User talk:Ste4k

1. To discuss articles, please use the appropriate Discussion page of that article.
2. To contact me click on this link
3. Please avoid linking to articles, but if you need to do so, use the entire url rather than a wikilink. This reduces the workload in disambiguity cleanup, among other things.

---

• condensed 3 weeks

---

Admins: please ask before presuming to modify the comments of other users on this page. If you have questions regarding policy on this page, please see Censorship. This page is well policed by the user, her friends, and vandalbots. Do not make changes to the style, tags, labels, templates, notices, just to prove a point. If your purpose is to revert vandalism, please be sure that the vandal has only edited another editor's comments. The purpose of this page is to communicate with user Steak. 50% of that communication belongs to her. Thanks!

---

curses are not real

Just to be clear, Ste4k, there is not actually such a thing as a "curse", as you seem to believe in your persistent insertion of a weird story about a "cursed newsgroup". Please stop adding this silliness to an otherwise fine article. Sdedeo (tips) 23:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Sdedeo, and I appreciate your further comments on the Talk:Curse about the rephrasing of the section to avoid such an interpretation in the future: "Congrats on rephrasing the paragraph so as not to claim the existence of a real live internet curse. -- Sdedeo (tips) 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)" Ste4k 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on June 19 2006 (UTC) to Curse

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 06:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Connolly, for bringing this matter to my attention. I am sorry that you hadn't the time to read the discussion in Talk:Curse or check to see that the revisions made had changed the content. I have taken the time that you set aside for me to become more familiar with the 3RR. I have also become more aware of the purposes of the Talk pages. Thanks again. Ste4k 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But you have also leapt straight back into reverting, so you get another block: 24h this time William M. Connolley 20:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the revert was made to prevent vandalism, and proper procedure for preventing vandalism

was followed. Ste4k 20:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I am new and unfamilar to the wiki environment. I am reading about how all of this works, but

am still unclear on whether your reference to "discussion" earlier meant e-mail, the talk-page of the subject,

your talk-page, or this-page here. I haven't any idea how you are properly notified to discuss this issue or

where exactly such discussions normally take place. Please allow some patience. Ste4k

I suggest, if you're new, you apply WP:1RR until you're settled in. And perhaps beyond. Discussion refers to the talk pages of the article. Its boilerplate text in my block message, though William M. Connolley 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Documentation of the vandalism as well as full justification for the addition to the article

is discussed and was further appended this morning in the talk-pages of the article.

In this particular revert today, two instances of blanking were reverted, one of a person

whom does not have a talk-page to discuss. The other person was advised on their talk-page

about blanking. Per the person that only has an internet address, they were invited on the

talk-page of the article to participate. I appreciate your reference to 1RR and will read

that shortly. Thanks. Ste4k 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request that you also please notice the repetitive vandalism on the page CURSE by the person at 88.105.251.105. This person has ignored attempts to discuss their reverts, and their reverts are simple vandalism (Blanking). The times listed in the history are:

20:18, 19 June 2006 88.105.251.105 (→Cursed News Groups)

08:26, 19 June 2006 88.105.251.105 (→Cursed News Groups)

20:22, 18 June 2006 88.105.251.105 (→Cursed News Groups)

09:11, 18 June 2006 88.105.251.105 (→Cursed News Groups)

07:55, 17 June 2006 88.105.251.105 (→Cursed News Groups)

Four of the revisions which I made that you counted for my violation of the 3RR rule were to revert the simple vandalism by this person. I did not, however, at the time know how to revert using the actual instructions by using an old version, but had reapplied the edits by hand. I was also unaware of the "Edit summary" box and how it is correctly used. Thanks. Ste4k 21:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to be taking an overly legalistic appropach to this situation, let me simplify it for you: If I see you edit warring on this or any other article in the future in a manner similar to the disruptive way you edit warred on Curse, I will block you for much, much longer than William M. Connolley has. I strongly agree with William's suggestion that you try adopting WP:1RR as your personal policy until you are settled in. Nandesuka 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

unblock

{{unblock|another user requesting a review of this block}} admins, please look at this

I've protected Curse and would like for all involved edit warriors to have an opportunity to discuss the article. While I think this block was appropriate given the circumstances, blocking should be preventitive, rather than punitive, and there is no need for this user to be blocked whilst the article is protected. Unblocking now. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems we missed this, but better late than never

Hello Ste4k, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Luna Santin 08:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

• Oh, and finally responding to your thanks -- of course! I'm always happy to help somebody out, even if I am notoriously slow responding to talk page messages. Still getting a bit used to things around here, myself, been here less than a month. Everybody was new at some point, just some are more forgetful about the experience than others. I saw your note on the Curse talk page, I'll probably respond to it sometime tommorow when I'm more awake. Luna Santin 10:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ahhh, diffs are divine. Took me a bit to get used to them, but by now when something gets hotly disputed, I have a tendency to start reading the diffs exclusively. As far as mistakes go, I like to say the most important part of making them is learning from the exerience. Though, by the sound of things, you're picking stuff up pretty quickly. Luna Santin 11:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Discussion Pages

I didn't delete the discussion page, I was trying to archive it. While I was doing that, I found a bug in Firefox which was making only part of the text appear when I saved the page. I've managed to sort it all out, and the main talk page is back to normal, along with the archive. Sorry about that. --JD^talk_email 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

I have not been ignoring any of your comments, and I have not been repeatedly reverting your edits. I made minor relevant adjustments to your edits because some of the things you had written were incorrect. --JD^talk_email 23:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for showing me where the infoboxes are.Yugioh73036 07:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Yugioh73036

Again thx. Srry for the trouble.Yugioh73036 03:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Yugioh73036

Removed comment?

I didn't remove any comments of yours, I just didn't select it when I copied a piece of it so I could answer each point individually. Your original comment is still there, with your original post. --JD^talk_email 14:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

➨ ЯEDVERS awards this Barnstar to Ste4k for doing the hard work converting categories - a hard job!

-bio-notability +importance

Is there some project going on to replace the bio-notability tag with the importance tag? I noticed the tag switch on a few articles I've edited and thought I'd ask. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what used to be Here got finished. I do not know exactly what templates will be changed, but User:Redvers gave me a star for finishing it. You might want to check with him. Ste4k 20:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I know what happened here. Correct me if I'm mistaken: you were doing cleanup work moving category entries on articles for a category that had been deleted. At the time, the {{bio-notability}} tag had the old (deleted) category, so you switched the tag to {{importance}}, which had the correct new category? Let me know, thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dan! Yes, I believe you are correct. I am very new however and your description sounds very accurate to me with only two details. I was givenn some help on how to do the cleanup, and I tried my best to make sure that the Edit Summary accruately reflected what was removed with a minus sign. If one of the articles had a <div> type, then I read it, removed it, and noted that as well with -div(whatever). Hope this helps. :) Ste4k 00:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes that does help, thanks for the reply. I certainly appreciate your cleanup efforts, we need more helpful Wikipedians like yourself! The only reason I bring this up is because, although {{importance}} and {{bio-notability}} are similar in that they both indicate the article has notability issues, they do differ enough in meaning that they should be used mutually exclusively. {{importance}} merely indicates that the article needs more information regarding it's importance, whereas {{bio-notability}} takes it one step further and indicates that the article could be subject to deletion if the importance isn't established.

If someone did tell you to switch {{importance}} for {{bio-notability}}, please let me know; I could be missing something important (for example, sometimes templates are marked for eventual removal, in which case it should have been removed). If not though I think we should switch the tags back. Someone has already corrected the {{bio-notability}} tag so that it uses the proper category.

If you'd like, I can help you do this fairly quickly using some tools that I have. Just let me know (again, if there is some other reason I haven't thought of as to why the tags should have been switched do let me know). Thanks 00:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)--AbsolutDan ^(talk)

Hi Again, Dan. Yes, I understand about all of those concerns. The chief purpose of the cleanup was to remove a dual entry for the new importance Category. I am not qualified enough to say whether the bio template is scheduled for deletion. That tag though, referred to the old Category only though, and not the new Category page. The only other template besides the bio template which triggered that Category was the vanity template. Please feel free to revert any changes made, but be aware that you may end up recreating the old category. I cannot tell you if that would happen either way, yes or no. I would suggest that you drop Redvers a line though since he was notified after I had completed the task. You could TEST the idea to see if the old template triggers the old page, and if it does, simply undo it. That MIGHT even trigger an alarm bell for somebody somewhere, if they care. Thanks, and I wish I could be of more help. Ste4k 00:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are absolutely right; at the time of your edits the template was in error, in that it still contained the old category. I've verified that someone did later change it to what I believe to be the correct category, "Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance". But you're right again in that I should try it once before doing any sort of mass change. I will do that. Thanks again for your hard work and taking the time to discuss this with me --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD, MfD, CfD, ABC, NBC, OMG, BBC...

Hi Ste4k!

Short answer: Yes!

Long answer: Sorry, yes but wrong place. The distinctions are horrible, but we put certain elements of Wikipedia stuff in certain places. So articles (stuff with a URL of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<name of article>) go to Articles for Deletion. Categories (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:<name>) got to Categories for Deletion. Management things (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:<name>) go to Miscellany for Deletion. And templates (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:<name>) go to Templates for Deletion.

In this case, the category you (wonderfully!) cleared should have gone to CfD. However, CfD had already decided to delete it when it was empty, so, in theory, they should spot it themselves and delete it. In practice, there are well over 2 million pages here, so they won't. So I dropped the main CfD talk page a note to remind them.

