User talk:Ste4k/Archives of first three weeks: Difference between revisions

Please place NEW Messages near the TOP of this file. Older Messages will be near the bottom. Thanks! :)

About Charles Buell Anderson and Endeavor Academy

If an article is not NPOV the solution is to improve it, not delete it. -Will Beback 20:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If there isn't any source material, then are you saying we should simply make things up? I don't understand why there should be a policy on WP:NOR if it isn't supposed to be followed. Ste4k 20:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your discounting of all the sources. -Will Beback 20:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

okay. which do you think meet WP:RS? Delete the sources in the list below that we can both agree cannot be used: Ste4k 21:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Perry, Scott. "Searchable "A Course in Miracles" Online". Retrieved 3 Jul2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Perry, Scott. Associated sexual and physical abuse "Sexual or Physical Abuse Accounts at Endeavor Academy". Retrieved 3 Jul2006. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Perry, Scott. "Former student reports anthology". Retrieved 3 Jul2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Ross, Rick. "Endeavor Academy". Retrieved 3 Jul2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Lofton, Harry. "A Course In Miracles ~ Free Miraculous Healing Course". Retrieved 3 Jul2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Endeavor Academy. "Endeavor Academy ~Teaching Enlightenment through A Course In Miracles". Retrieved 3 Jul2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Robin "Bodhi" Evans. "MEXICO DIARY - WRITINGS". Retrieved 3 Jul2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• anonymous. "CULT BUSTERS - INDEX PAGE WELCOME". Retrieved 3 Jul2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Hassan, Steven. "Endeavor Academy". Retrieved 3 Jul2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Atomic Veterans History Project. "Atomic Veteran: Chuck Anderson, Nagasaki, Japan 1945". Retrieved 3 Jul2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Let's have this discussion on the relevant talk page. -Will Beback 21:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion votes

Please don't just copy and paste "CSD A3" onto nominations on AfD. I have yet to see an article you've done that on that actually fell under CSD. If you have a valid reason that an article should be deleted (or kept), please take the time to vote properly. Remember that AfD is not a vote, and listing invalid reasons for deletion is pointless; they won't count in the final review. Thanks, and happy editing! Kafziel 19:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Lists that point to other places only fall under CSD A3. I have seen many instances of people voting speedy delete in Afd and have also actually seen Speedy Keep as well, and admins closing these various instances. When I see an empty list of pointers to somewhere else that hasn't any content to speak of, it is much simpler and I have also been advised to keep things simple and refer by reference to the policies rather than quoting them. I am trying my best to please all of the admins, even though they frequently contradict eachothers' instructions. Thanks. Ste4k 19:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Lists that contain any content whatsoever - even the slightest comment or subtitle in addition to the links - do not fall under A3.

There are only specific situations in which "speedy delete" comments are acceptable. Perhaps the most important, and easiest to spot, is the requirement that there can't be any valid disagreements. In other words, an article can't be speedily kept if someone (apart from the nominator) has posted a valid reason why it should be deleted. The same goes for speedy deletions. If someone has already stated why they feel it should be kept, there's no point in voting "speedy". If it could be speedily deleted, it would have been. Just write "delete" or "keep", give a reason why (see the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars vehicles‎ for more on why CSD A3 is not valid), and let the discussion run its course. Kafziel 20:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please let's not confuse two different issues here. I understand what you mean about speedy now if it cannot be accomplished in an ongoing AfD. On the other issue though, is it not correct that any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, should be reason for deletion? Does this rule change because the article is already in AfD,i.e. does the initiation of an AfD remove the criteria for Speedy Deletion as reasons for simply voting delete? If so, then do those types of lists fall under WP:NOT? The link you provided isn't working anymore, but I remember what the original article looked like yesterday. Ste4k 20:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The policy is correct, but you are incorrect in identifying lists that fit that description. Almost no lists created by users in good faith will fit that bill. It's intended to prevent advertising (particularly articles that contain nothing but external links) and vanity pages. Internal links are not hyperlinks, and a list of a hundred vehicles is not a "rephrasing of the title".

Some lists do fit WP:NOT, but none of the ones I've seen you comment on so far. I'll continue to use List of Star Wars vehicles as an example. The NOT guideline prohibits: Lists of Frequently Asked Questions (this has no questions), loosely associated topics (this topic is quite specific and exclusive), travel guides (it's fictional, so that's out), memorials (nope), news reports (none here), genealogical entries (no), phonebook entries (no), directories (no), TV/Radio Guide (no), instruction manuals (no instructions, tips, tutorials, or walkthroughs are given here), and Internet guides (no).

