Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:12, 5 July 2006

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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Torrent finder. thx! Zzzzz 11:43, 5 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 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 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 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 10:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k 23:12, 5 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 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 20:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, your talk page design breaks the comment button, which is annoying. --Nscheffey 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 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 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 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)

Archives