Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:49, 26 March 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Steve Dufour, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Keep up the good work with Burbank!--ragesoss 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Template messages Dufour on WP

Muir and Thoreau

Hi, The rewrite of the first paragraph of Muir was very well done. Is Thoreau within your scope? The first paragraph there could use some help. It's beyond me. Thanks KAM 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Peace (rose)

Hi Steve - just to let you know I've moved your para on this out of rose to its own page Peace (rose), it is sufficiently noteworthy to have its own page. Also expanded a little on details. - MPF 00:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I see what you wrote, has been turned into it's own article. Very nice! :) --HResearcher 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so. Steve Dufour 05:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot intro

Hey Steve. Re your comment on my talk page in which you asked if it is really necessary to mention in the intro that some people don't believe in Biggie. Yes it is. Your intro was "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is a legendary creature, which many people believe is also real." OK, that's a believers' POV, so what's wrong with balancing it. Tell you what, l will change one single word in your intro and ask you how long the the intro would have survived. Change the (second occurrence) of the word "also" to "not", so that your intro now becomes "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is a legendary creature, which many people believe is not real." Imagine the shock horror from the believers. And yet, you want the intro to say there are Biggie believers, but not to balance it by also saying there are disbelievers. Sorry, don't agree, which I why I amended it. Also, your intro says Biggie is a "legendary creature". So, Wiki was effectively advancing the POV that a creature actually exists, which is why I changed it to say Biggie is the name of a phenomenon. Incidentally, the word legendary doesn't only mean mythical.Moriori 22:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe in Bigfoot, but if it is real that would really be cool.  :-) Steve Dufour 01:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Motivation for Sun Myung Moon's anti-communism

Steve, I've just made 4 edits to the Sun Myung Moon article, to the Views on Communism section. The argument that Sun Myung Moon is anti-communist because he was mistreated by them - and not for philosophical or theological reasons - seems like such an obviously empty accusation to those who are even a little bit knowledgeable about the man and his organization(s). But did I go too far? I want to be fair even to viewpoints I don't agree with, and you seem to have a good sense along such lines (you seem to have a similar perspective of trying to be fair). Please take a look at today's edits and let me know what you think. -Exucmember 18:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks.

It looks ok to me. However I still think his anti-communist activities should be covered as a topic unto themselves as a very important part of his life and his contribution to the world; not mainly as an issue for debate between critics and supporters--although that could be mentioned in the criticism section. Steve Dufour 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is a very important part of his life and work, and deserves its own article. Why don't you start it? -Exucmember 17:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Steve Dufour 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Racism

Steve, I applaud you for your anti-racism. If I could give you an award I would. Well done.

Use of "claim"

I have tried and failed to track down any WP guideline or policy against "claim" as a word to characterize, well, claims. Could you direct me to the exact citation? Thanks. Robertissimo 04:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid

Unification Theology

Steve, your recent edits and comments seem to indicate that you are not aware of the existence of the Unification theology article, but I can't believe that's the case. Anyway, it would be nice to distribute some of the UC teachings material there too, and to give some needed attention to that article. Both Unification theology and Divine Principle could use substantial revisions, as they were never edited thoroughly from beginning to end, to create a coherent article, by anyone (see especially the history of Unification theology). To me this is the single biggest deficiency in UC-related articles. The main overhaul should be done by a church member, not by a critic, so that the core presentation is true to what Unificationists believe. -Exucmember 18:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I was aware that the Unification theology article existed. To me as a member the article on Divine Principle seems like it should be the main article. We members almost never use the expression "Unification theology". I'll see what I can do in improving the articles. Thanks for your support. Steve Dufour 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand are the beliefs of the Unification Church really something that should be covered in Misplaced Pages at all? If people want to know they can visit church websites and find tons of info. But there has been almost no research or discussion of them by non-church sources. Steve Dufour 06:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Crouch on Obama

Hey Steve. The idea of that paragraph (and most of the Pop culture section) is that the sources are almost all saying people like to see themselves in Obama. Crouch's view is the less popular one, and so it is added to promote balance. It needs to be stated plainly so people can get the contrast. I take your point about using a more complete quote. How about using this quote from the third to last paragraph of Crouch's article?

"when black Americans refer to Obama as 'one of us,' I do not know what they are talking about while he has experienced some light versions of typical racial stereotypes, he cannot claim those problems as his own - nor has he lived the life of a black American."