That's it. That's all there is. A lot of people try to stretch the "instruction manual" clause, but there are no instructions here, and it's really that simple. It's not random, useless information, because it's about a narrowly defined topic. List of vehicles, including every vehicle in the world, real and imaginary, would be useless and would fit WP:NOT. Hope that makes more sense. Kafziel 22:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Directory. You might want to disambiguate that term with more than a "no". It also happens to be my field of expertise of nearly thirty years. Ste4k 23:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Directory, in the context of the actual policy, refers to things like business listings and telephone numbers. As that section of the policy states, "Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." I don't think we need to worry about that page being used to advertise TIE Fighters for sale.

When you get right down to it, all lists on Wikipedia are meant to serve as directories to other articles; the example I used early was List of Chevrolet vehicles. Same content as the Star Wars list, but nobody has tried to delete it because there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. A couple of users have a real problem with Star Wars articles (which I can understand, not being a huge fan myself) but they are disrupting Wikipedia to ensure everyone knows it. That's not the way to do things, and 9 times out of 10 they just end up wasting everyone's time because they are not, in fact, backed by any policy at all. Take a look at their AfD histories with Star Wars articles and you'll see what I mean. Kafziel 01:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

About all lists... Exactly. And if you go read up on Wiki programming theory, etc., you will find out that Wiki was invented to "float around" rather than be structured by any sort of listing/directory. If they REALLY wanted to Wikify their data, then instead of thinkin in the "Microsoft/Folder" sort of hierarchical tree, they would adope the category scheme, and then they could see all of their little pages organized in a wikified manner, you know? I am too neutral to care about games one way or the other. I write games when I'm bored. The other things about lists is that they are inherently sparse. They will always appear to be mostly empty bony structures compared to categories which are always by definition completed. Every node in a list makes it more difficult for search engines to find data, as well. That means they affect the response time of searches, even searches that haven't anything to do with the data they are "supposedly" carrying. Ste4k 01:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable

Reply left on my talk page. Viridae^Talk 23:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply left. Viridae^Talk 23:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply left Viridae^Talk 00:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply left. Viridae^Talk 01:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply left. (this is filling up my talk page incredibly rapidly.) Viridae^Talk 02:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

ACIM

Since you are looking into this, I have the following suggestion:

• split the main article into book and movement
• merge the various factions into the movement article
• merge the authors into the book article
• move most discusison of the court case into authorship

This should leave three or four decent-sized articles, once the cruft and unverifiable / uncited commentary is pruned out. Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim Catapano

Thanks for the tip! I voted on many of today's AfDs and got all the formatting right except this one. Thanks for catching it. Brian 20:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)btball

No need to apologize or feel bad! I truly appreciated your catching my mistake. My vote wouldn't have been counted otherwise. Your comment was perfectly fine and my reply to you above was simply intended to thank you. I'm not quite sure what I said that caused you to feel that you need to apologize --- truly not necessary. You did me me a favor by pointing out my typo. Thanks again and no worries. Brian 20:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Thanks to you! I know what you mean by quite a day. Real life has been quite stressful (Mother dying of cancer) and I've been doing a lot of NP/RC patrol. In the course of that I've correctly found a bunch of vandalism (fixed) and copyvio's (dealt with). But twice I was a little quick on the trigger with CSD (and I've learnt from that) - but ... well, let's just say the tone of the Sysops could have been a little nicer. But, to be clear, they were right (and they probably had rough days too). Anyway, your comment and the entire exchange with you have left a nice ending to a long day (It's nearly midnight here - I am in Europe UTC/GMT +1). For your civility, here's the best image I could find :-) I hope your day tomorrow is good --- I will spend mine flying. Well, probably too much chatting for a talk page and I need to sign off soon anyway. Brian 21:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)btball

AFDs

Hi Ste4k, I noticed you've pasted this comment on at least two AFDs:

It is not my job as a reader of an article to do the research which is not listed on the page. The article must establish such resources to meet WP:VER. Anything that is written in an article which cannot attribute itself to a reliable source is considered original research by policy, and by definition. Per policy, rather than guidelines, Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. thanks. Ste4k 09:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in black-and-white policies vs guidelines and whatnot; let's use common sense. Okay, it's not your job to do anything -- we're all volunteers here -- but many of us expect regular AFD nominators to at least check if an article is true before saying "I don't see any citations in this article, therefore it is original research and must go." Most of AFD is about doing research on articles to see what's true, what's notable, etc. I want people to take your AFD nominations seriously, so I hope you will put more effort into them in the future. Also, please remember to distinguish between "verifiable" and "verified". Cheers —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-02 10:27Z

