Misplaced Pages

User talk:Anynobody: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:42, 15 May 2007 editAnynobody (talk | contribs)4,309 edits →A suggestion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:07, 5 March 2018 edit undoJon Kolbert (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors139,984 edits Notification: proposed deletion of File:Necessary Evil nose art.png. (TW) 
(181 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = User talk:Anynobody/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
}}
{{Archive box|image=]|
] -
] -
]
}}


__TOC__


== Gov Rpt ==


==File permission problem with File:Fullhouse.png==
Rather than keep repeating in the discussions...
]
What we both (jossi and myself) are trying to say is that the term "Government Report" refers to something very specific. It is not a general report prepared by any agency or affiliate within the government. Those documents could be classified as "reports" or even "government documents" but not as "Government Reports".
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.


If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
What it appears you are trying to say is that a government report is any document associated in any way with the government, and this simply isn't true. Perhaps using a quote I saw from someone else recently and transposing it a bit for this discussion...
* make a note permitting reuse under the ] or another acceptable free license (see ]) '''at the site of the original publication'''; or
Please bear with the analogy and I'm sure its not perfect: Government Reports are to the government, what Jesus Christ is to Christians. Government reports are government documents; and Jesus was a man. Conversely, not all government documents are Government Reports and not all men are Jesus Christ.
* Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to '''{{NoSpamEmail|permissions-en|wikimedia.org}}''', stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter ].


If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to '''{{NoSpamEmail|permissions-en|wikimedia.org}}'''.
Government Reports are ''official'' reports. They are not simply any report or document that was prepared by any branch of government or any organization which might be working for that branch.


If you believe the media meets the criteria at ], use a tag such as {{tlp|non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at ], and add a ] justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See ] for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Judges on the Supreme court all write their own opinions, but only one ''Ruling'' can come out of the court. In that context, a ''Government Report'' is similar to a Supreme Court Ruling.. It is a specific type of document which is authorized by the government and reflects an opinion or finding ''by'' and ''of'' the government. It is identified as a Government Report (not simply a report) and it is given its status by having numerous signatures from ''representatives'' of the government, and a government ''seal'' is affixed to the Report, thus declaring it to be a ''Government Report'' and distinguishing it from an ordinary report or document.


If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following . '''Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged''', as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no permission-notice --> ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully that helps.. if not, then I'm at a loss how to better explain it.


== ] ==
] 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
::] I assure that I've understood your point all along, let me re-tell it to you to make sure:
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692047625 -->
::You are saying that "government reports" are official, the final word by the US government on the subject of the report right? ] 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
:::No. I'm staying that a ''Government Report'' is a very special type/class/category of report and should not be confused with other types of reports and documents in the government domain. ] 19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
]
::::At this point, I really must ask, are you being serious or are you just having sport with me? Because I've spent quite a bit of time trying to explain this in very specific detail. If you truly don't understand, thats one thing. But if you're just having sport to see how long I'll keep repeating myself, thats a bit disrespectful and I'd ask you to please stop. ] 19:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:Bear in mind that I too have been repeating myself to you, outlined how the us federal government works, and provided links. ] 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
::Not at all, I realize it might seem that way but the concept involved is very simple but surrounded by general confusion on the part of those who haven't studied the us government which I have. Seriously, you are assigning attributes to the concept of "government reports" which they do not have out of ignorance (not lack of intelligence, please understand there is a difference) and I can prove it to you by asking you to answer a couple of basic questions regarding your position.
<blockquote>Personal file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use</blockquote>
::;How are government reports created?:
:Well, presumably in one case, the CRS could write a report and send it to Congress, then Congress could add/subtract/delete or leave it intact, and then Congress would bless the report as Officially a GOVERNMENT REPORT on behalf of whatever agency it represented. But the initial CRS report is not a Government Report until it gets all the fancy doo-dads of an official '''Government Report'''.
::;Who writes them (which department)?:
:Any number of people can write them. Each Branch of the government designates that for themselves. CRS is not designated to write official "Government Reports" on behalf of any branch of the US Government.
::;What makes a report, a "government" report? (participation by a senior government official? etc.)
:A decision to release it under the banner of '''Government Report''' by whomever is designated to make such a decision for whichever agency is releasing the report as a '''Government Report'''.
::If you don't know then please ask yourself if it's possible you've misunderstood how the government works. Almost every American (I'm not talking about those conspiracy militia types) THINKS they know how the government works, but they are usually wrong. (It's part of the information adults are constantly proving they've forgotten since grade school on ] or ]. (I think this is partly why you feel like I'm making fun of you, which I assure you I'm not.) ] 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Indeed, at this point it pretty much seems to have become trolling. Between the tag-team bulling and this trolling, its tiresome.
:::However, per ]: There is no single agency which releases all 'Government Reports'. Each branch of the Us Government is entitled to release a Government Report, depending on the subject matter, on behalf of that agency.
:::I've been through this in as simple of terms as I can do it.
:::*Water .vs. Clean Water - Clean water is water, but water is not necessarily clean.
:::*Missile .vs. Nuclear Missile - A nuclear missile is a missile, but all missiles are not Nuclear Missile.
:::*Cat .vs. Dead Cat - A dead cat is a cat, but all cat are not dead cats.
:::*Dog .vs. German Shepard - A German Shepard is a dog, but all dogs are not German Shepards.
:::*Report .vs. Government Report - A government report is a report, but not all reports are classified as "Government Reports".
:::*Report printed by government printing company .vs. Government Report - A government report is printed by the government printing company, but not all reports printed by the government printing company are classified as "Government Reports".


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
:::And, not just any report in the government domain is considered a Government Report. Only Special reports, specifically intended to be Government Reports, released and signed by the appropriate agency officials, and imprinted with that agencies seal are Government Reports.


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
::::If your boss asked you to write a report on the accident you saw in the parking lot. You would write a report.
::::If you had it typed by the company secretary and printed on the company printer, it would still be a report.
::::If you boss took it, signed it and released it to the news paper as the Official View of your company.. it is no longer just a report, it is now an official Company Report. (assuming such classification really existed) I'm done.


Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 07:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
:::There is no clearer way to say it. ] 01:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:: I appreciate your ], in that spirit I'll address your examples before explaining the answers to my questions. You're confusing a government report with something like a Congressional report,
<blockquote style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2em;">
::::*Report printed by government printing company .vs. Government Report - A government report is printed by the government printing company, but not all reports printed by the government printing company are classified as "Government Reports".
</blockquote>
::;Compare your quote to one modified with a term closer to what you seem to mean:
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid blue; padding: 2em;">
::::*Report printed by government printing company .vs. Congressional report - A government report is printed by the government printing company, but they are not Congressional reports".
</blockquote>

::If you were wondering, these are the answers to my questions:
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid green; padding: 2em;">
::;How are government reports created?:
'':Well, presumably in one case, the CRS could write a report and send it to Congress, then Congress could add/subtract/delete or leave it intact, and then Congress would bless the report as Officially a GOVERNMENT REPORT on behalf of whatever agency it represented. But the initial CRS report is not a Government Report until it gets all the fancy doo-dads of an official '''Government Report'''.''
::; There's the rub though: You are describing a '''Congressional report'''. The ] report is a government report which may or may not be used in a Congressional report but it's still a "government report".
::;Who writes them (which department)?:
'':Any number of people can write them. Each Branch of the government designates that for themselves. CRS is not designated to write official "Government Reports" on behalf of any branch of the US Government.''
::;Federal employees write government reports:
Whether by a single author or research team each agency writes it's own reports and either publishes them online OR sends themto the ] to be printed.
::;What makes a report, a "government" report? (participation by a senior government official? etc.)
'':A decision to release it under the banner of '''Government Report''' by whomever is designated to make such a decision for whichever agency is releasing the report as a '''Government Report'''.''
::; The fact that it's released by the government is what makes it a government report.

</blockquote>
What do you think is more likely; government reports are not "Government Reports" or government reports are not Congressional Reports? ] 01:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'm wrong. You may use any report written by anyone at any time for any reason and call it anything you wish. Would you like that signed in triplicate? ] 03:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that I have studied the US Government fairly extensively, so I'm not trying to assert my ability to "use any report written by anyone at any time for any reason and call it anything". My point is this is a subject I am very familiar with, I have provided links and references backing my views, and you (I mean no offense when I say this) don't understand the government as well as you think you do. This would be like me trying to argue ] with you: <nowiki>{{user mathematician-3}}</nowiki>, I would not argue with a mathematician about numbers.

I am not saying you aren't smart enough to edit here, I'm only saying that you (like all of us) have areas of specialty amd this is not one of yours.

Seriously, imagine a history expert insisting that there must be another even prime number besides two because it's impossible to not eventually have another even number. Further imagine this editor ignores all evidence you cite and insists there must be anyway, and then when this editor can no longer think of anything else to say he/she says "Fine, you know everything." ] 03:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:And that's where you seem to be being a ]. Each branch of government writes Government Reports, and those reports are named specifically to identify the branch they represent. A '''Congressional Report''' is a category under Government Report which are written and released by Congress. Government Reports are not a category under Congressional Reports.
:Your logic tree is growing upside down.
:Looking at the 'now deleted' first paragraph of that list, the term ''Government Reports'' was clearly intended to mean ''reports issued on behalf of a government'' which were intended to identify groups to watch based on cultness. This implies the reports were released on behalf of a government and were reflective of that government's views. This implies that a ''government report'' would carry a significant status as a report.
:Using your logic, ''government reports'' have less significance than ''congressional reports''. Using your logic-tree, a ''"Government Report"'' is a ''"Congressional Report"'' but a ''"Congressional Report"'' is not necessarily a ''"Government Report"'' which is absurd.
:Please stop having sport, it's not amusing. ] 14:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not having "sport" with you, please calm down and ]. Your answers seem to imply you aren't reading my entire posts, and this is causing a misunderstanding which is not fun for me in any way. Please, carefully read the next statement I will be brief:

;You say a "Government Report": is a special type of document that comes from designated agencies, written by a committee/panel, stamped by an official seal of the United States Government, and meant for the citizens.

;I am saying: there is no such thing (this is why I used the prime number analogy), the only document that speaks for the entire government is the ] because it defines all three branches and the basic rights of US citizens. ] 23:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::No, actually thats not what I said. I never said that a Government Report spoke for the entire government, that is your addition. And your citation of my defintion is simply an out of context reduced snippet summary of a very lengthy attempt to explain the concept to someone who was playing stupid and pretending not to understand. And, to use your word games, if there is no such thing as a '''Government Report''', then why are we having this discussion? ;) Peace in God. ] 23:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to disagree with you, but that is what you said: <blockquote style="border: 1px solid blue; padding: 2em;">
''No. I'm staying that a Government Report is a very special type/class/category of report and should not be confused with other types of reports and documents in the government domain. Lsi john 19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)''
</blockquote> It's not a word game, the only time Government Report is capitalized is when it happens to appear a part of a larger title. You can do a lot in proving me wrong by finding one that meets your definition and citing it. ] 23:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:You don't hate to disagree with me. Don't be absurd. You've shown up in just about every conflict I have had with Smee, just to disagree with me and defend him. Be honest about it, at the very least.

:And, suppose I agree with you, for arguement's sake.. then your version of a definition for Government Report is any document written or published by anyone in or related to or working for the government. This would include memos, email and anything else. This means any email, which refers to a group as a cult, by anyone, would qualify to be on your list.

:Remember, wiki has an obligation to be clear. When you have ''government reports'' in the title of an article, regardless of your definition or mine, the average reader is reaonably going to translate that as '''Official Government Reports and Opinions of the Government'''. And, the original paragraph said as much. Can you be honest enough to conceed that, using your definition of g.r., the title of the article is rather misleading? ] 01:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your summary of what I'm saying is slightly incorrect. Here is what I am saying using your statement above, simple crossing out what I'm not saying, and a bold section of six words to qualify what I am saying:

<blockquote style="border: 1px solid orange; padding: 2em;">
:And, suppose I agree with you, for arguement's sake.. then your version of a definition for Government Report is any document written or published by anyone in <s>or related to or working for the government.</s> <small>(I'll explain this below)</small> This would include memos, email and anything else. This means any email '''composed as part of their job''', which refers to a group as a cult, by anyone, would qualify to be on your list.
</blockquote>
I'm not saying that an e-mail from a federal employee describing his attire is a citeable government document on men's fashion: . A ] technician e-mailing his boss because he is worried foam may have struck the underside of ] during ascent, is definitely a reliable government source.

