User talk:Anyeverybody/Archives/2007/September

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

Dead links

Regards this edit, you may try these solutions. And there's some serious POV edits that happened just before you, courtesy of an anon (diff). WLU 12:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't gotten to this sooner. The links I removed weren't actually reference links, they were under the external link section. (I know they sound like the same thing but according to Wikipedia's guide to layout and external links, dead links from these sections can be removed. In this article the references section is called footnotes.

I did notice the POV nature of the article though, I wonder if it wasn't the subject or someone close to him. Anynobody 05:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Your Optical Illusion

You made a giff of an optical illusion with two letter A's that are the same colour (on the commons now) (Aniopticalillusion.gif). I looked at this, and it took me a while to see what was happening, because the gif was too fast. I think you should increase the time the actual optical illusion is shown by a factor of about 6 and the rest by about a factor of 2. This will give a first-time observer time to appreciate the illusion, otherwise it's a bit confusing. Great giff otherwise, well done! Mike Young 16:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate the feedback, oddly enough someone else told me it was too slow before the current version and I wasn't happy with what ended up satisfying the person asked. Since I figured I was biased, it seemed they were probably right. Now I think it was closer to the mark with my first versions. I'll touch it up as soon as I can. Thanks again :) Anynobody 22:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

I strongly suggest you stop harassing Justanother now, or some non-involved admin will see fit to simply indefinitely block you outright. It's incivil behavior, and there's no reason for the Wikipedia community to tolerate this at all. Don't bother arguing; just stop it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

??? If i understand you correctly, I should ignore any violations I happen to come across by him? This makes no sense;

Situation	Editor X	Justanother
Violates WP:3RR while reporting Editor Y's violation on the same page	Report to WP:AN3	~~Report to WP:AN3~~ Harassment
Violates WP:3RR while reporting Editor Y's violation on the same page	Warn the editor myself	~~Warn him myself~~ Harassment
Violates WP:3RR while reporting Editor Y's violation on the same page	~~Tell an admin I know about it~~ (I really don't want to bother specific people about it)	~~Tell an admin I know about it~~ Harassment
Comment on a WP:RSN involving:	Comment	~~Comment~~ Harassment

If he HADN'T violated 3RR and I reported him, I could see where it could look like harassment. Anynobody 00:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

May I suggest that you copy at least some of the 40 kbs of information you removed from this article to the debate article? It was quite expansive and well sourced, and I think it would be a shame to see it forgotten. Natalie 01:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The only other stuff I removed was under the Manhattan Project section. If the info doesn't appear in the Manhattan Project article shouldn't it be copied there?

You're welcome to add info to any of the pages. Anynobody 01:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course anyone can add info to Manhattan Project or the debate page. But since you are removing large chunks of information and giving as your reason the fact that the information should be in the debate page, I think the onus is on your to make sure that the information is actually in the debate page. Natalie 05:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

? The info on the debate page is what was on the bombing page when I created it (I simply copied the entire section and pasted it into the new article. I didn't remove anything about the debates in their section, I moved them:
from:
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Debate over bombings
to:
Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I removed several paragraphs from Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#The Manhattan Project. If the information you are mentioning was under a section about the Manhattan Project, but was about the debate, it might have been a casualty of bad placement but I don't know unless you specify what you are talking about. (Ie it used to say <this> but now it says nothing in this section...) Anynobody 05:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I wasn't referring to any specific bit of information that was lost, I just noticed the removal since it was such a large amount of information. I guess your edit summary made me think this information was not in the article, but should be. Natalie 12:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for any misunderstanding :) Though it was actually kind of fortunate that you thought I deleted the info. Because if one editor (you) can think that, perhaps some others might too. It caused me to rethink other's disagreements on the talk page, I hope you don't mind but I mentioned your message here, because I like to give people some background when I change POV. Anynobody 23:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Out-of-chronological-order-thread

I just had a question about the {{OOCOT}}/{{OOCOB}} templates. Is this a difference in opinion over the WP:INDENT essay? It's not something I battle over, I just try to follow convention — unfortunately it seems that convention might differ from thread to thread. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's more of a limited test on my part. I've seen conversations that were formatted correctly, but some editors nonetheless missed the indent and misinterpreted the thread as linear. Before proposing it on a large scale I've been giving it an evaluation run to see what people's reactions are. (No insult or anything negative is implied.) Anynobody 00:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I've seen situations myself where that could be helpful. Some people get mighty upset about others "cutting" in. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, that was 50% of why I decided on this experiment¹, and I have noticed people are less apt to get offended if a template is involved. I have trouble getting people who don't know about it to participate though. I think the blue color tricks them into assuming it's an archived portion of the thread. Since I'm trying to use Wikipedia's colors my choices are limited, the red looks cool but might deter people by its nature and the green looks awful but won't be confused with an archive. I'd use yellow but figure that ought to be saved for some kind of cautionary message. (¹ The other 50% from above being organization.) Anynobody 07:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Afraid not

I'll never pass right now. I tried to retire, was gone for more than a month, was only semi-active for a while afterwards, and since my return to full activity I have inadvertently become involved in a dispute larger than any I was ever in before, and I've been in some serious clusterfucks. Pardon my language, but there isn't another word to describe what I've been in. Honestly, right now I'm just debating whether or not to invoke my right to disappear and come back as a new user sometime in the distant future, or just post a wikibreak message and come back in a month or two. I have no intentions of sticking around much longer. Sorry for wasting your time. The Hyb rid 05:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't waste my time, what's the dispute about? No problem on the clusterfuck description. Anynobody 05:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers, and how to deal with them. I guess I'll just try retiring again, and come back someday if I ever feel like it. The Hyb rid 06:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, a family member was just in a car accident, so this dispute is on the bottom of my list of things to do right now. I'll see you again someday, Anynobody. Peace, The Hyb rid 06:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry to hear about the accident, I honestly hope they are all right. I could see where Wikipedia and any problems therein could take a second, third, or even no priority at all in such circumstances.

