Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Antireconciler (talk | contribs) at 21:14, 20 July 2006 (→ACIM reversion support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

question

Regarding this comparison found at this site, which of the three source works are referring to the book advertised here on the bottom of the page, and here where it is being sold? If you know, please advise. I am trying to figure out how many different versions there actually are. There is another version printed in Hungary that claims to be Urtext, and calls itself the "Illuminate Edition". Do you know anything about that? I've only been researching this for a few weeks now. Please see my comments at User_talk:Sethie#About_the_.22CMC.22 in that regard. Thanks. Ste4k 19:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

These are various versions of ACIM. Please see the discussion for the article "A Course in Miracles". -- Who123 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

using the discussion pages.

Hi Who123, would you mind making these comments in the discussion section on the talk page? I cannot reply to your comments in the edit summary without editing something. Thanks. Ste4k 18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a section in the discussion section "Introduction". This has been discussed there. In addition, two others editors agree that the common abbreviations for The Course are not OR and do not require a source. Within The Course community it is very common knowledge.--Who123 03:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

An appropriate next step may be to file a user RfC in order to solicit more community input. From what I have seen, this user has left many other editors and admins dismayed. -Will Beback 05:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. That was very kind. -Will Beback 04:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Edits and questions

Dear Who123,

Why did you remove the templates that have all been explained both here in discussion as well as in the history, and not replace them with the single {{noncompliant}} template? On what basis did you remove two verified sources for this article and replace them with some personal web-site? After removing the sources, you did not remove any of the material in the article that they "might" have supported. And when adding the personal web-site, you didn't add any material to the article at all. The only thing you removed was some obvious OR. What gives? I am reverting your edits which haven't any explanation and suggest that you move questionable material here to the Discussion page in the future. By the way, if you need help on using citation templates, please see the appropriate documentation. Thanks. Ste4k 06:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ste4k, I did not write the ACIM article. I do not think the author is still active on WP as we have not heard from him/her. It seems from Scott P. that he was going to work on the article but does not have time now due to his upcoming marriage (see ACIM discussion). This has left a void in terms of having anyone currently active on WP with an interest in and a knowledge of ACIM that knows about the activity there. I have undergraduate degrees in philosophy and psychology as well as postgraduate degrees. I have read many books in these fields as well as in the area of religion/spirituality. I have studied various religious/spiritual movements. In particular, I have studied ACIM for 15-20 years. I do this for personal reasons. I have never received any financial gain from this. I have no desire to author books. Although I have limited time and no major desire to work on the article, it seems the task has fallen in my lap. Late last night I decided I would contribute to improving the article rather than just trying to help prevent its destruction.

I am unfamiliar with writing and citing articles on WP. I would appreciate your help in this in a constructive way. Thank you.--Who123 13:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

FACIM

Why did you delete all reference to FACIM from the ACIM article? I just came across that edit, but you didn't include a summary. The material had been on AfD and the conclusion was to "merge" it to ACIM. -Will Beback 08:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see above. Late last night I decided to help to improve the article. As noted, I have studied the material for 15-20 years on a personal level. It seems that the way to improve it is to improve on what is written as well the sources and citation. My time is limited and it will be a slow process. I will look at the material again. I will note any changes that I make in the future. I do not wish to re-write the article but it appears someone needs to. I would appreciate any help particularly in sourcing and citation. I think there are two books listed in the references that are particularly useful. I have one and plan to order the other. I think anyone involved with the editing of this article should purchase these books.--Who123 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless there's a good reaosn for its deletion, the material you removed about FACIM should be restored and then probably revised. Regarding your question on my page, see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. There are several different methods used. The one mostly used in the ACIM articles now is the most complex. In the past, at least, it was more commoon to just toss in a link, a practice I still follow too often because it is the easiest. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the the ACIM community to know the proper place of the FACIM material. The merge was performed due to the outcome of an AfD. However the AfD was irregular and a good case could be made at WP:DR. I suggest that you draw up a case for its recreation as a separate article. I'd support it, as it appears to an outsider as an stand-alone topic. -Will Beback 04:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I know a lot about ACIM and most that surrounds it. I do not understand WP policy as much as I would like. Since the material has been deleted for some time could not the article just be re-created?--Who123 04:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k RfC

I am compiling information for an RfC regarding user:Ste4k's behavior. Frankly, there is a lot to document. I thought you might be more familiar with some of the issues than I am. If you're interested in contributing, the draft is at User:Will Beback/Sandbox. I've drawn up an outline of the talk page issues, but it needs to be filled-out. Feel free to add to it as you see fit. I expect to post the Rfc in a day or two. -Will Beback 04:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggest also contacting others users about her. On your page you have received complaints from:

