Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anyeverybody (talk | contribs) at 03:35, 2 January 2008 (→Topic ban on Barbara Schwarz: You've clearly not seen the whole picture). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You may have been redirected from:User talk: Anynobody

This user has asked for Wikipedians to give him/her feedback at an editor review. You may comment on his/her edits at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Anynobody.

Archives

Archive - Archive 1 - 04/2007 - 05/2007 - 06/2007 - 06/2007 2 - 07/2007 08/2007 09/2007 10/2007 11/2007 12/2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Evan Montvel Cohen

Your corrections to Evan's history are based on old articles and very biased sources. Kuam is the main competitor on Guam to Sorensen Media Group and often use Kuam news to attack the competition. Also the New York Sun printed a correction to the article you site two days after it was run and John Cook of the Chicago Tribune and Radar magazine ran a piece about David Lambino's sloppy work. Evan was attacked by right and left wing bloggers but no one ever got the facts right. He didn't authorize the loan to himself (the board of Directors approved the loan) and he was only accused of any wrong doing by the blogoshere. Even right wing assasin Michelle Malkin corrected her attackes after the court documents (posted on the web) proved Cohen demanded that the loan be repaid as part of the sale to Piquant. The story is sexier when your version is written but it is not factual. it takes time and effort to sift through and get to the truth but you should work at it if you want to write about a human beings life and character. i work with Evan and know what happened. Leon Colaco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.151.89.144 (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Issues regarding the article are best discussed on its talk page, so that everyone editing it can participate. So I'm moving this thread there. Anynobody 01:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A strange photograph of Bill Clinton

...apparently admiring some cheerleaders' breasts. Don't these fools know the man's reputation?!--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well they say power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, maybe former power is a strong one too. Damn we (Americans) had it good when the worst that could be said about our president was that he was an unfaithful former pot smoking scholar. In 1998 you'd of thought covering up a blow-job was serious enough to throw the guy out for, coming up on 2008 the list of things our current Commander in Chimp has done which seem impeachable is long.

On a side note, doesn't Clinton look like shit? (He reminds me of the guy who drank from the wrong cup in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.) I've noted that most American presidents age very rapidly. (Even as far back as Lincoln, portraits from the beginning of his first term and before his brains saw the inside of Ford's Theater first hand show a man worn down by loads of heavy baggage.) Compare that picture to one from a 1993 visit to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. (Look who else visited our desert home of the a-bomb.) Anynobody 08:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but someone's giving Prince Andrew a Nazi salute - it's all rather Dr. Strangelove! See here for a photograph of Dick Cheney's dog. I'm off to Polska tomorrow until the New Year, although it's likely that I'll drop in over the period. Have a Happy Christmas.--Major Bonkers (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I replied to this post on your page with a little something for you. Thought you might find my brush with The Man interesting. Anynobody 07:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Good revert

This revert is why we have the option. :) Good job, Anynobody 04:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Danke! :-) Have a nice Christmas! Scarian 14:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

De nada! You too :) Anynobody 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz

Hi; now that DRV has concluded can you delete or blank your draft bio at User:Anynobody/test area, so we aren't carrying a copy in userspace? Thanks! FT2  16:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure :) Anynobody 02:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Eguor editors

Anyeverybody, this is to notify you that Category:Eguor editors has been nominated by someone else for renaming or deletion. Please see Misplaced Pages:User categories for discussion#Category:Eguor editors if you wish to comment. Cheers, Iamunknown 05:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) Anynobody 05:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Please see this. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. As a FYI you don't need to use an external link for stuff like this, a standard ] like this will work too: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Anyeverybody (AKA User:Anynobody) and Barbara Schwarz :) Anynobody 00:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I know but then you have to muck about with the underscores or a bit of double copy/paste. My way did the job and was quick and easy. --JustaHulk (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No underscores necessary, (they're only required if you want to type out the html address.) Anynobody 03:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban on Barbara Schwarz

Under the terms of the article probation imposed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS, I am banning you from making any edits related to Barbara Schwarz in any article for 30 days. You may make suggestions on talk pages provided you are not disruptive and follow the BLP policy, which applies to talk pages as well as articles.

After our previous discussion, I was disappointed to see you reinstate the Schwarz material at Neutral reportage. As I noted before, Schwarz is possibly a unique figure in the history of FOIA, but she is by no means unique in the history of neutral reportage. There are two other cases cited as "notable successes" and you made no attempt to describe either of them. There are 70 law review articles containing the term "neutral reportage" and none of them mention Mrs. Schwarz. Therefore, I conclude that your purpose in reinstating the information about the Schwarz case was not about improving the article on neutral reportage but was instead about pursuing this individual wherever possible. In the spirit of assuming good faith I do not completely rule out the possibility that you were innocently attempting to improve the neutral reportage article by describing the only case you are familiar with; this is the problem that when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Ultimately, however, you continue to press the issue, so a time-out is warranted. Thatcher 02:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were disappointed, and appreciate your good faith, but perhaps you misunderstood what I meant when I said I hadn't planned on expanding beyond what was already there. I meant that I was planning on replacing the information removed, which I did in addition to opening a talk page discussion about it:Talk:Neutral reportage#Barbara Schwarz vs Salt Lake Tribune which I'm guessing you haven't looked at. It said, among other things, Her case was notable enough to be listed before and notable enough to be mentioned now. I'm simply describing and quoting the sources.

Also, I'm perfectly willing to discuss your point about law review articles, but not on the arbcom noticeboard or here. Instead, that's part of the reason I started the talk page discussion. Indeed the reason I only added info about that descion is because it's the only one I'm familiar with. However as I've tried to make perfectly clear, it was already there and I was just adding info from sources I had found. Anynobody 03:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)