Why come back under a different name though? Unless the arbcom ruled against you or you've been the subject of WP:RFC/Us all that's happening is a disagreement. Before you assume that everyone looks on you as a problem, consider setting up a editor review for yourself. This way non-involved editors can have a look at what you've been doing to see if there really is a problem.

Anynobody 06:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Copyrightquestion.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Copyrightquestion.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's temporary for discussion only. Anynobody 05:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So yeah

Life can really throw it's curveballs, can't it? The Hyb rid 03:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it can, sometimes I think most people are woefully unaware how easily an individual, national, global or even interplanetary curve ball can happen at any moment. I think the "worst" would be an individual interplanetary event though, a meteor hitting some individual. Even if it doesn't kill that person, wondering what the odds of all the billions of people on this planet at that time then factor in the space not occupied by people the meteor could have landed on instead, you'd have a better chance winning the lottery while getting struck by lightning. Anynobody 05:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, I don't think that I will ever look at you the same way again :P. Kidding. Anyway, when I think that we owe our very lives to a Universal curve ball, I always find myself in complete awe. The Hyb rid 06:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet I'll still be the same :) Anynobody 23:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for de-catting my user space

Sorry! I had copied {{Infobox Ship}} into my user space to experiment with it a little bit, and I didn't remove its categories as I should have. I've deleted the page now, since I don't have any use for it any longer. TomTheHand 13:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I've done the same thing myself so I know how easy it is for that to happen. Happy editing :) Anynobody 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 07:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#How_about_a_consensual_introduction.3F. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please stop calling me anal. Thanks. Also, please stop making edits in controversial areas without discussion. I have created a Wikiquette alert to help us resolve our differences. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Anyeverybody. Bsharvy 14:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the entire statement, If you're just being anal.... As I said it's hard to understand exactly what your objections over the inclusion of infections as a contributing factor of deaths after the bombings. I certainly didn't mean to hurt your feelings, but it appears as though you are being very, rigid, about how you see the rules. Which leads me to your next request, I will continue to edit articles as I see fit. If you are referring to moving the debate section, evidently you didn't notice that everyone else supported the new article. If you are referring to edits since then, nowhere does it say permission must be obtained to edit an article (the offset to that freedom is reversion as we know you are not afraid to exercise.) Anynobody 21:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Please stop suggesting I am anal. Thanks. Bsharvy 02:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To keep this organized and easy, please post further comments to the Wikiquette board so we don't have hold this conversation in several areas. Anynobody 02:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Anynobody I would suggest (if you have time) maybe filing a formal request for mediation on the Hiroshima page? I don't think anything is going to get done as a certain user has chased off all of the seriously interested editors on the page and I think that is the next step...though I doubt it will work, and it will then go to arbitration...but in any event mediation will have to be first. Just a thought as I think there is a consensus on the page but it is being blocked...I think, though, the problem can be adequately explained by Hanlon's razor though...Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Though I am afraid something like that might be necessary, I'm going to hold off on anything else depending on what happens with the Wikiquette board post. Thanks for the suggestion, I had planned on contacting you about your dealings with Bsharvy if further dispute resolution was needed so this makes things a bit easier. Anynobody 02:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette suggestion

Sounds like a good idea to me. Do you want to put together a draft in your userspace and solicit feedback from others? Sarcasticidealist 06:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You read my mind, that's exactly what I was thinking. User:Anynobody/Post Anynobody 07:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I third that thought.Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 19:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 07:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114

Is there any indication from the references given in Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114, that Israel had a suspicion that this aircraft had terrorists with parachutes? patsw 16:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be in the article that way, (which is why it was in my edit summary instead) the point is that Israel was facing the possibility of a converted 727 being used for military purposes. Assuming it would have to land in order to deliver terrorists is presumptuous considering the lack of sources on what Israel was thinking. Saying it could be delivering terrorists conveys the same intent without saying just what Israel thought was going to happen. At the end of paragraph 2 in the link, only specifies recon or hostile activity, which kinda leaves what that activity could have been pretty vague.

(P.S. I'm moving this to Talk:Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114) Anynobody 01:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS

The above arbitration case has recently concluded. COFS (now Shutterbug) is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics. Anynobody is prohibited from harassing Justanother, and Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. All Scientology-related articles are placed on article probation. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What the hell?

What were you thinking with your recent edits to Flight 19? I reverted them because they are unhelpful. Moriori 06:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues with articles should really be discussed on that article's talk page. Which is where I'm moving this thread. Talk:Flight 19 Anynobody 08:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. But I think its needs stating here as well -- do not state your POV that the OIC suffered from "confusion" or "irrational fears". The ref makes absolutely no mention of it. Moriori 08:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does,

Later, when asked to switch to 3000 kc, the search and rescue frequency, FT-28 called: "I cannot switch frequencies. I must keep my planes intact."...We now know that FT-28 took the lead sometime after the turn north on the second leg, thinking that his students were on a wrong heading. We know that FT-28 would not switch to the emergency radio frequency for fear of losing contact with his flight.

Let's assume that was a rational concern, losing contact with the other members of his flight who are already in visual range flying in formation in order to get better reception with the people he was asking to help him. That's not a disaster, since the ground controllers could talk him home and the students would just follow. We also know he pretty much ignored the students and others he spoke with on the radio, because he'd roger a transmission and then not do what he was agreeing to.

As a courtesy I responded here and I plan to copy this response to the talk page. However the issues you're talking about are all content related, and as I said should be discussed there. Anynobody 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)