Don't worry too much about these definitions. They trip everyone up - even people who have been here forever, even Jimbo himself - now and again!

Good editors here do the work and care little for the structure. Good editors see other good editors and clear up behind them happily. Only people with nothing better to do will complain about mixing up the alphabet soup we manage behind!

Thanks again and happy editing! ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hi Ste4k!

Blimey, yes, there are loads!

A couple of thousand manual cleanup cases can be found at Wikipedia:Cleanup. The whole cleanup effort is controlled from Wikipedia:Cleanup process. And the people doing the cleanup are all at Wikipedia:Cleaning department.

Start with Wikipedia:Cleaning department is my advice. A long read of the page and the links off it are useful. If you haven't already done so, immerse yourself in the Wikipedia Manual of Style - a perverse, hard to read, hard to follow document that tells you more than you'll ever need to know about how Wikipedia articles are constructed, how they should be constructed and how people would like them to be constructed (but they never are).

Remember that all of these are guidelines. Ideally they should be stuck to, but in reality the majority will/should welcome new, sourced content more than pretty bold, italic and other such trimmings. The majority will/should appreciate efforts to cleanup as well, but often we don't even notice it and the turnover in cleaners-up is tremendous as they are so terribly underrated when we should be making statues of them. Esperanza is one of the places where you can go and boast about doing good cleanup work and get praise and thanks - their job is to praise and thank people for doing the jobs others don't want to do!

Finally, if you're hardcore into cleanup, put {{Resources for collaboration}} onto your user page or a subpage (like User:Ste4k/Cleanup for instance), save and see a box magically appear with a whole list of maintenance tasks and co-ordination pages. After you've run away screaming, come back and do some cleaning: you'll get no praise, do hard work, never managed more than about 5% of what you want to do, but others will secretly love you forever and you'll have done a Great Work for mankind. No, honestly. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Empty talk pages

Greetings. I just polled a few other admins (well, two), and our consensus is that deleting empty talk pages isn't worth the effort. I can't see it listed as a Cleanup task either, for what that's worth. Note that this is not an official order to cease and desist; I'm happy to talk about it. However, there's lots of other Cleanup tasks that your time might be more profitably directed towards... IceKarmaॐ 06:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that I am qualified for much else at this time, and this helps me learn. It took me about an hour to find this task in the first place. I learn very quickly, but regardless, there doesn't seem to be many people that have even a moment to help out a newbie. I am following the instructions here:

[[2]]

It was suggested that I look into the Cleaning Department, and this was, with a little help on IRC, something I figured I could do without getting into any trouble. Please review my history and note that I do not like to be political. I follow rules to the "T", and some of the rules here appear to be contradictory. On my first day I received a 3RR for trying to edit a page in good faith while dealing with a vandal, and people that cannot read. I am checking each and every page's history in this list:

[[3]]

I appreciate that there MAY be a lot of other cleanup tasks around, but without anyone around to answer enough questions for five minutes or so I would more than likely end up lost in the documentation again. Therefore, directed is one thing, and efficiently directed another. I do sincerely appreciate your intentions. If you have the time to help, I would be happy to oblige. Please feel free to use this space for this conversation. Thanks. :) Ste4k 06:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your question at the help page

Welcome to Wikipedia! Please see my answer to your question at the new contributors' help page. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 19:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

helpme question

{{helpme}} Are there docs on the "My Preferences" section ?

You can find more information about preferences at Help:Preferences and Wikipedia:Preferences. --TantalumTelluride 02:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. To find pages about using Wikipedia, it is often helpful to search within the project and help namespaces. For example, after clicking search, you can uncheck the (Main) box and check the Wikipedia box to search the project namespace. --TantalumTelluride 02:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: already warned

^{23 June 2006 21:10} Ste4k wrote: I already warned 67.189.86.65 but you did the revert I had planned. Just to let you know.

Thanks for the info. I've removed my warning, as there's no point in warning someone twice for the same edit. I'll keep an eye on the user's contributions though – Gurch 21:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Afd Discussion

23 June 2006 16:12 Ste4k wrote: Hi! Just letting you know that I only intend to discuss the facts about that article. I hope I didn't rub you the wrong way. The reason those two terms are inappropriate, besides being unprofessional, is that you are more than likely under a mistaken impression about my gender. :) Good luck with your projects!

Well, first and foremost, a belated but very hearty welcome to Wikipedia, the world's most confusing encyclopaedia! Or, alternately, the encyclopaedia with more social implications than the Blackwell Dictionary of Social Thought. At any rate, two things are true: 1) Wikipedia is big, and 2) Wikipedia is complicated. But I see that you've already figured that much out.

I made my first edits to the 'pedia back before they started giving out that nifty Welcome to Wikipedia box you've got up there higher on the page. And the number of helpful and (usually) friendly editors, admins, peer moderaters, and the like was significantly smaller. Needless to say, there are many more resources available to you than there would have been a year ago. That doesn't necessarily make it easier on you, though: Wikipedians who have been here a long time are often set in their ways, or they have seen the project and its meta-existence evolve through stages that give them insight into subtleties which may not be apparent to you.

That said, you're doing a good job. I've noticed that you're gravitating towards the Cleanup circle. They could certainly use the help, as they're constantly piling on the workloads faster than they can finish them. But be aware: just as you may hold the belief that the 'pedia needs to be streamlined in certain ways, so may others believe that it needs to be crammed full of as much information as it can hold. I can see that you've already had your first scuffles to that effect. No matter; we're all here for the same reason, really: to make an encyclopaedia.

It's clear to me that you've taken some time to familiarize yourself with the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, which was certainly a good prerogative on your part, and more than many people do when they first arrive. However, let me introduce you to two things that may have escaped your attention. (It is always a matter of ire for me that they are not on the Welcome Template.)

The first item is Wikipedia:Assume good faith. That is to say, a user's contributions to Wikipedia are much more about that user's intentions than the actual letter of what is written. Try to see disagreements from the other user's point of view: this will help you in understanding what the actual conflict is, often quite different from the apparent one.

The second item, and in my opinion the most important concept on Wikipedia, is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. That one ought to be obvious: remember the goals of Wikipedia, and, when you brush up against a rule, think about how that rule or guideline jives with the overall spirit and goals of Wikipedia ... or how it doesn't.

So I guess I'll bring this rather tedious monologue to a close. And remember, as one of the failed suggested mottos of Wikipedia said: Wikipedia: This statement is a lie.

(P.S. Once again, apologies about the vocabulary. I, and most of the people I know, use words like that as non-gendered words, applicable to anyone who identifies themselves as male, female, or something else. I do realize that there are people who do not use them that way, and am more than happy to respect that. With regards to your saying that they are unprofessional ... well, that brought a smile to my face: I haven't heard someone make a claim of professionality on Wikipedia in a long, long time.)

Peace! - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 11:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to bounce conversations back and forth, because it's easier for someone outside the conversation looking for it to follow. If most of the posts aren't too long, then they can be copied and reposted on the respective pages, to make it easier to follow, but there's not necessarily a need to do that. So if you leave your messages on my page, I'll leave mine on yours. I think that works best for both of us.

I ought to let you know that I did think the article should be deleted, but I disagreed with your reasoning in the nomination. I don't like seeing articles deleted for what I consider the wrong reasons, because I feel that it sets bad precedent. Of course, now that the article is condemned to WikiHell, I have no problem with it going there.

You may notice, through occasional bumps with me, that I tend to lean towards inclusionism, although I prefer to think of myself more as a WikiRealist. That is, we Wikipedians have to choose our battles. I chose your nomination to make a point, so sorry if that rubbed you the wrong way. My comments were with the best of intentions.

There certainly are parsec-wide holes in both Wikipedia function and guidelines, but I strongly suspect it will remain that way forever. And, while a certain amount of culling the herd is necessary, I tend to live and let live. I'm neither an article saver or an article slaughterer.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by your 'standards'. There is a set of guidelines that already exists. They are generally considered 'This is what you should do' and not 'This is what you have to do', and they are constantly evolving through editing and whatnot. That's one of the interesting things about the 'pedia: anyone can edit the pages that the rules appear on! Wikipedia uses policy, guideline, straw poll, and the like. Take some time to surf through them, and feel free to comment on them or to recommend your own. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 13:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, your articles arguments (sorry, not paying attention to what I'm typing) were perfectly sound. I disagreed with them, but that doesn't make them wrong, and they were worth bringing up. I was unaware of this particular advocacy circle on Wikipedia, but am certainly more than aware that such things exist. Unfortunately, you can't root them out, and they've got a right to tout their business here. The best you can do is go about pulling the weeds -- a thankless job, as hundreds of pages are deleted every day, but someone's gotta do it.

Some Wikithinkers say that Wikipedians ought to form special interest groups like WikiProjects and Wikissociations. Some others say it's inherently divisive and they ought not. In my opinion, they're perfectly fine if they advance the interests of the 'pedia as a whole. A string of articles all advertising the same company, as you correctly point out, does not. Unfortunately, the best you can do is keep pushing for what you think is right. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 14:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to call me 'Che' -- I use it myself sometimes when sending a quick response that doesn't need a timestamp. I'm not sure if you're aware of the meaning of the term, but it's South American slang for 'guy' or 'mate'. And, while I'm not Hispanic, I took the name 'Che Nuevara' as a political play on words. And, while I'm not a communist either, I never got around to posting on my userpage why I did it.

