Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ste4k (talk | contribs) at 08:57, 25 July 2006 (Arbitration Request Filed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Bang on...

Kent Hovind article

Hi Dakpowers!

You have reverted many of my edits on the Kent Hovind article with no explanation. I am confused by this because many of them were simply attempts to clean up the style and grammar of the piece. They could in no way be considered vandalism. Please review the changes you made through the anti-vandalism software. If you still think they are justified, please discuss this on the talkpage. If not, kindly restore them. Best, --JChap 04:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see you've restored them. Thanks. --JChap 04:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I just reverted some edits by an anonymous user who put his inqueries for source information in the article. Happy editing, and thanks for your contributions! DakPowers (Talk) 04:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, ObiterDicta, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• 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!  DakPowers (Talk) 04:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Alex Rodriguez

Hi there. I just wanted to drop you a line to let you know that I put the copyedit tag you removed in Alex Rodriguez article back on. The tone is still far from being encyclopedic and is in dire need of a heavy copyedit. hoopydink 01:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I guess I'm a bit confused on the use of the copyedit tag. It seems like it should be reserved for articles with grammatical/spelling errors. If merely being "unencyclopedic" were grounds for inclusion, it seems like well over 50% of the articles on Misplaced Pages should have that tag at this point!!! I agree with you that the Rodriguez article is still in this category. It seems like it would be far better to save this tag for the articles that are in the worst shape and need basic attention to get up to a minimum level of readability. I would appreciate your thoughts. --JChap 13:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In terms of using the copyedit tag judiciously, I think we might have separate criterion for when to put it on. For me, the purpose of the tag is not to slight the article or the editors, but to alert other Wikipedians that help is needed to make the article the best it can possibly be. I'm sure that the article is seen by millions of people (it is the sixth website seen on Google when one searches for Alex Rodriguez) so hopefully the tag will help in fixing the article and hopefully becoming a featured article at some point! Cheers! hoopydink 20:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point, and I hadn't taken offense. Just a misunderstanding over the term "copyedit." Is there a tag for articles that need brief and immediate attention to get them up to a basic readability level but that doesn't involve the time it would take to get the Rodriguez article up to encyclopedic? --JChap 04:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check out Misplaced Pages:Template_messages. There's a bunch of tags there that might help, particularly in the cleanup and maintenance sections. hoopydink 08:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Band page"

Hi JChap2007! An article being about a band is not a criterion for speedy deletion. However, {{db-band}} does allow for the deletion of articles about bands that don't assert notability for the band. You may want to use that (or the older {{db-bio}}) instead in future. Happy editing! ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 20:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip. --JChap 20:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CSD for advertisements

Hello JChap2007. Unfortunately, advertising does not apply as a criteria for deleting material (usually businesses under {{db-group}} or similar templates, so I have had to replace your tags with {{prod}} as an advertisement. Not to worry, I did similar things when I was a newbie (See User talk:Blnguyen/Archive1) and I am now an administrator, who can process these requests, so I am equally happy to explain deletion procedure to others. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --JChap 06:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sai Ying Pun Community Complex

I am keeping on editing the page of Sai Ying Pun Community Complex. I am sorry to mistakenly remove the tag. But I am not happy that some people say that I just remove the tag but do nothing when I am editing any page.

For your information, before the construction of Sai Ying Pun Community Complex, the colonial building stood was later become a famous landmark because of its historic value and the ghost stories in the houses. Shrimp wong 06:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you didn't edit it and I now agree it is worthy of inclusion. My only objection is to editors who remove tags unilaterally. You have said this was a mistake, and I believe you. Thanks, --JChap 06:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind reading my edits and see is it ok to remove the tags? Shrimp wong 07:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an nice article. Support removal of tags. --JChap 12:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Origin of women's oppression

I don't think that this is a personal opinion page seeing as all the information is correct and agreed upon by anthropologists, rather than my own opinion. i am simply reitterating the facts collected by others. The theories presented are no more theoretical than our assumptions about egyptian history, or any other ancient civilization. thank you for your time natalie

Roger Ambrose

I'm not really all that sure that the subject's involvement in an article should affect its AfD. I don't understand why your opinion on Ambrose's notability is affected by his actions at the article. I mean, when Jack Thompson (attorney) tried to add to his article, we didn't delete it, we considered his addition and decided it was vandalism. (Of course, then he threatened to sue.) If the problem is that Roger wrote the article himself, then the solution is a rewrite, not to delete. I don't think anyone is arguing against a rewrite. --Maxamegalon2000 00:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I know what you're saying; he shouldn't be contributing to his own article, and maybe he should take some time off before editing any articles in the future. Nevertheless, I don't think that it should have the bearing you think it should have on the AfD for the article. If we were debating him as an editor, I probably wouldn't vote keep, but we're voting for his article, and I do think he's probably more notable than some of those porn stars. --Maxamegalon2000 00:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I had noticed that, thank you though for the heads up. Batman2005 01:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm much more concerned with the removal of comments (including mine) from the AfD discussion. It's well past time for an admin to intervene. B.Wind 01:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment: noted. I see a 70.34.86.240 (talk · contribs) has also been busy adding links for rather non-notable Ambroses.

