Justanother
Achive1 Achive2 Achive3 Achive4
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Justanother. |
In case you missed it...
You might be interested to know that Terryeo has now been blocked entirely from Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Terryeo_indefinitely_blocked. BTfromLA 18:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I think you did influence him toward moderating his behavior but, even then, he was beyond the pale--the final episode had him posting "religiousfreedomwatch" slurs on particular Wikipedia editors and pretending that he was just innocently curious about whether the claims were true: as he'd done that sort of thing before, an administrator finally decided to pull the plug. By the way, that religiousfreedomwatch page, which appears to be produced with the full blessing of the CoS, reflects very poorly on the character of Scientology in my view--it strikes me as downright sleazy and creepy. I'd be interested in your perspective on that "dead agenting" side of Scientology, should you care to share it. BTfromLA 16:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I have responded in turn on my talk page. BTfromLA 00:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- And again. BTfromLA 18:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Another follow-up, trying to clarify the dead-agent question, awaits. BTfromLA 15:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've responded to your recent question (though I'm not sure I fully understood what you were asking for) on my talk page. BTfromLA 07:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I appreciate your recent comments on my talk page and would like to continue the discussion, but work demands won't allow me time for a thoughtful reply at this point. Please bear with me, I will pick up the thread within a few days. BTfromLA 17:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've responded to your recent question (though I'm not sure I fully understood what you were asking for) on my talk page. BTfromLA 07:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Another follow-up, trying to clarify the dead-agent question, awaits. BTfromLA 15:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- And again. BTfromLA 18:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I have responded in turn on my talk page. BTfromLA 00:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Justanother! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Ref desk reminders
In regard to your recent comments on the reference desk, I just want to reiterate that for the moment I'm proposing reminders, as you say, and not removals. In the long term, users who continually don't listen to reminders will have to be dealt with somehow, of course, but as I've said I'm more inclined toward the dispute resolution process.
Your help with reminders, in cases you think they're appropriate, would be greatly appreciated! -- SCZenz 03:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Of course. That's one of the reasons I'm calling for many users to work together on this. -- SCZenz 04:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment requested on User:light current's one week block
I, and User:Gandalf61, and others, feel that the action of User:Friday in blocking User:light current for a week was unwarranted and excessive: [1]. We would appreciate your comments in this matter. Thanks. StuRat 10:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice Work
Great job on the Lisa McPherson article. It is reasonably neutral and readable now. Well Done. ---Slightlyright 15:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
A word to the wise
Just to say not to get too angry with Friday (unless of course youre and admin too)--Light current 01:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Paid in BS?
Hi, I thought I'd reply to your first comment on the "Paid in BS?" section here because the discussion on the page is too complicated to fork...
Listen, we do what we do for the reasons we do it. It is really not up to anyone to judge our reasons, only our output and contributions. I like the BS and consider it part of the recompense for my efforts here; the other parts being satisfaction of "getting it right", the enjoyment of helping another and my "knowledge buff" tendency. No particular order there. So I, for one, get partially paid in BS. You get paid in what you get paid. The BS is normal banter that happens when people get together and have fun doing useful work. It should not be suppressed. If you don't like then don't read it. Or do you think that you should dictate the working conditions here? Is that what this is about? --Justanother 23:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Um... I think Wikipedia policy dictates the working conditions here, yes. I don't know of any other page where Wikipedians are required to accept users' unhelpful contributions along with helpful ones, or where there is so much active objection to removal or even criticism of unhelpful content. The reference desk is very public; it should look like it's a place whose primary purpose is the asking of questions and giving of answers. And in fact, usually it does—but if asking it to look like that is "dicatating the working conditions," then yes, that's what I want to do. -- SCZenz 01:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)