Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andrew Parodi (talk | contribs) at 03:13, 25 June 2006 (→The importance of the [] article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

curses are not real

Just to be clear, Ste4k, there is not actually such a thing as a "curse", as you seem to believe in your persistent insertion of a weird story about a "cursed newsgroup". Please stop adding this silliness to an otherwise fine article. Sdedeo (tips) 23:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Sdedeo, and I appreciate your further comments on the Talk:Curse about the rephrasing of the section to avoid such an interpretation in the future: "Congrats on rephrasing the paragraph so as not to claim the existence of a real live internet curse. -- Sdedeo (tips) 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)" Ste4k 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on June 19 2006 (UTC) to Curse

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Thank you Mr. Connolly, for bringing this matter to my attention. I am sorry that you hadn't the time to read the discussion in Talk:Curse or check to see that the revisions made had changed the content. I have taken the time that you set aside for me to become more familiar with the 3RR. I have also become more aware of the purposes of the Talk pages. Thanks again. Ste4k 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But you have also leapt straight back into reverting, so you get another block: 24h this time William M. Connolley 20:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the revert was made to prevent vandalism, and proper procedure for preventing vandalism

was followed. Ste4k 20:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I am new and unfamilar to the wiki environment. I am reading about how all of this works, but

am still unclear on whether your reference to "discussion" earlier meant e-mail, the talk-page of the subject,

your talk-page, or this-page here. I haven't any idea how you are properly notified to discuss this issue or

where exactly such discussions normally take place. Please allow some patience. Ste4k

I suggest, if you're new, you apply WP:1RR until you're settled in. And perhaps beyond. Discussion refers to the talk pages of the article. Its boilerplate text in my block message, though William M. Connolley 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Documentation of the vandalism as well as full justification for the addition to the article

is discussed and was further appended this morning in the talk-pages of the article.

In this particular revert today, two instances of blanking were reverted, one of a person

whom does not have a talk-page to discuss. The other person was advised on their talk-page

about blanking. Per the person that only has an internet address, they were invited on the

talk-page of the article to participate. I appreciate your reference to 1RR and will read

that shortly. Thanks. Ste4k 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request that you also please notice the repetitive vandalism on the page CURSE by the person at 88.105.251.105. This person has ignored attempts to discuss their reverts, and their reverts are simple vandalism (Blanking). The times listed in the history are:

20:18, 19 June 2006 88.105.251.105 (→Cursed News Groups)

08:26, 19 June 2006 88.105.251.105 (→Cursed News Groups)

20:22, 18 June 2006 88.105.251.105 (→Cursed News Groups)

09:11, 18 June 2006 88.105.251.105 (→Cursed News Groups)

07:55, 17 June 2006 88.105.251.105 (→Cursed News Groups)

Four of the revisions which I made that you counted for my violation of the 3RR rule were to revert the simple vandalism by this person. I did not, however, at the time know how to revert using the actual instructions by using an old version, but had reapplied the edits by hand. I was also unaware of the "Edit summary" box and how it is correctly used. Thanks. Ste4k 21:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to be taking an overly legalistic appropach to this situation, let me simplify it for you: If I see you edit warring on this or any other article in the future in a manner similar to the disruptive way you edit warred on Curse, I will block you for much, much longer than William M. Connolley has. I strongly agree with William's suggestion that you try adopting WP:1RR as your personal policy until you are settled in. Nandesuka 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

unblock

{{unblock|another user requesting a review of this block}} admins, please look at this

I've protected Curse and would like for all involved edit warriors to have an opportunity to discuss the article. While I think this block was appropriate given the circumstances, blocking should be preventitive, rather than punitive, and there is no need for this user to be blocked whilst the article is protected. Unblocking now. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems we missed this, but better late than never

Hello Ste4k, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Luna Santin 08:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Getting started Misplaced Pages Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Misplaced Pages Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Misplaced Pages rules Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