I can only second the above. The links I have provided in the AFD nom speak for themselves. I've left them there so that someone more knowledgeable can integrate them. Also, I don't typically like to edit an article under AFD nom by too much as editors complain that they are not able to decide about their vote because of constant changes in the article under nom. --Gurubrahma 14:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ste4k, I did realise that the above discussion did not pertain to the AfD in question and that it was a general comment regarding your AfD noms, which is why I joined the discussion. I don't think that I'd be able to work on the article for the next couple of days at least. If you want to have a go at it, please do so. I'd expect a couple of Indian wikipedians to work on it, now that different transliterations are available and since it is easily googleable. --Gurubrahma 15:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JD_UK

I have just opened an RfC on this user, and was wondering if you might want to certify it. Thanks. -- 9cds^(talk) 01:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, spread the love. Oh, and by the way this is meant to be at the top of the page. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 02:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Whitsonj.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Whitsonj.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging

First, conduct a straw poll (see Wikipedia:Straw polls). If there is a large consensus that supports the merge, feel free to merge the articles using the instructions on Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages#Performing the merger. However, if consensus is not clear or if the issue becomes controversial, list the article at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers--TBCTaLk?!? 05:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible bad faith nom?

I made that comment due to your recent nominations of basically any article [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] [10] [11] having to deal with A Course in Miracles. Though I do believe that some of the above articles need to be deleted/merged, I find it suspicious that someone would coincidently nominate all these related articles for deletion due to notability, without having some sort of possible bias. Even so, please don't take this personally and I hope that you aren't offended by my comments. I'm trying my best to be civil. :) --TBCTaLk?!? 09:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood, but you should have added merge tags and/or discussed the issue on A Course in Miracles talk page first before having to nominate all the above articles for deletion. If anyone has been flaming you, feel free to report to an admin or other editors. Also, what's with all the ":)"'s, are you trying to parody my addiction of using emoticons in my statements, even in seemingly inappropriate situations*? :) :) :)  :)--TBCTaLk?!? 10:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC) *(note that I'm trying to be sarcastic)

• It is not necessarily bad faith. There is little or no cited evidence of significance in any of these articles which comes from outside the ACIM movement itself, as such it appears to constitute a walled garden and this is a legitimate reason for nomination of multiple related articles which does not constitute bad faith. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation re: Authorship of A Course in Miracles

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

The preceding comment was added by Kickaha Ota (23:03, 29 June 2006), who apologizes for neglecting to sign it earlier.

I strongly suggest that you join this mediation process. Just zis Guy you know? 08:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have signed on the request as it asked. I am currently gathering the facts for an easy to follow presentation. Is there something that I should be doing more with the mediation? Ste4k 08:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggested this on my talk page, but I'll suggest it again here: The Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates has people who can help you through the process. That would give you an experienced Wikipedian to talk to who's familiar with the system and who's promised to try to help you achieve your objectives. Kickaha Ota 14:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A Return to Love

Hi, about your db-tag on A Return to Love: I removed it, because this is only a criterion for speedy deletion if it's really previously deleted content (because of a decision following a discussion on AfD, or speedy deletion), not content that was replaced by a redirect. If you think the article should be deleted, please list it on AfD. Thanks! --JoanneB 21:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Improving the Authorship of A Course in Miracles article

I'd like to work with you on improving the article, but continuing to tag the article as a whole as "original research" seems to go against consensus and reopen old grievances. I would ask that you instead pick out the five or six statements that you most strongly feel are unsourced or misinterpret the source, and tag those statements with {{citeneeded}} or {{request quote}}, as I just proposed in the article's talk page. I have no opinion at all about the ACIM controversy, so I promise to look at your complaints fairly and objectively, and to support you in changing or removing any specific statements that seem inappropriate. If we can focus on specific, manageable problems with particular statements, rather than rehashing old arguments about the article as a whole, the results are likely to be much better. Kickaha Ota 13:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the article was tagged on the whole as unresourced by an administrator. Andrew made comments in the history which were untrue, and I reverted back to the administrator's tag. The grievance itself on this article is that it is original research and hasn't much secondary sources. That tag lists the page in the Category for other people to see whom might want to work on it. In itself there isn't any reason to remove that tag. If the reason is cosmetic then it makes little sense. He should realize that we are here to help him and that others whom are interested in finding sources will see it listed on the category page. The statements which are beneath the sub-topic "Publication" would be a good start. Other things regarding the actual name of the publisher and whom that publisher states is the author would be great. The article itself needs to move toward being an article about a book and lose about 80% of the doctrine which is all original research. The book cannot use itself as its own source and that point must be clear. This is not about little edit wars, rather it is about a good well researched article. I also think that many of the comments in the old talk archives point out a specific bias toward the beliefs of the book. It's fine if Andrew would like to help create this article, but he needs to improve his skills in regard to a neutral point of view. Bascially the entire article, as the administrator pointed out, is original research based on the reasons above. Andrew has an opportunity here to get with the program and start editing articles. I think he should also apologize for the harrassing way that he has been treating me. I am unsure if you know about all of the specifics in that regard. Ste4k 13:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The {{citeneeded}} and {{request quote}} tags will place the article in the "Articles with unsourced statements" and "Articles needing factual verification" categories as well, and will do so in a way that's more likely to actually lead to improvements. I can't wave a magic wand and make hard feelings about the whole article go away, but I can look at and make edits to specific statements. I think there have been ill-chosen remarks and misinterpretation of remarks on all sides here (including mine). No, I'm most certainly not aware of all the specifics of the dispute, and under the circumstances I think that's actually for the best, because it lets me concentrate objectively on making the article better without taking a side in a personal dispute that I can't solve. Kickaha Ota 14:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, I just checked, and the subtopic "Publication" only appears in the main article on A Course in Miracles, not in the "Authorship of..." article. The main ACIM article certainly has its issues as well, but that's potentially a much larger dispute, so let's tackle this smaller one first and see if we can gain some momentum. Please focus on the "Authorship of..." article for the moment, and tag the five or six most bothersome specific statements in that article. Kickaha Ota 16:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

