User:Anyeverybody

Redirected from User:Anynobody
To see what the graphic means look at Image:Lockedmyselfout.gif

My Sand-areas
(There are so many boxes here)

User:Anynobody/Aircraft carrier - User:Anynobody/test area - User:Anynobody/template - User:Anynobody/snafu - User:Anynobody/eruption - User:Anynobody/Simaircraft

Language boxes

en	I am a native speaker of United States English, and prefer referring to myself in the first person. No offense meant to those who do not.

es-0.2

Hablo muy poco Español Mexicano.

¡Donde está el baño?!

23:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC) But it's 16:04 28 December where I live.

About me

Anynobody (talk · contribs · logs)
Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · logs)

What I have done here worth mentioning

Created:
Sylvia Seegrist a did you know? article.
May 2007 Wikipedia:Featured picture candidate:

Improved:
Diamond (gemstone) into a did you know? article.
Flight 19 into a good article.

Significant contributions:

Elli Perkins
Barbara Schwarz (I didn't create or edit it but there's a lot of what used to be in the Wikipedia article in this link.)
Category:United States Navy Arizona-related ships
Attack on Pearl Harbor

As of 04:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC) my more popular images are:

Cvnanim.gif is used on 14 pages in 8 projects.
Ump-side.png is used on 10 pages in 8 projects.
Tbf-3c.png is used on 8 pages in 6 projects.
KAL007747-2.png is used on 8 pages in 5 projects.
Dyk25.png is used on 85 pages in 3 projects.
Dyk50.png is used on 55 pages in 3 projects.

About how I interact with other editors

About my interest in L. Ron Hubbard

I feel a brief explanation of why I'm editing this article may help other editors understand what I think it should be. A little over six months ago I happened into the article, read it, and some of the sources listed. (See my blurb above about how I use Wikipedia for research.) I noticed that both sides of the argument were incorrect about various aspects of his career in the United States Navy which could be proven with proper sources, thus making said article more accurate.

It happens that Scientology sources tend to be skewed in favor of Hubbard, and the non-CoS sources are tilted against him more often than not. Of the non-CoS sources some just want the truth to be told, others are out to destroy Hubbard and his creation. The people out to show the CoS as the greatest evil spawned from the brain of a monster are just as biased as those who refuse to believe anything which goes against his assertions.

I don't think he was as terrible as some would have us believe, but I do know from government and private sources that he was certainly not the friend of mankind he claimed to be. The choice we have is to A) use the CoS' POV B) use the anti-CoS POV, or C) simply report the facts available in valid sources.

and the article Church of Scientology

I understand our neutral POV rule to work in relation to subjects such as the CoS begins with the type of source used. Divided among three types; subject, critic, and media. Subject sources are those from the subject itself, critic sources are obviously those from critics of the subject while media would be news/books/tv etc. This was the article before I started editing, it literally ignored at least two controversial subjects and over 10 sources like TIME, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times.

Recognition/awards

I've received some, but I don't like to brag about my accomplishments. (The descriptions of work done above are meant to be a sign that I am somewhat productive.) This doesn't mean I don't support the recognition program here; to the contrary I've actually designed a few awards too. I don't know why but recognition through awards hasn't really ever been my cup of tea. I do appreciate feedback though, be it positive or negative. Obviously I prefer the former, however the latter is important too.

The smartest ways to use Wikipedia, aka advice

Since an article is really only as good as its sources, one must remember this while doing any kind of research here. A good article will have many references from reputable sources ^[1] If the source is available online, definitely look at it to gauge for yourself whether you believe the site. This is especially important for students using Wikipedia for a research project/paper because a student must ask themselves if their teacher would believe the site in question. I predict that more than a few students have already learned that the hard way. Be wary of statements with the words: ^{[citation needed]} after it. These statements are in dispute and another editor has asked for a source to back up the assertion being made. This can also be explained here: Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer:

Other advice

USE HISTORICAL PAGES AND DIFFS If you are using Wikipedia for scholastic or professional research, and you plan on citing an article, I recommend linking to either a diff or historical version to show what it looked like when you used it.

READ THE SOURCES Sometimes text cited to a source is not discussed by that source at all or in a context different than the source's. Until you can verify the information somehow, even if it's something you agree with, consider that you may be reading bullshit.

Not everyone knows what you mean
Being a multinational project there is a good chance you will be misunderstood, don't be surprised when it happens and try to be calm if someone thinks you've attacked them and they are in turn attacking you. |}

Policies, guidelines, essays, and proposals are underlined

Overview of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines - Explains the difference between a Policy and a Guideline.

Talk page guidelines - This is an overview of what is sanctioned on Talk pages.

Wikipedia: Vandalism - Removing accurate content, adding inappropriate content, or a combination of both with the intention of doing these things best describes vandalism. It is important to distinguish between vandalism and editing. When a vandal removes content, it's usually either an entire page blanking or indiscriminate removal of information. An editor who removes content and gives a reasoned motivation (even if they are wrong), is probably not a vandal.

Point - Don't add, subtract, or alter information to prove a point.
Disruptive Editing - Do not disrupt editing on purpose for entertainment, and avoid trolling or being disruptive.

Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View - Do not omit valid facts, include invalid facts, or attempt to impart a view. Simply let the facts speak for themselves. In some cases this may produce a POV sounding result, ie Adolf Hitler, which is unavoidable. The point is that POV should not be added that isn't in the sources.