• Oh, and finally responding to your thanks -- of course! I'm always happy to help somebody out, even if I am notoriously slow responding to talk page messages. Still getting a bit used to things around here, myself, been here less than a month. Everybody was new at some point, just some are more forgetful about the experience than others. I saw your note on the Curse talk page, I'll probably respond to it sometime tommorow when I'm more awake. Luna Santin 10:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ahhh, diffs are divine. Took me a bit to get used to them, but by now when something gets hotly disputed, I have a tendency to start reading the diffs exclusively. As far as mistakes go, I like to say the most important part of making them is learning from the exerience. Though, by the sound of things, you're picking stuff up pretty quickly. Luna Santin 11:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Discussion Pages

I didn't delete the discussion page, I was trying to archive it. While I was doing that, I found a bug in Firefox which was making only part of the text appear when I saved the page. I've managed to sort it all out, and the main talk page is back to normal, along with the archive. Sorry about that. --JD_email 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

I have not been ignoring any of your comments, and I have not been repeatedly reverting your edits. I made minor relevant adjustments to your edits because some of the things you had written were incorrect. --JD_email 23:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for showing me where the infoboxes are.Yugioh73036 07:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Yugioh73036

Again thx. Srry for the trouble.Yugioh73036 03:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Yugioh73036

Removed comment?

I didn't remove any comments of yours, I just didn't select it when I copied a piece of it so I could answer each point individually. Your original comment is still there, with your original post. --JD_email 14:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

-bio-notability +importance

Is there some project going on to replace the bio-notability tag with the importance tag? I noticed the tag switch on a few articles I've edited and thought I'd ask. Thanks --AbsolutDan 20:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what used to be Here got finished. I do not know exactly what templates will be changed, but User:Redvers gave me a star for finishing it. You might want to check with him. Ste4k 20:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I know what happened here. Correct me if I'm mistaken: you were doing cleanup work moving category entries on articles for a category that had been deleted. At the time, the {{bio-notability}} tag had the old (deleted) category, so you switched the tag to {{importance}}, which had the correct new category? Let me know, thanks --AbsolutDan 23:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dan! Yes, I believe you are correct. I am very new however and your description sounds very accurate to me with only two details. I was givenn some help on how to do the cleanup, and I tried my best to make sure that the Edit Summary accruately reflected what was removed with a minus sign. If one of the articles had a <div> type, then I read it, removed it, and noted that as well with -div(whatever). Hope this helps. :) Ste4k 00:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes that does help, thanks for the reply. I certainly appreciate your cleanup efforts, we need more helpful Wikipedians like yourself! The only reason I bring this up is because, although {{importance}} and {{bio-notability}} are similar in that they both indicate the article has notability issues, they do differ enough in meaning that they should be used mutually exclusively. {{importance}} merely indicates that the article needs more information regarding it's importance, whereas {{bio-notability}} takes it one step further and indicates that the article could be subject to deletion if the importance isn't established.

If someone did tell you to switch {{importance}} for {{bio-notability}}, please let me know; I could be missing something important (for example, sometimes templates are marked for eventual removal, in which case it should have been removed). If not though I think we should switch the tags back. Someone has already corrected the {{bio-notability}} tag so that it uses the proper category.

If you'd like, I can help you do this fairly quickly using some tools that I have. Just let me know (again, if there is some other reason I haven't thought of as to why the tags should have been switched do let me know). Thanks 00:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)--AbsolutDan

Hi Again, Dan. Yes, I understand about all of those concerns. The chief purpose of the cleanup was to remove a dual entry for the new importance Category. I am not qualified enough to say whether the bio template is scheduled for deletion. That tag though, referred to the old Category only though, and not the new Category page. The only other template besides the bio template which triggered that Category was the vanity template. Please feel free to revert any changes made, but be aware that you may end up recreating the old category. I cannot tell you if that would happen either way, yes or no. I would suggest that you drop Redvers a line though since he was notified after I had completed the task. You could TEST the idea to see if the old template triggers the old page, and if it does, simply undo it. That MIGHT even trigger an alarm bell for somebody somewhere, if they care. Thanks, and I wish I could be of more help. Ste4k 00:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are absolutely right; at the time of your edits the template was in error, in that it still contained the old category. I've verified that someone did later change it to what I believe to be the correct category, "Misplaced Pages articles with topics of unclear importance". But you're right again in that I should try it once before doing any sort of mass change. I will do that. Thanks again for your hard work and taking the time to discuss this with me --AbsolutDan 00:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD, MfD, CfD, ABC, NBC, OMG, BBC...