They're the same article. It's rather ridiculous to imagine looking up the name of a book in an encyclopedia and finding out that there isn't any author. He should be happy that the first line doesn't read: "A Course in Miracles, the 1976 three-volume set of books that became a spiritual curriculum for many individuals and study groups. Course remains a cult favorite" since that description comes from an actual published source. Why don't see if you can find out what his beef is with me, and why he feels he has the right to own an article. And what gives him the right to be making snotty comments in the ledgers of the history. And why isn't he participating in discussion. And why is it that when I ask a question, that question is simply ignored? Those are some serious issues that he has that all fall under the category of "cooperation". He is the farthest thing from WP:CIV that I can imagine and I cannot remember one instance when he has treated me with WP:AGF. My original request for WP:3O had to do basically with those issues there. It's rather escalated now since what I found this morning with the sub-topics named after my nickname claiming I had some sort of beef with those companies. He does not understand that those companies are not the press, they do not produce articles as a reputible secondary source. And as I have been researching this other book and doing the merge on its article I have found MANY MANY instances of "The Course" online and absolutely none of them mention "ACIM". That being a part of the registered trademark makes me wonder who he thinks he is to speak in the name of those companies, you know? Did they somehow name him as their representative? And what exactly is the issue here about such a huge POV like putting a trade name on the moniker? I think it would best for his sake if he wants to see the book stay online that he chill out, like I told him in the first place, and quit giving everyone a hard time. He wants to nit-pick over silly little labels and he hasn't got a clue about the real issues here. Ste4k 16:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now that you've catalogged your grievances, let me add a few points. This article has been nominated for deletion. That nomination failed. It was then nominated again. That nomination is in the process of failing again. It seems fairly obvious that the article is going to stick around, regardless of your opinion. You have made repeated edits to the article. Many of those edits have been reverted. I happen to think that many of those reverts were unfortunate, because your edits pointed out genuine problems in the article. I am trying to help you, by changing the article to address as many of your concerns as possible, in a way that will be perceived by the community as neutral and productive, and result in changes to the article that actually stick (as opposed to getting immediately reverted). I thought you would be interested in this. Instead, you seem to be telling me that you are much more interested in rehashing past grievances and personal vendettas than you are in actually improving the article. If this is true, then please let me know, because I can simply leave the situation as it is, which will lead to your edits continuing to be reverted, and which will probably wind up in an arbitration that will probably wind up with you getting blocked from the articles. This will be bad for you and unfortunate for the readers of Wikipedia, but it will save me a great deal of time. If this is not true, and you are willing to put aside your frustrations long enough to actually accomplish something, then you need to stop, step back, take a long, deep breath, and reconsider your approach. Kickaha Ota 17:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering why you keep coming to me with small problems. Have you even been speaking with him at all? The only change that I have noticed in his actions against me personally is escalation. About the other article, it was removed from the AfD discussion list. Did you know that? And if that hadn't happened, it wouldn't have ever drawn my attention to the article. I first saw the article in the AfD and there were already several "strong keeps" without any real basis except that they were "tired" of doing it again. I went over and took a look and saw for myself without even reading the conversation, nor any of the old Afd it had, and gave it an NPOV. I put in my vote and immediately aftwards, he puts down "TEN BIG REASONS", etc. And I went over to the article and looked at the resources, and they weren't even the same. So the first thing I did was ask as simple question, since I hadn't ever heard of this book before in my life, why is this important? He took it like an insult. So, in case, sure it may fail again, but it was mishandled and from what I have seen of his actions in editing my words in my AfD proposals, I'd be more than happy to let it go to arbitration to tell the truth. Is there something you are aware of that I don't understand as a newbie? Why would you think that if this went to arbitration that I would be blocked from this category? Does ACIM donate money to Wikipedia or something for advertising? If not then what's your point? Ste4k 17:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That's all I needed to know. I won't bother you any further. Kickaha Ota 17:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And there he/she goes with more of that paranoia talk about ACIM and money. Apparently he/she believes the only reason anyone would care about this topic is because of money. Kickaha Ota is right to just let this go. This person cannot be dealt with in a civil manner. -- Andrew Parodi 08:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, if you can't rise above the level of trolling please don't bother to post. Just zis Guy you know? 08:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikistress

You seem to be suffering a case of the above. I have looked at the talk pages for Big Brother and the ACIM articles and I understand where you're coming from, but if your stress levels get too high it's better to back off and come back to the article in a week. It will still be there. JChap 11:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh MY! It sounds Wiki--icked! :) Do you have a link? About my stress, though, I really don't have much, imho. However, a second point of view should always be heeded. I don't take offense by the suggestion, and am accustomed to others thinking that I work too hard. I am still quite unfamilar with the virtual politico-demographics per how the word "encyclopedia" is defined here. But I am postive that if I picked up a copy of Britannica that if it mentioned the show at all it wouldn't be anything like a list of un-notable people with a scorecard on their sexual antics. The page comes across to me like an advertisment more than anything else. Anyhow, per the ACIM, some of those articles are okay, but the person whom is writing most of them should be concentrating more on finding reputible sources for the central book than spreading bias subtopics which haven't anything to do with the articles they are attached to. I would change that opinion if some reputible sources could be found in the first place. In his own comments underneath Talk:Kenneth_Wapnick he explains his auto-biographical relationship to the article. The other editor in the meantime doesn't believe that WP:NOR original research exits. I would certainly hope he gets with the program soon. He apparently believes that because of his own attachment to the doctrine that he should be the only editor with comments on the page (his words). I asume if not unchecked, that the two of them together will eventually find or establishh a connection between 11 and ACIM. :) Either way, it matters little to me about the content one way or the other. If between the two of them they could find an article from the New York Times saying that "the existence of ACIM was due primarily to the number 11" then I would be more happy to help them learn how to use the citation tags correctly. :) Ste4k 12:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Try here for a link. Comparisons to Britannica are likely to elicit rolling eyes, as Wikipedia is not paper. Check out all the articles on Pokemon and Star Trek if you want to see how far the definition of "notability" is stretched. Proposing an AfD for the main article of a popular TV show would strike most editors as weird; which may be the reason for the accusations of bad faith. I cannot find either of editor claiming that he should be the only person to edit or that WP:NOR does not exist. If you could provide some diffs with respect to this matter, I think it would be helpful. It looks like most of the articles you proposed at AfD will be deleted and/or merged and I will try to help with the others, but will be in my sister's wedding this weekend, so I may be a little scarce the next few days. JChap 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just an aside, but because you are an attorney (and btw I am one of those people that actually respect that profession) you might find interesting precedents in the AfD for Next Door Nikki. I don't believe that people should be swayed other than by policy, but also that precidents should be used as reasons for policy/guideline proposals. Per the specific article, I wash my hands of it. In the discussion areas the JD_UK editor basically refuses to cooperate. We reached a consensus about tense. What is under the hood are the many hours I spent cleaning up after his writing. Only the history would show any of that. I am convinced that after the season ends, whenever that will be, they will probably move on to something else regardless of what sort of shape that article is in. He spends absolutely ZERO time researching and claims that the information doesn't exist. He also claims to be getting the information from the web site, which is the only source, and that is another matter which I find to be simply incredible. No harm done, live and learn, and it takes all sorts. :) Ste4k 14:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your WP:ANI report

No matter what in this case your commentary was improperly edited. That is bad. For now just let admins review your report and come to a determination as to the best course of action. Thanks. Netscott 13:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, just let others review your WP:ANI report. Action relative to the other editor will be taken accordingly. Netscott 13:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For whatever reason if you are stil not clear on what my first message said it is this: "the fact that your commentary was improperly edited is bad". Netscott 14:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies as well, I suppose I wasn't explicit enough in my commentary. Unfortunately these things happen all too frequently on Wikipedia. :-) Netscott 14:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your AfD noms

