Misplaced Pages

	Nathan Clark Scheffey  "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -- H.L. Mencken

Welcome!

Hello Nscheffey, 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 have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  JFW | T@lk 22:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

PS: You've hit the ground running with vandal-fighting! Well done!

Possibly unfree Image:David O Russell.jpg

Hi, Thanks for your message. Publicity photos are such a complicated issue for wikipedia because of misundertandings in their definition. See Misplaced Pages:Publicity photos. Basically they should come from a section of a website clearly labelled as a 'press kit'.

However, screenshots are far less controversial. If you can find a genuine screenshot from a DVD extra, documentary, or something...The JPS 12:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jerry_Rice.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Jerry_Rice.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Image legality questions. 11:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

69.134.145.197

This guy runs GHe.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Bela Karolyi

Hi! Thanks for fixing the links on the Bela article. I hope I didn't bite your head off on that edit summary. I had been dealing with silly edits on other articles just before that, and my immediate response was 'egh, not again.' My connection's died in the middle of edits, I should have thought of that. :) Thanks again for stepping in! Namaste, Mademoiselle Sabina 09:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'm trying to become a functioning member of the community, so I appreciate your advice. Good to talk to you, let me know what else I can do to help. Nscheffey 09:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application

Dear Nscheffey,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.2 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that for security reasons, VandalProof's creator requires it's users to have made 250 edits to articles, which you have not. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your revertion of my edit

http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk01152005.html

theres your source...

--80.6.254.59 22:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my hasty revertion. Seemed like it had to be a joke. Again, sorry. Nscheffey 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

List of queercore musicians

um what did you revert--Terronez 03:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I already fixed it, just letting you know.Nscheffey 03:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War Article

I just wanted to say I think your edits to the article were perfect in removing much of the garbage that was put into it. Since it has not been reverted it looks like an outside observer and cool head was all that was needed. Thank again. --zero faults 13:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I know you feel you do not know too much about the situation, but if you have read over the summaries by both parties and agree with one of the summaries you can endorse one. You do not have to write out your own piece on the situation. Also I do appreciate the help you offered to the Iraq War article, its an idea I offered but was shot down in a mediation cabal. I think it took an outsider to the conflict to make the decission seem unbiased. Some of what you may have read over is just a part of it, some of it was archived. The best part about this whole thing is while we may have different views on the war itself, I was still able to see how useful your edits were.

Just to state my beliefs, I think the war is morally bankrupt. However legally its on solid ground till an international court decides to look into it. The issue with my edits is, facts d not support my personal view, and so I put only what I can factually prove and source in the article, I dont think I will ever be able to prove some of my outlandish views on why the US went to war. --zero faults 10:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome greetings

Hello Nscheffey,

thank you for your welcome greetings. I hope, that I can help the en:WP, because I have written some articles about Thuringia in german WP and there are a lot of thinks to do here. Greetings from sunny and hot (but only today ;-) Ilmenau, Thuringia, Germany. Hope, I did no grammar mistakes *g* --Michael Sander 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages with links

FYI, I moved your recent comment from Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation pages with links/2006-05-18 dump to Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation pages with links to centralize the discussion. --Russ Blau (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I kind of knew I was posting in the wrong place, thanks for fixing my mistake. Nscheffey 23:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WOT

Misplaced Pages:WOT is up for vote now. Rangeley 16:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Nscheffey! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. —Xyrael _{/ 11:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)} 11:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian Sewell

Thanks for the help catching the vandalism on Brian Sewell. That was getting frustrating!  :) Cabiria 16:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Holla atcha boy. Nscheffey 16:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Your User Page

Hey, I was just randomly perusing UserPages looking for inspiration for my own when I stumbled upon yours. I have to say it's the most aesthetically pleasing page I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages, period. Did you design it yourself? Very clean, crisp and elegant. Anyway, just thought I'd throw some wikiprops your way. Namaste. Nscheffey 16:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. Yes, I did design it myself. Good luck on designing your page and if you need or want any help, you can always contact me. joturner 16:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagi AFD

I posted a message like this on the Tagi AFD page. It was for you and three other editors. You wanted to make it a redirect. I said that if Tagi becomes a redirect why not every tribe in Survivor history? What makes it special?TeckWizContribs_Guestbook 11:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I think every Survivor tribe in history should redirect to their appropriate season. Why not? By the way, the link to the Contribs in your sig is broken, you need to change Special:Contribution to Special:Contributions. Cheers. --Nscheffey 12:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me no about the broken link. However, I'm pretty sure many users (including me) would list these for RFD. Even now you can see the article isn't deserving of a redirect, otherwise every tribe would have one. Just a guess I don't think anyone would actually search for Tagi. Instead they would go to Survivor: Borneo's page to look at it. Please comment back. Sigs broken but:TeckWizContribs_Guestbook 12:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Even though you might not think anyone would search for a specific Survivor tribe rather than the season itself, it is better to be safe than sorry. This is why we have redirects for misspellings, etc. The possible good of keeping the redirect far outweighs any reason for deleting it. --Nscheffey 12:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Per Big Brother 6