By my logic, a government employee e-mailing a friend and talking about cults is not something to be cited. An agency of the Legislature writing a report for said body on the topic of cults is something to be cited. (You should understand part of citation is including when this was said, I'm not trying to imply that this is still a report the Congress uses as things may have changed since ]. ] 08:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
<small>(P.S. To explain my note above, if a company like ] or ] writes a report at the request of a government agency, it becomes a government report when that agency accepts it. The rules are generally a bit stricter though, but in this case we aren't talking about a company we are talking about an agency of the ]) ] 08:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)</small>
:Okay,
:<blockquote>''"if a company like ] or ] writes a report at the request of a government agency, it becomes a government report when that agency accepts it"'' -Anynobody
:#Please show me where you found this definition for Government Report.
:#If by ''accepting'', you mean accepting delivery, that would be absurd. You cant possibly be suggesting that a report written by an outside agency becomes an official Government Report simply because it was delivered to the agency who requested it. If you mean ''accepting the contents as factual and accurate and representative of that agencies views''... please explain the process under which this occurs and how you know it has taken place. Surely you are not suggesting that reports are accepted from Boeing with '''no''' review process. At what point does the specific transition occur from a ''Boeing report'' to a ''Government Report''.

If a boss is corresponding in email with an employee and asks about a group, and that employee replies, "Yes, they are indeed a cult.", your logic/definition (above) would permit using that as a government report. With no context for inclusion. With no basis of reference. Without knowing that the employee was joking 100% and that they knew their boss knew it. And it would be the comment of one individual, yet your classification of 'government report' would allow that single individual's view/comment/remark to become a permenant entry on your List. And that is why your ''definition'' is flawed.

If you refute my definition, then you will need to cite a definition for ''government report'', if you cannot, then we could conclude that no such term exists, and thus the title of the list is flawed and the list should be AfD'd for lack of definition of 'Government Report'. ] 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

<small>] you left out the most important part of my statement in the quote:<blockquote>''...in this case we aren't talking about a company we are talking about an agency of the ])''</blockquote> After we've completed the discussion about why ] reports are government reports I'll be happy to explain the particulars involved in ownership of documents provided by a private company.</small>

I realize you think CRS is a private company, which is what your statement on the RFC argued. It is not, see these pages from the ] about both it and it's agency, ]:
# and <br /> The ] is a federal research agency for ].
# which states(emphasis mine): <blockquote>7. How does Congress use the Library?<br />'''Some 500,000 requests are received annually by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the part of the Library that serves Congress.''' Staffed by specialists on a wide variety of topics, '''CRS supplies Congress with unbiased information on a wide variety of subjects.''' Another department of the Library that works closely with Congress is the Law Library. With collections in foreign, international and comparative law, it serves as the foreign law research arm of Congress.</blockquote>
# The state department also uses ] reports. Example: Arab League Boycott of Israel 04/12/2007 Martin A. Weiss

;I am refuting your definition because it does not exist: Words seem to be failing, so I drew a quick diagram to illustrate how I see what you are saying:] Besides the external links I've provided in this post, I have cited at least three or four at other times in the discussion. You have cited none, despite being asked by me at least once to show some proof of your definition. I searched for what you call a "Government Report" and found nothing; term used was +Government +Report. ] 01:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::Ok, I'll grant your claim ''Government Report'' does not exist. I'll let you open the AfD to have the article/list due to paradox of no definition for article title, hence impossible to find qualified citations. I'm not familiar with the process. How do we go about it? ] 01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No ], government reports exist. The "Government Reports" you are describing, do not. ] 01:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:But but but.. you said you searched for ''government report'' and found no definition. Or are you saying that you couldnt find a definition matching my explanation and therefore your's is correct by default and you don't have to show an official definition?
:I'm willing to be wrong. Please provide the link to the government site which gives your definition. ] 01:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(Are you even looking at the links I'm providing? I said I searched for documents with "Government Report" in the title and linked the results.)
I think you are forgetting that the idea of the special "Government Report" came from you. Remember, you said on the RfC (emphasis mine): '';Comment from Lsi john:The CSR, from their own website, is a private research office, used by Congress for analysys. The CSR is not tasked with producing, publishing or releasing official government reports. Their work is printed, for distribution to Congress, not as '''Official Government Reports'''.''

I've already proven this statement by you to be wrong, CRS isn't private (show me where it says so on the webpage:
# and <br /> The ] is a federal research agency for ].
# which states(emphasis mine): <blockquote>7. How does Congress use the Library?<br />'''Some 500,000 requests are received annually by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the part of the Library that serves Congress.''' Staffed by specialists on a wide variety of topics, '''CRS supplies Congress with unbiased information on a wide variety of subjects.''' Another department of the Library that works closely with Congress is the Law Library. With collections in foreign, international and comparative law, it serves as the foreign law research arm of Congress.</blockquote>
# The state department also uses ] reports. Example: Arab League Boycott of Israel 04/12/2007 Martin A. Weiss
Would you believe a statement from ? I can write them an e-mail or chat online with a representative tomorrow. ] 01:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:Certainly, provided they are authorized to issue statements on behalf of the government, and provided the full context of their definition is contained in the statment, and provided a clear and concise definition of government report is given, as well as how they are written and how they are released and at exactly what point in the process they ''become'' a government report.

:You still havent answered my question above, regarding your definition. Specifically what is your definition of ''once they accept the report''. ] 01:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They obviously are, again have you even looked at the links I've provided? ] 02:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, I have. And your ''statement'' from this ''authorized goverment official'' needs to be on government letterhead, not an on-line chat window. ] 02:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::As a courtesy, I just went through all your links again. I found no government websites which provided your definition of government reports. One site, however, did specifically list CRS reports as ''CRS reports''. Had they meant ''Government Reports'', I believe they would have said so.