Hi, you haven't replied back in our conversation on my talk page about your nom of Big Brother series 6, and now another user has suggested a bad faith nom by you. I understand the ACIM issue is contentious, but AfD really isn't the place to deal with the problems you have with these pages. I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just trying to get a sense of your feelings on the subject. Do you agree that the Big Brother nom probably wasn't a good idea? Do you really want all of these pages deleted, or do you want them merged, cleaned up, or NPOVed? Just trying to open a dialogue. Thanks. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 09:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sorry it took a couple days to get back to you, been on vacation. OK, regarding the Big Brother nomination, which was speedily kept, I think you should realize that your view is in the very small minority. I think almost all wikipedians would agree that an article being the cause of much debate is not a reason to delete it. You said that "whether or not it was appropriate to nominate the article as AfD has two sets of opinion." I have yet to see an argument that this nomination was appropriate. Also, you said "perhaps you know of other television show articles, but for me, this is the only one that I am aware of." I'm not really sure what you meant by this, there are hundreds af articles about television shows. Almost every popular television show has it's own Thirdly, you said "I do not believe that he suggested a bad faith nom, nor do I believe that you understood him correctly." The quote in question was "it appears that the nomination of this page by Ste4k for deletion is a “bad faith” deletion attempt." I think I understood it correctly.

All of this relates to my larger issue, your misuse of the Article for Deletion process. I'm not prepared to dive into the ACIM debate, and I don't know what kind of personal problems you've had with other editors, but I think it's become very clear that your AfD noms were out of line. AfD is strictly for discussing whether or not an article merits inclusion in an encyclopedia, not whether it is contentious or poorly written. The only reason I even came across the ACIM controversy was that I was researching your other noms after being so surprised by the Big Brother nom. When I saw a similar pattern I decided to contact you. Just wanted to clear up this issue and make sure everyone is on the same page. As a final note, try to lighten up on the "gender offensive", "buddy" issue. It's hard to tell people's gender on the net, try to assume good faith. Thanks. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it is up to any one user to write the policies and that they have evolved over a period of time. The person you are speaking about with the gender issue, had already been told several times, and not only by me, to cease and desist. About the Big Brother article, per policy, it should not be on this encyclopedia. I don't think that any editor of experience should be assuming bad faith when the discussions haven't anything to do with personal issues. The other editor, that mentioned bad faith in ACIM was pointing out the possibility that I might be from some faction that doesn't like ACIM. I actually complimented him on his page regarding the statement since the possibility could exist. We discussed it and there was nothing more to it. Without doing any investigation of your own, such statements are rather blind, in my opinion. If you are telling me that policy doesn't really matter, then as far as AGF goes, it doesn't really matter either, does it. About NPOV and staying neutral, I don't think there is any pattern that you can justify about me at all, and none exists. I hadn't ever heard of ACIM before there were problems arising from their actions. I don't think you have taken the time while on vacation to notice all of the BF comments, changing people votes in AfD, and etc, that certain editors decided they needed to do in order to protect certain articles. None of that, however, stopped me from doing the research on the cited sources. And it turns out that the book itself is out of print, and that the acronym "ACIM" is a registered trademark. The court case that those citations left out filled in most of the blanks that showed that all of the rest of the cited sources were actually a close knit association and a single company. Either way, I don't play favorites, I only read the rules. Policy is first, followed by guidelines and not the other way around. Sure, you might say, that just isn't the reality around here, and that 90% of the entire encyclopedia doesn't meet spec. I can only answer that by saying that it doesn't meet spec because the policies are ignored. So basically, since I am still new, not even being here more than a couple weeks, the policy is the only thing that I can trust for sure that meets consensus. So I suggest that if you believe that I have some sort of problem with AfD, that you consult the policy again for yourself and make suggestions for rewriting it. AfD is not the place to be discussing changes in policy. About Big Brother, had I know that the other editor owned the page and that he was allowed to do so, I wouldn't have ever bothered to work on it. And had I known that it makes no sense to discuss an article like the documentation says, I wouldn't have ever bothered to reason with an irrational, unreasonable person. Ste4k 22:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As others have noted [12] , your writing style makes it hard to understand what you're saying. What I can make out seems very confused. OK, first you say "the Big Brother article, per policy, ... should not be on this encyclopedia." To what policy could you possibly be referring? Does that fact that the article was speedy kept mean anything to you?

Next you mentioned the other editor who accused you of a bad faith AfD nom, Andrew Parodi. You say he broght up the "possibility that [you] might be from some faction that doesn't like ACIM," and that you "complimented him on his page regarding the statement." This is a patent falsehood, as proven by a glance at your edits to his talk page, none of which are complimentary to say the least.[13] [14] [15] [16] And the claim the "we discussed it and there was nothing more to it," is obscenely wrong, considering what actually came of it: he quit Wikipedia and you taunted him on the way out[17].

