Misplaced Pages

Fair use rationale for Image:Whitsonj.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Whitsonj.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 08:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging

First, conduct a straw poll (see Misplaced Pages:Straw polls). If there is a large consensus that supports the merge, feel free to merge the articles using the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Merging and moving pages#Performing the merger. However, if consensus is not clear or if the issue becomes controversial, list the article at Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers--TBCTaLk?!? 05:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible bad faith nom?

I made that comment due to your recent nominations of basically any article having to deal with A Course in Miracles. Though I do believe that some of the above articles need to be deleted/merged, I find it suspicious that someone would coincidently nominate all these related articles for deletion due to notability, without having some sort of possible bias. Even so, please don't take this personally and I hope that you aren't offended by my comments. I'm trying my best to be civil. :) --TBCTaLk?!? 09:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood, but you should have added merge tags and/or discussed the issue on A Course in Miracles talk page first before having to nominate all the above articles for deletion. If anyone has been flaming you, feel free to report to an admin or other editors. Also, what's with all the ":)"'s, are you trying to parody my addiction of using emoticons in my statements, even in seemingly inappropriate situations*? :) :) :)  :)--TBCTaLk?!? 10:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC) *(note that I'm trying to be sarcastic)

• It is not necessarily bad faith. There is little or no cited evidence of significance in any of these articles which comes from outside the ACIM movement itself, as such it appears to constitute a walled garden and this is a legitimate reason for nomination of multiple related articles which does not constitute bad faith. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation re: Authorship of A Course in Miracles

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

The preceding comment was added by Kickaha Ota (23:03, 29 June 2006), who apologizes for neglecting to sign it earlier.

I strongly suggest that you join this mediation process. Just zis Guy you know? 08:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have signed on the request as it asked. I am currently gathering the facts for an easy to follow presentation. Is there something that I should be doing more with the mediation? Ste4k 08:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggested this on my talk page, but I'll suggest it again here: The Misplaced Pages:Association of Members' Advocates has people who can help you through the process. That would give you an experienced Wikipedian to talk to who's familiar with the system and who's promised to try to help you achieve your objectives. Kickaha Ota 14:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A Return to Love

Hi, about your db-tag on A Return to Love: I removed it, because this is only a criterion for speedy deletion if it's really previously deleted content (because of a decision following a discussion on AfD, or speedy deletion), not content that was replaced by a redirect. If you think the article should be deleted, please list it on AfD. Thanks! --JoanneB 21:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Improving the Authorship of A Course in Miracles article

I'd like to work with you on improving the article, but continuing to tag the article as a whole as "original research" seems to go against consensus and reopen old grievances. I would ask that you instead pick out the five or six statements that you most strongly feel are unsourced or misinterpret the source, and tag those statements with {{citeneeded}} or {{request quote}}, as I just proposed in the article's talk page. I have no opinion at all about the ACIM controversy, so I promise to look at your complaints fairly and objectively, and to support you in changing or removing any specific statements that seem inappropriate. If we can focus on specific, manageable problems with particular statements, rather than rehashing old arguments about the article as a whole, the results are likely to be much better. Kickaha Ota 13:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the article was tagged on the whole as unresourced by an administrator. Andrew made comments in the history which were untrue, and I reverted back to the administrator's tag. The grievance itself on this article is that it is original research and hasn't much secondary sources. That tag lists the page in the Category for other people to see whom might want to work on it. In itself there isn't any reason to remove that tag. If the reason is cosmetic then it makes little sense. He should realize that we are here to help him and that others whom are interested in finding sources will see it listed on the category page. The statements which are beneath the sub-topic "Publication" would be a good start. Other things regarding the actual name of the publisher and whom that publisher states is the author would be great. The article itself needs to move toward being an article about a book and lose about 80% of the doctrine which is all original research. The book cannot use itself as its own source and that point must be clear. This is not about little edit wars, rather it is about a good well researched article. I also think that many of the comments in the old talk archives point out a specific bias toward the beliefs of the book. It's fine if Andrew would like to help create this article, but he needs to improve his skills in regard to a neutral point of view. Bascially the entire article, as the administrator pointed out, is original research based on the reasons above. Andrew has an opportunity here to get with the program and start editing articles. I think he should also apologize for the harrassing way that he has been treating me. I am unsure if you know about all of the specifics in that regard. Ste4k 13:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The {{citeneeded}} and {{request quote}} tags will place the article in the "Articles with unsourced statements" and "Articles needing factual verification" categories as well, and will do so in a way that's more likely to actually lead to improvements. I can't wave a magic wand and make hard feelings about the whole article go away, but I can look at and make edits to specific statements. I think there have been ill-chosen remarks and misinterpretation of remarks on all sides here (including mine). No, I'm most certainly not aware of all the specifics of the dispute, and under the circumstances I think that's actually for the best, because it lets me concentrate objectively on making the article better without taking a side in a personal dispute that I can't solve. Kickaha Ota 14:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, I just checked, and the subtopic "Publication" only appears in the main article on A Course in Miracles, not in the "Authorship of..." article. The main ACIM article certainly has its issues as well, but that's potentially a much larger dispute, so let's tackle this smaller one first and see if we can gain some momentum. Please focus on the "Authorship of..." article for the moment, and tag the five or six most bothersome specific statements in that article. Kickaha Ota 16:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

They're the same article. It's rather ridiculous to imagine looking up the name of a book in an encyclopedia and finding out that there isn't any author. He should be happy that the first line doesn't read: "A Course in Miracles, the 1976 three-volume set of books that became a spiritual curriculum for many individuals and study groups. Course remains a cult favorite" since that description comes from an actual published source. Why don't see if you can find out what his beef is with me, and why he feels he has the right to own an article. And what gives him the right to be making snotty comments in the ledgers of the history. And why isn't he participating in discussion. And why is it that when I ask a question, that question is simply ignored? Those are some serious issues that he has that all fall under the category of "cooperation". He is the farthest thing from WP:CIV that I can imagine and I cannot remember one instance when he has treated me with WP:AGF. My original request for WP:3O had to do basically with those issues there. It's rather escalated now since what I found this morning with the sub-topics named after my nickname claiming I had some sort of beef with those companies. He does not understand that those companies are not the press, they do not produce articles as a reputible secondary source. And as I have been researching this other book and doing the merge on its article I have found MANY MANY instances of "The Course" online and absolutely none of them mention "ACIM". That being a part of the registered trademark makes me wonder who he thinks he is to speak in the name of those companies, you know? Did they somehow name him as their representative? And what exactly is the issue here about such a huge POV like putting a trade name on the moniker? I think it would best for his sake if he wants to see the book stay online that he chill out, like I told him in the first place, and quit giving everyone a hard time. He wants to nit-pick over silly little labels and he hasn't got a clue about the real issues here. Ste4k 16:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now that you've catalogged your grievances, let me add a few points. This article has been nominated for deletion. That nomination failed. It was then nominated again. That nomination is in the process of failing again. It seems fairly obvious that the article is going to stick around, regardless of your opinion. You have made repeated edits to the article. Many of those edits have been reverted. I happen to think that many of those reverts were unfortunate, because your edits pointed out genuine problems in the article. I am trying to help you, by changing the article to address as many of your concerns as possible, in a way that will be perceived by the community as neutral and productive, and result in changes to the article that actually stick (as opposed to getting immediately reverted). I thought you would be interested in this. Instead, you seem to be telling me that you are much more interested in rehashing past grievances and personal vendettas than you are in actually improving the article. If this is true, then please let me know, because I can simply leave the situation as it is, which will lead to your edits continuing to be reverted, and which will probably wind up in an arbitration that will probably wind up with you getting blocked from the articles. This will be bad for you and unfortunate for the readers of Misplaced Pages, but it will save me a great deal of time. If this is not true, and you are willing to put aside your frustrations long enough to actually accomplish something, then you need to stop, step back, take a long, deep breath, and reconsider your approach. Kickaha Ota 17:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering why you keep coming to me with small problems. Have you even been speaking with him at all? The only change that I have noticed in his actions against me personally is escalation. About the other article, it was removed from the AfD discussion list. Did you know that? And if that hadn't happened, it wouldn't have ever drawn my attention to the article. I first saw the article in the AfD and there were already several "strong keeps" without any real basis except that they were "tired" of doing it again. I went over and took a look and saw for myself without even reading the conversation, nor any of the old Afd it had, and gave it an NPOV. I put in my vote and immediately aftwards, he puts down "TEN BIG REASONS", etc. And I went over to the article and looked at the resources, and they weren't even the same. So the first thing I did was ask as simple question, since I hadn't ever heard of this book before in my life, why is this important? He took it like an insult. So, in case, sure it may fail again, but it was mishandled and from what I have seen of his actions in editing my words in my AfD proposals, I'd be more than happy to let it go to arbitration to tell the truth. Is there something you are aware of that I don't understand as a newbie? Why would you think that if this went to arbitration that I would be blocked from this category? Does ACIM donate money to Misplaced Pages or something for advertising? If not then what's your point? Ste4k 17:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That's all I needed to know. I won't bother you any further. Kickaha Ota 17:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And there he/she goes with more of that paranoia talk about ACIM and money. Apparently he/she believes the only reason anyone would care about this topic is because of money. Kickaha Ota is right to just let this go. This person cannot be dealt with in a civil manner. -- Andrew Parodi 08:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, if you can't rise above the level of trolling please don't bother to post. Just zis Guy you know? 08:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Try here for a link. Comparisons to Britannica are likely to elicit rolling eyes, as Misplaced Pages is not paper. Check out all the articles on Pokemon and Star Trek if you want to see how far the definition of "notability" is stretched. Proposing an AfD for the main article of a popular TV show would strike most editors as weird; which may be the reason for the accusations of bad faith. I cannot find either of editor claiming that he should be the only person to edit or that WP:NOR does not exist. If you could provide some diffs with respect to this matter, I think it would be helpful. It looks like most of the articles you proposed at AfD will be deleted and/or merged and I will try to help with the others, but will be in my sister's wedding this weekend, so I may be a little scarce the next few days. JChap 13:48, 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)

Your WP:ANI report

No matter what in this case your commentary was improperly edited. That is bad. For now just let admins review your report and come to a determination as to the best course of action. Thanks. Netscott 13:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, just let others review your WP:ANI report. Action relative to the other editor will be taken accordingly. Netscott 13:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For whatever reason if you are stil not clear on what my first message said it is this: "the fact that your commentary was improperly edited is bad". Netscott 14:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies as well, I suppose I wasn't explicit enough in my commentary. Unfortunately these things happen all too frequently on Misplaced Pages. :-) Netscott 14:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your AfD noms

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)

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 21:35, 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)

You wrote: " Next you mentioned the other editor who accused you of a bad faith AfD nom, Andrew Parodi. "

This is not the person to whom I referred. Thanks. Ste4k 07:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is the person to whom I referred in the original comment. Who could you have possibly thought I was referring to, seeing as I included a link to his comment? Did you not bother to follow the link before you replied that I didn't understand him correctly, or are so many editors suggesting bad faith noms by you that it's hard to keep them straight? Thanks. --Nscheffey 08:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Civility reminder re: "Authorship of A Course in Miracles"

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Kickaha Ota 01:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern, and will try to speak more like a dictionary. In the past, however, this usually enflames people with passions even more. Thanks for the reminder, either way, and thank you for brining their side to the table. Ste4k 06:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment from AnonMoos

Dude, I never did the slightest editing whatsoever on "Authorship of A Course in Miracles" -- I just made a suggestion on the talk page (a suggestion which the comments you left on my talk page do not appear to address in any manner whatever)... AnonMoos 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Community Miracles Center

Hi. Thanks for the interesting bit you left on my talk page. I am not sure you understood my comment on the CMC AfD page so just in case let me be perfectly clear. I in no way meant (or believe) that you had some sort of malicious intention for nominating it to AfD and apologize if it passed as such. Rather, I was refuting the previous message by trying to say (rather clumsily I might add) that even if that had been the case, it would not have changed a thing about my evaluation: that article is beyond repair and should be clearly recognized as such by the whole wiki community. In any case, I commend you for doing the dirty work. I recently tried to clean up the hotel category myself and faced some heat... By the way, if you have a minute or two, I would appreciate your comments on proposed guidelines I'm trying to setup for hotels at WP:HOTELS. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 01:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Be careful ':)

Just a note, but although some or most of the spelling of an article meets normal conditions, sometimes misspellings must remain in order to be factually correct. Just letting you know. By the way, thanks for taking care of it. :) Ste4k 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to my edit http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Authorship_of_A_Course_in_Miracles&curid=3663921&diff=60878527&oldid=60878370 ? In which case I think my edit was correct. However, I do understand the need to quote sources directly and carry over spelling mistakes with a etc. and I'm trying to write my script / perform edits in such a way that these quotes aren't 'corrected'. If I do make mistakes let me know and I will rectify them. Rjwilmsi 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

William Thetford

Thanks for the comment in AfD about ACIM. Do you really think that it should be kept even though the citations for ACIM are nothing more than self-serving websites? I don't ask this as a challenge, but seriously looking for information. I am rather new here and would appreciate the comments. I normally do "cleanup work" and maintenance and I came upon another article, which is the book that the advocacy group centers upon. I performed the citing analysis on the references and besides having no verifiability, they appeared to have been modified to look as many sources rather than only a few. I corrected those and attempted to put the facts into the article and was presented with a wave of unpleasurable sentiment. Since articles should have actual facts and I was not allowed to edit and only ignored in my requests for discussion, I took it upon myself to submit for review each of the articles in the entire tree. I personally don't have time for playing revert/vandal games, and allowing others to make the decision seemed very fair to me. If you have any questions about any of that, please feel free to let me know. Thanks! Ste4k 06:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I presume that you refer to the William Thetford article up for AfD today? Don't forget to add links to articles to which you refer, it is so much easier to understand enquiries that way! My comments don't refer to the verifiability or otherwise of the material relating to A Course in Miracles, as I have no knowledge of that subject. I refer instead to the language and tone of the material added. It seems very poor and subjective in scope, decidedly less-encyclopedic than the biographical material at the top of the article. If the cleanup work involves removing unverified material then so be it. An encyclopedia is not the place for opinion or polemic. If something can't be verified through research then it should be clearly marked to this effect and deleted if research proves fruitless. It is good that you observe the three revert rule as it is in no one's best interest to see you blocked for edit warring.