Is it good faith to assume bad faith without careful review? Ste4k 17:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe I did carefully review the article, and your comments on the AfD page seem to confirm what I feared: you are not using this AfD nom to actually delete the article, you are using it to draw attention to your beef with, I don't know, this television show, or all television shows. If you have problems with the article make a request for comment, or discuss it in WP:Notability, but don't nominate it for deletion when you know it won't be deleted. This is disturbing Misplaced Pages to make a point. --Nscheffey 17:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

These are two seperate issues. Regarding Big Brother, I retain my opinion, that an encyclopedia should list notable events that are historically accurate and important. I feel that too much time of too many editors is wasted bickering on that particular article. I also feel that the other editor purposely disregards factual matter in all previous articles. Whether or not it was appropriate to nominate the article as AfD has two sets of opinion. Perhaps you know of other television show articles, but for me, this is the only one that I am aware of.

and now another user has suggested a bad faith nom 

Before I reply to this, I'd like you to speak with that other user. I do not believe that he suggested a bad faith nom, nor do I believe that you understood him correctly. Be that as it may . . .

On the other topic, it matters nil to me about a single user that has an anonymous advocacy group behind his intents and his motives. I could easily take the time here to point out several personal attacks, etc, but the matter, in my opinion, has nothing to do with me personally; i.e. I prefer not to play games with immature individuals and bringing up any of his past harrassment issues would simply enflame rather than quench. He apparently believes that I am somehow associated with people of his past and User_talk:Andrew_Parodi#Importance_of_article he has not once acted in good faith with me, nor any of my comments. As a "cleanup" person, the manners in which I have in the past found systematic problem areas is probably unlike many others. Please see the comment by User:Superwad regarding one particular means by which I associate myself with articles near the bottom where he casts his vote to delete.

My chief concerns are with policy, disambiguity of the same, and for the encyclopedia on the whole, rather than any one article in particular. True, one may say that I have submitted several articles of one specific category to AfD, however, most of them were created by one author whom has yet to establish the reasons for creating the tree in the first place. It matters little to me whether the article exists or not. If it does exist, however, then it must adhere to policy and in that regard speak from a NPOV. Please see the comments of that author my talk page archives where he states that he refuses to cooperate for the betterment of the article on the whole. I believe that he may also be associated with this book and the company that produces it in a manner which is against the guidelines. I select the category ] for review, and find that he has been the original author of all of these articles within a short amount of time. It is my right as an editor to bring up this category for review by fellow editors, and I believe that doing so allows a consensus rather than if I were to begin edit warring, etc. Because I haven't been here that long, if there is another avenue for such matters, please point it out and consider me advised. I have already put that particular central article up for RfC, many of the rest I have cleaned up with Speedy Delete, and the rest should be given the due process and scrutiny.

That I happened upon this particular article was random chance. My interest in this particular article began when casually going through the AfD itself en masse, I came upon his article. I was under the impression that AfD entries were to be closed before they were removed, etc. and that they would last at least five days or something to that regard. This article's headers were removed and it was delisted from the AfD until I made a query about it on IRC to administrators there who corrected the problem. If the article about the book remains, that is fine with me, but it should be about the book and you can see my central concerns on that matter here.

I just noticed his first comment which is again made in bad faith. I will ignore it and move on to my other projects until later. I don't understand how User:Andrew Parodi has the right to "own" this article and his actions are gender offensive, calling me "buddy", in my opinion is simply rude. Ste4k 10:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, you haven't replied back yet about this matter and I would appreciate your concern. Thanks. Ste4k 05:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sorry it took a couple days to get back to you, been on vacation. OK, regarding the Big Brother nomination, which was speedily kept, I think you should realize that your view is in the very small minority. I think almost all wikipedians would agree that an article being the cause of much debate is not a reason to delete it. You said that "whether or not it was appropriate to nominate the article as AfD has two sets of opinion." I have yet to see an argument that this nomination was appropriate. Also, you said "perhaps you know of other television show articles, but for me, this is the only one that I am aware of." I'm not really sure what you meant by this, there are hundreds af articles about television shows. Almost every popular television show has it's own Thirdly, you said "I do not believe that he suggested a bad faith nom, nor do I believe that you understood him correctly." The quote in question was "it appears that the nomination of this page by Ste4k for deletion is a “bad faith” deletion attempt." I think I understood it correctly.