WP:NPOV Frequently Asked Questions - The FAQ is also a policy.
Conflict of Interest and Point of View are related to one's own beliefs and affiliations. If you are a member of a religion, you should know that your inherent bias in favor of that religion may disrupt editing, POV. If your friend has been blocked, voting to unblock them interferes with fairness and objectivity, COI.
Assume Good Faith - I estimate that 7 times out of 10 people behaving inappropriately or making mistakes are not doing it on purpose. Remember when you start to suspect bad faith, said editor could just be making mistakes rather than sabotaging your favorite articles on purpose.

Wikipedia:Editing policy - A basic policy that describes what is expected of editors in regard to articles:

Verifiability - Information should be verifiable, that is easily checked for authenticity and accuracy. Citing a book which is difficult for most editors to find could be subject to this rule.
Reliable Sources - The context and circumstances which information is created under is a major part of this important guideline. A report written by an amateur should usually¹ not be considered as reliable as a report on the same subject written by a professional, to illustrate an example.
No Original Research - This is drawing conclusions or making points not supported by the available evidence.

Situation:	Says	What we say	Final	WP:OR?
1. A verfiable, reliable source	... fled in a red car... (X)	... fled in a red car... (X)	X	No
2. A verfiable, reliable source	... fled in a red car... (X)	... fled in a red car, thought to be a Corvette (X + Y)	X + Y	Yes

Wikipedia: Deletion Policy - Articles which the community feels do not meet the standards to be an article can be deleted, this link explains how.

Criteria for speedy deletion - Sometimes a new article or page needs to be deleted quickly, the process and circumstances are described here.

Wikipedia: No Personal Attacks - Don't insult anyone else. Many say "comment on edits not editors", but this can be misleading. First because it's possible to insult somebody with needlessly rude comments about their edits. It's also possible that an editor may be editing for the wrong reasons, thus requiring a comment on the editor directly. The important idea is to do these things respectfully.

Civility - You should also be courteous and civil to the other editors. Being a jerk to editors and then expecting everyone to treat you nicely doesn't really work. On the flip side though, people who disagree with you are not necessarily being uncivil.
No Legal Threats - Threats of a lawsuit or other action are forbidden and can result in a quick ban on any further editing here.
Do not "bite" new editors - Everybody was new to this once. It may improve your self esteem to belittle or be rude to new editors but it's bad for the project, and others are watching.

Wikipedia: Dispute Resolution - Disagreements can and will occur between editors, these are the sanctioned routes to resolve them.

Three Revert Rule - If you find yourself in a reverting contest with another editor, stop and seek guidance on Wikipedia Administrator Noticeboards before proceeding if you are concernd about being blocked. Ideally certain edits will not be counted against you, such as reversion of vandalism. However the way this rule is interpreted by administrators is not necessarily consistent, so beware.
Article Ownership - Even though you may have started an article, or contributed to it extensively, you do not own the article and as such must accept others editing it as well. (Unless they're doing something wrong of course, this rule isn't meant for us to suffer errors like using non [[WP:RS|reliable sources, etc.)
Consensus - Wikipedia is a community, and makes decisions as a group not individually.

(¹ Common sense should be used here, if an amateur writes a report with irrefutable references and evidence which contradicts a report written by a professional would be one example of an exception)

**Copyright** can be easily violated. A person may for example take a picture of their TV to post. That person could think, since they took the picture it's theirs to release. It's not, the image on the TV actually belongs to *Action News*

Useful Rules

Wikimedia sister projects - How to link articles to other Wiki projects.

Wikipedia:Article size - When creating content for many computers, who's emphasis is universal accessibility, it's best to assume that most users have older or less capable technology available. One aspect of this is the size of Wikipedia articles. Larger articles take a longer time to load, so whenever possible article sizes should be kept small.

Wikipedia:Summary Style - Is a related guideline which is the way articles can be kept small without sacrificing the amount of information Wikipedia offers.

Flawed Rules

Wikipedia: Ignore All Rules - Is a good concept, carried out in a highly flawed way. Since there is no determination when ignoring the rules helps Wikipedia, or situations where one should, individual editors may decide this is the only policy they need to know.

Wikipedia: what it is not - One aspect is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be an indiscriminate depository of random info. Category:porn stars, Category: Star Trek, Category:High schools in the United States and Category:Shipwrecks show that to be incorrect.

Useful, but Flawed Rule

Wikipedia: Be bold - Don't be afraid to try out an edit before discussing it on the talk page. If your edit is reverted, then you know it should be discussed on the talk page.

Templates

Lists:

Specific templates:

Template

What you type

What it looks like

{{tl|User3}} or {{tl|la}} (any template)

{{User3}} or {{la}}

Anynobody (talk · contribs · logs)

D'oh!
— Homer Simpson

{{OOCOT}} AND {{OOCOB}}

{{OOCOT}}Out Of Chronological Order templates used to keep discussions organized. Must use both.{{OOCOB}}

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

Out Of Chronological Order templates used to keep discussions organized. Must use both.

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

{{multicol}} 1. Your<br />* Text<br />{{multicol-break}} B. Here<br /> IV.and here {{multicol-end}}

1. Your
* Text

B. Here
IV.and here

Switzerland

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: No one other than its original author has made substantial edits to this page, and that editor requests its deletion or has blanked the page. (CSD G7). Speedy concern: No one other than its original author has made substantial edits to this page, and that editor requests its deletion or has blanked the page.

Other Tools

[[Image:Example.png|thumb|right|Example image caption]]

Editing key
Article, User, and other pages key
Examples of the diagram system
Editor C adds unreferenced text to article 1, editor D reverts.
Is this a valid reversion or is it an edit war? If valid, why? If it's an edit war, who started it?
Editor A adds referenced text to article 1, editor B reverts.
Is this a valid reversion or is it an edit war? If valid, why? If it's an edit war, who started it?