In response to your question, no, not really. Most Wikipedians who realize that such things go on call them much less complimentary things. It's my own polite way of saying it. But if you start saying it too, then there's two of us, and if other people start saying it, then we're cool trendsetters! ;) - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 00:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking for a list of active extensions on english wikipedia

^{24 June 2006 04:04} Ste4k wrote: Hi! I read your question but am puzzled by the term "extensions". Can you describe for me what you are referring to? Thanks!

^{24 June 2006 04:17} Ste4k wrote: Please let me know if you have this resolved. Send me mail, please, thanks!

I am not sure if you are going to be able to help me out here if you don't know what a wikipedia extension is, but let me try to explain. There is a list of extensions over at mediawiki (m:Category:MediaWiki_extensions). I am looking for a list which tells me which extensions from the list are actually active on the english wikipedia. Thanks.--SomeStranger^(t) 18:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The importance of the Authorship of A Course in Miracles article

The article is important because A Course In Miracles is a major modern spiritual phenomenon. ACIM itself has sold over one million copies and has been translated into over a dozen languages, with many more translations set. By the time the translations are completed, ACIM will be available to roughly 93% of the population.

ACIM is the basis for SEVERAL best sellers.

ACIM sales have not slowed down over the years. It is predicted that ACIM will soon be as widely read as the Bible.

This is an issue of importance to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. -- Andrew Parodi 03:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I used your talk page to discuss (not "some article") Authorship of A Course In Miracles, because you are the one who keep saying it's not important. Besides, I'm tired of arguing on the talk page. As this is primarily an issue YOU are concerned with, I thought I'd go direct. Not entirely unheard of, you know. -- Andrew Parodi 03:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Authorship of A Course In Miracles article

I'll be brief. I am not posting on the talk page anymore because there is a great deal of arguing there that I am not interested in.

I posted to your talk page because you are the only one who has voiced the concern that the article is not important.

I'm not going back to the talk page of that article because it's too ugly. If you want to talk about it, we'll have to do it via our respective talk pages. -- Andrew Parodi 03:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: Regarding your suggestion that I have an "attachment" to that article, I actually have an attachment to everything I write. I can't imagine writing something that I don't have attachment to. You have no more right to tell me not to have attachments to what I write than I do to tell you to HAVE attachments to what you write. To each his own. -- Andrew Parodi 03:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

^{26 June 2006 03:18} Ste4k wrote: I am going to ignore you on my talk page now. I consider your attitude harrassing. Thanks.

I'll get some "ice" and "chill off" the same point when you get a life and chill off.

I have no understanding of why you make such objective statements about articles about whose content you demonstrate no objective understanding.

The fact that you are only one contesting the "importance" of the article is "sourced" in the article's talk page. The arbitrator of that article, a completely neutral person, even referred to your contesting of the article's importance as "nonsense."

As for the accusation of "harrassment," funny. You have had an arrogant and condescending attitude with that article all the way through, not just to me but the other editors. Oh, and that statement is sourced by reading the talk page of the article in question. -- Andrew Parodi 03:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

{{guerrilla-mediation-request}}(_{nowiki applied during restore of archives to prevent activation}) This person is harrassing me.

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)

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)

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)

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)

That turned out to be a bad idea. A direct answer to a direct question would have better, Will. I don't need to be qualifying what resources shouldn't be included. You need to justify which sources should be included. Taking advantage of a newbie -- you should be ashamed of yourself. Ste4k 16:16, 21 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 [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] [13] [14] 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 [15] , 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.[16] [17] [18] [19] 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[20].

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?[21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] 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"? [27] 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)

Hi

Got your message. In order to come to a reasoned decision on that afd I would have to really study the material which I am not prepared to do right now (I never vote until I research myself, meaning I spend a lot more time than many, and that one looks like a doozy). However, from a cursory glance, I thought you might find this discussion at the village pump informative, regarding that taking verifiable facts and synthesizing them into something new is original research, i.e., we are not in the business of saying a+b=c. Articles that are c are verboten.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

re: this image

Hi Stifle, I was wondering about the removal of this image you made today. I was under the impression that you had deleted it for some reason, possibly copyvio. However on further investigation, I found that the image is still with us. Could you fill me in please? Thanks. Ste4k 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the image originally as it was tagged as a {{web-screenshot}}, which it clearly wasn't. Now it is correctly tagged as a film still, although it may be deleted again as it does not fall under fair use. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Preview button

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What should we do sketchy claims in ACIM articles?

Hi, Ste4k. I appriciate your efforts to bring the ACIM collection of pages into alignment with WP policy. You seem to be doing a really good job with A Course in Miracles (book). I understand your motive to keep the encyclopedia credible and fair, and I share your concern. Since the book is moderately popular according to amazon.com sales ranks, yet evades critical review and analysis as a serious philosophical or theological work, perhaps an {{OR}} tag at the top of some ACIM related articles (such as the main one) will allow editors to make a set of uncited objective claims pending more scholarly examination from which to reference. I suggest this from a pragmatic perspective, for I think that if I were to type in "A Course in Miracles" into the searchbox, I should recieve some information about what it is about, and I would find this useful, under the condition that an {{OR}} tag was explicit. Where Wikipedia can't provide a fair distilation of a small library of texts written on a topic, I think it should still strive to make itself useful. Where there are claims that are somewhat sketchy or doubtful, perhaps it is better to qualify our claims and state that they are sketchy before being rid of the information outright by deleting it. Please consider what I've said, and I would love to hear your own comments and suggestions in turn. I think it would be great if we could come to agreement while accomodating each other's concerns for the integrity of the encyclopedia. Again, I appriciate your contributions,

—Antireconciler 02:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the push to delete or significantly rewrite all ACIM related articles?

Dear Ste4k,
I am the one whose articles you have been trying to delete, many of which you have already had deleted, some of which fortunately were caught before it was too late. You seem to believe that I have some sort of a vested interest in promoting ACIM, and that you must stop me. I don't know. I certainly despaired when I came back from my 4th of July vacation to find so many of the articles that I had researched long hours to create trashed, deleted, or nominated for deletion! Indeed I am an ACIM student, and admittedly I have a pro-ACIM bias. Still, I have done this primarily to further my own study of ACIM, and if anyone else might have benefitted from my work, then I thought, 'so be it'. All of the main article was reviewed by several others familiar with ACIM and it was agreed that it was an accurate summary of the work. Will get back to you later. -Scott P. 16:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wapnickk.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wapnickk.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was aware of the orignal image, but Image:Wapnick-blue-frame.jpg also has a wrong copyright tag (I informed the uploader a couple of days ago, but he does not really seem to care) and it is thus currently tagged for speedy deletion. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the image is public domain just because there is no copyright notice is probably wrong. As it probably is copyrighted, it can however be used under fair use and should be tagged with {{fairusein|A Course in Miracles (book)}}. When doing so you must also add a fair use rationale (i.e. an explaination of why you think the image qualifies as fair use; see Help:Image_page#Fair_use_rationale and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use/Fair use rationale for detailed explainations and examples). (This whole process applies to Image:Wapnickk.jpg, too, in case you want to keep that).

Another good idea would be to contact A. H. Devor via the form on the homepage[28] and ask about the image's copyright status and if it is okay for it to be used on Wikipedia.

Let me know if you need more help. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars ship names

Hey, Coredesat! I've read your comments on the aformentioned articles. Please explain your thinking more to me, as your definately have more experience than I. If necessary, I'll add a description for every ship: it's condensed history, commander, accomplishments, famous battles it was at, and where it was destroyed.

Thanks,

RelentlessRouge 11:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nscheffey (talk · contribs)

re: your latest addition

Adding unsourced information to an article is distinctly different than removing unsourced information from an article.

Per policy: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

In the future, please provide reputable sources that justify the link that you provided. And please assume good faith. Thank you. Ste4k 08:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, chill out. Both of those links obviously belong in the article and your attempt to remove them has been reverted by another editor. You need to seriously calm down, you are not making any friends with your behavior. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review this and reconsider your actions from an objective viewpoint. Thanks. Ste4k 08:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, for once, make a cogent argument as to why these links should not be in the article. I am familiar with all of the policies you have linked to, and I still see no basis for many of your actions. I'm also not the only one to think so. You need to calm down and be reasonable. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 09:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not uncalm. I don't know why you would think I am. I don't know this man, and I don't dislike him, and I don't like him either way, he is just another human. He was involved in a one-million dollar law-suit. I think that if he knew that you purposely just added a direct link associating his biography (as an author) to a book that he didn't write, and he was sued a million dollars over, that he would probably make it worth some litigation on the part of the encyclopedia if he was so inclined. Don't you? If you have not been reading the ongoing conversation, then please do so since it is at least four or five screens long now. Thanks. Ste4k 09:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only have I read the talk page, I've commented on it. The link to ACIM should be on there because he was involved in a one million dollar law suit over it. That makes it relevent to the article. What about that don't you understand? I have yet to see you directly reply to a point I (or any one else) have made. Try it. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 09:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. He was not involved in a one million dollar law suit over that book. He was involved in a one million dollar law suit for his book, a different book, one which does not have the content that the book you are pointing/associating him with has. At the time of the lawsuit the book that you are pointing to did not even yet exist. Now that I have responded to your point please be kind enough to respond to mine. I think that if he knew that you purposely just added a direct link associating his biography (as an author) to a book that he didn't write, and he was sued a million dollars over, that he would probably make it worth some litigation on the part of the encyclopedia if he was so inclined. Don't you? Ste4k 10:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First you say he was "not involved in a one million dollar law suit over that book", then you say that I added a link to a book that "he was sued a million dollars over." This is within the same comment. Do you see how I have trouble following your logic?