Hope this makes sense. Be sure also to check the notes, the title of the article referenced immediately before this one suggests that one article inspired the other, "black like me", "not black like me"... Without contrary sources (Crouch, and also Noonan) the section risks getting ripped up by people who read it as too flattering of Obama. Let me know how you see it. Thanks. --HailFire 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd not really sure what the point of Crouch's article was. I don't think it was really critical of Obama, more like just a rant about how the world was changing and leaving him (Crouch) behind. If you put the quote you prefer in the article I will not object. Steve Dufour 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Crouch is not criticizing Obama at all, he is criticizing the way he feels others (specifically African Americans) see themselves in Obama. The whole idea of the Pop culture section is to talk about Obama's celebrity and how it interplays with social perceptions, not substantiated facts. That's what makes it so tricky. The multiline quote you put in looks a bit disproportionate for the idea it needs to convey, but we can let it ride for now. Thanks again. --HailFire 17:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally we are not supposed to cut up quotes putting in three dots ... whatever you call that. So I just pasted in the whole paragraph. BTW the more I think about it the more unreasonable Crouch seems to me. He spent his life struggling against racism and then when things have improved and young people don't suffer the same things that he did he complains about that. Steve Dufour 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree! But the sentiment Crouch expresses has been pushed into the article before and unless it gets addressed, will certainly be pushed again. I think this is a good place to allow some room for it. Makes sense? Still thinking about how we could trim it down a bit. Maybe move the full quote to the Notes section, like was just done for the "I inhaled" quote that would not go away? --HailFire 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Better? Be sure to check footnote! --HailFire 20:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

At least that quote let's people know there is some controversy. :-) Steve Dufour 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI - the Crouch piece is getting more play - this week's Newsweek has a sidebar about Obama's not coming up through the civil rights movement, and Crouch's piece is prominently discussed. Tvoz | talk 18:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for your comment

Thanks, Steve, for the comment you added to the posting related to Transcendental Meditation on the Conflict of Interest Notice Board. It's an important point. TimidGuy 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There probably will not be any objective coverage of TM until the second or third generation has grown up in it. This has happened with the Mormons, for example. Steve Dufour 04:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

about your change to

where you said (→Background - no need for euphemism, we white people are not offended to be called that, although we are not really white, just a lighter shade of the normal human color lol - I wonder about the complexities of international coverage of wikipedia - is using "white" going to confuse people instead of Caucasion??--Smkolins 21:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)`

Both words are kind of silly; my skin is not white and I am not aware of any relationship I have with the Caucasis. Steve Dufour 04:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Ex Christians

I just ran across this list and your justified criticisms of it. I believe the concept is fundamentally not encyclopedic. I am surprised to find it in Misplaced Pages. I suppose, however, that any effort to nominate it for deletion would arouse cries of "fundamentalism" and "censorship." If this concept is appropriate for an encyclopedia how about the following lists?

List of ex-republicans

List of former taco eaters

List of former ABBA fans

List of people who have changed from Ford to Chevy

List of ex-readers of the list of ex-Christians

This presents Misplaced Pages with a whole new field for new articles!Will3935 06:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. What is really interesting is how few genuine ex-Christians, even if we use the term very loosely, there really are. Steve Dufour 13:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Untold millions, if you simply look at the statistics of declining church attendance and self-reported affiliation over recent decades. Huangdi (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Writers who illustrated their own writing

I have created a new category Category:Writers who illustrated their own writing per the discussion on Category:Writers who also draw/paint in which you participated. Please help me populate it. I'm sure there are a lot more writers who belong in it, but I can't think of them. Thanks! -- Lesnail 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I will help out with that. Steve Dufour 19:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Lesnail 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Slime Moulds

Please don't taste one. Many fungi are deadly poison. The bright colors might be a warning.Steve Dufour 19:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not call slime moulds fungi. They have feelings, you know, and can be very good, honest, hard working individuals, climbing up trees all day and all night for weeks to reach food, as well as sweet and generous allowig thier friends and family to use thier corpses as construction material, and are also quite inteligent beings, finding logical soloutions situations such as being cut up into peices and used in experiments, and have amazing teamwork abilities, gluing themselves to each other to form tiny slugs, and causing said slugs to glue themselves to the other slugs untill they form large blobs up to a metre in diamater, never arguing about which way they are going. They are protitsts. 124.197.50.143 13:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am aware of that fact. I was drawing a parallel between them and their relatives the fungi. Have a slimy, moldy day. :-) Steve Dufour 12:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, they're not related to fungi. 124.197.50.143 13:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope I didn't hurt their feelings by saying they were. :-) - Steve Dufour 01:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Claim is "WP word to avoid"

Your recent edits to Jews for Jesus replaces "claim" with "say that". As these words are identical in meaning in the context they are being used, I was wondering what guideline or policy you were following (as they are always changing). I wish to make my further edits be in line with WP style policy. P.S. I didn't put this on the talk page of the article because it is more of a general style question than an article specific improvement. Ramsquire 17:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's here: Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid Steve Dufour 21:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Ramsquire 21:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Bush and beer

I liked your Timothy Bush and beer comment over at this deletion discussion. Did you ever see this? Carcharoth 10:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...

