User talk:Anynobody

Archives

Archive - Archive 1 - 04/2007 - 05/2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Comment?

As you were involved in the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, you may wish to comment at WP:ANI, involving COFS (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). Then again, you may not, it's up to you. But keep me posted, I am probably going to take ANI off of my watchlist as well. And regardless of what happens, as stated at the post, I have also taken those articles off of my watchlist. It is more fun to create new articles. Later, Smee 04:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC). [reply]

I'm keeping WP:ANI on mine, since I like to see what else is causing people trouble. On the actual comment, really I checked and we should consider anything Hubbard Jr. said to be non-sourceable. There is no doubt some truth to it, but given his attitude toward his father and later retraction he's about as watertight a source as a screen door.

Before removing sourced info, you gotta discredit the source. Sorry I couldn't be more supportive, but I do find it odd nobody even mentioned the COI/RFCU issue. Anynobody 06:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even bother. No one seems to care anymore when Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS is brought up. Somehow, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS is seen on Wikipedia as completely different than User:MyWikiBiz. I don't understand it, but I also feel it is best for me to move on, and thus as I have already explained I am now in the process of taking certain pages off of my watchlist. Yours, Smee 07:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Other articles concerning controversial aspects of religion on here must have similar WP:COI problems. Perhaps we should look into finding them. I've noticed people don't seem to care either, and theorized that the perception is we're just slinging mud rather than pointing out a problem. Anynobody 07:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I meant to say I started a new article I was surprised to find wsn't here already: Sylvia Seegrist. Anynobody 07:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start to the article. You know how to use the <ref></ref> formatting, right? Smee 07:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oops, what I meant to ask was, you know how to "name" the refs if you need to use them multiple times? Smee 07:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You bet. <ref name="crimelibrary">[http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/sylvia_seegrist/index.html] Website: www.crimelibrary.com feature article Sylvia Seegrist by Katherine Ramsland.</ref> Anynobody 07:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time would be <ref name="crimelibrary"/> Anynobody 07:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also that NYT article was pretty interesting too, FYI. (The other reference) Anynobody 07:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to take a look see... Smee 08:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I put the article up for a nomination at WP:DYK. You may want to expand it further and add some additional citations in the meantime. Good luck! Yours, Smee 08:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If it gets selected you can keep the DYK award (on the significant improvement angle). I'd just like to see it on the main page and wouldn't really do anything with the DYK notice anyway. Anynobody 10:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed. You're not using your userpage for that kind of stuff nowadays? More like just useful tools for yourself and such? Smee 12:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't mean to give the impression that I feel negatively about awards and recognition, I'm just not motivated by them. (I've always been apathetic about recognition at work/school/anywhere, though I don't mind receiving money as a "recognition" at work :) Anynobody 22:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To each his/her own. Smee 01:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I also don't mind making them of course :) Anynobody 02:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good :) Smee 02:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets...

It is interesting though, isn't it? It seems like the only results of the troubling revelations from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, was that the sockpuppets/meatpuppets whatever you want to call them, cannot comment in the same WP:AFD or WP:RFA or something like that. Other than that, they can do as they please, sockpuppets or not. Doesn't that seem a little bit... strange, to you? Smee 07:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes and no, my feelings are complicated. I don't know if you saw the discussion with Major Bonkers but it's touched on some points I think are relevant to this situation. First and foremost, the policies and guidelines (P/Gs) are so vague they are hard for editors/admins to understand and don't actually say what to do in these cases or define when they are causing disruption. WP:COI essentially says "COIs are bad, mmm'kay." but nothing else about what to do about them let alone anything specific about what a COI is in regard to religion. It depends on an admin to act, and that is especially where the conversation above becomes relevant because the "requirements" to be one are so FUBAR. Anynobody 07:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, quite. Smee 07:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

On a related note, you and Tilman should warn COFS about making such off base warnings. Vandalism is not even close what you or he did on the HubJu page (a pet name I'm developing for DeWolfe/Hubbard Jr., pronounced Hub-joo). Stalking is a ludicrous accusation when COFS knows you edit those articles on a regular basis too. I also wonder how COFS can reconcile calling any other editor a WP:SPA, even though it is an essay, the logic seems to illustrate a fundamental lack of self-awareness of some kind. Anynobody 07:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to be warning anyone about anything at the moment. As others seem to think that COFS (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) did nothing wrong at all in this disturbing situation, I am going to step back, take a bunch of articles off of my watchlist, and take a break from editing them. And instead, focus on new article creation. Tilman remarked that this decision by me may result in degraded quality of some articles, but that is just too bad at this point. Smee 07:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You have an excellent point about perception being a key factor. Therefore perhaps a new type of post on WP:ANI I've been thinking about might be appropriate.

Call it a redux of the previous Stalking post.
Make it clear you totally understand and accept the critique about removing sourced info. (If you aren't emphatic about your error people will think you are just trying to get back at COFS.)
Ask why COFS can violate WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and ignore what WP:VANDAL and WP:STALK actually are without some kind of warning.
Make it clear you don't want vengeance, just consistency in enforcing policies/guidelines. Anynobody 07:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Sorry. Done with that stuff for now. Focusing on new article creation, and collaboration on other areas of the project to improve article quality. Sorry, but the overall sentiment at this point in time seems to be to ignore the disturbing results of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. Smee 08:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

response.

Responded on my talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my question, I replied on your page to keep everything together. Anynobody 03:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf planet

Hello... sorry, but I had to revert your edit at Dwarf planet. Charon is a unique case in that it is thought to possibly be part of a double-planet system (well, double dwarf planet now), based on Charon's large size relative to Pluto. This is not official, as the IAU has made no formal decision in this regard. However, it has been mentioned as a possible candidate for dwarf planet status, and was actually under consideration for designation as a planet under the initial IAU proposal last August. Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Sorry about the lack of an edit comment at Dwarf planet - my bad.

Thank you for your courteous explanation, but I'm actually aware of these facts. Since the IAU hasn't made an official ruling, Charon is still orbiting Pluto (similar to how Pluto was still a planet while the debate about it's status carried on, and it changed whenn they made it official.) I agree with the proposal because the barycenter of their interaction is actually not inside either one, whereas the Earth/Moon barycenter is inside the diameter of the Earth making it obvious that the Moon is the one orbiting the Earth. However even though the proposal makes sense we ought not act like it has already been announced. Anynobody 07:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also copied the above to the Talk:Dwarf planet in case anyone else wants to discuss this. Anynobody 07:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the nice note - I appreciate it. Cheers! --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, and you're welcome :) Anynobody 08:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Seegrist

On 13 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sylvia Seegrist, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 00:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Anynobody 04:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was this your first article to be featured in the Did you know? section on the Main Page ? Smee 08:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unless USS Avocet (AVP-4) was a WP:DYK, then yes it was. I'm more about article improvement than creation I guess. Anynobody 08:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: -- If you wish, you can now utilize the userbox: {{User DYK|1}}, and the number can be adjusted to show number of created articles appeared on DYK, which looks a little something like: {{User DYK}}, (plus the number inserted). You can also utilize the user box {{User Did You Know}}, by inserting {{User Did You Know|Sylvia Seegrist}} on your userpage. Yours, Smee 08:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

User:Anynobody/3RR

A tag has been placed on Anynobody/3RR, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

G6, article mistakenly created in mainspace

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Metropolitan90 06:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I userfied it to User:Anynobody/3RR. Regards, MaxSem 08:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Anynobody 08:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]