No. What is your point? Is the word "that" confusing you?

The point is, he is associated with the ACIM movement because of this lawsuit.

Incorrect. "ACIM" is not a movement and he is not associated with that company. Companys rarely sue themselves or their associates.

A link to the ACIM page deserves to be in this article.

Why? It deserves to be in the article much less than links to the marine corp or articles about the aftermath of Nagasaki. I base my reasoning on the fact that ACIM is neither sourced nor spoken of in the biography, and 50% of the biography rest on the secondary source that describes Anderson's horrors of seeing Nagasaki first hand just after it was bombed. Do you suppose you can come up with a reasonable secondary source that would provide enough content in the article to justify the context for the link? If so, I am all ears. I'm especially interested because whatever article you find, I will probably be able to use in a different article that I am currently writing. Otherwise. No original research, please.

Your idea that he would litigate over this link and so we shouldn't include it is lunacy.

Your statement make no sense.

--Nscheffey^(T/C) 10:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k 23:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your anti-rationality forcefield is strong, let me try something else. From the 48 hours article[29]: "[Cult expert Rick] Ross also says that Anderson has taken the New-Age doctrine of a "A Course in Miracles," and twisted its principles of self-enlightenment." By that alone,a link to A Course in Miracles deserves to be on the page. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 00:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please lower your tone and read the documentation for yourself. Same title, different content, different author, different book. Thanks. Ste4k 00:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

re: the section recently added

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Ste4k 02:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't communicate with me through templates. It is a dick thing to do. And if you must use templates instead of thoughts, at least substitute them with "subst:". --Nscheffey^(T/C) 03:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Continued discussion of your AfD issues

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)

Note the time of day, please. Thanks. Ste4k 09:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This might also help jog your memory. Ste4k 09:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k you are one of the most confused/confusing people I have ever interacted with. Let me try to make this simple. When I ask you about another editor suggesting a bad faith nom by you, and then link to said accusation like so, I expect your replies to be concerning THAT EDITOR. The fact that you can't understand that is deeply disconcerting. Also, you have not replied to any of the points in my comment, which I would appreciate. Otherwise I will curse your userpage. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, your talk page design breaks the comment button, which is annoying. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise I will curse your user page

Explain this remark please. Thanks. Ste4k 20:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A joke based on your preoccupation with cursed newsgroups.--Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

re: your latest addition

Adding unsourced information to an article is distinctly different than removing unsourced information from an article.

Per policy: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

In the future, please provide reputable sources that justify the link that you provided. And please assume good faith. Thank you. Ste4k 08:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, chill out. Both of those links obviously belong in the article and your attempt to remove them has been reverted by another editor. You need to seriously calm down, you are not making any friends with your behavior. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review this and reconsider your actions from an objective viewpoint. Thanks. Ste4k 08:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, for once, make a cogent argument as to why these links should not be in the article. I am familiar with all of the policies you have linked to, and I still see no basis for many of your actions. I'm also not the only one to think so. You need to calm down and be reasonable. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 09:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page is being vandalized. Please use this one here. It was occurring to fast for me to determine if you had mentioned anything. Ste4k 10:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Torrent finder

Hi, I hope you can take some time to vote on the AFD debate for the Torrent finder article (i noticed you had nominated another torrent site earlier). The debate is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torrent finder. thx! Zzzzz 11:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message about the ACIM articles

Thanks for your recent comment regarding the ACIM articles. A followup comment/ reply to your comment has been posted at my talk page.

-Scott P. 12:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent comment regarding the ACIM articles. A followup comment/ reply to your comment has been posted at my talk page.

-Scott P. 13:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: This black text over a black background formatting on your talk page makes it a bit of a task for me to read it, but to each his or her own.

It's not black, it's maroon, like wine. Perhaps you should adjust the settings on your monitor if that helps. Ste4k 14:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps my monitor or Graphics card are outdated (from 2000 16 bit High Color). I tried tweaking it but to no avial. No problem though. When I select text and increase the text size bytwo sizes, I can still read it. I've left another reply for you at my my talk page and also emailed you. Cheers. -Scott P. 23:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, yes, that must horrific. My monitor is a Sony 22 inch LCD and my graphics card is an ATI 9800 AIW Pro. My resolution is set at 1600 x 1200 32-bit color, but also I use transparent windows so I can generally read three to four overlapped windows at a time. There's enough landscape on this box to normally have about 7 or 8 windows open to Wiki, still keep an eye on two or three channels of IRC, my e-mail, a couple blog sites, and my actual work, of course. Ste4k 00:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Say what?

I decide to check out the AfD articles, not something I normally get involved in. I come to an article for deletion, A Course in Miracles (book). I look over it -- I see it's been documented and footnoted almost to the very last comma. I observe a tremendous argument ensuing over one word, "cult", that's being interpreted multiple ways. Multiple editors are squabbling over whether User:Ste4k is being "POV" for using it. I change the wording to eliminate the troublesome word while meeting what I see as the intent of the original author of the quote, Garrett. I think I do an adequate if not very eloquent job. I go to a lot of effort to explain what and why I made the change, citing the dictionary, etc. I do screw up and forget to sign some of my work, which you helpfully catch and fix.

I then vote in the AfD to delete the article but to keep its content and merge it into the main article. I explain my reasoning, but without going into detail as to my views of both articles as they presently stand. If I had, I would have said something along the lines that the main article flows well and is comprehensive; I think it's generally well written. At the same time, it screams out for about 200 {{fact}} tags. It's not clear to me how reliable it is. The book article, by contrast, is not as pretty and, as the principal author herself more or less says, reads like a U.S. District Court decision. There's a reason judges' decisions are not high literature and that's because they're shooting for reliability and precision, not memorable prose. There's considerable overlap between both articles with much discussion as to whether there should be a book article and a movement article or just one combined article; there's even discussion as to whether the word "movement" should be used. It seems to me as it all this talk of different articles is putting the cart before the horse (reliability), so I vote "merge and delete" so that the overall Wikipedia coverage can get fixed and streamlined with some sort of consensus built.

Now I wake up and I find that you've spent hours during the night sarcastically mutilating your own article. It appears that one word, "cult", and my good faith editing of its usage may have been your tipping point to go into a frenzy. That or my one vote in the AfD process. If you don't like my cult edit, just reverse it and explain how I got it wrong.

Then there's this message on my talk page:

"I'm not originally from the U.S. I was born in Kharkov. In our country, we beat liars, and if one wants to eat, they work. The only POV in that article I wrote was that I wanted to find out the truth, did research, marked it with citations for verifiability, refused to consider any source that came from some primary provider, and all I found out for my trouble was that this encyclopedia isn't even worth quoting. You should be ashamed to have your familiy member's name on this medium. Ste4k 07:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)"

What do I make of this? Are you saying that I'm a liar and should (or would) be beaten? That I should be working harder to eat? And what's this about my family?

And as for Wikipedia, being flawed, it certainly is that. It is profoundly flawed in terms of the reliability of some of its material. In fact, if so many millions of people didn't use it, I'd say forget about it. But the fact is, Wikipedia is very important and growing in importance everyday. Every day, more people abandon traditional sources of reliable information such as Britannica and turn to Wikipedia. Every month, Wikipedia's Google rankings move up higher and are often in the top 5 for a given search. The fact that so many other sites such as answers.com mirror the content makes what's written in Wikipedia seem all the more "reliable" since to the undiscerning, it looks like other sites are agreeing with Wikipedia.

So like it or not, Wikipedia is here to stay and further grow in importance. You can fume and I can fret, but our children and grandchildren will use it more and more as their first source of knowledge, reliable or not. That almost pessimistic view of Wikipedia's growing role is what motivates me -- not some idealistic, Woodstockian notion that "information longs to be free" or so much of the other idealistic stuff that motivates thousands of mostly earnest, smart but very young editors on this project.

--A. B. 13:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Color scheme

I accidentally clicked on this page in my watchlist, and the red-on-black color scheme blinded me. A trained parrot is typing this for me, which is very inconvenient, because the parrot only understands Spanish and my Spanish is quite poor. Please send replacement eyeballs. :) Kickaha Ota 17:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

snide

I was not trying to be snide, but I am startled to discover you have signally failed in understanding the point I was making. THe point is this: the Saihya Akademi Award exists to honour the most prominent cultural figures in various Indian vernaculars. This would have been apparent - or at least suggested - by reading the google results for the award. Next, the fact that 757 ghits exist is pretty decent. "Ramdhari Singh Dinkar", the most famous modern Hindi poet of all, gets a mere 1000 or so. This is known as WP:BIAS. There are certain cultures not as much on the internet as yet, and the world's most populousn nation is one of them. This should have been apparent to even the meanest intelligence.

I was further making a point that, even if you had doubts about the notability of a subject, if you are unwilling or perhaps incapable of carrying out even basic research and coming to simple conclusions, be a little humble when you recognise that you know nothing about the particular cultural, social, or political context that allows you to place this person. It means that this is definitely a BAD WP article; but you seem to have assumed it was an UNENCYCLOPAEDIC article, and that leap was unwarranted.