::At this point, I'm bored with the debate. You have not given a concise definition of exactly what you believe ''government reports'' are. You have not stated at exactly what point in time a report ''becomes'' a government report. You had your sport running me around in circles, but the fact is, you don't have an official definition for the term and you don't want an official definition. Because if you had one, then you'd be limited in what you could include, and that simply wouldn't do at all, would it? :)

::I really am done with this debate. I've told you what I believe it is. You've told me what you believe it isn't. Which leads me to belive that you believe it is everything that isn't what you believe it isn't and as long as it isn't what I believe it is. And I wish you well, good life and happiness.

::You're welcome to post an ''official statement'' with a clear and concise definition on what a government report is. One of your really nice ''links'' to a .gov website would be preferred. I'll still watch here, but I won't respond.

::Peace in God.
::] 02:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've actually asked for a ], if you honestly believe I am somehow having sport with you please be sure to mention to them exactly how I've done that. (I'm curious because it's the last thing I wanted to do, but it's hard to tell someone they are wrong without making them feel bad). ] 02:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
::Ok, you got me, I'll respond.
::*First: whether or not I feel bad, is my choice, not yours. I refuse to give up that choice. So don't worry about how I ''feel''.
::*Second: Its impossible to hurt my feelings by showing or telling me that I'm wrong. Based strictly on percentages, I'm right more often than I'm wrong, but I'm certainly not Jesus Christ and therefore the odds are good that, at any given point in time, I'll be wrong. I got very used to my father pointing out to me where I was wrong, I doubt you can do it half as well as he could.
::*Third: You either ''know'' you are right, or you ''think'' you are right. If you know you are right, then you can cite a source which provides your definition. Otherwise you just think you are right, in the same way that I think I am right. I submit that you ''think'' you are right, but you can't prove it.
::*Fourth: You don't have to ''tell me I'm wrong'', you can ''show me I'm wrong''. Just provide a link to a .GOV site with a clear wording of your definition.
::Until then its your opinion .vs. my opinion, which we have both declared to be ''fact'' but, in reality, neither of us is currently able to prove.

::And you are actually asking for a 3O on a specific and technical definition on what a 'government report' is!? That's sort of amusing in itself. , and 1000 3O's won't change that.. we'll just have 1000 more opinions.
::Or are you opening up a 3O as to whether or not you're having sport with me?
::Either way, thats a waste of 3O. I chose to continue this discussion. Whether or not you were having sport with me, was only an offhand observation. Either one of us could have stopped at any time. The fact is, we both enjoyed the reparte. ] 02:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

=== Section Break ===

I've given you links to reports from different parts of the government, including a link to several by the agency in question:
I cited one example, but here is a link to it: Why is this not a government report? If it lacks review, than who is supposed to do that review?

I have '''''shown''''' you are wrong about ] in the links you say don't prove my points, I just honestly didn't think I'd have to lead you directly to each and every part of the websites: (show me where it says so on the webpage:
# and <br /> that part of the ], ], is a private organization. It sure doesn't say so on this organization chart:] 03:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


- exactly what does this tell me that you want me to see?
*It is a list of CRS reports availble through the Department of State..
:*I acknowleege that the CRS exists.
:*I acknowledge that the CRS writes reports. (they are not GOVERNMENT reports. they are CRS reports)
:*I acknowledge that the Department of State makes CRS reports available. You have not established that just because the DOS has the reports on file, that the reports are GOVERNMENT REPORTS. That page also has BRIEFS on file. Are those BRIEFS also Government Reports?

- exactly what do you want me to find here? Please be more specific than a general ''about'' page. Not one thing on that page mentions ''reports'', and certainly not 'government reports'.
*Please explain exactly what the connection is between CRS, LOC and Government Reports.

- again, how is this relevant?

The LOC stores DOCUMENTS. Some of the documents are books. Some of the documents are briefs. Some of the documents are magazines. Some of the documents are transcripts. Some of the documents are reports. AND within the category of reports, some of the reports are CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS (government report), some of the reports are AGRICULTURAL CROP REPORTS (government report), some of the reports are CRS REPORTS (not government report).

:<blockquote>"''http://www.loc.gov/about/lcorgsep06.pdf - It sure doesn't say so on this organization chart''"-Anynobody</blockquote>
Where did I say it was a private organization?

Did you read this page?
:<blockquote>"''As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.''"</blockquote>

The CRS works ''"exclusively"'' and ''"confidentially"'' for Congress. It is their private research organization. It is an arm of the government dedicated to research. They provide reports to congress, called ''CRS reports''.

And I do understand what you are trying to say. And I do understand why you believe it. But it simply isn't a good argument.

They do research for Congress. Under your view, how could Congress possibly get any research, without it qualifying as a government report and thus carrying the full backing of the united states government? CRS reports could be written by one person. It would be absurd to say that one person's view is representative of a branch of the government.

Note: CRS is not a branch of the government. And, as far as I know, the Library of Congress is also not a Branch of the US Government and does not issue any Government Reports.

And, you never did answer my question about Boeing reports.

Please take the time to write a formal definition of a government report, based on what you believe it means. Be very specific. Be very detailed. Be very lawyeresque.

] 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Since we have a 3O happening on the talk page of the article in question, I'm going to comment there from now on. To answer your question about when you said CRS was private, it was on that page. Here's a repost: <blockquote style="border: 1px solid blue; padding: 2em;">
;Comment from Lsi john

The CSR, from their own website, is a private research office, used by Congress for analysys. The CSR is not tasked with producing, publishing or releasing official government reports. Their work is printed, for distribution to Congress, not as Official Government Reports.
:<blockquote>"''CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis''"</blockquote>
Their function is to provide a private and confidential and unbiased analysys to Congress. There is no evidence that they are charged with producing official government findings or official government reports. Their work would more accurately be classified as private internal memos to Congress.

Being printed by an arm of the US Government, and having a US Government document number, might make it a US Government Document, but certainly not an official US Government Report.

I agree with Jossi, that the material produced by the CSR, having been the work product of ''experts'', could be used under the rules of ] but not under the classification of an Official Government Report.