Hi Ste4k!

Short answer: Yes!

Long answer: Sorry, yes but wrong place. The distinctions are horrible, but we put certain elements of Misplaced Pages stuff in certain places. So articles (stuff with a URL of en.wikipedia.org/<name of article>) go to Articles for Deletion. Categories (en.wikipedia.org/Category:<name>) got to Categories for Deletion. Management things (en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:<name>) go to Miscellany for Deletion. And templates (en.wikipedia.org/Template:<name>) go to Templates for Deletion.

In this case, the category you (wonderfully!) cleared should have gone to CfD. However, CfD had already decided to delete it when it was empty, so, in theory, they should spot it themselves and delete it. In practice, there are well over 2 million pages here, so they won't. So I dropped the main CfD talk page a note to remind them.

Don't worry too much about these definitions. They trip everyone up - even people who have been here forever, even Jimbo himself - now and again!

Good editors here do the work and care little for the structure. Good editors see other good editors and clear up behind them happily. Only people with nothing better to do will complain about mixing up the alphabet soup we manage behind!

Thanks again and happy editing! ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hi Ste4k!

Blimey, yes, there are loads!

A couple of thousand manual cleanup cases can be found at Misplaced Pages:Cleanup. The whole cleanup effort is controlled from Misplaced Pages:Cleanup process. And the people doing the cleanup are all at Misplaced Pages:Cleaning department.

Start with Misplaced Pages:Cleaning department is my advice. A long read of the page and the links off it are useful. If you haven't already done so, immerse yourself in the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style - a perverse, hard to read, hard to follow document that tells you more than you'll ever need to know about how Misplaced Pages articles are constructed, how they should be constructed and how people would like them to be constructed (but they never are).

Remember that all of these are guidelines. Ideally they should be stuck to, but in reality the majority will/should welcome new, sourced content more than pretty bold, italic and other such trimmings. The majority will/should appreciate efforts to cleanup as well, but often we don't even notice it and the turnover in cleaners-up is tremendous as they are so terribly underrated when we should be making statues of them. Esperanza is one of the places where you can go and boast about doing good cleanup work and get praise and thanks - their job is to praise and thank people for doing the jobs others don't want to do!

Finally, if you're hardcore into cleanup, put {{Resources for collaboration}} onto your user page or a subpage (like User:Ste4k/Cleanup for instance), save and see a box magically appear with a whole list of maintenance tasks and co-ordination pages. After you've run away screaming, come back and do some cleaning: you'll get no praise, do hard work, never managed more than about 5% of what you want to do, but others will secretly love you forever and you'll have done a Great Work for mankind. No, honestly. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Empty talk pages

Greetings. I just polled a few other admins (well, two), and our consensus is that deleting empty talk pages isn't worth the effort. I can't see it listed as a Cleanup task either, for what that's worth. Note that this is not an official order to cease and desist; I'm happy to talk about it. However, there's lots of other Cleanup tasks that your time might be more profitably directed towards... IceKarmaॐ 06:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that I am qualified for much else at this time, and this helps me learn. It took me about an hour to find this task in the first place. I learn very quickly, but regardless, there doesn't seem to be many people that have even a moment to help out a newbie. I am following the instructions here:

]

It was suggested that I look into the Cleaning Department, and this was, with a little help on IRC, something I figured I could do without getting into any trouble. Please review my history and note that I do not like to be political. I follow rules to the "T", and some of the rules here appear to be contradictory. On my first day I received a 3RR for trying to edit a page in good faith while dealing with a vandal, and people that cannot read. I am checking each and every page's history in this list:

]

I appreciate that there MAY be a lot of other cleanup tasks around, but without anyone around to answer enough questions for five minutes or so I would more than likely end up lost in the documentation again. Therefore, directed is one thing, and efficiently directed another. I do sincerely appreciate your intentions. If you have the time to help, I would be happy to oblige. Please feel free to use this space for this conversation. Thanks. :) Ste4k 06:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your question at the help page

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Please see my answer to your question at the new contributors' help page. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 19:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

helpme question

{{helpme}} Are there docs on the "My Preferences" section ?