I think that the message is that cleanup involves more than tidying up grammar and syntax. A good editor should have the principles of writing a good article in mind when carrying out this process. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Gary Renard

Thanks for the barnstar! Glad I was able to help you out. :)

Well, there's no "notability scale", it's just my opinion. The book seems to be at least somewhat popular (otherwise it wouldn't be ranked so high on Amazon.com). Since it's only my opinion, I chose weak keep. I'll probably change my "vote"/argument if there's no verifiable notability.

And don't worry about the new user thing, I've only been around since January. I've been reading up and getting familiar with the guidelines and policies, so I can actually make arguments like the ones on AfD. --Coredesat talk 09:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, Ste4k. The discussion pages of AfD nominations are used sometimes, but they usually are not necessary. The AfD page is pretty much a talk page itself and there is usually room for all comments. The talk pages tend to be used when the discussion has gotten very long, especially when the comments are not directly relevant to deciding whether to keep the article or delete it or are procedural, such as whether the nomination should be closed early. -- Kjkolb 08:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:db-bio articles

Hello Ste4k, you're welcome. You'll notice that I removed the tags and suggested you use {{prod}} or AfD instead, since the articles asserted notability. If you think they're non-notable you can certainly go ahead with the prod or afd. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! --Fang Aili 18:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to parse down your nominations--you can just say it violates WP:NOT, WP:VER, etc, without going into detail. --Fang Aili 19:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean you don't have to go into as much detail as you did. But they're fine. :) --Fang Aili 14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Geurilla

Hello! Just droping in. A quick evaluation of the situation quickly tells me that the main problem isn't one person or the other, and you both need to cool down a little bit so we can talk rationally. Thanks for your understanding. Now, before we begin, let's go over some basic courtesy that everyone should be given:

'Please read and deeply contemplate the meaning of the following fundamental philosophies of being nice':

• Avoid making nasty personal attacks (Mean statements directed at a users character), we need to talk about Misplaced Pages not each other.
• Be nice to each other, that's the only way anything gets done. If both parties are mean and unsympathizing, then no one will get what they want.
• Assume good faith in other editor's intentions. Misplaced Pages allows anyone to edit, so obviously we trust that everyone has good intentions when it comes to using it. If everyone were out to harm Misplaced Pages... well... we'd just be screwed.
• Basically... play nice  :)
  
  

If everyone is in agreement with the above philosophies, then let's have a nice lovely sit down with a delicious bagel and discuss what's going on. Shall we? -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 17:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I move this to the top of the screen please? Ste4k 17:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free. Oh, and by the way, that discussion on my talk page was involving a different dispute, so everything we're doing will be here, yes. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What discussion? On the bottom was the person who was harrassing me. I am 0RR. (religiously) They didn't like my edits, it was all based on their sources, they refused to talk to me, then they started harrassing. Most of them were just IP addresses. I don't know where to go exactly, so I started with a WP:3O, it still sitting on the bottom of the page. It's marked "dispute". It said to be neutral. AmiDaniels suggested an RfC. So I opened one too, etc. It's listed under the literature/media section over there. There might be some conversation on his talk page to, but I really don't care to check. :) Ste4k 18:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What article did this start at? I need to gather some info before I can do anything at the moment. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 19:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically there is an advocacy group called ACIM or maybe something else, if such things have names. Authorship_of_A_Course_in_Miracles Ste4k 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, if the second party doesn't want to reply... then... uh... there's nothing I can really do. I might recommend a request for mediation at the Mediation Comittee... but I really don't know what to do. Sorry! -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 21:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Housemates Table and Original Research

Please see the talk page of BB06 to discuss the use of the housemates table in the article -- CHANLORD / 02:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The helpme request

In case someone asks in the future, I finally found the list of currently activated extensions. (Located here). Thanks for responding to my request.--SomeStranger 12:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Vanispamcruftisement

You're very welcome. This is one WP:NEO that's quite useful. Providing free advertising for small businesses, which is what those ACIM articles are, is not what an encyclopedia is for. Best wishes ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

ACIM

Please take the trouble to identify precisely what problems exist within these articles, and detail what needs to be done to fix thewm, in neutral terms. Avoid baiting, or being baited by, Andrew or anyone else. If the content cannot be sourced and verified it will eventually be removed, but there is no deadline. I am as vehemently opposed to the abuse of Misplaced Pages to promote commerical enterprises as anyone, but I don't really have time to research this in depth. Remember: reliable secondary sources independent of the movement are what is needed, for both support and criticism. Just zis Guy you know? 18:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Wapnickk.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wapnickk.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 07:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Got your message. In order to come to a reasoned decision on that afd I would have to really study the material which I am not prepared to do right now (I never vote until I research myself, meaning I spend a lot more time than many, and that one looks like a doozy). However, from a cursory glance, I thought you might find this discussion at the village pump informative, regarding that taking verifiable facts and synthesizing them into something new is original research, i.e., we are not in the business of saying a+b=c. Articles that are c are verboten.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

re: this image

Hi Stifle, I was wondering about the removal of this image you made today. I was under the impression that you had deleted it for some reason, possibly copyvio. However on further investigation, I found that the image is still with us. Could you fill me in please? Thanks. Ste4k 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the image originally as it was tagged as a {{web-screenshot}}, which it clearly wasn't. Now it is correctly tagged as a film still, although it may be deleted again as it does not fall under fair use. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Preview button

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What should we do sketchy claims in ACIM articles?

Hi, Ste4k. I appriciate your efforts to bring the ACIM collection of pages into alignment with WP policy. You seem to be doing a really good job with A Course in Miracles (book). I understand your motive to keep the encyclopedia credible and fair, and I share your concern. Since the book is moderately popular according to amazon.com sales ranks, yet evades critical review and analysis as a serious philosophical or theological work, perhaps an {{OR}} tag at the top of some ACIM related articles (such as the main one) will allow editors to make a set of uncited objective claims pending more scholarly examination from which to reference. I suggest this from a pragmatic perspective, for I think that if I were to type in "A Course in Miracles" into the searchbox, I should recieve some information about what it is about, and I would find this useful, under the condition that an {{OR}} tag was explicit. Where Misplaced Pages can't provide a fair distilation of a small library of texts written on a topic, I think it should still strive to make itself useful. Where there are claims that are somewhat sketchy or doubtful, perhaps it is better to qualify our claims and state that they are sketchy before being rid of the information outright by deleting it. Please consider what I've said, and I would love to hear your own comments and suggestions in turn. I think it would be great if we could come to agreement while accomodating each other's concerns for the integrity of the encyclopedia. Again, I appriciate your contributions,

—Antireconciler 02:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the push to delete or significantly rewrite all ACIM related articles?

Dear Ste4k,
I am the one whose articles you have been trying to delete, many of which you have already had deleted, some of which fortunately were caught before it was too late. You seem to believe that I have some sort of a vested interest in promoting ACIM, and that you must stop me. I don't know. I certainly despaired when I came back from my 4th of July vacation to find so many of the articles that I had researched long hours to create trashed, deleted, or nominated for deletion! Indeed I am an ACIM student, and admittedly I have a pro-ACIM bias. Still, I have done this primarily to further my own study of ACIM, and if anyone else might have benefitted from my work, then I thought, 'so be it'. All of the main article was reviewed by several others familiar with ACIM and it was agreed that it was an accurate summary of the work. Will get back to you later. -Scott P. 16:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wapnickk.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wapnickk.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was aware of the orignal image, but Image:Wapnick-blue-frame.jpg also has a wrong copyright tag (I informed the uploader a couple of days ago, but he does not really seem to care) and it is thus currently tagged for speedy deletion. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the image is public domain just because there is no copyright notice is probably wrong. As it probably is copyrighted, it can however be used under fair use and should be tagged with {{fairusein|A Course in Miracles (book)}}. When doing so you must also add a fair use rationale (i.e. an explaination of why you think the image qualifies as fair use; see Help:Image_page#Fair_use_rationale and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fair use/Fair use rationale for detailed explainations and examples). (This whole process applies to Image:Wapnickk.jpg, too, in case you want to keep that).

Another good idea would be to contact A. H. Devor via the form on the homepage and ask about the image's copyright status and if it is okay for it to be used on Misplaced Pages.

Let me know if you need more help. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars ship names

Hey, Coredesat! I've read your comments on the aformentioned articles. Please explain your thinking more to me, as your definately have more experience than I. If necessary, I'll add a description for every ship: it's condensed history, commander, accomplishments, famous battles it was at, and where it was destroyed.

Thanks,

RelentlessRouge 11:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nscheffey (talk · contribs)

re: your latest addition

Adding unsourced information to an article is distinctly different than removing unsourced information from an article.

Per policy: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

In the future, please provide reputable sources that justify the link that you provided. And please assume good faith. Thank you. Ste4k 08:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, chill out. Both of those links obviously belong in the article and your attempt to remove them has been reverted by another editor. You need to seriously calm down, you are not making any friends with your behavior. --Nscheffey 08:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review this and reconsider your actions from an objective viewpoint. Thanks. Ste4k 08:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, for once, make a cogent argument as to why these links should not be in the article. I am familiar with all of the policies you have linked to, and I still see no basis for many of your actions. I'm also not the only one to think so. You need to calm down and be reasonable. --Nscheffey 09:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not uncalm. I don't know why you would think I am. I don't know this man, and I don't dislike him, and I don't like him either way, he is just another human. He was involved in a one-million dollar law-suit. I think that if he knew that you purposely just added a direct link associating his biography (as an author) to a book that he didn't write, and he was sued a million dollars over, that he would probably make it worth some litigation on the part of the encyclopedia if he was so inclined. Don't you? If you have not been reading the ongoing conversation, then please do so since it is at least four or five screens long now. Thanks. Ste4k 09:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only have I read the talk page, I've commented on it. The link to ACIM should be on there because he was involved in a one million dollar law suit over it. That makes it relevent to the article. What about that don't you understand? I have yet to see you directly reply to a point I (or any one else) have made. Try it. --Nscheffey 09:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. He was not involved in a one million dollar law suit over that book. He was involved in a one million dollar law suit for his book, a different book, one which does not have the content that the book you are pointing/associating him with has. At the time of the lawsuit the book that you are pointing to did not even yet exist. Now that I have responded to your point please be kind enough to respond to mine. I think that if he knew that you purposely just added a direct link associating his biography (as an author) to a book that he didn't write, and he was sued a million dollars over, that he would probably make it worth some litigation on the part of the encyclopedia if he was so inclined. Don't you? Ste4k 10:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First you say he was "not involved in a one million dollar law suit over that book", then you say that I added a link to a book that "he was sued a million dollars over." This is within the same comment. Do you see how I have trouble following your logic?

No. What is your point? Is the word "that" confusing you?

The point is, he is associated with the ACIM movement because of this lawsuit.

Incorrect. "ACIM" is not a movement and he is not associated with that company. Companys rarely sue themselves or their associates.

A link to the ACIM page deserves to be in this article.

Why? It deserves to be in the article much less than links to the marine corp or articles about the aftermath of Nagasaki. I base my reasoning on the fact that ACIM is neither sourced nor spoken of in the biography, and 50% of the biography rest on the secondary source that describes Anderson's horrors of seeing Nagasaki first hand just after it was bombed. Do you suppose you can come up with a reasonable secondary source that would provide enough content in the article to justify the context for the link? If so, I am all ears. I'm especially interested because whatever article you find, I will probably be able to use in a different article that I am currently writing. Otherwise. No original research, please.