;Summarizing
#The CSR is a private research arm for the US Congress. It is not tasked with producing official Government Reports.
#In the absence of specific wording in their charter, or specific wording in a document they produce, which declares the document to be an Official Governemt Report, and without appropriate seals and embossings which accompany Official Government Reports, we must conclude that the work product of the CSR is not Official Government Reports.
#The reference material meets the standard for ], but does not pass the test for Government Reports.

] 19:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
</blockquote>

A government report is a report which comes from an agency or branch of the federal government. If CRS assigns a guy to write a report about cults for Congress, he's writing a government report. ] 03:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)



===Your 3O===
Are you interested in honest feedback about your writing style? ] 03:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:No, I was hoping someone else would give a third opinion as to how they see ] and the supposed "sport" of you. ] 03:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
::I believe you misunderstood my question. I was not asking if you wanted a 3O of your writing style.
::I was referring to the wording you used in your 3O request, and I was asking if you were open and interested in some honest feedback about it.
::Sorry if my wording was unclear. ] 03:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. ] 04:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:That's okay - yes you're interested in feedback on the choice of wording in your 3O?
:or
:That's okay, no you arent interested in feedback on the wording you used to write the 3O?
:or
:That's okay that there was a misunderstanding.. and you're not going to answer the question after I explained it?
:] 12:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"That's ok" meant: What I was hoping for is already happening, I also have no negative feelings about the unclarity of your original question.

I'm not curious about about your perception of my wording of the ] request. If you're asking if you can give me feedback, you don't have to ask...if something is genuinely done incorrectly feedback must be given and permission to do so shouldn't be necessary. ] 22:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

== FYI ==

It would be interesting to hear your take on this amusing matter: ]. However, it looks like the general consensus already is that the facts/articles are heavily sourced to reputable secondary sourced citations, and that the individuals points are NPOV... ] 21:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

:I'm happy he posted this, it gives me a chance to get a question answered I've had about POV. ] 22:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
::Indeed. ] 22:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

== Effects of the pervasiveness of free information... ==

You may be interested in the implications as discussed in the book ''''']'''''. I myself have only skimmed sections, and not read it yet in its entirety, but my friend who is versed in its principles explained to me a bit of it, and the potential impact of the pervasiveness of free information on societies where such information was previously not as pervasive in the past - can have interesting potential future results, according to the author's thesis, to say the least... ] 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
*I posted this to ], but I thought you might be interested as well. I'll have to grab a copy of the book soon so I can actually show you the specific portion I am alluding to... ] 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

:Indeed I do find it interesting, and it seems to be an issue he needs to understand. In ] I couldn't access a copy of ]'s various claims about his military service AND the real thing so easily. Here in ] we can hold these various claims up to scrutiny, which is something I doubt Hubbard ever expected to happen (despite his sci-fi background). ] 23:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
::Indeed, indeed. And the same holds true for many other types of applications across organizations, groups, companies, individuals... ] 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

*I went and picked up a copy of the book. It looks like the specific points of this thesis are discussed in Chapter 2 - which is titled: ''How is the Ku Klux Klan Like a Group of Real-Estate Agents? In which it is argued that nothing is more powerful than information, especially when its power is abused.''
**I will start reading this when I get a chance, looks to be a most enlightening book... ] 04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

:Do keep me informed, I'm budgeting my money elsewhere but am really interested in the subject of the book. Sometimes I enjoy talking about an idea with a person who hasn't read about it already, kinda gives a 3rd perspective. ] 04:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
::Sounds good... ] 04:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
:::I have finished the Introduction, through Chapter 2 so far, and like I said, Chapter 2 was the crux of this effects of pervasiveness of information bit. Quite interesting, you would enjoy Chapter 2... ] 16:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

== you do realize] was really vandalism ==

The Brotherhood of Nod is a fictitious group within Command And Conquer. Just wanted to point that out.] 03:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I sure do, sorry about that, I was trying to revert another editor's post and didn't notice NOD on there. I went back and reverted to Jossi's last version just prior. ] 03:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

== twice ==

Thats twice you've been wrong, eh? Once when you showed bad-faith and went fishing and falsely accused me of being a sock and now a second time when you falsely accuse me of mis-quoting a report. Not that I'm counting.

Please un-revert your improper edit. Thanks. ] 03:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

:I see, your feelings are hurt about the checkuser request. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings ], but I suspected you were a sock of ]. I don't mean to sound gruff now but you should probably get over it, frankly your response here makes me wonder if you are a sock of someone and were afraid a checkuser operator would spot you. You shouldn't take it personally (unless someone goes out of their way to accuse you of being a sock puppet on talk pages where you are editing and refuses to verify their suspicions via checkuser).

:I've already explained why your edit was not accurate on the talk page, so i don't see any need to go over it again here.

:Since you're here though, I'd also like to take a moment to remind you that the feedback I gave you which you returned does belong on your talk page (or it's archive as I said above). ] 03:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't over inflate your ability to hurt my feelings. I found it amusing and it lowered my respect for you. You're carrying on a full blown discussion with me here, and trying to prove I'm someone else behind my back. That was childish and not at all in good faith. Hell, you didn't even have the balls to accuse me to my face. pfhththt. And my point was thats twice you've falsely accused me of fraud or lying. (Socks=fraud. FBI Quote=Lying). ] 04:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Technical Correction: It waw Misou that you accused of fraud, not me. And when you accused Misou of fraud, you simply ''dissmissed me out of existence'' as a figment of his imagination. ] 04:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

:I saw you kidding around about drinking on some other pages, but I have to ask are you drunk? When I say I thought you were a sock of ] '''I was''' saying you were a figment of his imagination. What did you think I was saying? ] 04:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Indeed, and my point is that you showed less than zero respect for me as an individual, since you assumed I didn't even really exist. Think about it. ] 04:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
::Now you're suggesting I'm drunk? Dude, seriously. Stop while you're ahead. ] 04:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
:Either that or you're having a heck of a temper tantrum that started on ] and has found it's way here.