All of this relates to my larger issue, your misuse of the Article for Deletion process. I'm not prepared to dive into the ACIM debate, and I don't know what kind of personal problems you've had with other editors, but I think it's become very clear that your AfD noms were out of line. AfD is strictly for discussing whether or not an article merits inclusion in an encyclopedia, not whether it is contentious or poorly written. The only reason I even came across the ACIM controversy was that I was researching your other noms after being so surprised by the Big Brother nom. When I saw a similar pattern I decided to contact you. Just wanted to clear up this issue and make sure everyone is on the same page. As a final note, try to lighten up on the "gender offensive", "buddy" issue. It's hard to tell people's gender on the net, try to assume good faith. Thanks --Nscheffey 00:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it is up to any one user to write the policies and that they have evolved over a period of time. The person you are speaking about with the gender issue, had already been told several times, and not only by me, to cease and desist. About the Big Brother article, per policy, it should not be on this encyclopedia. I don't think that any editor of experience should be assuming bad faith when the discussions haven't anything to do with personal issues. The other editor, that mentioned bad faith in ACIM was pointing out the possibility that I might be from some faction that doesn't like ACIM. I actually complimented him on his page regarding the statement since the possibility could exist. We discussed it and there was nothing more to it. Without doing any investigation of your own, such statements are rather blind, in my opinion. If you are telling me that policy doesn't really matter, then as far as AGF goes, it doesn't really matter either, does it. About NPOV and staying neutral, I don't think there is any pattern that you can justify about me at all, and none exists. I hadn't ever heard of ACIM before there were problems arising from their actions. I don't think you have taken the time while on vacation to notice all of the BF comments, changing people votes in AfD, and etc, that certain editors decided they needed to do in order to protect certain articles. None of that, however, stopped me from doing the research on the cited sources. And it turns out that the book itself is out of print, and that the acronym "ACIM" is a registered trademark. The court case that those citations left out filled in most of the blanks that showed that all of the rest of the cited sources were actually a close knit association and a single company. Either way, I don't play favorites, I only read the rules. Policy is first, followed by guidelines and not the other way around. Sure, you might say, that just isn't the reality around here, and that 90% of the entire encyclopedia doesn't meet spec. I can only answer that by saying that it doesn't meet spec because the policies are ignored. So basically, since I am still new, not even being here more than a couple weeks, the policy is the only thing that I can trust for sure that meets consensus. So I suggest that if you believe that I have some sort of problem with AfD, that you consult the policy again for yourself and make suggestions for rewriting it. AfD is not the place to be discussing changes in policy. About Big Brother, had I know that the other editor owned the page and that he was allowed to do so, I wouldn't have ever bothered to work on it. And had I known that it makes no sense to discuss an article like the documentation says, I wouldn't have ever bothered to reason with an irrational, unreasonable person. Ste4k 22:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As others have noted , your writing style makes it hard to understand what you're saying. What I can make out seems very confused. OK, first you say "the Big Brother article, per policy, ... should not be on this encyclopedia." To what policy could you possibly be referring? Does that fact that the article was speedy kept mean anything to you?

Next you mentioned the other editor who accused you of a bad faith AfD nom, Andrew Parodi. You say he broght up the "possibility that might be from some faction that doesn't like ACIM," and that you "complimented him on his page regarding the statement." This is a patent falsehood, as proven by a glance at your edits to his talk page, none of which are complimentary to say the least. And the claim the "we discussed it and there was nothing more to it," is obscenely wrong, considering what actually came of it: he quit Misplaced Pages and you taunted him on the way out.

All of this worries me, since you seem to combine a flimsy grasp of policy with a stubborn and self righteous nature, a dangerous combination. Doesn't it concern you that at least six of your recent AfD noms have resulted in or are trending towards clear consensus keeps? Do you not feel that you may be in the wrong when the last three comments on your talk page concern problems with the AfD process, and now another editor has said on an AfD page that "Ste4k should be chastised for acting so dishonestly"? I guess this is to be expected from a user whose first contributions to wikipedia were attempting to insert information about a cursed newsgroup into the Curse article, and then edit warring over it, resulting in its current protection.

In conclusion, if you continue to misuse AfD I will open an RfC concerning your conduct. I think I have enough for a strong case already, but I'm willing to give you another chance. --Nscheffey 04:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 3rd.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.