On 17 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article African Wild Dog name controversy , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3  21:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been proposed that Timothy Paul Baymon be deleted

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Timothy Paul Baymon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Timothy Paul Baymon. Thanks, Bill Huffman (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Worm Ouroboros Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Worm Ouroboros Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks very much for the Mammal Barnstar, that's very kind of you. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to ask. VanTucky 23:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unification Church

Hi Steve, I'm not an admin, but you can request page protection at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. --MPerel 17:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In UC and Rev Moons articles there needs to be a huge section explaining the major issue going on in Japan currently with the UC. Until recenlty almost all the funds (billions) for the UC have come through basic extortion techoniques to coerce Japanese out of money. It was these funds that were used to enrich the US UC and give it financial stability. Ithas been a major rift within the UC for 20 years. There is a rift in Japan and countless people in Jpaan have had their lives ruined. basically all the theological depth you can muster is meaningless compared to the huge calamity caused in Japan. The fact that it still goes on is a testimony to the leadership in the US including Moon's permiting this to occure. It enforces the allegations that Moons and leaders of the UC promots all means needed including lying and cheating to get money to the US UC to help it attain its goals of world domination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.167.87 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for putting this earlier in the wrong spot. It is not even close to soemthing that should need protection. Steve is a highly opinionated follower of the "cult" Unification Church. Though he has arguements against calling it a cult it is commonly beleived to be one by all major sources and the entire world other than it's own memebers. He is a constant editor of Unification Church and Rev Moon Misplaced Pages sites. Mostly revisionist history of both with strong biad towards them. He is rarely Nuetral in his edits, though he sometimes leaves some things he doesn't like since there is overwhelming evidnece that he can't refute. He takes out most negative issues unless there is some sort of positive response or way to refute the point.

It seems Steve has some integrity and open to remarks that may be negative. Also there are other editors at work protecting the neutrality. At the moment the 2 sites are getting better but still need work. They both are too long and have middle parts that are vehicles for Church concepts which should not be part of Misplaced Pages. I suggest Steve take a crack at removing some of these sections before others do. 74.66.71.134 22:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I happen to agree that too much space is taken up by explainations of church doctrine, especially since there are other articles that cover this. I would like to see some of the unsourced material about individuals removed, especially about Rev. Moon's family. I am not the only person working on the article and I don't have the right to dictate what is said. One problem is the almost total lack of reliable sources on the church. I don't know of any publication that has printed an article giving just basic information on the church or on Rev. Moon himself. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am just leanring how this all works and will get a name etc. I think some of the family stuff may be relevant in a concise form. The theological parts need to be cut back or some sections removed, or just referenced etc. Today I met with a prominent UC member and discussed the issues in Japan. He also expalined this 3 year issue of engagement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.167.87 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve...thanks

For voicing a neutral and helpful POV at the Insight magazine BLP noticeboard. You are a gentleman sir, and I thank you kindly for your comment. WNDL42 (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Obama GA

Thanks for contributing to the effort at Michelle Obama. You may want to put this on your user page:

This user helped promote Michelle Obama to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to hear the news. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WQA#Opinions of other's choices

Just a heads up,

I'd also like to take this opportunity to say, I really don't care one way or another whether you want to edit Scientology articles or not. (You seem to be under the impression that I do.) Anynobody 05:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikiquette Alert

Greetings Steve Dufour!

I recently came across a Wikiquette filed against you, specifically regarding an edit made at Talk:Freedom of Information Act (United States). The alert can be found here: ].

Personally, I don't think your comments were a serious breach of etiquette, but I do think that you could have chosen different language, or chosen to not respond at all in this case.

I do not wish to pass judgement on you, or equate what you do to other users. I have witnessed some recent debates ongoing in other articles where some editors believe that there is some kind of a persecution: that somehow good editing is being stifled because of etiquette issues. I am sure that you realize that good editing does not have to end in the name of etiquette. Based on the few edits I have seen, I think your work is quite good, and that you and I would agree on many of your edits. I wish you the best of luck on your editing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Scientology Handbook

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Scientology Handbook, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Scientology Handbook. Thank you. Coffeepusher (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Hi. I've proposed deleting an article you've edited, about the book 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America by Jack Huberman. At present there's no sign from the article that the book is notable. I'm hoping to ...um... prod someone into providing evidence for the book's notability; can you help? Cheers, CWC 14:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hal Turner

Please, please do not use such offensive edit summaries. Calling people 'evil' and whatever else, and calling malicious hackers 'heroic' because they have attacked someone you dislike is a blatant violation of our BLP policy. I have deleted your revisions so as to remove the offensive summaries. Please also note my reply on the article talk page. I think you've kind of missed the point of our BLP policy with this one- you remove valid edits claiming them invalid, then go and shout abuse about the guy. J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. My purpose in my edit summaries was to make it clear the my interest was in WP policies, not in defending a neo-Nazi. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In deleting your edits, I have added back the sites you removed- you may want to remove them again with a slightly more neutral explanation of why. Just reference the policies- anyone can see you're acting inside policy, and no one is going to judge you based on what you choose to edit anyway. I also ended up getting involved in the article for BLP reasons... J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)