Finally, I pointed out that on WP we are all both readers and editors. That is the point. If you are capable of bringing this article to AfD, you should be capable of the basic research that everyone else put in. If not, dont bring articles to AfD and waste our time and energy. Hornplease 03:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss the point again, by a mile. I didnt actually have anything to do with the article, and the first time I saw it was on your AfD, so it would have been difficult for me to put references in before you nominated it. So although "I" dont establish any notability, my point is that "you" should realise that there are some places where you are just not qualified - or, it appears, able - to judge notability. Hornplease 14:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You make the absurd and self-serving claim that nobody would have believed the information contained in the article. As I said, it was a bad article. You had three options (1) Think "someone thinks this guy is a really major Hindi poet. What do I know about Hindi poets? Nothing. What might the internet tell me about Hindi poets? Nothing that I am capable of deciphering. So why dont I move on and nominate for deletion something else?" (2) Think "this article does not establish notability. Let me slap a nn template on it and dump it on the Indian administrators noticeboard." (3) Think "This article does not establish notability. I am clearly capable of judging notability. Let me nominate it for an AfD."

You picked the third. This was the wrong choice. Accept that, fix your behaviour, and move on. I am not 'making it personal', I would just like more people to realise that nominating articles for AfD is not the right way to try and clean them up, but a last resort. And people should not nominate articles about subjects about which they know absolutely nothing.

Finally: thanks for informing me about "India's tech standards." If you had had any experience of it at all, you would realise that 90 year old vernacular poets are not the kind of people who tend to get on to even a developing domestic web, which has a penetration till today of less than 4%.

As I said, learn from this, and move on. Hornplease 15:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Contacting

Ste4k, my MSN Messenger handle is lucas5w4@netscape.net if you would like to talk. Naturally I want to understand and do what I can. Take care, —Antireconciler 05:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[citation needed]

I have responded to your criticisms at User talk:A. B.#My final comments to Ste4k on my edits, demeanor, general morality, etc.

--A. B. 20:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. You put so much work into A Course in Miracles (book) -- I hope you'll either restore that content and sourcing or merge it into A Course in Miracles

--A. B. 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

for you :)

The Original Barnstar For improving Allerton High School even though you preferred it's deletion. Inner Earth 23:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Top-notch QA

The Barnstar of Diligence awarded to Ste4k for tirelessly ensuring neutral and verifiable articles and stomping out ignorance and original research. Never say "no one will check my references anyway." Ste4k will hear you. She'll hear you think it, even before you do. —Antireconciler 00:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Apostrophe use

In the phrase "for itself and all processes and software running under its control" (Runtime environment), its is correct, because it is a possessive pronoun (see table at personal pronouns). "Under it's control" would be incorrect because it's is a contraction for it is. Thanks for checking. Jim 00:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Reshaping Course-related articles

Hi Ste4k. I'm not sure how you read anything on this talk page the way you have it set up, but I want to suggest that if you want to improve A Course in Miracles, Endeavor Academy, and other articles related to the Course, you will probably save yourself considerable time and energy by simply taking out a notepad, doing some research, and then simply replace the entire artcile with a more reliable one when you're done, keeping anything that meets WP's standards from the original. No one can contest replacing unverifiable articles with verifiable ones. It looked like this was what you wanted to do (largely) with A Course in Miracles (book), and I think you were on the right track doing that. If the articles are not the way you want them, this is a much better method than posting numerous tags on pages and slowly reshaping them 1 edit at a time. If they aren't quality pages, it's better to either nominate them for deletion and let them go or write your own article. —Antireconciler 18:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:A Course in Miracles (book)

I've fixed the tag, my bad. Anyway, the reason I'm leaving the talk page is that it contains discussion relevant to the topic. The community didn't reject inclusion of the topic in the AfD, so it's of some value. Mangojuice^talk 18:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've gotten rid of your message box. The messages on your talk page are unreadable with it (in my browser, anyway). Mangojuice^talk 18:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the concern, however, now the characters are so large I can barely read but a single message or a part of one. Ste4k 18:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Deliberately inaccessable for the handicapped

I'm red-green color blind and this page is black on black to my eyes. I have to click edit to read it. If you wish to respond, please do on my talk page. It's kinda like stairs-in-the-front and a ramp-in-the-back to someone in a wheelchair. I don't feel welcome on this page. WAS 4.250 20:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Effective Communication

In case you don't realize, to many users, your page looks like this:

Obviously, it's very difficult to read. Could you consider changing the color scheme and font size to help put the effective back in effective communication? Thanks in advance; we'd all appreciate it. joturner 23:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the formatting as it makes it pretty much impossible to use this page. Please think of other users when designing your page. --mboverload@ 00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- I created a page for you at User talk:Ste4k/private. On that page, I've used transclusion to put the current contents of your User talk page, whatever they are, in the formatting you used to have. Anyway, from your comments to me earlier, I think you probably have some bad browser settings that make text too big. I think I can help fix that, if that's the case; email me if you want help with it. Mangojuice^talk 00:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, I apologize if my comment sounded insulting (I'm not sure, you seemed insulted). By saying put the effective back in effective communication and following the statement with a thanks, I thought I had conveyed a, as intended, light-hearted request. joturner 01:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I thought you were an admin. The other two admins involved in this matter have seriously upset me. I consider their condescending remarks rude to the point that I am leaving. Please accept my apologies for my thinking you had something to do with that. Ste4k 02:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Mboverload is not an admin either. Nevertheless, I think everyone here was trying to act in everyone's best interest (including yours). People may have been turned off from talking to you since it was difficult to read for most. If there is a particular reason, or just a preference, for the high constrast settings on your computer, that's perfectly fine. However, I think Mangojuice was just trying to assist you if you were simply unaware of altering your computer settings. Mboverload, although he may have seemed a little harsh, looks like he was also trying to just inform you of the situation for other uses and perhaps help you create a page that works for everyone, including you. If you need or want any help altering your page to make it readable to you and everyone else, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page (or Mangojuice on his talk page). joturner 02:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk: A Course in Miracles

Per your request I reviewed your comment. I have also left a message. I am again able to spend larger chunks of time editing and plan on working on some ACIM articles. As a personal observation, I do not think that the true believers over there are trying to POV-push, they just do not realize that they are in fact being POV. Their disregard of sources could also be explained by their New Age worldview rather than by bad faith. JChap (Talk) 00:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How dare I? =D

How dare I edit your page so people can read it? =D

Do you have vision problems, if that's the case then I'm sorry. However, I have never heard of vision problems needing everything to be different low contrast shades of purple in extremely small sizes.

Here, I'll fix the size issue for you. In Internet Explorer go up to the "View" drop down menu, go down to "Text size" and select "Medium" --mboverload@ 01:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not purposely mess up pages

Please do not insert overly large images into pages in order to extract revenge. Doing so is not civil and is against the rules. Thanks. --mboverload@ 01:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly was this? Ste4k 15:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The edit and history buttons

Feel free to revert back to your old version. This is a wiki after all.--mboverload@ 02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Mboverload.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mboverload.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Leaving yet?

So, when exactly *are* you leaving? You've said you were leaving? Why don't you actually do what you say instead of harassing someone for fixing your page. People have been trying to help you, but all you are doing is ignoring their help. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the project, then I suggest that you not come back until you do. Thanks Naconkantari 02:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Your kind wiki civility sure perked up my day. Thanks. Ste4k 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Monobook code

Greetings, try adding this code to your User:Ste4k/monobook.css page.

/*

 */  


/* Color defaults */ 
body {
    background: #200010; 
    color: #300028; 
    font:normal small-caps 8px/10px monospace;
}
#content { background : #200010; } 
#content { color : #300028; } 
#content { font:normal small-caps 8px/10px monospace; }

That should cure your problems. :-) (→Netscott) 02:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Be sure to copy and paste everything in between <code> and </code> (copy it as though you're going to edit this section). Good luck. (→Netscott) 03:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you consider the above monobook code, as at first glance, it looks like it will turn the majority of text on wikipedia to look like your talk page used to. Kevin_b_er 03:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

I've deleted your userpage per your request, but cannot delete your talk page, as the history needs to stay intact. Instead, you may blank this page by removing all of the content from it (including this message). Hope this helps, Naconkantari 03:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion from a previously uninvolved admin

Hopefully you won't ignore this. May I suggest that you keep your talk page as others have edited it but with your modifications commented out using the <nowiki> templates and then when you want to read the page, uncomment out your font and size modifiers and use the preview button. This will hopefully make everyone happy. JoshuaZ 04:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Since your an admin and discussing policy (imho), there isn't any reason to ignore your message. About your suggestion, I will take it under consideration. Thanks! :) Ste4k 04:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You can trust Joshua implicitly. He is an excellent editor, a very fair admin and a wonderful human being. I can't think offhand of anyone I respect more on WP. Joshua is also very well-informed on religious subjects. Just zis Guy you know? 21:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The burden involved in implementing his suggestion renders it moot in my opinion. I'm saying this only after giving it due regard. Finding enough time to deal with only this page when I want to see the other pages on Wiki like world at large sees them hasn't justification compared to using the same time to work on articles. I've begun writing a client for WP now. Ste4k 21:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Course in Miracles

I could not reach you by email but please do not suggest a name change to the "A Course in Miracles" article.Who123 19:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd seriously like to put the entire subject matter behind me. Until doing serious research on this topic, I hadn't ever heard of it, still haven't ever seen any of it mentioned in the media in any serious way, doubt that it has any real significance to world wide politics, religion, society, charities, wars, or anything else that is going to significantly change the planet any time soon. The fact that it does require an enormous amount of research indicates only that it is an obscure topic. That so many editors have so many different viewpoints on the matter only indicates that nobody can reach consensus and that the subject matter is ambiguous. The article along with its neighbors has caused significant amounts of abusive remarks to me for simply researching the matter which indicates that the presence of the article causes more problems than it serves to provide any information. Providing information is the primary objective of the encyclopedia. Consensus is the primary means that this encyclopedia changes it's content. And disambiguity is the primary tool for accomplishing that goal. Ste4k 19:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making obstructive changes and deletions from A_course_in_miracles. You are not being helpful. It is becoming a full time job just trying to revert your obstructive edits. With all due respect, I sugggest that you follow your own suggestion: "I'd seriously like to put the entire subject matter behind me." Perhaps your time would be better spent in a subject you have knowledge about and wish to contribute to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Who123 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC) .

