Misplaced Pages

User talk:Anynobody

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 12:35, 15 May 2007 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Anynobody/Archives/2007/May.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:35, 15 May 2007 by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Anynobody/Archives/2007/May.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Archives

Archive - Archive 1 - Archive 2


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

Effects of the pervasiveness of free information...

You may be interested in the implications as discussed in the book Freakonomics. 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... Smee 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

  • I posted this to User:Justanother, 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... Smee 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
Indeed I do find it interesting, and it seems to be an issue he needs to understand. In 1987 I couldn't access a copy of L. Ron Hubbard's various claims about his military service AND the real thing so easily. Here in 2007 we can hold these various claims up to scrutiny, which is something I doubt Hubbard ever expected to happen (despite his sci-fi background). Anynobody 23:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, indeed. And the same holds true for many other types of applications across organizations, groups, companies, individuals... Smee 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.
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. Anynobody 04:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good... Smee 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... Smee 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.Invisible Noise 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. Anynobody 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. Lsi john 03:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, your feelings are hurt about the checkuser request. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings Lsi john, but I suspected you were a sock of Misou. 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). Anynobody 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). Lsi john 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. Lsi john 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 Misou I was saying you were a figment of his imagination. What did you think I was saying? Anynobody 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. Lsi john 04:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Now you're suggesting I'm drunk? Dude, seriously. Stop while you're ahead. Lsi john 04:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Either that or you're having a heck of a temper tantrum that started on Talk:List of groups referred to as cults in government reports and has found it's way here.
Just so you know, you are acting like a drunk person:
  1. Repeating things:Talk:List of groups referred to as cults in government reports#GAO and FBI?
  2. Arguing about stuff we agree on (the Misou imagination issue above)
  3. The simplistic and almost childish way you are conducting yourself.

All these observations make me feel like the designated driver on a night out bar hopping. Anynobody 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! Lsi john 05:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome Anynobody 05:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome Anynobody 05:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Confused...

This bit: User_talk:Misou#wb is most confusing - it appears that these individuals are communicating off-Wiki... Smee 06:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC). (You wanna know what's really ironic, Misou was accusing us of communicating off-wiki) Anynobody 06:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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. Anynobody 06:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I simply have no idea in particular what is going on in this case... Smee 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. Anynobody 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... Smee 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". Anynobody 06:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This should be the focus of any arbcom case we try to get heard. Anynobody 06:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea... Smee 06:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
I really think he's loaded. Anynobody 06:44, 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:

"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

Peace in God.
Lsi john 06:58, 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. Lsi john 07:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Smee, 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. Anynobody 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... Smee 07:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

That's why you get so many WP:DYKs, 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) Anynobody 07:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Smee 07:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Justanother

I understand their implanted patterns of behavior and am not intimidated.--Fahrenheit451 21:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are even cooler than I thought...

... Diff. Most intriguing. Smee 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 when I mentioned the The Untouchables during the legal threat issue. Anynobody 11:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember when I mentioned this one, but it's a good movie Dude. Anynobody 11:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Wincott 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. Anynobody 11:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI

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. --Justanother 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.) Anynobody 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 --Justanother 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: Privacy policy of the us federal government. You don't have to worry. Anynobody 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. --Justanother 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. Lsi john 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
  1. I'm not asking to know who you are,
  2. I don't know your name and didn't include it, and most importantly
  3. 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. Anynobody 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. --Justanother 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. Lsi john 01:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, if a mistake was made by anyone it was Justanother posting the e-mail address in the first place. You're assuming she's an idiot Lsi john, 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) Anynobody 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 WP:RS for CRS reports. I'm not aware of anyone, so far, who has questioned CRS reports under WP:V or WP:RS arguments.

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

I wasn't implying anything by saying I haven't received a response, did you forget that Justanother 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.
Lsi john 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:Talk:Groups referred to as cults in government documents#GAO and FBI reports?. I had planned to seek guidance at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources 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.) Anynobody 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. Anynobody 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, Korean Air Flight 007 conspiracy theories. 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. Akradecki 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I sure can, I had actually planned to look at it once the main article is finished. Anynobody 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. Lsi john 01:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, I was actually editing there first so "following" somehow fails to describe the sequence of events.
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 WP:3RR situation it's up to you to prove a consensus when adding new material. Anynobody 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. Anynobody 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. Lsi john 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 WP:ANI, thanks for the smile :) Anynobody 03:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Lsi john 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:Category:Editor handbook. A more specific discussion of what a talk page is can be found at WP:TPG. Anynobody 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Lsi john 04:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You're most welcome. Anynobody 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 Kirstie Alley as one example, but I am sure there are more out there which you have seen. Kind regards, Orsini 02:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Off the top of my head Barbara Schwarz, L. Ron Hubbard, and Xenu. I'll look for more. Anynobody 02:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's another hotbed of CoS WP:COI activity, I don't really edit there though: Youth for Human Rights International. Anynobody 04:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
That is a good example. Thank you. Kind regards, Orsini 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 :) Gatoclass 11:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Too long?

Cults identified by government documents(or reports). Anynobody 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... Smee 03:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
I must respectfully disagree
Groups referred to as cults in government documents = 8 words
Cults identified by government documents = 5 words.
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). Anynobody 03:10, 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). Anynobody 03:13, 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. Anynobody 03:23, 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. Anynobody 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay. It was pretty hard to figure out how to model it off of List of groups referred to as cults, so it was pretty neat to hear User:Milomedes say that it worked out well, "sharp" with good editing, I think he said. Smee 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.) Anynobody 04:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Noted. Smee 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 WP:TROLL? And Justanother, when you say Smee has "a history of complaints for tendentious editing," 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, Bishonen | talk 19:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for the idea Bishonen | talk, 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 WP:ANI post I started was to ask for enforcement of the latest sock of Barbara Schwarz. You can review my contributions if you like:

my contributions to User:Talk pages and my contributions to Misplaced Pages pages. Anynobody 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. Here's a recent and classic example. Would you undertake to stop making such posts? Bishonen | talk 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 CRS report. The post you are designating was to make Smee aware of Lsi john's confusion about about WP:BOLD in addition to his confusion over what he terms "Government Reports". (He thought he was being WP:BOLD when in fact he was not, another editor called his actions presumptuous).
Bishonen | talk 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 Smee's 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 Justanother and Lsi john 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. Anynobody 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. Bishonen | talk 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 WP:ANI or posting on their talk pages. Anynobody 00:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)