All of this worries me, since you seem to combine a flimsy grasp of policy with a stubborn and self righteous nature, a dangerous combination. Doesn't it concern you that at least six of your recent AfD noms have resulted in or are trending towards clear consensus keeps?[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Do you not feel that you may be in the wrong when the last three comments on your talk page concern problems with the AfD process, and now another editor has said on an AfD page that "Ste4k should be chastised for acting so dishonestly"? [24] I guess this is to be expected from a user whose first contributions to wikipedia were attempting to insert information about a cursed newsgroup into the Curse article, and then edit warring over it, resulting in its current protection.

In conclusion, if you continue to misuse AfD I will open an RfC concerning your conduct. I think I have enough for a strong case already, but I'm willing to give you another chance. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 04:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: " Next you mentioned the other editor who accused you of a bad faith AfD nom, Andrew Parodi. "

This is not the person to whom I referred. Thanks. Ste4k 07:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is the person to whom I referred in the original comment. Who could you have possibly thought I was referring to, seeing as I included a link to his comment? Did you not bother to follow the link before you replied that I didn't understand him correctly, or are so many editors suggesting bad faith noms by you that it's hard to keep them straight? Thanks. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Civility reminder re: "Authorship of A Course in Miracles"

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Kickaha Ota 01:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern, and will try to speak more like a dictionary. In the past, however, this usually enflames people with passions even more. Thanks for the reminder, either way, and thank you for brining their side to the table. Ste4k 06:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment from AnonMoos

Dude, I never did the slightest editing whatsoever on "Authorship of A Course in Miracles" -- I just made a suggestion on the talk page (a suggestion which the comments you left on my talk page do not appear to address in any manner whatever)... AnonMoos 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Community Miracles Center

Hi. Thanks for the interesting bit you left on my talk page. I am not sure you understood my comment on the CMC AfD page so just in case let me be perfectly clear. I in no way meant (or believe) that you had some sort of malicious intention for nominating it to AfD and apologize if it passed as such. Rather, I was refuting the previous message by trying to say (rather clumsily I might add) that even if that had been the case, it would not have changed a thing about my evaluation: that article is beyond repair and should be clearly recognized as such by the whole wiki community. In any case, I commend you for doing the dirty work. I recently tried to clean up the hotel category myself and faced some heat... By the way, if you have a minute or two, I would appreciate your comments on proposed guidelines I'm trying to setup for hotels at WP:HOTELS. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 01:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Be careful ':)

Just a note, but although some or most of the spelling of an article meets normal conditions, sometimes misspellings must remain in order to be factually correct. Just letting you know. By the way, thanks for taking care of it. :) Ste4k 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to my edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Authorship_of_A_Course_in_Miracles&curid=3663921&diff=60878527&oldid=60878370 ? In which case I think my edit was correct. However, I do understand the need to quote sources directly and carry over spelling mistakes with a [sic] etc. and I'm trying to write my script / perform edits in such a way that these quotes aren't 'corrected'. If I do make mistakes let me know and I will rectify them. Rjwilmsi 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

William Thetford

Thanks for the comment in AfD about ACIM. Do you really think that it should be kept even though the citations for ACIM are nothing more than self-serving websites? I don't ask this as a challenge, but seriously looking for information. I am rather new here and would appreciate the comments. I normally do "cleanup work" and maintenance and I came upon another article, which is the book that the advocacy group centers upon. I performed the citing analysis on the references and besides having no verifiability, they appeared to have been modified to look as many sources rather than only a few. I corrected those and attempted to put the facts into the article and was presented with a wave of unpleasurable sentiment. Since articles should have actual facts and I was not allowed to edit and only ignored in my requests for discussion, I took it upon myself to submit for review each of the articles in the entire tree. I personally don't have time for playing revert/vandal games, and allowing others to make the decision seemed very fair to me. If you have any questions about any of that, please feel free to let me know. Thanks! Ste4k 06:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I presume that you refer to the William Thetford article up for AfD today? Don't forget to add links to articles to which you refer, it is so much easier to understand enquiries that way! My comments don't refer to the verifiability or otherwise of the material relating to A Course in Miracles, as I have no knowledge of that subject. I refer instead to the language and tone of the material added. It seems very poor and subjective in scope, decidedly less-encyclopedic than the biographical material at the top of the article. If the cleanup work involves removing unverified material then so be it. An encyclopedia is not the place for opinion or polemic. If something can't be verified through research then it should be clearly marked to this effect and deleted if research proves fruitless. It is good that you observe the three revert rule as it is in no one's best interest to see you blocked for edit warring.