PS If you're interested in this sort of thing, there's a similar unresolved situation over Bob Fink: mostly written by closely involved parties (if not Fink himself) with excessive promo and self-linking. Tearlach 13:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Young scholars program

I've responded to your message on my talk page. --Starwiz 03:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion on Nigger

I see you put the article in question up for speedy deletion as an attack page. That's an entirely understandable thing to do, but it was not actually a recently created attack page, it was a severely vandalized version of a far more acceptable article. No big deal and no harm done -- just be sure to check article history a little more closely in the future! -- Captain Disdain 14:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Roger C. Ambrose

FYI: I have posted a comment:
Roger ambrose 01:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

afd

The result of the nomination of Shaker Aamer for deletion was "keep". I am not sure I fully understood your objections. I'd like to take them into account, if you are willing to take another run at explaining them.

You wrote that all the Guantanamo detainees were vicious terrorists. This seemed to be some kind of joke I didn't get. Rumsfeld and others repeatedly claimed that the detainees were "the worst of the worst". And, so long as the DoD was able to keep the identities of the detainees, and the allegations against them, secret, there was no way for the public to make an informed decision as to whether to believe these assertions. Earlier this year the Denbeaux study methodically examined the (then anonymous) allegations. It found that approximately half of the detainees were not accused of being members of al Qaeda or the Taliban. Now the transcripts of the detainees Combatant Status Review Tribunals have been made public. IMO in most cases they do not support "the worst of the worst" claim. I think that is notable.`` -- Geo Swan 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• • When I said the detainees were vicious terrorists, I was being sarcastic. I agree with you that the US policy itself is notable (obviously), but per the nomination, I really doubt that every single detainee is notable enough for his own article. Certain detainees (such as the Uighurs) have been widely remarked on and should have their own article. The question is whether this particular detainee is notable. The article does not assert sufficient notability for this detainee to justify a keep, in my opinion. On the other hand, there are certainly less significant articles that have been kept. --JChap 16:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. -- Geo Swan 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Soujah Movement

I added discussion to Talk:Sister Souljah moment per your request. The changes made a lot of sense to me. If you think otherwise, wiki away. Cheers - Abisai 00:53, 15 June 2006

Wikistress

You seem to be suffering a case of the above. I have looked at the talk pages for Big Brother and the ACIM articles and I understand where you're coming from, but if your stress levels get too high it's better to back off and come back to the article in a week. It will still be there. JChap 11:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh MY! It sounds Wiki--icked! :) Do you have a link? About my stress, though, I really don't have much, imho. However, a second point of view should always be heeded. I don't take offense by the suggestion, and am accustomed to others thinking that I work too hard. I am still quite unfamilar with the virtual politico-demographics per how the word "encyclopedia" is defined here. But I am postive that if I picked up a copy of Britannica that if it mentioned the show at all it wouldn't be anything like a list of un-notable people with a scorecard on their sexual antics. The page comes across to me like an advertisment more than anything else. Anyhow, per the ACIM, some of those articles are okay, but the person whom is writing most of them should be concentrating more on finding reputible sources for the central book than spreading bias subtopics which haven't anything to do with the articles they are attached to. I would change that opinion if some reputible sources could be found in the first place. In his own comments underneath Talk:Kenneth_Wapnick he explains his auto-biographical relationship to the article. The other editor in the meantime doesn't believe that WP:NOR original research exits. I would certainly hope he gets with the program soon. He apparently believes that because of his own attachment to the doctrine that he should be the only editor with comments on the page (his words). I asume if not unchecked, that the two of them together will eventually find or establishh a connection between 11 and ACIM. :) Either way, it matters little to me about the content one way or the other. If between the two of them they could find an article from the New York Times saying that "the existence of ACIM was due primarily to the number 11" then I would be more happy to help them learn how to use the citation tags correctly. :) Ste4k 12:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just an aside, but because you are an attorney (and btw I am one of those people that actually respect that profession) you might find interesting precedents in the AfD for Next Door Nikki. I don't believe that people should be swayed other than by policy, but also that precidents should be used as reasons for policy/guideline proposals. Per the specific article, I wash my hands of it. In the discussion areas the JD_UK editor basically refuses to cooperate. We reached a consensus about tense. What is under the hood are the many hours I spent cleaning up after his writing. Only the history would show any of that. I am convinced that after the season ends, whenever that will be, they will probably move on to something else regardless of what sort of shape that article is in. He spends absolutely ZERO time researching and claims that the information doesn't exist. He also claims to be getting the information from the web site, which is the only source, and that is another matter which I find to be simply incredible. No harm done, live and learn, and it takes all sorts. :) Ste4k 14:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know