"obstructive", Could you be more specific? Your opinion appears to be unique regarding discussion on that page. Ste4k 16:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling

Just because it's your talk page doesn't mean that trolling is okay. Please can the lame header changes and sarcasm. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeeah. Don't troll me, either. Consider this a warning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What is your point? If you don't like the way that editor signs his name then take it up with him, not me. Ste4k 06:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, why did you remove my comment? Ste4k 06:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I removed any comment. If I did, I didn't mean to. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

See Line 37 and 38 --Ste4k 06:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, looks like I did. Did you want to put it back, or do you want me to?

Incidentally, you don't need to dupe all the comments you make here on my talk page. I have this talk page watchlisted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me if they are put back or not. The point is that I am getting mixed messages from you. When you remove my statement and replace it with "Don't troll me either", then what am I to think? And here we have just below this conversation, someone that has been stalking me for more than a week saying "don't remove comments because it's hostile". Ste4k 06:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I sent a mixed message; I thought removing your hostile and obnoxious headers, with an edit summary that threw my own words back at me, would be message enough. And, frankly, it's right; it's a bit hostile and dismissive to remove comments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You totally lost me. Please take some time and be more specific. I have completely stopped working on articles tonight because of this conversation. I think you will get better results if you avoid pronouns and use specific terms or use wikilinks to point out what you're specifically writing about. Ste4k 07:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

False 3RR Report

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Dissident Voice. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Ste4k 13:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k? 3RR has to occur in one day. I did not edit the article yesterday in any way, thus I can not violate that rule. Also I did not revert your changes but rather addressed the macros/templates you put on the page. Please do not make false accusations, if this continues, I will report you. --Ben Houston 13:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Base 20:26, 12 July 2006
• 1st 12:13, 14 July 2006 1 revert
• 2nd 12:19, 14 July 2006 3 reverts
• 3rd 12:20, 14 July 2006 1 revert rm. "re-publish" to publish
• 4th 12:20, 14 July 2006 1 revert
• 5th 12:22, 14 July 2006 3 reverts
• 6th 12:22, 14 July 2006 1 revert
• 7th 12:23, 14 July 2006 1 revert

Ste4k 13:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand what a 3RR is - I was making changes and addressing your concerns. Yes, I did remove the various templates/macros, but except fro the extraneous ones, I actually addressed the issues they were warning about. Also, you mentioned that you thought I was new -- I've been editing WP since July 2005 and have racked over 3000 edits to over 1000 articles. Also you should check the WP:V section I quote on the Talk:Dissident Voice page -- it is relevant and you should really read it. --Ben Houston 13:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the July date in your contribs averted attention from the year since it is the current month. Please accept my apologies for thinking you were a new editor. Ste4k 14:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Red Links

I notice you don't like red links. They are not actually that bad since they suggest to readers where they could contribute new articles. Also there are global links of articles that don't exist that have the most links -- these are useful in helping guide people's new article creation efforts. --Ben Houston 16:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"don't like red links"? Could you explain your premise, please? Ste4k 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is a formal notice and warning. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in other sections of this page or elsewhere. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notice and Warning to Nscheffey

Your merge is wrong. If you want to talk about it here or on the articles talk page thats fine, but dont just revert it. --User:Nscheffey 20:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Neither do I own any "merge", nor is a "merge" an unjust or injurious act, something contrary to ethics or morality, an invasion or a violation of another's legal rights, nor an injustice. Neither have you followed your own advice. You have already established that your intent is to stalk me personally rather than have any concern over any article I edit. Consider this message formal warning that further attempts to communicate with me before addressing prior concerns about your stalking will be considered harassment. Ste4k 00:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Attempting to contact you concerning a major edit is not stalking, and your allegations are outrageous. --User:Nscheffey 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If you have a dispute then follow correct procedure. Your statement above signifies that you have read and understood my complaint. Until such a time as you have addressed those concerns formally, all further communication to me from you is considered harassment. Ste4k 01:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This

This is considered extremely hostile. Why are you so hostile to everything? --mboverload@ 01:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Ste4k 01:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Using the style of closed AfD/RfA discussions just because you don't want to talk to someone? That's a pretty hostile action, maybe you don't even realize the social implications of your behavior, but it does have implications on how people view you. --mboverload@ 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"because you don't want to talk to someone"? Are you asking this, or stating this? Ste4k 02:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Concern about edit

Stumbled in here, but I too am concerned about the incivility of this edit [30], and I'd just like to remind you to stay cool when the editing gets hot. Cheers. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"stay cool when the editing gets hot". Would you mind explaining your premise please? Ste4k 02:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing off discussion and declaring any further communication with an editor "harassment" is counter-productive and make Wikipedia a less pleasant project for everyone. Please assume good faith and keep cool. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. You haven't answered my question. Ste4k 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your confusion. My "premise" is this edit [31], as I noted originally. If I'm still not clear, please help me understand the source of the confusion. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, you are pointing to evidence on which you base your premise. Your premise was the implication that I am not cool, and you pointed to an essay (i.e. not an actual policy or guideline) which spoke nothing about anything in the rest of your statement. You have made an incorrect assumption and failed to answer my question. I am not confused, but apparently you are. About the rest of your statement, it appears you have made three edits to articles during the time of our conversation. Have I disrupted any of those three edits in any way? During the same amount of time I have been working on articles and have made somewhere in the area of 100 or more edits. Please make better use of my time by answering my questions in the future to avoid disrupting the flow of my work. Thanks. Ste4k 03:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its great that you amassed 100 edits in the time I performed 3. But you're missing the point. All I was trying to do was suggest a more tempered approach for resolving future disputes. Sorry for the disruption - feel free to ignore. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your intent is admirable and your point was earlier understood. But you still haven't explained by what means you determined the point was necessary; i.e. that my temper was "hot" or "not cool". One might even misconstrue your remarks as unfounded accusations. Also I don't remember either of us working on an article together. How exactly did you happen to "stumble in here"? Ste4k 18:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at your page, apparently you are an administrator and a member of Esperanza and are not simply an editor passing by. According to WP:CIV which you should be familiar with, " incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress...". Since I hadn't contacted you in any regard, nor had I contacted the other editor "Mboverload", also because "Mboverload" contacted me; i.e. personally targeted me with unfounded accusations, as well as after scanning Mboverload's discussion page just now and seeing that you hadn't contacted him in regard to civility, how exactly do you justify your remarks as diminishing conflict and stress rather than the contrary? Ste4k 19:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't recall how I came across your talk page, and I am here as "simply an editor passing by" - my comments aren't meant to represent other Administrators or members of Esperanza. I don't know how my contacting (or not) Mboverload is relevant, but I simply felt that cutting off discussion with Nscheffey and creating an ultimatum that until s/he addresses your concerns, "all further communication to me from you is considered harassment" was (in the words of WP:CIV) contributing to "an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress". Feel free to disagree, and you could have simply ignored my good faith reminder in the first place, rather than requiring this discourse that seems to be just going in circles. Cheers. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

<--- On the contrary, rather than circles, understanding your viewpoint is pertinent to how others in your opinion regard a "closed conversation" as uncivil. Since your original comments were in a conversation with Mboverload, your remarks appeared to be in regard to that conversation more than the closed conversation you were pointing to. Using the "+" tab might have avoided any confusion in that regard. I haven't any interest in the other editor Nscheffey whatsoever, and I believe it more civil to simply close communications with a single editor (i.e. dousing the flames with a bucket of water) than to escalate the matter by resolving a "dispute" in some fashion. Resolving a dispute first requires that there is an actual dispute; i.e. has two interested parties with a disagreement. I haven't any personal dispute with that editor, and that editor's actions are completely one-sided. Ste4k 20:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. Again, apologies if this entire thread has been a distraction. Happy editing! --MichaelZimmer (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, you were acting in good faith. Ste4k 22:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Headings

Hi and thanks for your clean up work. Note that per the style manual one should use lowercase in section headings except the first letter and in proper names. So,

==Further reading==

instead of

==Further Reading==

Also, articles should be named Sine and cosine transforms rather than Sine and Cosine transforms.

