Revision as of 19:50, 5 July 2006 editAntaeus Feldspar (talk | contribs)17,763 edits reply once again to Ste4k's disruption← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:05, 5 July 2006 edit undoSte4k (talk | contribs)3,630 edits →re: Next edit → | ||
Line 181: | Line 181: | ||
:::Take your straw man argument elsewhere. I ''never'' said "we should be including things people may want to visit" in "See also". I said that we should be including "A Course In Miracles" because it is what Anderson's organization identifies as its primary text. Even though I did not also add "-- and that is a distinction that cannot be said of several hundreds of millions of people over several centuries," I think that goes without saying to anyone who is not trying to be disruptive. -- ] 19:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | :::Take your straw man argument elsewhere. I ''never'' said "we should be including things people may want to visit" in "See also". I said that we should be including "A Course In Miracles" because it is what Anderson's organization identifies as its primary text. Even though I did not also add "-- and that is a distinction that cannot be said of several hundreds of millions of people over several centuries," I think that goes without saying to anyone who is not trying to be disruptive. -- ] 19:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
::::Do you have a source reference that agrees with your statement? I asked this of you earlier. If you do not have a source reference then your hypothesis about this man is simply original research. Thanks. ] 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
*] - At least 3/4's of this biography discusses Anderson's involvement iin WWII | |||
*] - A link to an excellent article for people intereste in Anderson's military past context | |||
*] - Another link to context regarding Anderson's landing with the marines on Nagasaki in 1945 | |||
*] - Related to ] | |||
*] - Related to 3/4's of the biography discussing Andersons landing with the marines here in '45 | |||
*] - Related to ] | |||
*] - Anderson was a Private First Class in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1945 | |||
*] - Related to ] | |||
*] - Related to Anderson's involvment in litigation over ] | |||
*] - Anderson's Home Town. Please read the biography/ | |||
*] - Author of ] | |||
*] - Anderson is a teacher by trade. | |||
*] - Editor of ] | |||
*] - Related to Religious Figures | |||
*] - Editor of ] | |||
*] - Related to Religious Figures | |||
*] - Related to ] in an equal way as Anderson. | |||
*] - Geographic location centered around the 2nd half of the biography. | |||
*] - Related to Anderson's involvment with ] | |||
*] - Company which sued Anderson over ] | |||
Per your request. Please learn to study the subject before making blind edits, and please discuss your hopes to improve the page with other editors in discussion. Thanks. ] 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:05, 5 July 2006
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14
Note: if you leave a comment here that you want me to reply to, here's where I'll reply to it. (The one exception, whose comments will be deleted unread whether he signs them as himself or as his sockpuppet, knows who he is.) Leave new comments at the bottom.
I reserve the right to refactor this page as I see fit, and if you are planning to post the exact same complaints to my user page and to the talk page of the article you're upset about, don't be surprised when it's deleted from here.
Recommended reading
I've just read some of the old Song Fight! talk edits. While I realize you've been around longer than a lot of people (including myself), I kindly point you to WP:AGF, perhaps with a slight "shame-on-you" tilt of the head. WP standards aren't obvious to the newcomer, and that kind of approach is only bound to produce an unpleasant confrontation. Fearwig 05:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you'd actually read all, rather than just "some", of the old talk page discussions, you'd realize that I was subjected to personal attacks for trying to make the entry consistent with the style of a Misplaced Pages entry rather than the style of a Song Fight! press release. If you want to be personally attacked, too, you can go edit that article, and I hope you enjoy being demonized by self-righteous self-promoters. Me, I'm not interested, which is why I ask you to take your much-belated '"shame-on-you" tilt of the head' somewhere else. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Re: Metaphoric use of "Siberia"?
Here you've written
- In the United States at least, there is a wide association of "Siberia" with "punishing exile in everything but name", based on a belief that underlings in the Soviet system failed, they were re-assigned to Siberia.