:Just so you know, you are acting like a drunk person:
# Repeating things:]
# Arguing about stuff we agree on (the Misou imagination issue above)
# The simplistic and almost childish way you are conducting yourself.
All these observations make me feel like the ] on a night out bar hopping. ] 05:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

:JaJaJaJaJa anything I added at this point, would be anti-climax. It's a perfect ending to a perfect day.. jajajajajajajaja. thanks to both of you! ] 05:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome ] 05:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)<br />
You're welcome ] 05:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

== Confused... ==

This bit: ] is most confusing - it appears that these individuals are communicating off-Wiki... ] 06:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
<small>(You wanna know what's really ironic, ] was accusing us of communicating off-wiki) ] 06:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)</small>
:Not to sound disgruntled, but I said that last week(on the talk page of COFS checkuser). The only post not in my evidence for Misou/Lsi john was the one from today. This new post though makes me think I picked the wrong CoS member (Misou) in my mental coin toss before the most recent checkuser case I filed. ] 06:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
::I simply have no idea in particular what is going on in this case... ] 06:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
:I'm trying to figure out a nice sounding way to ask what the point of checkuser is if socks like COFS/CSI LA can just e-mail misrepresentations and get the ban (others have been banned for this) lifted. ] 06:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
::'''''Indeed''''' -- after all, all we have to go on that they are ''not'' all exactly the same individual, or being commanded/directed by the same source, is these seemingly innoucuous vague complaining emails... ] 06:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
:If it wouldn't be blatant hypocrisy on my part, I'd create a sock to get banned then bitch my way back on and say "I told you so". ] 06:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
::This should be the focus of any arbcom case we try to get heard. ] 06:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Sounds like a good idea... ] 06:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
*Curiouser and curiouser. Addition , then removal ... ] 06:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
:I really think he's ]. ] 06:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
*More weird stuff: , ] 06:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
**Also, not sure if you were aware of this: ]. ''That'' username was '''banned''' (because the username itself was inappropriate), shortly after this: , at the article ]. ] 06:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
::*Yep, that would be me. first time on wiki. didnt know the rules. the page said that re-register was faster and easier than getting it lifted. ;) But i'm sure you knew all that.. I'm well documented here as believing Rick Ross is a tool.
::btw, Ive seen the CABAL article, and this seems to apply:
::<blockquote>''"When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." —khaosworks ''</blockquote>
::Peace in God.
::] 06:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
*So you are CONFIRMING that was with a manipulative username, and was obvious vandalism. Ha ha ha. Very interesting. ] 07:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
:*If you wish to view it that way, you're welcome to. I acknowledged that it was me. You are the one calling it a manipulative username. I also stated very clearly that it was my first time on wiki and I didn't know the rules. I'm a network administrator, in my world thats not manipulative. I bet you're seeing conspiracies again!!! At least you correctly cited that it was ''my '''very''' first edit on wiki'', two cardboard cookies and a glass of warm milk.. now off to bed with you. ] 07:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
::*The edit and choice of username speaks for itself, I do not have to "see" anything. ] 07:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
:::*Awww, you are seeing conspiracy and manipulation. But that sorta kills your SOCKS idea though, doesn't it? ] 07:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

], seriously don't waste your time debating him. I couldn't even get him to answer a pretty simple question. I think it's funny to debate a person who lets logic fly out the window but I get the impression it makes you angry. ] 07:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
*Sigh, you are most correct, as usual. It's not worth it. Better to focus on adding as much information as possible in the format of new article creation from reputable secondary sourced material, backed up by citations. I still have not started that book but I think this is all most in-line with Chapter 2... ] 07:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
That's why you get so many ]s, they are decided by new articles (for those who think it's rigged, make new articles if you want to see a variety of DYKs) ] 07:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks. ] 07:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

== Justanother ==

I understand their implanted patterns of behavior and am not intimidated.--] 21:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
*"implanted patterns of behavior" ?? Please clarify. ] 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

== You are even cooler than I thought... ==
... . Most intriguing. ] 10:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you, I actually play a kind of game where I'll toss a wiki-link into a conversation every now and then and follow it to see what's been written, ie ] during the legal threat issue. ] 11:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
*Ha ha, ]. ] 11:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

I can't remember when I mentioned this one, but it's a good movie ]. ] 11:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
*I actually want to see some '']'' stuff at some point soon... ] 11:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

] should probably be listed as a player with minor part who went on to become "known" in this film. I see people in old movies all the time before they make it as, well, I call em Hollywood's second string but I mean no offense because they are great actors at making the whole movie work. I wouldn't mind seeing the movie either. ] 11:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
*Done. ] 12:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

== FYI ==

*You may wish to comment at ]. This would be a most interesting piece for ]... ] 17:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

== My identity ==

I find it a bit disconcerting that you e-mailed that lady and specifically referenced my previous e-mail rather than simply asking a free-standing question. Your e-mail to her practically invites here to respond "as I mentioned to Mr . . ." or to include her previous response to me or otherwise reveal my off-wiki identity. I would appreciate it if you would '''immediately''' send her a follow-up email and mention that you very much do not want her to name me because Misplaced Pages is anonymous and the subject editor has clearly stated to you that he wishes to remain anonymous to the other editors on Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Right now I AGF but I would be pretty suspicious if you stopped editing for now without handling this for me seeing as I held this until I saw an edit from you. Please let us know when you have addressed this. Thanks. --] 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

:I included what you posted, with your name redacted, in case she happens to answer lots of questions and would perhaps appreciate a reminder about the subject. I think she'll understand the privacy aspect, especially since I didn't mention any name but mine in the E-mail (which I also chose not to include in my post.) ] 00:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
::You should really make it crystal clear to her that you do not want my name. I would do the same for you and I would appreciate if you would do the same for me. You can just send her a quick and polite follow-up. She will no doubt see it before she responds to your original. Because my identity is no longer a secret - you are trying to open a line of communication to someone that knows it and I would like you to politely but specifically inform her of the ground rules here. Thanks --] 00:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:::You're pretty ignorant of government privacy policy I see. She can't just tell me who you are unless she feels like losing her job: . You don't have to worry. ] 00:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Last chance to do this the nice way. Just send her a nice polite follow-up "By the way . . . " and report here what you sent and we will leave it at that. --] 00:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
::::AN, just do the right thing. Don't be stubborn to prove a point. You made an honest mistake. Fix it. ] 00:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not going to e-mail her again to remind her how she should do her job. She sounds smart enough to understand
# I'm not asking to know who you are,
# I don't know your name and didn't include it, and most importantly
# How she is forbidden to release it even if I had asked.