Your idea that he would litigate over this link and so we shouldn't include it is lunacy.

Your statement make no sense.

--Nscheffey 10:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k 23:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your anti-rationality forcefield is strong, let me try something else. From the 48 hours article: " Ross also says that Anderson has taken the New-Age doctrine of a "A Course in Miracles," and twisted its principles of self-enlightenment." By that alone,a link to A Course in Miracles deserves to be on the page. --Nscheffey 00:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please lower your tone and read the documentation for yourself. Same title, different content, different author, different book. Thanks. Ste4k 00:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

re: the section recently added

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Ste4k 02:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't communicate with me through templates. It is a dick thing to do. And if you must use templates instead of thoughts, at least substitute them with "subst:". --Nscheffey 03:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Continued discussion of your AfD issues

You wrote: " Next you mentioned the other editor who accused you of a bad faith AfD nom, Andrew Parodi. " This is not the person to whom I referred. Thanks. Ste4k 07:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is the person to whom I referred in the original comment. Who could you have possibly thought I was referring to, seeing as I included a link to his comment? Did you not bother to follow the link before you replied that I didn't understand him correctly, or are so many editors suggesting bad faith noms by you that it's hard to keep them straight? Thanks. --Nscheffey 08:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Note the time of day, please. Thanks. Ste4k 09:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This might also help jog your memory. Ste4k 09:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k you are one of the most confused/confusing people I have ever interacted with. Let me try to make this simple. When I ask you about another editor suggesting a bad faith nom by you, and then link to said accusation like so, I expect your replies to be concerning THAT EDITOR. The fact that you can't understand that is deeply disconcerting. Also, you have not replied to any of the points in my comment, which I would appreciate. Otherwise I will curse your userpage. --Nscheffey 20:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, your talk page design breaks the comment button, which is annoying. --Nscheffey 20:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise I will curse your user page

Explain this remark please. Thanks. Ste4k 20:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A joke based on your preoccupation with cursed newsgroups.--Nscheffey 20:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

re: your latest addition

Adding unsourced information to an article is distinctly different than removing unsourced information from an article.

Per policy: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

In the future, please provide reputable sources that justify the link that you provided. And please assume good faith. Thank you. Ste4k 08:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, chill out. Both of those links obviously belong in the article and your attempt to remove them has been reverted by another editor. You need to seriously calm down, you are not making any friends with your behavior. --Nscheffey 08:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review this and reconsider your actions from an objective viewpoint. Thanks. Ste4k 08:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, for once, make a cogent argument as to why these links should not be in the article. I am familiar with all of the policies you have linked to, and I still see no basis for many of your actions. I'm also not the only one to think so. You need to calm down and be reasonable. --Nscheffey 09:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page is being vandalized. Please use this one here. It was occurring to fast for me to determine if you had mentioned anything. Ste4k 10:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Torrent finder

Hi, I hope you can take some time to vote on the AFD debate for the Torrent finder article (i noticed you had nominated another torrent site earlier). The debate is taking place at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Torrent finder. thx! Zzzzz 11:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message about the ACIM articles

Thanks for your recent comment regarding the ACIM articles. A followup comment/ reply to your comment has been posted at my talk page.

-Scott P. 12:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent comment regarding the ACIM articles. A followup comment/ reply to your comment has been posted at my talk page.

-Scott P. 13:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: This black text over a black background formatting on your talk page makes it a bit of a task for me to read it, but to each his or her own.

It's not black, it's maroon, like wine. Perhaps you should adjust the settings on your monitor if that helps. Ste4k 14:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps my monitor or Graphics card are outdated (from 2000 16 bit High Color). I tried tweaking it but to no avial. No problem though. When I select text and increase the text size bytwo sizes, I can still read it. I've left another reply for you at my my talk page and also emailed you. Cheers. -Scott P. 23:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, yes, that must horrific. My monitor is a Sony 22 inch LCD and my graphics card is an ATI 9800 AIW Pro. My resolution is set at 1600 x 1200 32-bit color, but also I use transparent windows so I can generally read three to four overlapped windows at a time. There's enough landscape on this box to normally have about 7 or 8 windows open to Wiki, still keep an eye on two or three channels of IRC, my e-mail, a couple blog sites, and my actual work, of course. Ste4k 00:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Say what?

I decide to check out the AfD articles, not something I normally get involved in. I come to an article for deletion, A Course in Miracles (book). I look over it -- I see it's been documented and footnoted almost to the very last comma. I observe a tremendous argument ensuing over one word, "cult", that's being interpreted multiple ways. Multiple editors are squabbling over whether User:Ste4k is being "POV" for using it. I change the wording to eliminate the troublesome word while meeting what I see as the intent of the original author of the quote, Garrett. I think I do an adequate if not very eloquent job. I go to a lot of effort to explain what and why I made the change, citing the dictionary, etc. I do screw up and forget to sign some of my work, which you helpfully catch and fix.

I then vote in the AfD to delete the article but to keep its content and merge it into the main article. I explain my reasoning, but without going into detail as to my views of both articles as they presently stand. If I had, I would have said something along the lines that the main article flows well and is comprehensive; I think it's generally well written. At the same time, it screams out for about 200 {{fact}} tags. It's not clear to me how reliable it is. The book article, by contrast, is not as pretty and, as the principal author herself more or less says, reads like a U.S. District Court decision. There's a reason judges' decisions are not high literature and that's because they're shooting for reliability and precision, not memorable prose. There's considerable overlap between both articles with much discussion as to whether there should be a book article and a movement article or just one combined article; there's even discussion as to whether the word "movement" should be used. It seems to me as it all this talk of different articles is putting the cart before the horse (reliability), so I vote "merge and delete" so that the overall Misplaced Pages coverage can get fixed and streamlined with some sort of consensus built.

Now I wake up and I find that you've spent hours during the night sarcastically mutilating your own article. It appears that one word, "cult", and my good faith editing of its usage may have been your tipping point to go into a frenzy. That or my one vote in the AfD process. If you don't like my cult edit, just reverse it and explain how I got it wrong.

Then there's this message on my talk page:

"I'm not originally from the U.S. I was born in Kharkov. In our country, we beat liars, and if one wants to eat, they work. The only POV in that article I wrote was that I wanted to find out the truth, did research, marked it with citations for verifiability, refused to consider any source that came from some primary provider, and all I found out for my trouble was that this encyclopedia isn't even worth quoting. You should be ashamed to have your familiy member's name on this medium. Ste4k 07:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)"

What do I make of this? Are you saying that I'm a liar and should (or would) be beaten? That I should be working harder to eat? And what's this about my family?

And as for Misplaced Pages, being flawed, it certainly is that. It is profoundly flawed in terms of the reliability of some of its material. In fact, if so many millions of people didn't use it, I'd say forget about it. But the fact is, Misplaced Pages is very important and growing in importance everyday. Every day, more people abandon traditional sources of reliable information such as Britannica and turn to Misplaced Pages. Every month, Misplaced Pages's Google rankings move up higher and are often in the top 5 for a given search. The fact that so many other sites such as answers.com mirror the content makes what's written in Misplaced Pages seem all the more "reliable" since to the undiscerning, it looks like other sites are agreeing with Misplaced Pages.

So like it or not, Misplaced Pages is here to stay and further grow in importance. You can fume and I can fret, but our children and grandchildren will use it more and more as their first source of knowledge, reliable or not. That almost pessimistic view of Misplaced Pages's growing role is what motivates me -- not some idealistic, Woodstockian notion that "information longs to be free" or so much of the other idealistic stuff that motivates thousands of mostly earnest, smart but very young editors on this project.

--A. B. 13:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Color scheme

I accidentally clicked on this page in my watchlist, and the red-on-black color scheme blinded me. A trained parrot is typing this for me, which is very inconvenient, because the parrot only understands Spanish and my Spanish is quite poor. Please send replacement eyeballs. :) Kickaha Ota 17:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

snide

I was not trying to be snide, but I am startled to discover you have signally failed in understanding the point I was making. THe point is this: the Saihya Akademi Award exists to honour the most prominent cultural figures in various Indian vernaculars. This would have been apparent - or at least suggested - by reading the google results for the award. Next, the fact that 757 ghits exist is pretty decent. "Ramdhari Singh Dinkar", the most famous modern Hindi poet of all, gets a mere 1000 or so. This is known as WP:BIAS. There are certain cultures not as much on the internet as yet, and the world's most populousn nation is one of them. This should have been apparent to even the meanest intelligence.

I was further making a point that, even if you had doubts about the notability of a subject, if you are unwilling or perhaps incapable of carrying out even basic research and coming to simple conclusions, be a little humble when you recognise that you know nothing about the particular cultural, social, or political context that allows you to place this person. It means that this is definitely a BAD WP article; but you seem to have assumed it was an UNENCYCLOPAEDIC article, and that leap was unwarranted.

Finally, I pointed out that on WP we are all both readers and editors. That is the point. If you are capable of bringing this article to AfD, you should be capable of the basic research that everyone else put in. If not, dont bring articles to AfD and waste our time and energy. Hornplease 03:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss the point again, by a mile. I didnt actually have anything to do with the article, and the first time I saw it was on your AfD, so it would have been difficult for me to put references in before you nominated it. So although "I" dont establish any notability, my point is that "you" should realise that there are some places where you are just not qualified - or, it appears, able - to judge notability. Hornplease 14:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You make the absurd and self-serving claim that nobody would have believed the information contained in the article. As I said, it was a bad article. You had three options (1) Think "someone thinks this guy is a really major Hindi poet. What do I know about Hindi poets? Nothing. What might the internet tell me about Hindi poets? Nothing that I am capable of deciphering. So why dont I move on and nominate for deletion something else?" (2) Think "this article does not establish notability. Let me slap a nn template on it and dump it on the Indian administrators noticeboard." (3) Think "This article does not establish notability. I am clearly capable of judging notability. Let me nominate it for an AfD."

You picked the third. This was the wrong choice. Accept that, fix your behaviour, and move on. I am not 'making it personal', I would just like more people to realise that nominating articles for AfD is not the right way to try and clean them up, but a last resort. And people should not nominate articles about subjects about which they know absolutely nothing.

Finally: thanks for informing me about "India's tech standards." If you had had any experience of it at all, you would realise that 90 year old vernacular poets are not the kind of people who tend to get on to even a developing domestic web, which has a penetration till today of less than 4%.

As I said, learn from this, and move on. Hornplease 15:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Contacting

Ste4k, my MSN Messenger handle is lucas5w4@netscape.net if you would like to talk. Naturally I want to understand and do what I can. Take care, —Antireconciler 05:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to your criticisms at User talk:A. B.#My final comments to Ste4k on my edits, demeanor, general morality, etc.

--A. B. 20:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. You put so much work into A Course in Miracles (book) -- I hope you'll either restore that content and sourcing or merge it into A Course in Miracles

--A. B. 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

for you :)

The Original Barnstar For improving Allerton High School even though you preferred it's deletion. Inner Earth 23:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this deserved? This is an article on a high school. I question its notability. Is WP the place to have an article on every pre-school, grade school, middle school, high school, and every other school across the world? Why does Ste4k accept this article and so visciously attack ACIM articles for notability?--Who123 04:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Ste4k deserves some credit for this (which she's received). Ste4k nominated the article for deletion, which received overwhelming support for "keep". After the AfD was completed Ste4k edited the article to improve it. Now she could have done that without nominating it for AfD, but the result was good. -Will Beback 06:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC) (from Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Ste4k)

Now that I understand the history behind this better, I apologize for the remark above. I do, however, think you should use this award as a reminder that many consider articles notable even when you do not.--Who123 21:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Top-notch QA

The Barnstar of Diligence awarded to Ste4k for tirelessly ensuring neutral and verifiable articles and stomping out ignorance and original research. Never say "no one will check my references anyway." Ste4k will hear you. She'll hear you think it, even before you do. —Antireconciler 00:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Apostrophe use

In the phrase "for itself and all processes and software running under its control" (Runtime environment), its is correct, because it is a possessive pronoun (see table at personal pronouns). "Under it's control" would be incorrect because it's is a contraction for it is. Thanks for checking. Jim 00:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Reshaping Course-related articles

Hi Ste4k. I'm not sure how you read anything on this talk page the way you have it set up, but I want to suggest that if you want to improve A Course in Miracles, Endeavor Academy, and other articles related to the Course, you will probably save yourself considerable time and energy by simply taking out a notepad, doing some research, and then simply replace the entire artcile with a more reliable one when you're done, keeping anything that meets WP's standards from the original. No one can contest replacing unverifiable articles with verifiable ones. It looked like this was what you wanted to do (largely) with A Course in Miracles (book), and I think you were on the right track doing that. If the articles are not the way you want them, this is a much better method than posting numerous tags on pages and slowly reshaping them 1 edit at a time. If they aren't quality pages, it's better to either nominate them for deletion and let them go or write your own article. —Antireconciler 18:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:A Course in Miracles (book)