Would you explane the meaning of this piece, please? Ъыь 15:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I will try. Many American television shows and movies during the existence of the Soviet Union made reference to Siberia. When Siberia was referenced, it was always as a punishment: for instance, if a Soviet agent failed in a mission against the United States, the end of the program might show the agent receiving news from his superiors that he was being sent to Siberia. This became so frequent that "Siberia" came to be used as metaphor for exile and punishment: "a bureaucratic Siberia" (,), for example. I think that explaining this metaphorical use will help the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, now it's clear. Any suggestion on commonplaces/myths cleanup? :) I think this your description will be just fine. Ъыь 16:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Redundant IMDb links
The film U.S. Marshals (film) has its own page, the {{imdb title|id=0120873|title=U.S. Marshals}} isn't necessary for the The Fugitive (1993 film) article. It belongs in the U.S. Marshals (film) article. —Gabbe 19:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Long talk page
Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Done (whew!). BD2412 T 02:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
New cult article
Hi Antaeus. We met recently in another editor’s talk page. Since you seem to be an expert in the field I’d like to ask you a question about a cult that destroyed part of my life. Eschatology (cult) is a minority sect that became into existence at the beginning of the 20th century after a schism with Christian Science (though eschatologists are atheists). Besides the cult’s official web site I can find no information about it in the internet but I have some inside information (alas, that’s OR). The cult is flourishing in Mexico and other countries. It needs to be exposed. I have no idea how to write a NPOV article for Misplaced Pages. Is there a guide for such difficult articles? —Cesar Tort 18:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Cesar. I typed the two words Eschatology and cult into Google and this was the first result: The Curse of Eschatology. There's lots more. The best source of information about cults on the internet is http://rickross.net/. BTW, I wrote you a message on my talk page. -- Bookish 22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, all of those critical links refer to Christian eschatology, not to William W. Walter’s cult called “Eschatology”. —Cesar Tort 22:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. I realized that after I read through some of them. See my talk page for an update. -- Bookish 00:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Antaeus. Thanks for the advice in my user page. I have already created the article Eschatology (cult). Any criticism from you is most welcome. —Cesar Tort 08:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Referencing
Hi Antaeus. I am interested in any suggestions to improve my referencing. Please feel free to list them on my disucssion page. Best regards, --Fahrenheit451 18:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, Antaeus! LOL! Actually, the online current version of the St. Pete Times is redacted from the print version, but when it gets archived, it is all there. The lecture excerptions were right from the editions compared side by side. It is appalling what rtc is censoring.--Fahrenheit451 16:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo editing again?
Hey..... I saw your observation that the anon IP that recently edited Altered texts in Scientology doctrine was making the exact same point that Terryeo has been making on the talk page... I checked the IP, and sure enough, the anon IP is 65.147.84.76, which comes from the same block of Qwest servers as Terryeo's IP (which he publicly displayed recently as being 65.146.30.209). wikipediatrix 20:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Now that's quite interesting... I notice he's been choosing smaller and smaller things to dev-T us with, as if he's trying to make sure we know that he's acting in bad faith but can't (he thinks) do anything about it. He might just wind up with a surprise, if it's so... -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
ARC (Scientology)
we have several instances of exactly duplicated references that should be consolidated here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hello there Antaeus: Just to let you know I've done the reference consolidation (and put back a few references that seemed to have somehow gone missing). Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- ah, excellent! You're one of the best, Nicholas. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Rick Ross
In all of my editing of Rick Ross (consultant), and in all of my interaction with user:Herschelkrustofsky (HK), I hadn't realized until this moment that HK wrote the first draft of the Ross article. Misplaced Pages famously has over a million editors. Yet, there always seem to be fewer than I'd thought. Thanks for letting me share my epiphany. Cheers, -Will Beback 11:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Violation of copyright related to Scientology as a business
Your edit re-added a link to probable copyright violations. Even though the information is not hosted on Misplaced Pages, a link to it may be illegal. Note that WP:EL says "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States". It's important to note, that neither of the "convenience" links are needed for people to verify the information. In one case, the full content is available for free, with a simple registration. This issue has occurred in a number of other articles, and such links have been removed repeatedly. In the case of time.com, it's an eggregious breach of copyright, because Time is actively selling that story for profit, and the free copy directly competes with Time, and has no potential for fair use justification. Copyright violation is a serious issue for the Foundation, and I suggest you respect Misplaced Pages policy on this issue. Note, my edits had *no* effect on the actual prose of the article, and there was no justification for your revert. --Rob 15:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your opinion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Definition of POV fork
You mentioned that the Scientology as a business article was the "opposite of a POV fork." I can see from WP:POV_fork#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles that it's not a POV fork, but am curious about your use of the term "opposite." I'm still relatively new here and would like to learn the terminology. Thanks. JChap 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, calling something a "POV fork", especially as opposed to "content fork", makes a statement about the motives of whoever created it. It implies that someone made the new article for the purposes of getting around the process of editor consensus. In this case, though, if you compare the first version of Scientology as a business with how the section Scientology#Scientology as a commercial venture looked at the time the new article was created -- I haven't taken the two files and run a diff on them but I'd bet twenty cents to one that you'd find they were identical. It's hard to claim that someone's trying to dodge consensus when all they're doing is taking the results that consensus has already produced and moving it to a new location for the process of consensus editing to continue. (It is possible to produce a POV fork that way, but it involves shunting the full discussion to a new article and leaving an inadequate or non-NPOV summary behind, which wasn't the case here.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Reply on categories and subcategories
In reply to your comment on Talk:Ubuntu_(Linux_distribution),
- because it came up in peer review;
- guidelines are not policy;
- the editor in question argued for the article to be included in two categories additional to the one it was defining.
Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'll admit that I saw the recent edit history, filled with edit summaries about "added category" "rv, Ubuntu is a sub-cat" "cat" "have we completely abandoned the idea of hierarchical categorisation now?" "rv vandal rmv of cat" and I did not step through every edit to see exactly what each side was advocating for. The mistake I thought someone was making was the mistake I see people make over and over and over and over, and which certainly sounded like what Localzuk (talk · contribs) was saying: that if an article is in a sub-category it should never be in any of the parent categories of that sub-cat. Exceptions to that rule are very clearly stated, but I have seen people quote the entire rule in full including the exceptions and still say "And therefore Article X-Y-Z shouldn't be in any other category except Category:X-Y-Z!"
- You point out that "guidelines are not policy". I prefer a formulation which, I think, encourages good behavior more than it merely enables behavior which might be good: "rules have exceptions." The reason behind the exception for defining articles is that if a subject is important enough as to merit its own category, the article defining that subject is surely important enough that readers should be able to navigate to it in one step from the parent category, rather than having to go from parent-cat to the sub-cat and only then from the sub-cat to the article. And the same logic is what led me, the last time I addressed this issue, to add Category:Linux distributions to Ubuntu (Linux distribution) and Category:Ubuntu, even though it was already in Category:Debian-based distributions. Articles which are important should be easy to navigate to and yet a reader starting at Category:Linux distributions has an easier time getting to Taprobane Linux, whose sole distinction seems to be its country of origin, than they do getting to Ubuntu (Linux distribution) -- all because Ubuntu is based on Debian and Taprobane isn't? How much sense does that make? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Re: citations
I think I got carried away... desolé Lsjzl 01:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, you did it in good faith. It's already gotten me started thinking about ways that that section could be rephrased for the better, so that's good... -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help on the chiro page
Antaeus, thanks for your help on the chiro page. I'm sure he has good intentions;) Please feel free to check in anytime! --Dematt 02:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Accidentally deleted material
Just saw what happened in the Scientology article with my edits of yesterday, sorry about it, and thanks for restoring the material I deleted by mistake. I have no idea what happened, but from now on I will make it a rule to diff myself to be sure I don't unexpectedly damage articles. Raymond Hill 14:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, no problem. I've certainly had my own share of edits where I would have sworn on a Bible that I'd made a very simple edit but an actual diff showed huge changes. Sometimes I did the diff myself and found out immediately ... sometimes, unfortunately, it wasn't me who found out. So, hey, we all look out for each other, and it's cool. Enjoy the weekend! -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Charles Buell Anderson
Not an attack? Whereas the extensively cited facts about Gregory Lauder Frost's conviction is? Curious... Just zis Guy you know? 22:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have no idea who the fuck Gregory Lauder Frost is, so your attempt to drag him into this seems a very dubious tactic indeed. Sticking with the article in question, Charles Buell Anderson, the idea that a page which has information a person does not wish to be said about him is automatically an "attack page" in the sense of speedy deletion criteria A6 is utterly absurd. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Ste4k
Is it just me or is this person out of control? I agree with all the comments you have made concerning her nonsense AfDs and her removal of valuable info from articles, citing it as POV. Nice work on restoring the ACIM link in the Charles Buell Anderson article. I'm currently having a long, and apparently pointless, argument with her on my talk page, but if her behavior continues like this I'm contemplating an RfC. Keep up the good work. --Nscheffey 02:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
re: your latest addition
Regarding your comment: "Ste4k's excuse for removing it was preposterous"
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
- Ste4k, the reason I have not been able to assume good faith of you in this regard is because the only other explanation that is possible is stupidity. And even that is not a convincing explanation, because it stretches credulity that you could just by chance be misstating the facts and misrepresenting policy in a way so precisely suited to promoting your POV.
- Example #1: Your entire diatribe here revolves around "adding unsourced information", "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources", "please provide reputable sources". Anyone reading that, if they thought that you were operating with reasonable competence and in good faith, would assume you were actually talking about information or material that had been added to the article. And since you only quoted half my edit summary, the half that read "Ste4k's excuse for removing it was preposterous", anyone reading this and not knowing the truth might actually fall for your pretense that this is a dispute about information or material that was added to the article with sources that some might see as inadequate.