:Do what you need to do, but really you're just proving how little you understand about the nature of the us federal government. ] 00:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
::AN/I then, I was writing it while waiting and it will be up soon at the bottom of the page. --] 00:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to be '''very clear''' on this mater of '''privacy'''. You have opened a line of communication with someone, and referenced a previous communication. You have not made it clear that you are unaware of his name. You have referenced a copy of the email, which could very well imply that you know his email address and his name.

You are not asking for his name, THAT would set off alarms and she would probably not give it.

This is quite different. If you already have his name, she would not be giving you anything by referencing it. '''You are taking a gamble that she won't make a mistake''' and that is very improper. And you have been ''told'' about it and you are '''refusing''' to correct your mistake. That is worse than improper. ] 01:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

:I respectfully disagree, if a mistake was made by anyone it was ] posting the e-mail address in the first place. You're assuming she's an idiot ], in any job (government, or private) where a person could make a mistake of the tounge/pen/keyboard their training includes and emphasizes what '''NOT''' to say. When you fill out a form for a doctor, your credit card, your job, etc. do you write a reminder to anyone reading it not to release the information? (Seriously, there's a better chance of personal information being compromised other ways) ] 02:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

== A D R ==

In fairness to the lady, your letter wasn't very concise or clear. Your email basically says 'he asked the wrong question', gives your opinion about WP:RS and WP:V and then gives her a link to the article.

You didn't ask her to mail you back and you didn't ask her a question.

May I ask why you even brought up verifiability as a question? Your email made it sound like someone was questioning ] for CRS reports. I'm not aware of anyone, so far, who has questioned CRS reports under ] or ] arguments.

Specifically what do you think our objection is to CRS reports? ] 22:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

:I wasn't implying anything by saying I haven't received a response, did you forget that ] has a real (but irrational) fear of his name being leaked? The only reason I posted the update was for him to be able to relax for the weekend if he's worried about it.

:] I've come to the conclusion that further one to one discussion with you about this issue serves no purpose. You appear to either be confused beyond my ability to explain or editing in bad faith:]. I had planned to seek guidance at ] before contacting anyone in the government since you said the only government response you'd accept was on "government letterhead". I have posted on the talk anyway, I should have probably brought the issue there rather than trying to explain the government assuming you knew more than you do. I guess the best analogy would be trying to teach advanced math to a person without the necessary fundamental knowledge. I'm not saying that as an insult, just look over the feedback I gave you regarding the quality of your answers about basic government information. (If you really knew what you were saying I'm guessing you'd be able to be a bit more specific.) ] 22:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

::My intention here really was peaceful. Though admittedly the subject has been a bit contentious. I didn't suggest you implied anything by your post. I'm sorry to have upset you. Hopefully later you can read my questions as if Smee or someone else had written them. Peace in God. 22:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

:I'm not saying your intentions are necessarily bad faith, as stated above there is the distinct possibility of terminal confusion. In either case it's a waste of both of our time to continue this outside of the article's talk page. ] 23:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

==KAL007==
Thanks for your help in cleaning up the KAL 007 article...it certainly needs a lot of work! I would appreciate it also if you could take a look at the subarticle, ]. After I split it off, I've tried several times to see what can be done with it, but it just is so far outside wikipedia guidelines. I've even considered sending it to AfD, but it probably wouldn't look that good for me to do it, since I did the split. If nothing else, it really needs to be trimmed back. ] 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

:I sure can, I had actually planned to look at it once the main article is finished. ] 22:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

==My recent Edit==
Anynobody, with all due respect, I do not appreciate being followed to WP:RS. Due to our past history, I believe it is inappropriate for you to revert my edits in unrelated articles.

I will be making a slight change to my edit and putting it back. There are numerous editors and admins who watch that page and it would be more appropriate for them to revert my edit, if a revert is necessary.

As there are a sufficient number of other editors who watch that page, I believe your revert is COI and borders on stalking and harassment. Please leave the edit for someone else to handle.

Thank you.
Peace in God.
] 01:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

], I was actually editing there first so "following" somehow fails to describe the sequence of events.<br />As I said in the edit summary, your edit should have been discussed on the talk page first. That being said if you do add your comment to the project page, without discussing it on the talk page, I'll revert it again. In a ] situation it's up to you to prove a consensus when adding new material. ] 01:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:I also moved the discussion to the talk page of the guideline in question since that is what we are discussing. I'm gonna hold on to this post though, the following you to a place I was already at made me chuckle a bit. ] 02:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

::You were involved in the discussion section, trying to get someone to agree to your 'government report' issue. You were not involved in editing WP:RS. The edit-history establishes that. ] 03:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:You're implying that the article's talk page is unrelated to the article, which would surprise me if not for my experience with your logic. If you think I stalked you from the talk page to the guideline put it up on ], thanks for the smile :) ] 03:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
::*sigh* That isn't what I said at all. Please don't reword my sentences to your own meaning. Thanks. ] 03:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:] perhaps it would be better if you read up on what you're about to give feedback regarding before giving it. In this case you seem to think I "followed" you to the article from that article's talk page. If you haven't found it on your own, take a look at this category for general information:]. A more specific discussion of what a talk page is can be found at ]. ] 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

::Thank you. ] 04:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
:You're most welcome. ] 04:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

== COS COI on COI/N ==

**Hi Anynobody, do you know of some more examples which satisfy this criteria? I will cite ] as one example, but I am sure there are more out there which you have seen. Kind regards, ] 02:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:Off the top of my head ], ], and ]. I'll look for more. ] 02:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
:Here's another hotbed of CoS ] activity, I don't really edit there though: ]. ] 04:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
::That is a good example. Thank you. Kind regards, ] 09:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

==Username==

Thanks. But to tell the truth, I think a lot of people here have come up with more creative ones :) ] 11:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

== Too long? ==
*If you think the name is too long either way, what do you think ''is'' an appropriate name? ] 03:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
:Cults identified by government documents(or reports). ] 03:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
::Um, but that your edit summary said you thought the title was too long? That title would be longer... ] 03:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

:;I must respectfully disagree: Groups referred to as cults in government documents = 8 words<br />Cults identified by government documents = 5 words.<br /> If it comes down to a choice of yours or the old one I prefer yours, and I know the direct application of "cult" will set some CoS alarms ringing but think it's worth discussing (at least before I commit to a vote). ] 03:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
*Most interesting. Upon further reflection, ] does seem to be more concise and even ''less'' ambiguous. You are correct. ] 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
:I'd advocating choosing between report or document though (I included both to show I'm not attached to one particular word). ] 03:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

*However, others could argue that putting "Cult" in the beginning of the title as opposed to "Groups", might imply that it is Misplaced Pages making the determination, and not the individual government agency simply making a reference. Therefore, I must still go with ], or maybe ], as the best option at this point. Preferably still, ], as the best and least ambiguous. ] 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
:I am quite sure some would say that, however the truth is the documents identify cults (except the FBI report which identifies other violent groups too commonly called terrorists which itself is a contentious term.)

