User talk:Ste4k

1. To discuss articles, please use the appropriate Discussion page of that article.
2. To contact me click on this link

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 [1], 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 [2], 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)

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)