I've fixed the tag, my bad. Anyway, the reason I'm leaving the talk page is that it contains discussion relevant to the topic. The community didn't reject inclusion of the topic in the AfD, so it's of some value. Mangojuice 18:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've gotten rid of your message box. The messages on your talk page are unreadable with it (in my browser, anyway). Mangojuice 18:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the concern, however, now the characters are so large I can barely read but a single message or a part of one. Ste4k 18:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Deliberately inaccessable for the handicapped

I'm red-green color blind and this page is black on black to my eyes. I have to click edit to read it. If you wish to respond, please do on my talk page. It's kinda like stairs-in-the-front and a ramp-in-the-back to someone in a wheelchair. I don't feel welcome on this page. WAS 4.250 20:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Effective Communication

In case you don't realize, to many users, your page looks like this:

Obviously, it's very difficult to read. Could you consider changing the color scheme and font size to help put the effective back in effective communication? Thanks in advance; we'd all appreciate it. joturner 23:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the formatting as it makes it pretty much impossible to use this page. Please think of other users when designing your page. --mboverload@ 00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- I created a page for you at User talk:Ste4k/private. On that page, I've used transclusion to put the current contents of your User talk page, whatever they are, in the formatting you used to have. Anyway, from your comments to me earlier, I think you probably have some bad browser settings that make text too big. I think I can help fix that, if that's the case; email me if you want help with it. Mangojuice 00:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, I apologize if my comment sounded insulting (I'm not sure, you seemed insulted). By saying put the effective back in effective communication and following the statement with a thanks, I thought I had conveyed a, as intended, light-hearted request. joturner 01:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I thought you were an admin. The other two admins involved in this matter have seriously upset me. I consider their condescending remarks rude to the point that I am leaving. Please accept my apologies for my thinking you had something to do with that. Ste4k 02:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Mboverload is not an admin either. Nevertheless, I think everyone here was trying to act in everyone's best interest (including yours). People may have been turned off from talking to you since it was difficult to read for most. If there is a particular reason, or just a preference, for the high constrast settings on your computer, that's perfectly fine. However, I think Mangojuice was just trying to assist you if you were simply unaware of altering your computer settings. Mboverload, although he may have seemed a little harsh, looks like he was also trying to just inform you of the situation for other uses and perhaps help you create a page that works for everyone, including you. If you need or want any help altering your page to make it readable to you and everyone else, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page (or Mangojuice on his talk page). joturner 02:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk: A Course in Miracles

Per your request I reviewed your comment. I have also left a message. I am again able to spend larger chunks of time editing and plan on working on some ACIM articles. As a personal observation, I do not think that the true believers over there are trying to POV-push, they just do not realize that they are in fact being POV. Their disregard of sources could also be explained by their New Age worldview rather than by bad faith. JChap (Talk) 00:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How dare I? =D

How dare I edit your page so people can read it? =D

Do you have vision problems, if that's the case then I'm sorry. However, I have never heard of vision problems needing everything to be different low contrast shades of purple in extremely small sizes.

Here, I'll fix the size issue for you. In Internet Explorer go up to the "View" drop down menu, go down to "Text size" and select "Medium" --mboverload@ 01:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not purposely mess up pages

Please do not insert overly large images into pages in order to extract revenge. Doing so is not civil and is against the rules. Thanks. --mboverload@ 01:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly was this? Ste4k 15:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The edit and history buttons

Feel free to revert back to your old version. This is a wiki after all.--mboverload@ 02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Mboverload.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mboverload.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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:Media copyright questions. 02:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Leaving yet?

So, when exactly *are* you leaving? You've said you were leaving? Why don't you actually do what you say instead of harassing someone for fixing your page. People have been trying to help you, but all you are doing is ignoring their help. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the project, then I suggest that you not come back until you do. Thanks Naconkantari 02:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Your kind wiki civility sure perked up my day. Thanks. Ste4k 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Monobook code

Greetings, try adding this code to your User:Ste4k/monobook.css page.

/*

 */  
/* Color defaults */ 
body {
    background: #200010; 
    color: #300028; 
    font:normal small-caps 8px/10px monospace;
}
#content { background : #200010; } 
#content { color : #300028; } 
#content { font:normal small-caps 8px/10px monospace; }

That should cure your problems. :-) (→Netscott) 02:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Be sure to copy and paste everything in between <code> and </code> (copy it as though you're going to edit this section). Good luck. (→Netscott) 03:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you consider the above monobook code, as at first glance, it looks like it will turn the majority of text on wikipedia to look like your talk page used to. Kevin_b_er 03:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

I've deleted your userpage per your request, but cannot delete your talk page, as the history needs to stay intact. Instead, you may blank this page by removing all of the content from it (including this message). Hope this helps, Naconkantari 03:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion from a previously uninvolved admin

Hopefully you won't ignore this. May I suggest that you keep your talk page as others have edited it but with your modifications commented out using the <nowiki> templates and then when you want to read the page, uncomment out your font and size modifiers and use the preview button. This will hopefully make everyone happy. JoshuaZ 04:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Since your an admin and discussing policy (imho), there isn't any reason to ignore your message. About your suggestion, I will take it under consideration. Thanks! :) Ste4k 04:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You can trust Joshua implicitly. He is an excellent editor, a very fair admin and a wonderful human being. I can't think offhand of anyone I respect more on WP. Joshua is also very well-informed on religious subjects. Just zis Guy you know? 21:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The burden involved in implementing his suggestion renders it moot in my opinion. I'm saying this only after giving it due regard. Finding enough time to deal with only this page when I want to see the other pages on Wiki like world at large sees them hasn't justification compared to using the same time to work on articles. I've begun writing a client for WP now. Ste4k 21:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, I know you don't like people posting on your talk page, but I'm a bit worried that you are misunderstanding the role of administrators on Misplaced Pages. "Since your an admin .... there isn't any reason to ignore your message," suggests that you would ignore messages from regular editors. An admin's opinions, advice, and input are not automatically worth more or more correct than any editor's. Keep that in mind. --Nscheffey 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nscheffy, I don't believe that you can know, have known, or ever will know what I have, do, or will like. Do you actually not see how your statement is offensive? Ste4k 19:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't, but I'm not surprised that you are offended. After all, you were reduced to tears when someone tried to make your talk page readable. I've told you this before and I'll tell you again: chill out. --Nscheffey 20:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to speak about that incident that you know nothing about? Or do you want to address the topic that you brought up? Ste4k 20:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You are completely out of control. Saying I "know nothing" is an insanely dick move. You are the one who hasn't addressed the topic, instead claiming you were offended. It amazes me that after so many separate editors have commented on your behavior you still feel you are always in the right. Even when you sought out a random user, his advice was for you to change your actions. Noticing a trend? --Nscheffey 21:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't write to me

Frankly, you seem like an asshole. Don't write to me on my personal page. If you have a problem with me, get a third-party mediator, you asshole. Secondary Source 09:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting the WP: Don't be an asshole rule. Secondary Source 12:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Course in Miracles

I could not reach you by email but please do not suggest a name change to the "A Course in Miracles" article.Who123 19:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd seriously like to put the entire subject matter behind me. Until doing serious research on this topic, I hadn't ever heard of it, still haven't ever seen any of it mentioned in the media in any serious way, doubt that it has any real significance to world wide politics, religion, society, charities, wars, or anything else that is going to significantly change the planet any time soon. The fact that it does require an enormous amount of research indicates only that it is an obscure topic. That so many editors have so many different viewpoints on the matter only indicates that nobody can reach consensus and that the subject matter is ambiguous. The article along with its neighbors has caused significant amounts of abusive remarks to me for simply researching the matter which indicates that the presence of the article causes more problems than it serves to provide any information. Providing information is the primary objective of the encyclopedia. Consensus is the primary means that this encyclopedia changes it's content. And disambiguity is the primary tool for accomplishing that goal. Ste4k 19:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making obstructive changes and deletions from A_course_in_miracles. You are not being helpful. It is becoming a full time job just trying to revert your obstructive edits. With all due respect, I sugggest that you follow your own suggestion: "I'd seriously like to put the entire subject matter behind me." Perhaps your time would be better spent in a subject you have knowledge about and wish to contribute to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Who123 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC) .

"obstructive", Could you be more specific? Your opinion appears to be unique regarding discussion on that page. Ste4k 16:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your personal attack claims

Please see policy concerning what you are doing. You are way out of line here. --Nscheffey 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

could you be more specific? Ste4k 21:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, just chill. Let people write what they want and ignore the trolls. You can rely on us to ignore the trolls too. Just zis Guy you know? 21:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Ste4k 21:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your merge of Sculpture in Ancient Greece to Greek statue

There is no way this is the correct merge. Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece, not the other way around. Stop changing links and merge it correctly. --Nscheffey 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Misplaced Pages is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Misplaced Pages community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Ste4k 03:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please respond with actual thoughts and not templates. --Nscheffey 04:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the template's message and my thoughts are exactly the same and I believe in optimality. Don't you have anything better to do than bother me with your petty insults? Ste4k 05:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling

Just because it's your talk page doesn't mean that trolling is okay. Please can the lame header changes and sarcasm. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeeah. Don't troll me, either. Consider this a warning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What is your point? If you don't like the way that editor signs his name then take it up with him, not me. Ste4k 06:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, why did you remove my comment? Ste4k 06:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I removed any comment. If I did, I didn't mean to. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

See Line 37 and 38 --Ste4k 06:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, looks like I did. Did you want to put it back, or do you want me to?

Incidentally, you don't need to dupe all the comments you make here on my talk page. I have this talk page watchlisted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me if they are put back or not. The point is that I am getting mixed messages from you. When you remove my statement and replace it with "Don't troll me either", then what am I to think? And here we have just below this conversation, someone that has been stalking me for more than a week saying "don't remove comments because it's hostile". Ste4k 06:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I sent a mixed message; I thought removing your hostile and obnoxious headers, with an edit summary that threw my own words back at me, would be message enough. And, frankly, it's right; it's a bit hostile and dismissive to remove comments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You totally lost me. Please take some time and be more specific. I have completely stopped working on articles tonight because of this conversation. I think you will get better results if you avoid pronouns and use specific terms or use wikilinks to point out what you're specifically writing about. Ste4k 07:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

False 3RR Report

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Dissident Voice. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Ste4k 13:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k? 3RR has to occur in one day. I did not edit the article yesterday in any way, thus I can not violate that rule. Also I did not revert your changes but rather addressed the macros/templates you put on the page. Please do not make false accusations, if this continues, I will report you. --Ben Houston 13:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Base 20:26, 12 July 2006
• 1st 12:13, 14 July 2006 1 revert
• 2nd 12:19, 14 July 2006 3 reverts
• 3rd 12:20, 14 July 2006 1 revert rm. "re-publish" to publish
• 4th 12:20, 14 July 2006 1 revert
• 5th 12:22, 14 July 2006 3 reverts
• 6th 12:22, 14 July 2006 1 revert
• 7th 12:23, 14 July 2006 1 revert

Ste4k 13:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand what a 3RR is - I was making changes and addressing your concerns. Yes, I did remove the various templates/macros, but except fro the extraneous ones, I actually addressed the issues they were warning about. Also, you mentioned that you thought I was new -- I've been editing WP since July 2005 and have racked over 3000 edits to over 1000 articles. Also you should check the WP:V section I quote on the Talk:Dissident Voice page -- it is relevant and you should really read it. --Ben Houston 13:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the July date in your contribs averted attention from the year since it is the current month. Please accept my apologies for thinking you were a new editor. Ste4k 14:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Red Links

I notice you don't like red links. They are not actually that bad since they suggest to readers where they could contribute new articles. Also there are global links of articles that don't exist that have the most links -- these are useful in helping guide people's new article creation efforts. --Ben Houston 16:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"don't like red links"? Could you explain your premise, please? Ste4k 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is a formal notice and warning. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in other sections of this page or elsewhere. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notice and Warning to Nscheffey

Your merge is wrong. If you want to talk about it here or on the articles talk page thats fine, but dont just revert it. --User:Nscheffey 20:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Neither do I own any "merge", nor is a "merge" an unjust or injurious act, something contrary to ethics or morality, an invasion or a violation of another's legal rights, nor an injustice. Neither have you followed your own advice. You have already established that your intent is to stalk me personally rather than have any concern over any article I edit. Consider this message formal warning that further attempts to communicate with me before addressing prior concerns about your stalking will be considered harassment. Ste4k 00:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Attempting to contact you concerning a major edit is not stalking, and your allegations are outrageous. --User:Nscheffey 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If you have a dispute then follow correct procedure. Your statement above signifies that you have read and understood my complaint. Until such a time as you have addressed those concerns formally, all further communication to me from you is considered harassment. Ste4k 01:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This