:It should be mentioned that things may have changed since each report cited, unless we get a new report of course. ] 03:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

*Incidentally, what are your thoughts on ]? ] 04:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

:The format works for me, the volume of red links of course is still a minor issue but that can wait of course. ] 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
::Okay. It was pretty hard to figure out how to model it off of ], so it was pretty neat to hear ] say that it worked out well, "sharp" with good editing, I think he said. ] 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

:It does look academic. (The withdrawal of my support for the renaming wasn't a comment on your new format.) ] 04:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
::Noted. ] 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

==A suggestion==
I have a suggestion, which I'm hereby spamming on the talkpages of Smee, Justanother, Lsi John, and Anynobody. (Hi, Lsi John, I don't think we've met.) I don't really expect it to pan out, as it depends on four people agreeing to do something. But please give my proposal some thought before rejecting it, guys. I think some of you might otherwise be headed for the less dignified fate of a community page ban from WP:AN and ANI. My suggestion has two legs:
*First, that you all ''voluntarily'' agree to stop posting on WP:AN/ANI. Conditionally on the other three doing the same. The way you're going on now isn't doing some of your reputations—or, I bet, stress levels—any good. Smee and Justanother, you're ''boring'' everybody. Most of the time, those ANI threads of yours aren't really requests for admin action—which is what the noticeboards are for—they're simply, well, self-expression. And as such, they seem to be getting more and more extreme. For instance, Smee, where do you get off claiming Justanother is in the habit of violating ]? And Justanother, when you say Smee has "a history of complaints for ]," don't you mean a history of complaints from ''you'', hmm?
*Secondly, that you also stop posting on each other's user talk pages, other than by express invitation. From what I've seen, you're not really discussing articles there, you know? You're, essentially, trying to make each other look bad. In good faith, no doubt. But what's the point?

Note that I realize Anynobody and Lsi John haven't posted excessively on ANI at all (that I've seen). So in a sense it's unfair to ask them to stop. But obviously—well, it's obvious to me—it wouldn't work to shut out Smee and Justanother while leaving the other two free to take over some of their, uh, functions at the noticeboard. So I'm simply asking Anynobody and Lsi John nicely to do this for the general good and everybody's peace of mind including their own.

So am I suggesting that you stop discussing stuff with each other? No, not at all. I only think it's time to stop discussing your resentments and each other's characters and past histories. As for '''editing''' and '''articles''', those are best discussed on '''article talk pages.''' It's up to you, collectively. Could you just think about it, please? Wouldn't it leave you a lot of lovely spare time? Mightn't it even be a relief?

Please let me know ASAP if I've missed any editor that in your opinion ought to be included here. And then please take your time to consider my proposal, and let me know if you're up for it. A simple yes or no will do me, in fact I prefer it. You don't have to feel I expect an explanation of the stand you take. And feel free to accept the AN/ANI deal but not the usertalk deal, or vice versa. Best wishes, ] | ] 19:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

:Thank you for the idea ] | ], I agree that there is a situation that needs some kind of compromise. After reviewing my contributions and thinking carefully about this, the solution you've proposed doesn't seem to apply to me because I don't post to either editor's talk page unless it is absolutely necessary and the last ] post I started was to ask for enforcement of the latest sock of ]. You can review my contributions if you like:
and . ] 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, I understand. But please review my reply to Justanother on his page, and you'll see that there is now a third point to the proposal (as I state there, I rather assumed that the rest of you guys would be watching). It is that Justanother and Lsi John on the one hand, and you and Smee on the other, stop having demeaning conversations about the other pair on your own pages. This point, on review of your contributions, does apply to you. 's a recent and classic example. Would you undertake to stop making such posts? ] | ] 22:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

:I'd be happy to stop making posts like the one you pointed out, if there were no reason to. I'm assuming in your preparations to give this advice you noticed there is some contention over a ] report. The post you are designating was to make ] aware of ] confusion about about ] in addition to his confusion over what he terms "Government Reports". (He thought he was being ] when in fact he was not, another editor called his actions presumptuous).

:] | ] I'm not trying to demean anyone or make them look bad, I do point out what I perceive as bad behavior though. Frankly the only reason I didn't post something about it on his talk page is that I don't think he'd listen and it would have just escalated matters further.

:By suggesting I curb discussion of the editors in question here or on ] talkpage you're making what I believe is a good faith attempt to end a conflict which is excessive. The same outcome, peace, could be had if for example ] and ] could simply take our talk pages off their watchlist. I don't watch either of their pages, unless I'm having a discussion there of course, because there is no reason to. ] 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
::Very well. I won't waste my breath appealing to you, I've been there. I simply note that you won't play, which is your right, and consequently there's no deal. Anyway, I'm sure you'll share my pleasure in seeing that Justanother and Lsi John are offering to comply with my request even without reciprocity. I haven't heard from Smee yet. ] | ] 00:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
:Honestly I don't care if they talk about me on their talk pages, I'd expect discussion of the opposition's logic or actions between editor's who share a similar perspective.

:Other than that I am already abiding by your suggestion as it relates to creating cases on ] or posting on their talk pages. ] 00:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:07, 5 March 2018


File permission problem with File:Fullhouse.png

Thanks for uploading File:Fullhouse.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz 08:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Necessary Evil nose art.png

The file File:Necessary Evil nose art.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Personal file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)