I think that the message is that cleanup involves more than tidying up grammar and syntax. A good editor should have the principles of writing a good article in mind when carrying out this process. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Gary Renard

Thanks for the barnstar! Glad I was able to help you out. :)

Well, there's no "notability scale", it's just my opinion. The book seems to be at least somewhat popular (otherwise it wouldn't be ranked so high on Amazon.com). Since it's only my opinion, I chose weak keep. I'll probably change my "vote"/argument if there's no verifiable notability.

And don't worry about the new user thing, I've only been around since January. I've been reading up and getting familiar with the guidelines and policies, so I can actually make arguments like the ones on AfD. --Coredesat talk 09:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, Ste4k. The discussion pages of AfD nominations are used sometimes, but they usually are not necessary. The AfD page is pretty much a talk page itself and there is usually room for all comments. The talk pages tend to be used when the discussion has gotten very long, especially when the comments are not directly relevant to deciding whether to keep the article or delete it or are procedural, such as whether the nomination should be closed early. -- Kjkolb 08:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:db-bio articles

Hello Ste4k, you're welcome. You'll notice that I removed the tags and suggested you use {{prod}} or AfD instead, since the articles asserted notability. If you think they're non-notable you can certainly go ahead with the prod or afd. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! --Fang Aili ^talk 18:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to parse down your nominations--you can just say it violates WP:NOT, WP:VER, etc, without going into detail. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean you don't have to go into as much detail as you did. But they're fine. :) --Fang Aili ^talk 14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Geurilla

Hello! Just droping in. A quick evaluation of the situation quickly tells me that the main problem isn't one person or the other, and you both need to cool down a little bit so we can talk rationally. Thanks for your understanding. Now, before we begin, let's go over some basic courtesy that everyone should be given:

'Please read and deeply contemplate the meaning of the following fundamental philosophies of being nice':

• Avoid making nasty personal attacks (Mean statements directed at a users character), we need to talk about Wikipedia not each other.
• Be nice to each other, that's the only way anything gets done. If both parties are mean and unsympathizing, then no one will get what they want.
• Assume good faith in other editor's intentions. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, so obviously we trust that everyone has good intentions when it comes to using it. If everyone were out to harm Wikipedia... well... we'd just be screwed.
• Basically... play nice  :)
  
  

If everyone is in agreement with the above philosophies, then let's have a nice lovely sit down with a delicious bagel and discuss what's going on. Shall we? -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{(Prophesize|Witchcraft)} 17:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I move this to the top of the screen please? Ste4k 17:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free. Oh, and by the way, that discussion on my talk page was involving a different dispute, so everything we're doing will be here, yes. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{(Prophesize|Witchcraft)} 18:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What discussion? On the bottom was the person who was harrassing me. I am 0RR. (religiously) They didn't like my edits, it was all based on their sources, they refused to talk to me, then they started harrassing. Most of them were just IP addresses. I don't know where to go exactly, so I started with a WP:3O, it still sitting on the bottom of the page. It's marked "dispute". It said to be neutral. AmiDaniels suggested an RfC. So I opened one too, etc. It's listed under the literature/media section over there. There might be some conversation on his talk page to, but I really don't care to check. :) Ste4k 18:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What article did this start at? I need to gather some info before I can do anything at the moment. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{(Prophesize|Witchcraft)} 19:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically there is an advocacy group called ACIM or maybe something else, if such things have names. Authorship_of_A_Course_in_Miracles Ste4k 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, if the second party doesn't want to reply... then... uh... there's nothing I can really do. I might recommend a request for mediation at the Mediation Comittee... but I really don't know what to do. Sorry! -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{(Prophesize|Witchcraft)} 21:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Housemates Table and Original Research

Please see the talk page of BB06 to discuss the use of the housemates table in the article -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 02:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The helpme request

In case someone asks in the future, I finally found the list of currently activated extensions. (Located here). Thanks for responding to my request.--SomeStranger^(t) 12:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Vanispamcruftisement

You're very welcome. This is one WP:NEO that's quite useful. Providing free advertising for small businesses, which is what those ACIM articles are, is not what an encyclopedia is for. Best wishes ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

ACIM

Please take the trouble to identify precisely what problems exist within these articles, and detail what needs to be done to fix thewm, in neutral terms. Avoid baiting, or being baited by, Andrew or anyone else. If the content cannot be sourced and verified it will eventually be removed, but there is no deadline. I am as vehemently opposed to the abuse of Wikipedia to promote commerical enterprises as anyone, but I don't really have time to research this in depth. Remember: reliable secondary sources independent of the movement are what is needed, for both support and criticism. Just zis Guy you know? 18:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Wapnickk.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wapnickk.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Archives

• Archive 1 - Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:30:10 +0000
• Archive 0 - 17 June 2006 05:01 - Sun, 25 Jun 2006 06:04:20 +0000

Archive Procedure