Small things but I thought I would let you know. You can reply here if you have comments. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Detail is important. Nice work on the double redirects. Ste4k 08:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sculpture of Ancient Greece

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 06:31, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 06:39, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 07:11, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 07:13, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 07:22, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 07:26, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 07:28, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 07:33, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 08:15, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

I have left comments over at the Endeavor Academy talk page. Also, I looked at the info you provided me on the book. It looks like there is a book called "Social Justice and the Liberal State," written by the same author. Perhaps the article "The Liberal State" is misnamed? My advice is to track down a copy of the book, verify whether this is true and then move and expand the article. Can I offer you some more advice? Don't get sucked into the combative bullshit that goes on around here. Just do good work. Producing quality content for the encyclopedia is important. Best, JChap (Talk) 05:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What a relief to read someone speak plain for a change. Thanks for the tip and I'll follow up on that book. Ste4k 05:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's in pretty good shape now. Thanks for the lead. Ste4k 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Cohesive Merge Talk gone awry

Hi! You seem to have applied the {{mergedisputed}} (Nom'd for Tfd currently, btw) tag on First Civil War and Wars of Religion, but each leads to a different talk.

1. It's not clear which was mergefrom and mergeto either. In any event, these things need to have some initializing prose explaining the purpose of the merge, or in this case the merge dispute, even if it's just administrative 'auto-categorization' on your part and not your pov/editorial judgement.
2. I usually just initialize a section '==Merge Proposal==' and recap what into which, so others have a clue months later. That because I spent the last half hour parsing the history file finding the original very old edit that added them in the first place. One was over 15 months old! Yikes and Grrrrrr!
3. Some of these things linger for well over a year, and we badly need a time limit put inside the templates. Since you're a CS type (I've been out of coding for a long while), CBDunkerson and I kicked that around about a month back, and he says it can be done with the math templates. Perhaps you could do all of us a favor and see if you can get something that works up and debugged.
4. If so, I'll support a change in policy that applies a 'sunset limit' on these ugly in-your-face things. 90 days should be more than enough time to talk about such.

What do you think? // FrankB 06:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive answer on my talk.

1. I made one back, so see that.
2. See your email! <g>

ttfn // FrankB 07:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Merger needs discussion

Ste4k, unless you're willing to discuss the merger, please don't keep reverting it over the reasonable objection of another user. I've removed the merger tag. If you think a merger is appropriate then please use the relevant talk pages to explain why, and please engage your fellow editors. -Will Beback 06:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The merger was requested as part of perhaps 50 that I performed. The explanation to the editor was made and simply ignored. That other editor has already been informed about harassment. The reverts in question are the other editors. I am only putting back the original work performed. If the other editor wishes to undo a merge then that needs to be done completely and not simply reverting one page. If the other editor actually wants to split pages then there are maintenance tags available for such operations and the normal procedures for those operations are fully documented as I am sure you are aware. Ste4k 07:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There was never any explanation made and "simply ignored." Discussing major edits is not harassment, and to imply that is extremely uncivil. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin advice

Even when you're right, don't edit war. -Will Beback 09:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

noted. Ste4k 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize

I have tried to talk with you about the [[Sculpture of Ancient Greece]] merge. You have reverted my edits as well as my comments here. I am ready to apologize for the revert war we just had on this page and put it all behind me if you will just discuss this reasonably. But, if you simply remove my comments without a reply I'm going to have to take additional measures. Let's avoid that distraction and have a rational conversation. -Nscheffey^(T/C) 09:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me that there is a difference of emphasis here; I'm not clear what it is but I don't mind trying to help people work out their differences if I can. Mind you, recent events in my Wikilife indicate maybe not, but who knows? I congratulate Nathan again for a big-hearted gesture. Ste4k, I strongly urge you to accept this at face value. Where the two of you disagree, perhaps try asking what the problem is before even presenting your point of view? You both seem to be committed to the encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 12:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree that there is a difference in emphasis. The sub-topic is entitled "I apologize" but the content appears only to be an ultimatum. There is a gesture of "readiness" to apologize for an relatively insignificant degree of disruption, however. There doesn't appear to be anything forthcoming regarding prior disruptive activity nor any indication that sincere consideration has been applied regarding the future. Disagreements require two contrary opinions. My only disagreement with Nscheffey is regarding continuous irritation, unbalanced in regard to the number of other editors on WP, biased in regard to his selection criteria for articles being me rather than the article, his consistency to remark about me in a demeaning fashion, and an unwillingness to understand the simple word "shoo" with the persistence of a gnat. He reminds me of the little boy that used to try and peek up my dress in grammar school, who when told to stop would spread gossip among the boys that I had flashed him. I disagree that any of those traits have anything to do with the betterment of the encyclopedia. I appreciate your acting in an administrative capacity to resolve that difference between him and me. Ste4k 20:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, take a helping of WP:AGF here, no? It's best not to remove comments from Talk pages, it really pisses people off. It's also best not to take things personally, and, Nathan, it's best not to sit with your finger over the nuclear button. Stick rigidly to issues of content, ignore personalites. It's obvious the two of you don't get along, but even I manage to work with people I don't get along with some of the time :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed merge

Hi, well done for doing all the merges the you did - it really helps wikipedia, so thanks! As you may have guessed from the title, I'm writing about [[Sculpture of Ancient Greece]] to tell you that it's been updated. I think it is best to do the merge from Statue to Sculpture, for all the reasons noted in the discussion, and I really do tihnk that Nscheffey's request for a 3rd Opinion was justified, what with edit warring and a lack of agreement. Thanks Martinp23 12:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, however it is unclear to me what edit warring you are referring to. Ste4k 19:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome - I was referring to edits from 0305, 14th July to 0729, 17th July ([32])in which there was a "war" between yourself and Nscheffey, about an issue which is hopefuly on the road to resolution via 3rd Opinion. All the best Martinp23 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've only been on WP for about three weeks. If you consider three reverts performed for the maintenance of connectivity made over a period of three days an edit war, then that's okay with me, however, I was under the original impression that you were referring to this. Ste4k 20:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done for getting used to wikipedia so quickly. I was referring to the edits I did in the context of the article (to be honest I didn't want to research too much by going through your talk page history), but I think your comment above does underline the fact that third opinion was the only real way forward. As of just now, I've merged the pages in the direction of the consensus, so I hope this is OK. Thanks Martinp23 20:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the re-merge. It might be helpful to explain the significant difference between the work you have just performed and how it differs from the incomplete efforts regarding connectivity and orphaning of articles to Nscheffey. I have doubts that he has a complete understanding of my half of the disagreement you have just resolved. Thanks. Ste4k 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies. It appears that I spoke to soon. Your efforts have deleted major portions of the other article. This was probably unintentional, but it does underscore the reasons that I had mentioned earlier in discussion regarding a split and POV fork. Ste4k 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment on [[Sculpture of Ancient Greece]]

I have left a comment on the merge per your request. I agree with what Martin, Guy and Will have told you and hope you will take Nscheffy's apology seriously. You truly deserve to be commended for all the hard work you are doing on the merge requests. If I may say, editorial choices I have made have been changed, questioned, reverted, etc. hundreds of times. Sometimes I agreed with the decision arrived at after consensus, sometimes I did not. But on the whole, the changes/challenges to my work improved it. Resist the temptation to get sucked into personal conflicts on the wiki. JChap (talk • contribs) 13:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your centered perspective, as always, JChap. Perhaps in the future if Nscheffey is able to distinguish the difference between ultimatum and apology, I'll have an opportunity to take up your advice. I haven't impeded any attempts of his to revert the merge in question. He hasn't been able to muster up enough energy over the past three days to actually revert the merge in question, though, but only to orphan a redirect that is associated with the combined concept. Functionally speaking, my reversion of inept article pointer management is logically justified, and hasn't anything to do with his bias one way or the other concerning how an article is named. Ste4k 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything's there

• My apologies. It appears that I spoke to soon. Your efforts have deleted major portions of the other article. This was probably unintentional, but it does underscore the reasons that I had mentioned earlier in discussion regarding a split and POV fork. Ste4k 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, I've looked over the articles, and can't see anything that's missing apart from a bit of information (about 1 sentence) in the first paragraph of "Greek statue", which I believe is included elsewhere in the article. All of the other information from the original "Greek Statue", before all of the merges, [33] was put into the relevant sections of [[Sculpture of Ancient Greece]]. Have I missed anything else? If so, please tell me. Thanks Martinp23 20:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Take your time, and read again. I am trying to finish the disambiguation pages that I am working on. I have applied the disputed merge templates and suggest using the discussion area for the article rather than my talk page. Thanks. Ste4k 22:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Late Me thimks

• Sorry your note to check 1 was at a 'WikiPlull'... RL still calls. Looks like you got the help you needed. Your note wasn't too specific, but the process seems to have worked. // FrankB 15:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• • In this application of the template the dispute arose after the merge for several reasons rather than during the process of review of a merge. After the merge had been completely performed, an objection was raised about it. The editor objecting did not use the template, simply reverted the redirect from the B-side article. Later after an un-merge was attempted, material of the A-side article had been abandonded, I applied the template to denote a dispute. Ste4k 17:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• • If you are being stalked, then WP:AN/I would be a option. I'm going to be mostly missing the next week, but checking in now and again. Until mid-August really, as have vaction starting the 2nd just after. I'm not sure what if anything I'm actually going to move forward until I get back circa Aug 15th. If I put up proposals, I won't be here to discuss same. Shrug. Things are rarely 'urgent', unless someone is deleting something! ttfn, Keep up the good work! // FrankB 15:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That is being handled out of the public eye, but thanks. Ste4k 17:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