I replied to your question at Link Please be advised that there has already been a small history of "conversation tampering" regarding this area as well as others. I do have an original copy. Ste4k 11:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I would like to ask you a favor if you have some time. I spent about four or five ours reading three court case files, one of which was never mentioned in the other articles. While reading them, I put together the history of the publishing and basically the story of the book from an NPOV. I am fairly certain that I understood the entire case, however, as you know, second opinions from experts are much better. Would you mind taking a look at this article as it stands alone, please? Course in Miracles (book), thank you! :)

P.S. My wikistress has lowered quite a bit. After reading the article and knowing the full truth. Ste4k 13:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

North Korean Missile Test (1998)

I wasn't joking. They launched a missile. It may have contained a sattelite. That isn't a rare event. If you have a reason why it is notable, I'd be glad to hear it. If you don't I'll AfD it. Wikibout-Talk to me! 23:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I will sheath the proverbial sword of deletion. :) Thanks. Wikibout-Talk to me! 00:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How to install LED lights

I changed your prod on How to install LED lights to a speedy delete as a blatant copyvio (from this page). Just thought you might want to know that I changed it. :) -- dcclark (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Indiana Civil Rights Council

I didn't create the article, and won't have any issue if it were deleted. I (like you) encountered it on RC-patrol; rather than delete tagging it, I decided to turn it into a legit stub (and remove the POV material which the article contained). In between my edit, you added the db-empty; which I removed because my edits had left behind a reasonable stub.

Regarding the notability of the organization--I have no idea. It sounds like a band of right-wing kooks to me; but that isn't by itself grounds for deletion. If you want to axe the article, I would recommend a prod or AfD; the article as it exists probably isn't a speedy candidate anymore. Again, I have no opinion as to whether it should stay or go.

Cheers,

--EngineerScotty 04:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Justin Boggs

Hello. Just a note to say that, in cases where it's obvious that a page was created purely out of vanity, it's quite fine to use the appropriate Speedy Deletion template ( {{nn-bio}} ). You may find it quicker and easier to achieve the desired result with this tag, rather than proposing the deletion in the normal way. RandyWang (/_rants) 04:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought you may not have been aware of this procedure, but it sounds like I was wrong. Thanks for the reply. :) RandyWang (/_rants) 04:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Nazarene Prophecy

I'm going to remove the {{accuracy}} tag as I personally am satisfied with this article insomuch as it is based on one fairly reliable source and doesn't try to extrapolate beyond that source. Nice rewrite by the way.--Isotope23 12:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion please

Please see Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles#Request_for_comment_suggestion. I hope that I correctly voiced your earlier concerns. Ste4k 22:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion of the "believers" on that page. Maybe even less so. I don't believe they are acting in bad faith at all, but as you mentioned POV, but also a bit of "iownthispageophy". I'll look at your comments in a bit. I'd kind of like to back out of that area to let Scott hear from other editors and get a broader opinion. I think that he believes that I have targetted him rather than how much time/effort I have put into that area to clean up the page. Ste4k 02:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please check my logic/reasoning

Hi, it's me the unprofessional bored sitting at home lady again. Since you are more familiar with reasoning and logic regarding policies and so forth, would you mind checking mine to make sure that I am understanding WP documentation correctly? Keep in mind that I have only been working with WP for three or four weeks and there is a lot "stuff". :) I would sincerely appreciate it. Please see my comments at Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles#Referring_to_factions . And, by the way, I'll add this to my watch so please answer here or there if you would. Thanks. Ste4k 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiRoo

A couple of comments: 1) Copyright does not have to be asserted -- putting something in the public domain does. There is no statement on the website the material is lifted from that it has been placed in the public domain so we have to assume that it isn't until told otherwise by the creator of the material or their assignee. 2) I disagree about asserting notability, although this could be debated. Providing someone's title isn't a statement of notability. Even CEOs aren't universally assumed to be notable under Misplaced Pages guidelines, let alone people under that level, which is the case in the two instances I've flagged. --Gary Will 20:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Canada's copyright law does not place government publications in the public domain. And publications of municipal governments are even trickier, since municipalities are creations of provincial government and we'd have to talk to a lawyer to know how government copyright rules apply to them. See Crown copyright#In Canada. --Gary Will 20:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

two things...