- They would never guess that what you were referring to was a link to the article about A Course in Miracles in the "See also" section, a link that you removed under the pretext that it was "POV": And why would they never guess this? Gee, I wonder if it could have anything to do with you cutting out the part of my edit summary which explained what you removed and put the lie to your claim that it was "unsourced information"? "restore A Course in Miracles to See also; Ste4k's excuse for removing it was preposterous"
- Would you care to explain just what you think is necessary in the way of sourcing in order to include the main text used by an organization in a "See also" entry? Gee, I wonder if http://www.endeavoracademy.com/ could just possibly be a source we could use! I mean, they mention it in the second sentence on their index page: "The principal catalyst for this adventure into the enlightenment of humanity is the spiritual mind training of A Course In Miracles." Oh, but I'm sure you'll have some reason to object to that. It just won't be a good reason or one that leaves it possible to assume that you are arguing it in good faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
You have explained your action anywhere, nor have you justified your action. Please state your reasons in English rather than pointing to URL's without any explanation. If you are having difficulties understanding explanations regarding the content, please refer to the discussion pages. Thanks. Ste4k 17:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- On the contrary, it is your actions which have been bizarre and which have violated policy, a fact which your dishonest and selective attempts to rewrite history and policy do not hide. I do not believe you are having difficulty comprehending why your actions are incorrect and wrong; you simply don't wish to follow the same rules as everyone else. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
re: your latest reverts
You recently reverted the following twenty relevent wikilinks from an article. Can you please explain how each is irrelevent to the article? Using the discussion are for content you feel is disputed would be more appropriate. Thanks.
- Veterans of Foreign Wars
- Harry S. Truman
- Nuclear weapon
- Attitudinal healing
- Nagasaki
- Forgiveness
- United States Marine Corps
- Foundation for A Course in Miracles
- District court
- Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin
- Schucman, Helen
- Teacher
- Thetford, William
- Heaven
- Wapnick, Kenneth
- Hell
- Williamson, Marianne
- Austrailia
- Lawsuit
- Penguin Books
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Ste4k 17:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I've got a better idea. Why don't you explain why each of those twenty links which you added in a single edit is worth including in the See also of the article? Is nuclear weapon a link that we add to the article of every single person who ever had something to say about it? Is Heaven a link that we add to the article of every single person who had their theories on it? Stop being disruptive. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Have you read this man's biography? First you say that we should be including things people may want to visit. Now you are saying the opposite. Which is the correct way? Each of these are very relevant to this man. Please use the discussion areas rather than simply forcing your point of view into edit summarys. Thank you. Ste4k 19:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Take your straw man argument elsewhere. I never said "we should be including things people may want to visit" in "See also". I said that we should be including "A Course In Miracles" because it is what Anderson's organization identifies as its primary text. Even though I did not also add "-- and that is a distinction that cannot be said of several hundreds of millions of people over several centuries," I think that goes without saying to anyone who is not trying to be disruptive. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have a source reference that agrees with your statement? I asked this of you earlier. If you do not have a source reference then your hypothesis about this man is simply original research. Thanks. Ste4k 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Take your straw man argument elsewhere. I never said "we should be including things people may want to visit" in "See also". I said that we should be including "A Course In Miracles" because it is what Anderson's organization identifies as its primary text. Even though I did not also add "-- and that is a distinction that cannot be said of several hundreds of millions of people over several centuries," I think that goes without saying to anyone who is not trying to be disruptive. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Veterans of Foreign Wars - At least 3/4's of this biography discusses Anderson's involvement iin WWII
- Harry S. Truman - A link to an excellent article for people intereste in Anderson's military past context
- Nuclear weapon - Another link to context regarding Anderson's landing with the marines on Nagasaki in 1945
- Attitudinal healing - Related to A Course in Miracles
- Nagasaki - Related to 3/4's of the biography discussing Andersons landing with the marines here in '45
- Forgiveness - Related to A Course in Miracles
- United States Marine Corps - Anderson was a Private First Class in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1945
- Foundation for A Course in Miracles - Related to A Course in Miracles
- District court - Related to Anderson's involvment in litigation over A Course in Miracles
- Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin - Anderson's Home Town. Please read the biography/
- Schucman, Helen - Author of A Course in Miracles
- Teacher - Anderson is a teacher by trade.
- Thetford, William - Editor of A Course in Miracles
- Heaven - Related to Religious Figures
- Wapnick, Kenneth - Editor of A Course in Miracles
- Hell - Related to Religious Figures
- Williamson, Marianne - Related to A Course in Miracles in an equal way as Anderson.
- Austrailia - Geographic location centered around the 2nd half of the biography.
- Lawsuit - Related to Anderson's involvment with A Course in Miracles
- Penguin Books - Company which sued Anderson over A Course in Miracles
Per your request. Please learn to study the subject before making blind edits, and please discuss your hopes to improve the page with other editors in discussion. Thanks. Ste4k 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)