User:Nscheffey (twice)

Ben Houston

There may be complaints on other pages as she says she does hundreds of edits a day.--Who123 05:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd already notified one and have now notified the other, plus a few more. I'm sure there will be others who'll also want to endorse it - I'm just looking for those who can add to it. In that regard, we need to add "diffs" to each assertion. (Diffs are links that show an edit. You can get then from the history pages by copying the "last" link). Cheers, -Will Beback 07:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I will do what I can to help. I used to enjoy coming to WP but since interacting with her I no longer enjoy WP, it has become a very negative experience. For the diffs I only know of the ACIM pages, the EA pages, and her user page.--Who123 14:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You may also wish to contact User:Jossi and User:Scottperry.

Even without going into every dispute, I think the RfC will have sufficient examples of problematic behavior. The initial request for comment is just the start of a process. We've already compiled many complaints and many instances of unhelpful behavior. I know there is much more information, but it is a very tedious process to collect and assemble this information. Ultimately the user's actions in the future are more important than those in the past.

There's a group of bullet points under "general" that don't have any examples. Some of them probably do have references available (perhaps in some of the existing diffs), while others would be hard to prove. I suggest that the ones you would like to include could be moved into a short summary of the overall issues, perhaps combined with your suggested actions. I'll write one too. I suppose it's fine for us to make separate summaries, but we should keep them short.

Once it's ready to post we can put plain announcements on relevant talk pages. As requested, other editors will usually add comments or views. It's not like any other Wiki process. I'd like to post it tomorrow, if possible. -Will Beback 09:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As I think you know, I am fairly new to WP as an editor and do not understand much of the administrative tasks. Anything I placed there was in an effort to be helpful and to improve WP. I am particularly concerned about the user's apparent inability to get along with others and work by consensus. I am also very concerned about the users apparent desire to destroy articles, particularly ACIM.

I will spend some time on it again today. I do not think separate summaries would be useful. Please feel free to change anything I have posted. Has Nscheffey contributed yet? You may wish to contact him again. When you are ready then go. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.--Who123 13:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

ACIM reversion support

I appreciate your attempt at reversion but it must be reverted to "16:19, July 18, 2006 Who123" before the user destroyed the article.

This article has been stable for a long time with excellent sourcing considering the nature of the material. The original author was driven off WP by the user in question. Scott (who was familar with the material) has stopped editing. I seem to be the only one left that knows the material and I no longer wish to interact with that user.

I suggest that the page be "locked" at version "16:19, July 18, 2006" Who123--Who123 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know already that I support reversion, so I'll support your reversion of 16:19, 18 July 2006, before the question4ble user began her "improvement" of ACIM. I'm also familiar enough with the material to sort fiction from fact, so we can work together on it. The ninth Wikiprophecy foretells that when the w4r goddess has reigned for two-and-forty days, this age of d4rkness and desp4ir, having left Wikiworld scorched and barren, dark and desolate, will end as though it never was. It is told there will be a renewed awakening of insatiable thirst for knowledge and light, a rebirth of curiousity and high learning, dim at first, yet the w4r goddess will not long be able to suppress this, which was created ever greatest and one. And Wikiworld will shine forth with such brilliance as never before it was willing to recognize while the w4r goddess loomed ominously in the sh4dows. Yet will sh4dows vanish under the infectious light of this new age, for only sh4dows could have ever held it back. So it was passed down to me as I now pass it down to you ... or something like that. ^_^ —Antireconciler ◊ talk 01:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL Actually I think the reversion by Will Beback is fine too. It also is like a phoenix that restores ACIM from the ashes of destruction. I do not think a person needs to be an advanced student of ACIM to work on the article but some understanding seems important. It would be like most people (e.g. me) going in and trying to re-write an article on string theory with no knowledge of the subject. I would be happy to work with those that wish to actually discuss and slowly progress in a logical way to improve the article. I am not a writer and do not know how WP works that well. I think what I can bring to the table is a fairly wide base of knowledge surrounding ACIM and a fairly in depth knowledge of ACIM itself. I am not associated with any particular faction. I have a combination of training in the relevant arts as well as logic and science. I hope the ninth Wikiprophecy regarding the goddess comes to pass. I find that this goddess is like onto a dragon that destroys all in its path. People simply run from this fire of destruction. I await the Light.--Who123 01:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What is it that it is not the best place and time to discuss at ACIM discussion? I think all places and times good occasions for good reasoning ... don't you? I mean, you say at first that you understand ... but we are not understanding each other if you have to tell me to talk about something somewhere else. Won't you explain what you mean? —Antireconciler ◊ talk 21:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)