits especially when I have been repeatedly shown to be wrong in doing so by neutral 3rd parties editors and admins. Scout's honor. --Justanother 22:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)