This is considered extremely hostile. Why are you so hostile to everything? --mboverload@ 01:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Ste4k 01:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Using the style of closed AfD/RfA discussions just because you don't want to talk to someone? That's a pretty hostile action, maybe you don't even realize the social implications of your behavior, but it does have implications on how people view you. --mboverload@ 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"because you don't want to talk to someone"? Are you asking this, or stating this? Ste4k 02:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Concern about edit

Stumbled in here, but I too am concerned about the incivility of this edit , and I'd just like to remind you to stay cool when the editing gets hot. Cheers. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"stay cool when the editing gets hot". Would you mind explaining your premise please? Ste4k 02:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing off discussion and declaring any further communication with an editor "harassment" is counter-productive and make Misplaced Pages a less pleasant project for everyone. Please assume good faith and keep cool. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. You haven't answered my question. Ste4k 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your confusion. My "premise" is this edit , as I noted originally. If I'm still not clear, please help me understand the source of the confusion. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, you are pointing to evidence on which you base your premise. Your premise was the implication that I am not cool, and you pointed to an essay (i.e. not an actual policy or guideline) which spoke nothing about anything in the rest of your statement. You have made an incorrect assumption and failed to answer my question. I am not confused, but apparently you are. About the rest of your statement, it appears you have made three edits to articles during the time of our conversation. Have I disrupted any of those three edits in any way? During the same amount of time I have been working on articles and have made somewhere in the area of 100 or more edits. Please make better use of my time by answering my questions in the future to avoid disrupting the flow of my work. Thanks. Ste4k 03:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its great that you amassed 100 edits in the time I performed 3. But you're missing the point. All I was trying to do was suggest a more tempered approach for resolving future disputes. Sorry for the disruption - feel free to ignore. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your intent is admirable and your point was earlier understood. But you still haven't explained by what means you determined the point was necessary; i.e. that my temper was "hot" or "not cool". One might even misconstrue your remarks as unfounded accusations. Also I don't remember either of us working on an article together. How exactly did you happen to "stumble in here"? Ste4k 18:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at your page, apparently you are an administrator and a member of Esperanza and are not simply an editor passing by. According to WP:CIV which you should be familiar with, " incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress...". Since I hadn't contacted you in any regard, nor had I contacted the other editor "Mboverload", also because "Mboverload" contacted me; i.e. personally targeted me with unfounded accusations, as well as after scanning Mboverload's discussion page just now and seeing that you hadn't contacted him in regard to civility, how exactly do you justify your remarks as diminishing conflict and stress rather than the contrary? Ste4k 19:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't recall how I came across your talk page, and I am here as "simply an editor passing by" - my comments aren't meant to represent other Administrators or members of Esperanza. I don't know how my contacting (or not) Mboverload is relevant, but I simply felt that cutting off discussion with Nscheffey and creating an ultimatum that until s/he addresses your concerns, "all further communication to me from you is considered harassment" was (in the words of WP:CIV) contributing to "an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress". Feel free to disagree, and you could have simply ignored my good faith reminder in the first place, rather than requiring this discourse that seems to be just going in circles. Cheers. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

<--- On the contrary, rather than circles, understanding your viewpoint is pertinent to how others in your opinion regard a "closed conversation" as uncivil. Since your original comments were in a conversation with Mboverload, your remarks appeared to be in regard to that conversation more than the closed conversation you were pointing to. Using the "+" tab might have avoided any confusion in that regard. I haven't any interest in the other editor Nscheffey whatsoever, and I believe it more civil to simply close communications with a single editor (i.e. dousing the flames with a bucket of water) than to escalate the matter by resolving a "dispute" in some fashion. Resolving a dispute first requires that there is an actual dispute; i.e. has two interested parties with a disagreement. I haven't any personal dispute with that editor, and that editor's actions are completely one-sided. Ste4k 20:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. Again, apologies if this entire thread has been a distraction. Happy editing! --MichaelZimmer (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, you were acting in good faith. Ste4k 22:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Headings

Hi and thanks for your clean up work. Note that per the style manual one should use lowercase in section headings except the first letter and in proper names. So,

==Further reading==

instead of

==Further Reading==

Also, articles should be named Sine and cosine transforms rather than Sine and Cosine transforms.

Small things but I thought I would let you know. You can reply here if you have comments. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Detail is important. Nice work on the double redirects. Ste4k 08:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sculpture of Ancient Greece

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 06:31, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 06:39, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 07:11, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 07:13, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 07:22, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 07:26, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 07:28, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 07:33, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restored from Revision as of 08:15, 17 July 2006; Nscheffey

I think it is pretty clear that Greek statue should be merged into Sculpture of Ancient Greece and not the other way around. Statues represent one part of Sculpture, and the naming conventions already support this, e.g. Sculpture of the United States. I have posted similar comments on the talk page. Do not revert edits without discussing them please. --Nscheffey 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you delete my comments from your page? Please stop being unreasonable and deal with the issue. I think your merge of Sculpture of Ancient Greece into Greek statue is incorrect. Stop reverting and discuss this. --Nscheffey 06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

I have left comments over at the Endeavor Academy talk page. Also, I looked at the info you provided me on the book. It looks like there is a book called "Social Justice and the Liberal State," written by the same author. Perhaps the article "The Liberal State" is misnamed? My advice is to track down a copy of the book, verify whether this is true and then move and expand the article. Can I offer you some more advice? Don't get sucked into the combative bullshit that goes on around here. Just do good work. Producing quality content for the encyclopedia is important. Best, JChap (Talk) 05:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What a relief to read someone speak plain for a change. Thanks for the tip and I'll follow up on that book. Ste4k 05:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's in pretty good shape now. Thanks for the lead. Ste4k 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Cohesive Merge Talk gone awry

Hi! You seem to have applied the {{mergedisputed}} (Nom'd for Tfd currently, btw) tag on First Civil War and Wars of Religion, but each leads to a different talk.

1. It's not clear which was mergefrom and mergeto either. In any event, these things need to have some initializing prose explaining the purpose of the merge, or in this case the merge dispute, even if it's just administrative 'auto-categorization' on your part and not your pov/editorial judgement.
2. I usually just initialize a section '==Merge Proposal==' and recap what into which, so others have a clue months later. That because I spent the last half hour parsing the history file finding the original very old edit that added them in the first place. One was over 15 months old! Yikes and Grrrrrr!
3. Some of these things linger for well over a year, and we badly need a time limit put inside the templates. Since you're a CS type (I've been out of coding for a long while), CBDunkerson and I kicked that around about a month back, and he says it can be done with the math templates. Perhaps you could do all of us a favor and see if you can get something that works up and debugged.
4. If so, I'll support a change in policy that applies a 'sunset limit' on these ugly in-your-face things. 90 days should be more than enough time to talk about such.

What do you think? // FrankB 06:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive answer on my talk.

1. I made one back, so see that.
2. See your email! <g>

ttfn // FrankB 07:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Merger needs discussion

Ste4k, unless you're willing to discuss the merger, please don't keep reverting it over the reasonable objection of another user. I've removed the merger tag. If you think a merger is appropriate then please use the relevant talk pages to explain why, and please engage your fellow editors. -Will Beback 06:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The merger was requested as part of perhaps 50 that I performed. The explanation to the editor was made and simply ignored. That other editor has already been informed about harassment. The reverts in question are the other editors. I am only putting back the original work performed. If the other editor wishes to undo a merge then that needs to be done completely and not simply reverting one page. If the other editor actually wants to split pages then there are maintenance tags available for such operations and the normal procedures for those operations are fully documented as I am sure you are aware. Ste4k 07:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There was never any explanation made and "simply ignored." Discussing major edits is not harassment, and to imply that is extremely uncivil. --Nscheffey 07:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin advice

Even when you're right, don't edit war. -Will Beback 09:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

noted. Ste4k 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize

I have tried to talk with you about the ] merge. You have reverted my edits as well as my comments here. I am ready to apologize for the revert war we just had on this page and put it all behind me if you will just discuss this reasonably. But, if you simply remove my comments without a reply I'm going to have to take additional measures. Let's avoid that distraction and have a rational conversation. -Nscheffey 09:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me that there is a difference of emphasis here; I'm not clear what it is but I don't mind trying to help people work out their differences if I can. Mind you, recent events in my Wikilife indicate maybe not, but who knows? I congratulate Nathan again for a big-hearted gesture. Ste4k, I strongly urge you to accept this at face value. Where the two of you disagree, perhaps try asking what the problem is before even presenting your point of view? You both seem to be committed to the encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 12:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree that there is a difference in emphasis. The sub-topic is entitled "I apologize" but the content appears only to be an ultimatum. There is a gesture of "readiness" to apologize for an relatively insignificant degree of disruption, however. There doesn't appear to be anything forthcoming regarding prior disruptive activity nor any indication that sincere consideration has been applied regarding the future. Disagreements require two contrary opinions. My only disagreement with Nscheffey is regarding continuous irritation, unbalanced in regard to the number of other editors on WP, biased in regard to his selection criteria for articles being me rather than the article, his consistency to remark about me in a demeaning fashion, and an unwillingness to understand the simple word "shoo" with the persistence of a gnat. He reminds me of the little boy that used to try and peek up my dress in grammar school, who when told to stop would spread gossip among the boys that I had flashed him. I disagree that any of those traits have anything to do with the betterment of the encyclopedia. I appreciate your acting in an administrative capacity to resolve that difference between him and me. Ste4k 20:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, take a helping of WP:AGF here, no? It's best not to remove comments from Talk pages, it really pisses people off. It's also best not to take things personally, and, Nathan, it's best not to sit with your finger over the nuclear button. Stick rigidly to issues of content, ignore personalites. It's obvious the two of you don't get along, but even I manage to work with people I don't get along with some of the time :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed merge

Hi, well done for doing all the merges the you did - it really helps wikipedia, so thanks! As you may have guessed from the title, I'm writing about ] to tell you that it's been updated. I think it is best to do the merge from Statue to Sculpture, for all the reasons noted in the discussion, and I really do tihnk that Nscheffey's request for a 3rd Opinion was justified, what with edit warring and a lack of agreement. Thanks Martinp23 12:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, however it is unclear to me what edit warring you are referring to. Ste4k 19:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome - I was referring to edits from 0305, 14th July to 0729, 17th July ()in which there was a "war" between yourself and Nscheffey, about an issue which is hopefuly on the road to resolution via 3rd Opinion. All the best Martinp23 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've only been on WP for about three weeks. If you consider three reverts performed for the maintenance of connectivity made over a period of three days an edit war, then that's okay with me, however, I was under the original impression that you were referring to this. Ste4k 20:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done for getting used to wikipedia so quickly. I was referring to the edits I did in the context of the article (to be honest I didn't want to research too much by going through your talk page history), but I think your comment above does underline the fact that third opinion was the only real way forward. As of just now, I've merged the pages in the direction of the consensus, so I hope this is OK. Thanks Martinp23 20:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the re-merge. It might be helpful to explain the significant difference between the work you have just performed and how it differs from the incomplete efforts regarding connectivity and orphaning of articles to Nscheffey. I have doubts that he has a complete understanding of my half of the disagreement you have just resolved. Thanks. Ste4k 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies. It appears that I spoke to soon. Your efforts have deleted major portions of the other article. This was probably unintentional, but it does underscore the reasons that I had mentioned earlier in discussion regarding a split and POV fork. Ste4k 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment on ]

I have left a comment on the merge per your request. I agree with what Martin, Guy and Will have told you and hope you will take Nscheffy's apology seriously. You truly deserve to be commended for all the hard work you are doing on the merge requests. If I may say, editorial choices I have made have been changed, questioned, reverted, etc. hundreds of times. Sometimes I agreed with the decision arrived at after consensus, sometimes I did not. But on the whole, the changes/challenges to my work improved it. Resist the temptation to get sucked into personal conflicts on the wiki. JChap (talk • contribs) 13:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your centered perspective, as always, JChap. Perhaps in the future if Nscheffey is able to distinguish the difference between ultimatum and apology, I'll have an opportunity to take up your advice. I haven't impeded any attempts of his to revert the merge in question. He hasn't been able to muster up enough energy over the past three days to actually revert the merge in question, though, but only to orphan a redirect that is associated with the combined concept. Functionally speaking, my reversion of inept article pointer management is logically justified, and hasn't anything to do with his bias one way or the other concerning how an article is named. Ste4k 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything's there