Please stop deleting so much material from ACIM while the discussion is ongoing. You can discuss the material without deleting it. -Will Beback 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:VER in a nutshell. There is no discussion going on, only bickering over petty tags. Removing each section to discussion is a standard procedure for such articles that are controversial. As an admin you should be aware of that. Ste4k 00:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

If you'd like to change the policy, please be my guest. In the interim, I am acting according to policy. Ste4k 00:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove so much material at once. Much of that material is perfecty sourced, etc. This disruptive behavior is not helpful. If you do not restore the information then I will revert it and ask for page protection. -Will Beback 03:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please revert it and ask for page protection.--Who123 03:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community project that operates on consensus. We can discuss the material, but don't destroy the articles just because you have questions about the sourcing. I've reverted your changes again - don't make major changes unless there is a consensus. -Will Beback 04:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Destroying? That is only your opinion. This IS a community project and I am acting on behalf of policy as well as have improved the article. No tags, all sourced, all cited, etc. Where do you get the idea of "destroying"? Good faith? Ste4k 04:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, for an editor with less than a month editing this project, you may want to slow it down a bit and learn the ropes before teaching them. Some friendly advise: You could be an excellent editor, but you need to learn to work with others. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC drafting

Per previous discussions, it is time to request broader community input on your behavior at Wikipedia. An "RfC" is going to be filed some time in the next few days that asks editors to come together to comment on your editing behavior. When it's filed you will be given full opportunity to respond. I'm telling you this now because I have asked other editors to help in its drafting, and so it's best that you hear it from me first. You may want to begin thinking of how you'll respond. I'm sure that the aim of every editor involved will be to help you be a positive participant in this project. Many editors have started out by making poor edits and then have "seen the light". It's my hope that you too will become a helpful Wikipedian. -Will Beback 09:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes to ACIM article and other

Steak? I'm still not entirely sure what to make of the numerous kerfuffles you have gotten yourself into here and my mind has changed about that topic a few times, but let me offer you a bit of advice on the ACIM article and others' reactions to your moving large sections of it to the talk page. In a controversial article, unilateral action such as that is frowned upon pretty severely. You need to respect consensus. Note that consensus does not mean unanimity. AfD is also a consensus process and the ACIM articles that were deleted were done so by consensus, even though a few people objected to their removal. When you find yourself on the short end of the consensus, my advice is to just let it go. Don't think of these decisions as personal victories or losses. Best, JChap (talk • contribs) 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous spelling

Hi, just wanted to point out that there's only two is in Wiktionary. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 17:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks J_D! :) Please feel free to fix them if you have time. I won't bite. Promise! :) Ste4k 17:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done them all for you. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 17:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You're a sweetheart! <3 Ste4k 17:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Poll wording

Your poll read:

Should original research, unreliable sources, questionable links, and unsourced statements be moved to discussion, or remain in an article?

As applied to the debate currently on the page where it was posted, this question assumes facts not in evidence. Specifically, it assumes that the material currently under dispute consists, entirely and indisputably, of nothing but "original research, unreliable sources, questionable links, and unsourced statements", something that many other people on the page seem to disagree with to some degree or another. To get an idea of how polls are more usually worded, look at the current polls on WP:POLL. --Aquillion 18:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

All of the above "referred-to" chunks, sections, statements, links, etc., were moved by me to discussion from the article along with the reason according to policy and guideline. I'll try and rephrase the question with you here, and see if you understand what I mean, if that's okay. Normally if an editor makes an edit that adds material to an article, does not provide a reliable secondary source for the inclusion, does not cite any source that already exists, if it is a link and it doesn't meet WP:EL, or if it is material that is referencing a primary source and the content of which is either speaking about something or somebody else besides itself, or if it hasn't been previously published by a secondary source, or if it isn't addressing the notability of the topic matter (itself) in an non-contentious nor self-serving manner, etc., or if the unsourced material is simply a review of a review, or if the material is a synthesis of things that the editor is synopsizing from several sources, or for many other things, such as nonsense, etc., the material is usually and swiftly deleted. My question asks, if such analysis has already been applied to an article and an editor finds the material to be original research, unreliable sources, questionable links, or unsourced statements, should that material remain in the article, or should it be moved to discussion as I did yesterday for four hours. Ste4k 19:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Accesibility

Hi, I've noticed in your talk archives that in the past you've had a problem with the colour scheme in wikipedia. I've put your changes to your user talk (in the past) into a custom skin and I think it might make the pages slightly more readable for you. See User:Martinp23/ste4k. If you go into edit and copy all the code from there and then go to User:Ste4k/monobook.css and paste the code into that page, you may find it looks better to you. It's probably best to click show preview first to see if you want it first. There's a problem with the nav bar overlapping the content, which I don't know how to fix, but you may be able to work around it by changing some margin settigns for content or similar. Le tme know what you think Martinp23 15:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You may need to request unprotection for your monobook.js Martinp23 15:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip but I am leaving Wikipedia after I restore my archives. Ste4k 15:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that - I've noticed that you've had some bad experiences with sme editors/articles, and that there is an RfC being prepared about you, but can I suggest that after the RfC, you take the comments on board and act on them. I'm sure that you have many good contributions to make to wikipedia, but your experience has been soured by these few negative occurences. Again, I urge you to stay!! :) . -- Martinp23 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be rather hypocritical, don't you think? The only thing that I have striven for is policy. Why would I want to waste my time trying to convince people that I don't know about things they are convinced do not, cannot, or will not ever exist? I wanted to work on articles, not be the butt end of political bullshit. Ste4k 15:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hypocritical? I don't understand how I have been a hypocrite.... Anyway, I'm just trying to offer you kind words, (and would ask you to AGF) and try to prevent Wikipedia from losing another editor with great potential. An RfC is something to look upon as useful, not political bullshit. Wikipedia is a community, which indicates a sense of cooperation, and if opinions can be shared through forums such as the RfC process, the community as a whole is made stronger. Increasingly, a good editor's time is taken up fighting vandalism and the like, so it is important for wikipedia to not lose any more editors with good contributions to make. Thanks Martinp23 16:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you read my response correctly. You might want to read it again though. You suggested that I stay in regard to my earlier comments about leaving. You mentioned my having bad experiences and an RfC coming up. And I mentioned to you that it would be hypocritical on my part. I am almost convinced at this point that although the policies are great, they don't seem to be adhered to very much, and the reason I would stay is to write articles rather than play politics. You understand? Ste4k 03:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I sent you a message on your talk page, and you haven't replied. I just want to let you know that this is why I used that word. And I think that the editor who made that comment has integrity and I trust him. We don't see eye to eye all the time, and that's another reason I trust him. Ste4k 05:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ste4k. There is a section for your response. -Will Beback 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's listed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. -Will Beback 21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Ste4k 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Who123

I agree with this request for comment. Although you appear to be quite intelligent, you seem to lack the ability to work with others in situations where there is conflict or differences of opinion. I do not believe in personal attack and this is not meant to be one. I hope this process will help you to look at your behavior through the eyes of others and to learn from this to vastly improve your interactions with others.--Who123 21:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Who123, please try to remember to use a section of your own to speak with me on my talk page. That way I don't need to guess what the general topic pertains to. Thanks. Ste4k 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Curse hoax

• For example, you have never approached me about any hoax before, but had you asked, I would have told you that my husband as well as both of my teenage children use the computers in the house.

As I documented in the RfC, Rrock created a newsgroup post making a certain allegation. You added material referencing that post. Then, six minutes later, Rrock bragged about having the material in Wikipedia. You edit-warred over the inclusion of the material sourced solely by a single message posted from your computer. Even if we grant that you and Rrock are different people living in the same household, do you not see any problem with this situation?

Personally, I find it hard to believe that you and Rrock are different people. It would be extremely rare to have husband anbd wife both of whom have had 30-year careers in IT and database management. Having seen your computer screen, I find it hard to believe that it is casually shared by a large household. Further, Rrock, after being a very energetic contributor to alt.religion.angels, dramatically reduced his contributions there at the same time as you started contributing energetically here.

While the editing issue has passed (unless you seek to restore the informtation for the 20th time), this matter goes to the heart of your reason for being at Wikipedia, and what good faith you bring to the project. You minimal response in the RfC about this topic is not adequate to answer the matter. -Will Beback 02:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time you have mentioned any this to me, and I think you are trying to blow a million little things way out of proportion here. In doing so, you are making a battleground out of Wikipedia over me rather than the content of the articles that you don't want me to look into. I don't know the rules about RfC's like you do. I stated my opinion exactly like I see it. I am not impressed by your synthesis of facts and that seems to be the problem with those articles as well. About our household, my children or my husband, frankly, it is none of your business. If you are too young not to know not to mix with other peoples' marital affairs, then I cannot help you. As I have stated as civilly as possible, you have a tendency to presume. Ste4k 03:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You've made your gender, your career, and your physical ailments issues on Wikipedia. That is why I've raised these questions.

More importantly, you've repeatdly dodged the real issue: that you edit-warred over information that someone in your house created. Do you have any justification for having done so? -Will Beback 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Will, you have made my gender, my career, and my shortcomings issues on Wikipedia. You have started a big process "RfC" on my behavior. You have stated your opinion. I have stated my reply. What more do you want from me? You probably have twenty or thirty signatures up there by now, with my little one sitting all alone. You have run me off of your two articles now. I will probably be blocked again or something. Isn't that enough? What did I ever do to you? Ste4k 04:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Folks who add fraudulent material to Wikipedia, and then edit war over it, lose the presumption of good faith. -Will Beback 05:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)