Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:10, 29 June 2006

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. :-) 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 09:16, 28 June 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/search/?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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages... 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 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 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 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 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 / 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 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)

Archives

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

Archive Procedure