• My apologies. It appears that I spoke to soon. Your efforts have deleted major portions of the other article. This was probably unintentional, but it does underscore the reasons that I had mentioned earlier in discussion regarding a split and POV fork. Ste4k 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, I've looked over the articles, and can't see anything that's missing apart from a bit of information (about 1 sentence) in the first paragraph of "Greek statue", which I believe is included elsewhere in the article. All of the other information from the original "Greek Statue", before all of the merges, was put into the relevant sections of ]. Have I missed anything else? If so, please tell me. Thanks Martinp23 20:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Take your time, and read again. I am trying to finish the disambiguation pages that I am working on. I have applied the disputed merge templates and suggest using the discussion area for the article rather than my talk page. Thanks. Ste4k 22:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Late Me thimks

• Sorry your note to check 1 was at a 'WikiPlull'... RL still calls. Looks like you got the help you needed. Your note wasn't too specific, but the process seems to have worked. // FrankB 15:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• • In this application of the template the dispute arose after the merge for several reasons rather than during the process of review of a merge. After the merge had been completely performed, an objection was raised about it. The editor objecting did not use the template, simply reverted the redirect from the B-side article. Later after an un-merge was attempted, material of the A-side article had been abandonded, I applied the template to denote a dispute. Ste4k 17:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• • If you are being stalked, then WP:AN/I would be a option. I'm going to be mostly missing the next week, but checking in now and again. Until mid-August really, as have vaction starting the 2nd just after. I'm not sure what if anything I'm actually going to move forward until I get back circa Aug 15th. If I put up proposals, I won't be here to discuss same. Shrug. Things are rarely 'urgent', unless someone is deleting something! ttfn, Keep up the good work! // FrankB 15:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That is being handled out of the public eye, but thanks. Ste4k 17:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

Please stop deleting so much material from ACIM while the discussion is ongoing. You can discuss the material without deleting it. -Will Beback 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:VER in a nutshell. There is no discussion going on, only bickering over petty tags. Removing each section to discussion is a standard procedure for such articles that are controversial. As an admin you should be aware of that. Ste4k 00:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

If you'd like to change the policy, please be my guest. In the interim, I am acting according to policy. Ste4k 00:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove so much material at once. Much of that material is perfecty sourced, etc. This disruptive behavior is not helpful. If you do not restore the information then I will revert it and ask for page protection. -Will Beback 03:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please revert it and ask for page protection.--Who123 03:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a community project that operates on consensus. We can discuss the material, but don't destroy the articles just because you have questions about the sourcing. I've reverted your changes again - don't make major changes unless there is a consensus. -Will Beback 04:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Destroying? That is only your opinion. This IS a community project and I am acting on behalf of policy as well as have improved the article. No tags, all sourced, all cited, etc. Where do you get the idea of "destroying"? Good faith? Ste4k 04:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, for an editor with less than a month editing this project, you may want to slow it down a bit and learn the ropes before teaching them. Some friendly advise: You could be an excellent editor, but you need to learn to work with others. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please fuck off and die

Yes, I was just inquiring into the likelihood that you would consider fucking off and dying. It would brighten the day of ever so many people. Thanks, hun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.108.15 (talk • contribs)

RfC drafting

Per previous discussions, it is time to request broader community input on your behavior at Misplaced Pages. An "RfC" is going to be filed some time in the next few days that asks editors to come together to comment on your editing behavior. When it's filed you will be given full opportunity to respond. I'm telling you this now because I have asked other editors to help in its drafting, and so it's best that you hear it from me first. You may want to begin thinking of how you'll respond. I'm sure that the aim of every editor involved will be to help you be a positive participant in this project. Many editors have started out by making poor edits and then have "seen the light". It's my hope that you too will become a helpful Wikipedian. -Will Beback 09:55, 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)

Erroneous spelling

Hi, just wanted to point out that there's only two is in Wiktionary. --JD 17:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks J_D! :) Please feel free to fix them if you have time. I won't bite. Promise! :) Ste4k 17:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done them all for you. --JD 17:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You're a sweetheart! <3 Ste4k 17:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Poll wording

Your poll read:

Should original research, unreliable sources, questionable links, and unsourced statements be moved to discussion, or remain in an article?

As applied to the debate currently on the page where it was posted, this question assumes facts not in evidence. Specifically, it assumes that the material currently under dispute consists, entirely and indisputably, of nothing but "original research, unreliable sources, questionable links, and unsourced statements", something that many other people on the page seem to disagree with to some degree or another. To get an idea of how polls are more usually worded, look at the current polls on WP:POLL. --Aquillion 18:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

All of the above "referred-to" chunks, sections, statements, links, etc., were moved by me to discussion from the article along with the reason according to policy and guideline. I'll try and rephrase the question with you here, and see if you understand what I mean, if that's okay. Normally if an editor makes an edit that adds material to an article, does not provide a reliable secondary source for the inclusion, does not cite any source that already exists, if it is a link and it doesn't meet WP:EL, or if it is material that is referencing a primary source and the content of which is either speaking about something or somebody else besides itself, or if it hasn't been previously published by a secondary source, or if it isn't addressing the notability of the topic matter (itself) in an non-contentious nor self-serving manner, etc., or if the unsourced material is simply a review of a review, or if the material is a synthesis of things that the editor is synopsizing from several sources, or for many other things, such as nonsense, etc., the material is usually and swiftly deleted. My question asks, if such analysis has already been applied to an article and an editor finds the material to be original research, unreliable sources, questionable links, or unsourced statements, should that material remain in the article, or should it be moved to discussion as I did yesterday for four hours. Ste4k 19:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Accesibility

Hi, I've noticed in your talk archives that in the past you've had a problem with the colour scheme in wikipedia. I've put your changes to your user talk (in the past) into a custom skin and I think it might make the pages slightly more readable for you. See User:Martinp23/ste4k. If you go into edit and copy all the code from there and then go to User:Ste4k/monobook.css and paste the code into that page, you may find it looks better to you. It's probably best to click show preview first to see if you want it first. There's a problem with the nav bar overlapping the content, which I don't know how to fix, but you may be able to work around it by changing some margin settigns for content or similar. Le tme know what you think Martinp23 15:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You may need to request unprotection for your monobook.js Martinp23 15:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip but I am leaving Misplaced Pages after I restore my archives. Ste4k 15:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that - I've noticed that you've had some bad experiences with sme editors/articles, and that there is an RfC being prepared about you, but can I suggest that after the RfC, you take the comments on board and act on them. I'm sure that you have many good contributions to make to wikipedia, but your experience has been soured by these few negative occurences. Again, I urge you to stay!! :) . -- Martinp23 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be rather hypocritical, don't you think? The only thing that I have striven for is policy. Why would I want to waste my time trying to convince people that I don't know about things they are convinced do not, cannot, or will not ever exist? I wanted to work on articles, not be the butt end of political bullshit. Ste4k 15:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hypocritical? I don't understand how I have been a hypocrite.... Anyway, I'm just trying to offer you kind words, (and would ask you to AGF) and try to prevent Misplaced Pages from losing another editor with great potential. An RfC is something to look upon as useful, not political bullshit. Misplaced Pages is a community, which indicates a sense of cooperation, and if opinions can be shared through forums such as the RfC process, the community as a whole is made stronger. Increasingly, a good editor's time is taken up fighting vandalism and the like, so it is important for wikipedia to not lose any more editors with good contributions to make. Thanks Martinp23 16:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you read my response correctly. You might want to read it again though. You suggested that I stay in regard to my earlier comments about leaving. You mentioned my having bad experiences and an RfC coming up. And I mentioned to you that it would be hypocritical on my part. I am almost convinced at this point that although the policies are great, they don't seem to be adhered to very much, and the reason I would stay is to write articles rather than play politics. You understand? Ste4k 03:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I sent you a message on your talk page, and you haven't replied. I just want to let you know that this is why I used that word. And I think that the editor who made that comment has integrity and I trust him. We don't see eye to eye all the time, and that's another reason I trust him. Ste4k 05:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay in replying - I was asleep (I'm in the UK, so your replies were at around 4 and 5 am :P). Thanks for clarifying - I was a bit confused about the response but it seems to be sorted now, so yes, I understand. For wikipedia, the most importnat thing is to improve ther encyclopaedia, abd sometimes WP:IAR is applicable. But again, people can have different interpretation of policy, which can cause conflicts. I think it's good that you'll decide to write articles - I personally don't do much of that as I've been reverting vandalism and helping at WP:RFC, but I would like to do more articles soon. -- Martinp23 08:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I have filed Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ste4k. There is a section for your response. -Will Beback 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's listed in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct. -Will Beback 21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Ste4k 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Who123 on RfC

I agree with this request for comment. Although you appear to be quite intelligent, you seem to lack the ability to work with others in situations where there is conflict or differences of opinion. I do not believe in personal attack and this is not meant to be one. I hope this process will help you to look at your behavior through the eyes of others and to learn from this to vastly improve your interactions with others.--Who123 21:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Who123, please try to remember to use a section of your own to speak with me on my talk page. That way I don't need to guess what the general topic pertains to. Thanks. Ste4k 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Curse hoax

• For example, you have never approached me about any hoax before, but had you asked, I would have told you that my husband as well as both of my teenage children use the computers in the house.

As I documented in the RfC, Rrock created a newsgroup post making a certain allegation. You added material referencing that post. Then, six minutes later, Rrock bragged about having the material in Misplaced Pages. You edit-warred over the inclusion of the material sourced solely by a single message posted from your computer. Even if we grant that you and Rrock are different people living in the same household, do you not see any problem with this situation?

Personally, I find it hard to believe that you and Rrock are different people. It would be extremely rare to have husband anbd wife both of whom have had 30-year careers in IT and database management. Having seen your computer screen, I find it hard to believe that it is casually shared by a large household. Further, Rrock, after being a very energetic contributor to alt.religion.angels, dramatically reduced his contributions there at the same time as you started contributing energetically here.

While the editing issue has passed (unless you seek to restore the informtation for the 20th time), this matter goes to the heart of your reason for being at Misplaced Pages, and what good faith you bring to the project. You minimal response in the RfC about this topic is not adequate to answer the matter. -Will Beback 02:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time you have mentioned any this to me, and I think you are trying to blow a million little things way out of proportion here. In doing so, you are making a battleground out of Misplaced Pages over me rather than the content of the articles that you don't want me to look into. I don't know the rules about RfC's like you do. I stated my opinion exactly like I see it. I am not impressed by your synthesis of facts and that seems to be the problem with those articles as well. About our household, my children or my husband, frankly, it is none of your business. If you are too young not to know not to mix with other peoples' marital affairs, then I cannot help you. As I have stated as civilly as possible, you have a tendency to presume. Ste4k 03:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You've made your gender, your career, and your physical ailments issues on Misplaced Pages. That is why I've raised these questions.

More importantly, you've repeatdly dodged the real issue: that you edit-warred over information that someone in your house created. Do you have any justification for having done so? -Will Beback 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Will, you have made my gender, my career, and my shortcomings issues on Misplaced Pages. You have started a big process "RfC" on my behavior. You have stated your opinion. I have stated my reply. What more do you want from me? You probably have twenty or thirty signatures up there by now, with my little one sitting all alone. You have run me off of your two articles now. I will probably be blocked again or something. Isn't that enough? What did I ever do to you? Ste4k 04:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Folks who add fraudulent material to Misplaced Pages, and then edit war over it, lose the presumption of good faith. -Will Beback 05:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You are using very strong language and between the two of us are the only one presuming. Ste4k 05:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to address the issue of your edits to curse? -Will Beback 06:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like advise you that your actions today, especially here in this small conversation, are now matters which I have elected to consult a neutral intermediary. I am sure that if it is important, that you will be advised. Ste4k 07:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

My final direct answer to you: You are wrong and acting contrary to the remedy you offered me in the RfC; i.e. you are being confrontational, believe that you are always right, and have made far more ridiculous statements in that RfC and here in this small conversation than anything that was added to the article "curse". I can only presume that your motives are to WP:OWN the articles "A Curse in Miracles" and "Endeavor Academy". I do not actually know what your intentions are, but they are certainly not in alignment of the spirit of an RfC. You have created that RfC in bad faith and I will attest to that with my signature to any future actions by any other editors against you. The net result of your actions is exactly the opposite of betterment of the community and have only served to alienate me personally rather than the contrary. Ste4k 21:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments on my talk page