You can find more information about preferences at Help:Preferences and Misplaced Pages:Preferences. --TantalumTelluride 02:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. To find pages about using Misplaced Pages, it is often helpful to search within the project and help namespaces. For example, after clicking search, you can uncheck the (Main) box and check the Misplaced Pages box to search the project namespace. --TantalumTelluride 02:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: already warned

Ste4k wrote: I already warned 67.189.86.65 but you did the revert I had planned. Just to let you know.

Thanks for the info. I've removed my warning, as there's no point in warning someone twice for the same edit. I'll keep an eye on the user's contributions though – Gurch 21:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Afd Discussion

23 June 2006 16:12 Ste4k wrote: Hi! Just letting you know that I only intend to discuss the facts about that article. I hope I didn't rub you the wrong way. The reason those two terms are inappropriate, besides being unprofessional, is that you are more than likely under a mistaken impression about my gender. :) Good luck with your projects!

Well, first and foremost, a belated but very hearty welcome to Misplaced Pages, the world's most confusing encyclopaedia! Or, alternately, the encyclopaedia with more social implications than the Blackwell Dictionary of Social Thought. At any rate, two things are true: 1) Misplaced Pages is big, and 2) Misplaced Pages is complicated. But I see that you've already figured that much out.

I made my first edits to the 'pedia back before they started giving out that nifty Welcome to Misplaced Pages box you've got up there higher on the page. And the number of helpful and (usually) friendly editors, admins, peer moderaters, and the like was significantly smaller. Needless to say, there are many more resources available to you than there would have been a year ago. That doesn't necessarily make it easier on you, though: Wikipedians who have been here a long time are often set in their ways, or they have seen the project and its meta-existence evolve through stages that give them insight into subtleties which may not be apparent to you.

That said, you're doing a good job. I've noticed that you're gravitating towards the Cleanup circle. They could certainly use the help, as they're constantly piling on the workloads faster than they can finish them. But be aware: just as you may hold the belief that the 'pedia needs to be streamlined in certain ways, so may others believe that it needs to be crammed full of as much information as it can hold. I can see that you've already had your first scuffles to that effect. No matter; we're all here for the same reason, really: to make an encyclopaedia.

It's clear to me that you've taken some time to familiarize yourself with the rules and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, which was certainly a good prerogative on your part, and more than many people do when they first arrive. However, let me introduce you to two things that may have escaped your attention. (It is always a matter of ire for me that they are not on the Welcome Template.)

The first item is Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. That is to say, a user's contributions to Misplaced Pages are much more about that user's intentions than the actual letter of what is written. Try to see disagreements from the other user's point of view: this will help you in understanding what the actual conflict is, often quite different from the apparent one.

The second item, and in my opinion the most important concept on Misplaced Pages, is Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules. That one ought to be obvious: remember the goals of Misplaced Pages, and, when you brush up against a rule, think about how that rule or guideline jives with the overall spirit and goals of Misplaced Pages ... or how it doesn't.

So I guess I'll bring this rather tedious monologue to a close. And remember, as one of the failed suggested mottos of Misplaced Pages said: Misplaced Pages: This statement is a lie.

(P.S. Once again, apologies about the vocabulary. I, and most of the people I know, use words like that as non-gendered words, applicable to anyone who identifies themselves as male, female, or something else. I do realize that there are people who do not use them that way, and am more than happy to respect that. With regards to your saying that they are unprofessional ... well, that brought a smile to my face: I haven't heard someone make a claim of professionality on Misplaced Pages in a long, long time.)

Peace! - Che Nuevara: 11:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to bounce conversations back and forth, because it's easier for someone outside the conversation looking for it to follow. If most of the posts aren't too long, then they can be copied and reposted on the respective pages, to make it easier to follow, but there's not necessarily a need to do that. So if you leave your messages on my page, I'll leave mine on yours. I think that works best for both of us.