Before submitting this for deletion, I'd appreciate your comments. I don't want people accusing me of things that aren't true. Reason: no such book... based on: http://isbndb.com/d/person/ackerman_bruce_a/books.html and comments in the discussion page, as well as reading the article which can't decide if it's a book or a paper. Article name: The Liberal State, (Ackerman) . The other matter concerns the following from the article Endeavor Academy Link and the inverted understanding of verifiability. I've put this discussion here on my watchlist. Ste4k 01:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Cost me $3, but I don't mind. :) Social justice in the liberal state -- Thanks! Ste4k 06:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD

hey thanks for the help on the mac os x86 page, now lets see if it doesnt get deleted.

Thanks again --Dr. Choc 21:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help. JChap (talk • contribs) 04:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

please see

please see: Talk:Sculpture_of_Ancient_Greece#Redirect_to_Greek_Statue. Thanks. Ste4k 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Wiarthurhu

Thank you for your comments, though I believe them to be an inaccurate read of the situation. I have entered a response at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Wiarthurhu#Response_to_JChap. --Mmx1

The Destruction of ACIM

Please see the ACIM article. Ste4k has destroyed it.--Who123 03:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes to ACIM article and other

Steak? I'm still not entirely sure what to make of the numerous kerfuffles you have gotten yourself into here and my mind has changed about that topic a few times, but let me offer you a bit of advice on the ACIM article and others' reactions to your moving large sections of it to the talk page. In a controversial article, unilateral action such as that is frowned upon pretty severely. You need to respect consensus. Note that consensus does not mean unanimity. AfD is also a consensus process and the ACIM articles that were deleted were done so by consensus, even though a few people objected to their removal. When you find yourself on the short end of the consensus, my advice is to just let it go. Don't think of these decisions as personal victories or losses. Best, JChap (talk • contribs) 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree about consensus.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=A_Course_in_Miracles&diff=3615625&oldid=3615613 .

note the date. Ste4k 16:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Morning... Just curious, for "tone" sake, and from the opinion of a professional orator as yourself, where do you feel that my thoughts are coming across as "decisions" being personal, one way or the other? Ste4k 17:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that your thoughts are decisions.. What I was trying to say (apparently not too clearly) is that you are involved in a number of disagreements where you are the only person who wants to make a certain decision when everybody else wants a different decision. I have been on the short-end of decisions like this myself on Misplaced Pages and believe it's best to accede gracefully. Consensus does not mean unanimity, which is rarely achievable. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiWoo-Doo-Roo

Oh great. Thanks for the heads-up. I see his first acts under his new account were to edit four pages with "Please do not edit this page for the moment" notices on them and to remove another notice that said "this notice must not be removed." And those are probably the least aggravating edits he's ever made. Just have to hope for the best. --Gary Will 23:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Common guy's give me a break. I'm trying to do good work. Don't gang up on me againWikiWoo 03:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

crime music deletion

Hello JChap2007,

Why do you consider the article about crime music to be deleted?

Kind regards, Thenestor

You are confusing it with grime. I cannot find any support for the article's use of the word. Even the external link you added called it "grime." JChap (talk • contribs) 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then it's my mistake, you got my permission to delete it ;)

Thenestor

ACIM

Where are we in the archiving process? Can I help?--Who123 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I archived the older material to Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 4 and moved the material Ste4k had moved from the article to Talk:A Course in Miracles/temp, but I have not yet moved any discussion thread with posts less than a week old. I have asked for feedback about moving this material on Talk:A Course in Miracles#Archiving. Please leave a comment there. Best, JChap (talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiWoo

I see you've dealt with WikiWoo lately, so I was wondering if you could check out his ridiculous edits to Susan Fennell (which remain due to my reverting three times already) and its talk page and try to pound it into WikiWoo's head what original research is and how to cite an actual source. (He's citing Google search results as references for his edits!) OzLawyer 01:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh. This is getting annoying. I think I have a solution, though. JChap (talk • contribs) 01:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Bob Cornuke

You might be interested in the removal of content at Bob Cornuke.C56C 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I really don't know anything about the topic. You could contact User:Jasonwatch, as this may be one of Jason Gastrich's sock puppets. JChap (talk • contribs) 01:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Filed

I have asked for abrbitration involving User:Nscheffey. See here. Please post any comments you desire to add. Ste4k 08:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)