I received your message and am happy that has been cleared up between the two of us. On another issue, however, I'd appreciate your attention. In the RfC that has been brought up at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Ste4k you have signed your name under the heading that reads: "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute". The person whom has created the RfC, Will Beback, describes the remedy of his "dispute" to be that I contribute in a non-confrontational manner. The issue about Greek Statues was a one sided affair in my opinion. I never disputed any merge, only that it be performed properly and in full. If anyone, I was the least confrontational in that discussion, and the discussion itself was resolved, i.e. is not an open issue or problem. After my response to the RfC, the user himself has become very confrontational, and nearly hostile in a forward attack upon my integrity. Please see the conversation on my talk page at: User_talk:Ste4k#Curse_hoax. In that conversation he implies that I do not even deserve the assumption of good faith. This appears to be a very important issue to him, but it is also a brand new dispute in my opinion. He has never before raised this matter with me in any regard. As an undersigner in the RfC, you are stating that you have tried and failed to resolve that dispute. It is on the basis of those signatures that he has himself determined that this RfC was credible. Please see . I would appreciate your confirmation that this was your intention in signing that dispute (one way or the other); that you endorse that you have tried and failed to resolve the dispute about a hoax before Will brought the matter up for review to the community, and that you found me to be confrontational and in need of remedy (i.e. specifically in regard to the discussion on my talk page). Thanks. Ste4k 19:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I feel that I tried and failed to resolve the (minor) dispute at greek statues. I was asked to help through WP:3O and feel that I tried and failed to resolve disputes on that page. With regards to the revert especially, though I found consensus and carried out the merge, you reverted it for about 10 words that I excluded accidentaly, without mentioning why you had taken such steps (I appreciate that you may have been busy, but then surely the revert could have waited, or you could have told me what I had missed). Another reason I feel that I "tried and failed" was that I noticed your lack of faith in the WP:3O process, immediately disagreeing with my comment which addressed the question set at 3O. I hope this clarifies matters for you (PS - I will be on a wikibreak (a course) from first thing tomorrow morning (GMT), so may not be able to reply to any messages left, but please don't let that stop you leaving message, as I'll respond as soon as I return. -- Martinp23 20:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to clear up a few things with comments here. Please feel free to continue the conversation. On originally inspecting the first merge you had performed, I had only looked at the pointers and my immediate response was to thank you and have you explain to the other party how what you had performed differed completely from orphaning an article. Upon further inspection of the merge, there was a complete section that appeared to be missing along with it's image. I pointed that out to you in order that you would become aware of the situation, and I marked the pages with a disputed merge tag so that it would not become lost if you hadn't the time to complete the editing. I made comments in discussion on the page in that regard. Per the WP:3O process, nobody had informed me, neither you, nor the other party that a WP:3O dispute existed. My comments in the edit summary were self-explanatory regarding the reasons for my reversions. It should also be noted here that the other party had been previously advised to desist from stalking my edits. If you were not advised of this, then in my opinion, the other party used you as a pawn in some gaming of the system. You might check the history and notice that he hadn't ever contributed to work on that article before. His only intentions were to be disruptive and cause commotion involving me. Ste4k 20:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you say above thay you didn't know about a WP:3O request, yet in your response on the article talk page you stated that " has made a false claim on the WP:3O page..." just five hours after I posted my initial comment and a few days before I carried out the merge. I feel that you acted in bad faith regarding your reversion of the merge without leaving any substantial comment (other than "Look more carefully"). You mention that I missed a whole section, yet I had already put most of the information from that section into the page, missing one picture and one sentence (which I recognise I did wrong, but which I was under the mistaken impression were included elsewhere in the article). I really think that you could have spent a few seconds following WP policy and leaving a short message on either my talk of the article talk expaining what was missed. In response to your final comment, I did skim over the talk pages of both yourself and Nscheffey, and (ambitiously) hoped to solve your disputes by intervening with 3O (I left a message on your talk page signifying that at some point). This is an area in which I "tried and failed to resolve the dispute". Martinp23 21:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Initially I was unaware of WP:3O and nobody informed me of the same. I had to use reverse links to the page in order to find the statements made by my stalker. Hope that helps. Ste4k 21:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am considering taking the matter of this RfC into arbitration and would like for you to reconsider your signature as undersigning of Will Beback's dispute about a hoax. Specificallly that by undersigning his RfC, that you are attesting that you were a party to that dispute before he brought the matter to the community. Please see the criteria in that regard, this conversation on my talk page, and further review the RfC in question. Thanks. Ste4k 21:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi - my endorsement is of the opinion put forward of your behavoir across the whole of the prject (see the RfC talk ), so I will be leaving it where it is. As a point of note, I think it is only proper that I leave my ensorsement where it is because I authored the section on Greek Statues etc.. Please don't look at the RfC as a personal attack, but rather as an honset opinion of the community. The RfC is not about a "hoax" as you mentioned above, but rather about editors' opinions of your behavoir across the whole project. (In addition, I don't feel that Nscheffey was a stalker of you...) Martinp23 22:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

At first, I was not under the impression of the RfC being a personal matter from Will. However, after seeing how his own actions are contrary to the stated purpose of the RfC, I have changed my mind about that. Please note for your own curiosity that my merge was the original modification of the page about greek statues. Link. Before that time, neither yourself, nor anyone else had the slightest interest in that page. Ste4k 22:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Stalker"

I find your continued accusations of stalking against me completely unacceptable. This is exactly the type of hostile behavior that has necessitated an RfC. I ask that you stop, and I feel I'm owed an apology, as you have now slandered me to multiple editors. --Nscheffey 01:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for arbitration. See here Ste4k 08:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the RfArb you directed me to and don't think Nathan is stalking you. He does not appear to have done anything that the ArbCom would sanction him for, but everyone involved can learn something from the mistakes we've made. My advice is to let this matter drop. JChap (talk • contribs) 12:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not looking for sanctions, nor punitive decisions. I appreciate your advice, as always, but I will refrain from commenting here. Thanks. Ste4k 13:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Too far

You've taken this whole situation to a whole new level; and I think you should just drop it. No good can come of this now, and if you want to stand a chance of being liked on Misplaced Pages, you should just start over. No fighting, no scheming, no nasty surprises... It's clear that you'd be a real good editor if you weren't so insistent on sticking to the rules and policies. Perhaps one you should read is WP:IAR. It's not too late to make a change. Don't miss your chance. —JD 12:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, JD_UK, but this is not about strict policies. This is about being allowed to enjoy Misplaced Pages, freely, without feeling subdued, without a constant fear of someone following me around. You mention making friends and being liked, but I don't think you understand that I haven't been allowed that opportunity over my first month here as much as you might think. This problem has been going on for much longer than anyone should have to be ignored. I have mentioned many times in the past that I just want to work on articles. Helpful comments, techniques, and so forth are always welcome, but nobody should need to have to tell another person "leave me alone". Ste4k 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems that almost everybody involved is making this bigger than it needs to be, and after I restart my computer I'm going to make another comment on the RfC. But I don't think the RfArb you opened was necessary. This is starting to look like the situation between myself and 9cds; and I wouldn't want it to end in a similar way. I'll be back online in about 10 minutes, then I'll get to writing something up on the RfC. But, if you really want to help the situation, you may wish to withdraw the RfArb, at least for now; at least until something's come of the RfC. --JD 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the decision to bring this matter to arbitration was being considered before the RfC. Although the RfC may have been turned around, and may even turn around yet, it in itself hasn't anything to do with bringing this matter to arbitration. This is a completely different matter and not an escalation. I am unaware of what happened between you and 9cds. Ste4k 13:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh right, well in that case never mind what I said. But I'm still going to make another comment on the RfC.... That almost sounds like a threat of some kind... --JD 13:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that anything that you have said to me has ever been a threat JD_UK. I think that we are alike in many ways you may not be aware of. You pay attention to detail. Ste4k 14:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Me, pay attention to detail!? You must have the wrong person... Anyway, I've made my new comment; it's there for everybody to moan and sook and complain over. --JD 14:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read it yet, but you made me laugh, I'll get to it soon. You do pay attention to detail though. Let's just say that between you and me, we have different things that we pay attention to. I have studied many of your edits. Ste4k 15:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's er, a great comfort... Nice to know somebody's, er, watching over me... --JD 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to bring up any bad memories, (giggle), but I did say, "studied", in the past tense. Ste4k 15:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Har. Har de har. Har har har har har. Har. —JD 15:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

/me looks at the sky and starts to whistle. Ste4k 15:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

lmao innocent as, are we? --JD 15:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so. Ste4k 16:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your request for help

Hi Ste4k. You asked for my advice on my talk page. After looking over the RfArb and RfC, it seems clear that there's a very complex and involved situation going on, with a lot of heated feelings on all sides. I hope you'll understand that I'm reluctant to jump in the middle of this without really knowing what's going on. All I can say is that I hope that everybody manages to keep calm and work together to resolve things with a minimum of hurt feelings. Good luck. VoiceOfReason 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd really only appreciate my filed request to be as it was when I submitted it. I have found the links to the clerks now. I have sent a message to one of the clerks. Thanks for getting back to me on this. Ste4k 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Puzzled

I'm afraid I don't know what to make of your message to me. You make some claims about the conduct of another editor with reference to the privacy policy. But aside from pointing me to some information, you fail to make a request of anyone, and I'm at a loss to understand why this should be of interest particularly for me.

In any case, I don't see why the privacy policy is applicable here. It refers simply to the fact that when logged in, your edits are attributed to your pseudonym instead of an IP address. This is done automatically by the software, and you can see how this works in page histories and contribution logs. The section you quoted goes on to explain that the associated IP address is only visible to those with direct access to the server logs or to the Checkuser function. Will Beback does not have Checkuser access, so I have to assume nobody has actually provided technical evidence of your IP address. If people are inclined to draw conclusions from circumstantial evidence, however weak or strong it may be, that's not really something that can be addressed. --Michael Snow 23:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation. What in your opinion would be the proper procedure for when editors make accusations as these? According to the WP:RfC itself, the entire RfC is invalid (for other reasons). The admin that submitted it, Will, has also admitted submitting it in bad faith. Being a rather new user and learning the ropes, is this a normal affair at WP? Because if it is then I am learning fast and supposedly the RfC was to "adjust" my behavior. Please advise. About how this relates to you, your name is listed associated with the legal team pertaining to the privacy policy. Ste4k 23:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The legal team actually exists to provide advice to the Wikimedia Foundation, as we can't assist every user with their individual legal concerns. In any case, it appears then that the issue is not legal in nature, but related to the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution process. If you want assistance with that, you might consider consulting with the AMA or one of the mediation groups. That's the extent of the advice I can offer in this matter. --Michael Snow 00:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Michael, your interpetation of the privacy policy was a great help. Ste4k 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Where?

Where did I admit "submitting it in bad faith"? Note that several editors made substantial contributions to the RfC and ten editors certified it, more than I've ever seen. -Will Beback 00:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Will, right here on this Talk Page. I have your own words that say so much stronger than weak circumstantial evidence that you haven't any access to (also by your own words).

Can you tell me what I said? I'm not aware of making any such admission. -Will Beback 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can, but why is it that you are always asking me to do your research for you? There is an old saying about flies and sugar, Will. This RfC can turn out one of two ways. You could find a very valuable research partner you appreciate, or you could find one that you detest. Ste4k 00:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked but I can't find it. Maybe it's not here. -Will Beback 00:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's here. Trust me. If it's not, then someone erased it while I wasn't looking. Send me an e-mail please. Ste4k 00:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd trust you more if you didn't make what you call "unfounded allegations" claiming I made statements that I didn't make. I don't know why I'd send you an email, but you're welcome to email me. Here's the link -Will Beback 01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather unfriendly way of putting things, Will. Why are you always so hostile? I sent you mail and hope that you adopt a little more good faith in the future. Ste4k 02:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I am not hostile, but I don't like when folks say I said that things that I didn't say. I've asked you four times to support your assertion. If you can't support it then please admit that you were incorrect. -Will Beback 03:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