I ought to let you know that I did think the article should be deleted, but I disagreed with your reasoning in the nomination. I don't like seeing articles deleted for what I consider the wrong reasons, because I feel that it sets bad precedent. Of course, now that the article is condemned to WikiHell, I have no problem with it going there.

You may notice, through occasional bumps with me, that I tend to lean towards inclusionism, although I prefer to think of myself more as a WikiRealist. That is, we Wikipedians have to choose our battles. I chose your nomination to make a point, so sorry if that rubbed you the wrong way. My comments were with the best of intentions.

There certainly are parsec-wide holes in both Misplaced Pages function and guidelines, but I strongly suspect it will remain that way forever. And, while a certain amount of culling the herd is necessary, I tend to live and let live. I'm neither an article saver or an article slaughterer.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by your 'standards'. There is a set of guidelines that already exists. They are generally considered 'This is what you should do' and not 'This is what you have to do', and they are constantly evolving through editing and whatnot. That's one of the interesting things about the 'pedia: anyone can edit the pages that the rules appear on! Misplaced Pages uses policy, guideline, straw poll, and the like. Take some time to surf through them, and feel free to comment on them or to recommend your own. - Che Nuevara: 13:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, your articles arguments (sorry, not paying attention to what I'm typing) were perfectly sound. I disagreed with them, but that doesn't make them wrong, and they were worth bringing up. I was unaware of this particular advocacy circle on Misplaced Pages, but am certainly more than aware that such things exist. Unfortunately, you can't root them out, and they've got a right to tout their business here. The best you can do is go about pulling the weeds -- a thankless job, as hundreds of pages are deleted every day, but someone's gotta do it.

Some Wikithinkers say that Wikipedians ought to form special interest groups like WikiProjects and Wikissociations. Some others say it's inherently divisive and they ought not. In my opinion, they're perfectly fine if they advance the interests of the 'pedia as a whole. A string of articles all advertising the same company, as you correctly point out, does not. Unfortunately, the best you can do is keep pushing for what you think is right. - Che Nuevara: 14:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to call me 'Che' -- I use it myself sometimes when sending a quick response that doesn't need a timestamp. I'm not sure if you're aware of the meaning of the term, but it's South American slang for 'guy' or 'mate'. And, while I'm not Hispanic, I took the name 'Che Nuevara' as a political play on words. And, while I'm not a communist either, I never got around to posting on my userpage why I did it.

In response to your question, no, not really. Most Wikipedians who realize that such things go on call them much less complimentary things. It's my own polite way of saying it. But if you start saying it too, then there's two of us, and if other people start saying it, then we're cool trendsetters! ;) - Che Nuevara: 00:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking for a list of active extensions on english wikipedia

Ste4k wrote: Hi! I read your question but am puzzled by the term "extensions". Can you describe for me what you are referring to? Thanks!

Ste4k wrote: Please let me know if you have this resolved. Send me mail, please, thanks!

I am not sure if you are going to be able to help me out here if you don't know what a wikipedia extension is, but let me try to explain. There is a list of extensions over at mediawiki (m:Category:MediaWiki_extensions). I am looking for a list which tells me which extensions from the list are actually active on the english wikipedia. Thanks.--SomeStranger 18:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The importance of the Authorship of A Course in Miracles article

The article is important because A Course In Miracles is a major modern spiritual phenomenon. ACIM itself has sold over one million copies and has been translated into over a dozen languages, with many more translations set. By the time the translations are completed, ACIM will be available to roughly 93% of the population.

ACIM is the basis for SEVERAL best sellers.

ACIM sales have not slowed down over the years. It is predicted that ACIM will soon be as widely read as the Bible.

This is an issue of importance to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. -- Andrew Parodi 03:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I used your talk page to discuss (not "some article") Authorship of A Course In Miracles, because you are the one who keep saying it's not important. Besides, I'm tired of arguing on the talk page. As this is primarily an issue YOU are concerned with, I thought I'd go direct. Not entirely unheard of, you know. -- Andrew Parodi 03:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)