To make it easier for you, here is every edit I made from the time I informed you of the RfC to the time you made the assertion. In which of these did I admit having submitted the RfC in bad faith? -Will Beback 05:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Great! You found it, I'm so happy for you dear, but you haven't replied to my e-mail. I can only assume that you actually believe all of the perposterous claims you made in my RfC and prefer to detest people rather than appreciate them. I'm still assuming you've just made a mistake about me regarding the RfC, but you should keep in mind that since you make bad faith RfCs that I do not owe you any favors. Ste4k 11:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please point out exactly where I admitted that I filed the RfC in bad faith, as you've claimed. I have reviewed every post that I've made to this page and can find no such assertion. You've repeatedly told that it is on this page, even told me to take it on trust, but it appears that you are either mistaken or lying. Please tell me which one. -Will Beback 11:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So not only do you want me to do your research for you but you want me to help you learn to read, too? Isn't that a rather odd thing to be doing? Asking a HOAX, DICK, CON to POINT out your lack of AGF and CIV, while breaking TPG at the same time? Just curious if you are in your thirties yet. Throwing a tantrum on my talk-page below isn't making you any friends. Have you answered my e-mail yet? I suggest you do. In the meantime you'll just have to wait and read my article about you when it's finished. I'm sure you're as anxious as everyone else will be to read it. Ste4k 12:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Ste4k, please just provide him the diff showing what he said. Going on in circles helps no one. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael, dancing is an art. Since I haven't anything to work on anymore except this RfC and it is supposedly for my benefit, I may as well use the time to learn the politics everyone so enjoys. What surprises me so often about the culture here is that when I change my mind and do as people ask, all of a sudden people get upset. Why? Ste4k 01:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Further, I don't see the need to move my comments from the context in which they were provided. There is little harm in allowing other users to interject into conversations, especially when in good faith attempts to move disputes along. Why the restrictive policies on your talk page? Openness would be so much more in the spirit of this project. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, but in a normal conversation between two people, basically, you cut me off and didn't allow me speak to whom I was addressing. These policies may appear restrictive to you, but they actuall facilitate communication with me. If you would like to see some other examples of a pages with policies, please see User_talk:Ryan_Delaney, User_talk:Linuxbeak, User_talk:AmiDaniel, User_talk:Redvers, User_talk:Tangotango, User_talk:RyanFreisling. These policies have been changing over the past month and you may also address the matters of my Talk Page in my RfC where there is a section explicitly set aside for that. Hope this helps. Ste4k 02:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Of the links you provided, only the first one notes such a requirement. And I don't see how I cut you off or didn't allow you to speak. You can still insert any comment you like into the conversation, indenting mine however you like in order to maintain the proper flow. Conversations can involve more than two people. As I noted in my reply on my own talk page, I also wasn't responding to someone else's comment - I was responding to you and left you a message. I don't understand the difficulty here. Finally, I still have no clue what you were referring to in your original response above. I'm sure there are plenty of articles you could contribute to, which (IMO) would be a much better use of your intelligence & time than the back-and-forth argumentation on that RfC. Just my $0.02. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael, please read more carefully, I only mentioned other talk-pages with policies. This page is for speaking with me, if there is a conversation anywhere about this talk-page in general then as I mentioned, you can find it in my RfC. Earlier when you visited up above, you also thought that there were arguments and yet there were none. I submit that at least half of good communications is reading carefully with a neutral tone of voice. Although Will was expressing a lack of good faith about a topic of his having no good faith at all, that shouldn't give you the impression that my demeanor is affected in any way whatsoever. If you read carefully I am trying to reach out in consensus and it is a delicate and diplomatic matter. Since the RfC is directly concerned with me, I think you should appreciate more how much progress you may not be aware of. On other matters in that RfC, moving peoples' speech has even been referred to as a GENERAL PROBLEM, and technically it is a revert. Why would I want to risk anyone ever holding that sort of horrible description over my head again in the future? About articles in general according to statements made in the RfC, I can pretty much just hang up my hat. I can't add material, I certainly can't delete any, I can't apply any maintenance tags, and I can't even move anything into discussion. So who cares? It has also been mentioned more than enough times that I need to start behaving more in line with the community, am not making any friends and stick to the guidelines too much. After all, I am now labeled a HOAX, DICK, CON, POINT, TPG, AGF, and CIV . I'm rather surprised you would even stoop low enough to speak with me let alone appear on my talk page. Ste4k 02:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I read it. It reveals that Will asked you to tell him what he said, and you replied that you could tell him, but that he should just find it on his own. He said he couldn't find it, you said it was there. Around and around you two went. Whatever. As for the rest of your message above, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but perhaps you need a wikivacation (a humorous essay). --MichaelZimmer (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Michael, I can point to at least a dozen times where Will has asked me to provide his evidence for him over the past couple of weeks or so. Apparently it's a trend of his to make guesses instead of research. Will and I go back a few weeks now and have been working on four articles together, didn't you know that? Did you think that this RfC of his was a neutral affair or something? Oh, my, no, he has stated several times that he didn't want me working on those articles. What did you think the RfC was really about? My behavior? I'm considering spending my next entire month just doing research on Will and even doing an article on him. So please, don't be looking for arguments here where they don't exist. Will and I are just dancing together like usual and it is most enjoyable. Thanks. Ste4k 11:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I can point to at least a dozen times where Will has asked me to provide his evidence for him over the past couple of weeks or so.
• he has stated several times that he didn't want me working on those articles

Please stop making unsupported assertions about what I have said. As the old saying goes, "put up or shut up". -Will Beback 11:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Be careful, Will. You just broke rule #3! :) --MichaelZimmer (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out for me Michael, and oh my, his the civility of his earlier statement! How shameful. Is he always so hostile like that to you, too? Ste4k 11:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

His hostility notwithstanding, he has a valid claim that you have (repeatedly) refused to reply to. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Michael, he has broken the privacy rules making a claim on circumstantial evidence. It's the same sort of original research that he does all the time while working on articles. I have already replied to his claim but he simply refuses to accept it. He has an issue about thinking that he is "always right" and his ego would be bruised if he were to make an apology and withdraw his allegations. You know that as well as I do. Ste4k 12:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You are changing the subject. You accused Will of submitting an RfC on "bad faith" and he's asking for evidence to justify your accusation. Simply provide it. It is childish to send him on some kind of scavenger hunt. He's searched through his contributions, and can't seem to identify what statement you're referring to. So tell him. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that a direct command? Are you going to be hostile, too? He has sent me an e-mail and we have taken the matter out of the public perspective if that's okay with you. I see no reason to make this sort of thing conspicuous for anyone else. Do you? Ste4k 13:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a plea, not a demand. E-mail is fine, but if you made a public accusation of bad faith, then a public resolution seems appropriate. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And you have certified the basis of an invalid RfC. I can see why you are concerned. So my question to you then is whether you actually researched all of the evidence presented there or whether you were just agreeing off the cuff. One of the claims made about me is that I made AfD in bad faith, have you forgotten that you endorsed that? Have you read the RfC thoroughly, word for word, and do you agree with it completely? The matter is logically significant. The claim stated was that I hadn't given due regard to an article before nominating it for deletion. Have you given the same sort of due regard and looked into the RfC evidence carefully? Ste4k 13:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

<--- I don't understand where this issue is now suddenly coming from. It appears you frequently answer questions with other questions, refusing to actually address the core issues. Anyway, if you look at my certification of the RfC, you'll see that it is restricted to our first interaction. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I believe you about that, Michael, but your signature on the RfC doesn't have that explanation attached. Anyone that happens by that document assumes that you have endorsed the entire thing. That includes the evidence and your own credibility based on your research of that evidence. Why would anyone assume otherwise? Ste4k 13:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. "Please read more carefully" --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read it several times now, Michael. Diffs are used when writing up RfC's about people, remember? Ste4k 16:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

For pete's sake: just take 30 seconds to look at the actual page and you'll see that my certification has an annotation. So anyone who "happens by that document" will read the page and see that explanation. Then take another 15 seconds to look at the history and find the relevant diff: .

Well when I look at the current revision of the page the first thing I see on top says, "In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes", then in the description I read, "This RfC includes information on several separate disputes", and then near the middle you sign it and even substantiate that it is about different disputes. Either way I look at it, at the time of your original response, you were endorsing the RfC without checking the reliability of the evidence, or you changed your mind since then and are endorsing the one little section on my talk page, claiming that is an individual dispute we had, and that you failed to read the instructions and the description in the RfC. One thing I still don't understand, though, is why you would call our discussion a dispute. It looks to me that our conversation is pretty plain, unheated, unconfrontational, and that we end up understanding eachother when it is completed. So what's your point? I was talking about your credibility. Ste4k 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So remind me how this suddenly became an issue of my credibility? Further, this seems to be a common trend: once someone points out an error in your logic/argument, you change the subject to something else. Anyway, I wish you luck with the arbitration. Signing off now. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd stand on my head if it would actually help

Ste4k, can we address your credibility? You've been claiming that I made various remarks, but are unable or unwilling to substantiate your claims. If you cannot provide links to my comments then please retract your alleagtions. -Will Beback 22:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well let's start with civility and talk page guidelines. Why are those in the RfC if you won't even be kind enough yourself to read the top of my talk page and be courteous? I'd appreciate it in the future if you would open up a section for your conversation with me, or respond in a section that you previously created. Please feel free to make that adjustment now. I don't want anyone making judgments about how I determined the header to read in the future. Thank you. Ste4k 22:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, now please substantiate your allegations or withdraw them. -Will Beback 23:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You provided in your own words here on my talk page reasonable argument that you created the RfC in bad faith. If you do not know enough about the evidence that you brought up then I suggest that you do some better research . I do not owe you any favors at all. You have made the allegations against yourself, and I will not be bullied into stating it any differently. They are your words, not mine. Ste4k 23:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is your assertion, not mine, so it is not "my research". You have made several claims about my statements, beside about the RfC. As it is you are simply going around making false accusations about me. (PS - I'm removing the header, it doesn't seem to have helped the discussion).-Will Beback 23:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Now you are starting an edit war on my talk page? You are really unbelievable. You come onto my talk page after making a bad faith RfC about my behavior, you include into that RfC just about every character assassination attempt possible, you base it all on absolutely nothing for evidence, you even say that it's condescending for a user to say "Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments" , then you make an excuse to make personal attacks against me in public, now you want to edit war on my talk page? How could ANYONE think that you brought up that RfC in good faith? You are perpetrating just about every act that you listed about me as problematic. What part of "stop bullying me" did you fail to understand? Ste4k 00:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, I did not make a bad faith RfC, I have ever said I did, I have not said the other things that you accuse me of, I'm quite cool, I'm not bullying you, and I have provided ample evidence your behavior. -Will Beback 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You agreed by an act of consensus to be civil on this talk page by providing a section for your comments rather than mixing them with other sections. Did you change your mind, or change mine? Ste4k 00:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit summary for this statement: I'd stand on my head if it would actually help)

I agreed to follow your petty, ever-changing talk page rules because I thought it would lead to your cooperation. It didn't. -Will Beback 03:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You were offered to take this out of the public view. You have refused to discuss it privately. You will just have to wait for the article to be published like everyone else. Ste4k 06:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

RfArb

When you provided these links as "evidence of incivility to others" were you mistaken or just trying to pad the diffs to make it look like you had an actual case? --Nscheffey 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Hi again Che

Long time, no see. I am wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in an RfC being held on my behalf where our conversation (yours and mine) is being referred to without your presence. In specific, there is mention of my taking gender offense from you which I don't believe has ever been the case. The edit in question is . The mention in the RfC may be found here under "took offense too easily". I'd appreciate it if you could spare a few moments. Thanks. Ste4k 15:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sorry it took me so long to get back to you, I've been wrapped up in a couple of things lately and I wanted to take the time to go through everything that's happened before I made any comments that might be entered into the record. After having taken some time to look things over, my take on your situation is this:

The road this is going down cannot go anywhere good. Supporting one side or the other isn't going to get anyone anywhere except blocked or banned. Digging in further is not going to make the situation any better.

I think it's probably time to offer the olive branch. I would rather avoid getting involved in advocacy in an ongoing dispute. I would be more than happy, however, to support any attempt at a peaceful and reasonable solution. Arguing about who did what at this point will not solve anything; offer an peaceful, healing way out of this, and I'm behind you 100%. - CheNuevara 11:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already tried and their not interested. I don't know which version of my response you saw, but this was the original, blocked or banned doesn't really matter to me. It's better than the constant daily abuse, and after I take care of that matter I will probably be moving on. I think that one day that we spoke was probably the only one I remember here that was actually pleasant. Ste4k 11:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC against you was constructed rather unfairly and aggressively. But that doesn't mean it's too late. You're hardworking and seroius, and you've got the potential to be a real good editor on the 'pedia. It's not too late for that -- I mean it. So you rubbed a few editors the wrong way ... if you apologize and offer peace, I think they'll accept it. But the important thing is to stop defending the actions that upset them: whether or not you actions were well-intentioned, they did upset and offend other users. If you admit to that, then they've got nothing left to complain about. I believe that you had good intentions and were acting in good faith; unfortunately, good intentions are not always enough.

Like I said, you've got a lot to offer to this project. I think that all these other editors want is for you to admit to your mistakes. You have the power to make this problem go away. It would show incredible maturity and a true committment to the 'pedia if you tried. - CheNuevara 12:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I know your heart is in the right place Che, but they will not accept anything but damnation. They'll just do it again and again. Later they'll do it to someone else. Read my new response revision later. Thanks. Ste4k 12:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Peace

File:Olivebranch.png Let's start over. I, for one, am not looking for "damnation." --MichaelZimmer (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Resolution

If you really want this to end, you might want to try and help this move along somewhat. --JD 13:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see anything there but someone that wanted my autograph, so I signed it. Ste4k 14:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

lol I didn't mean that; I was talking about the section that's titled STOP!. It's a way forward. Doesn't mean people need to do it, but it might help. --JD 14:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've only finished the first rough draft of the outline to my response to the RfC. Is there a hurry? I might be able to finish the outline by tomorrow if I put a good eight hours into it. I guess some people just haven't figured out that when I say the word "research" that I take that sort of thing seriously. I haven't even addressed any of the off-site issues in the outline yet. Ste4k 21:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, by STOP!, I kinda meant... stop. People need to stop stressing over the RfC, and try working to a resolution rather than pointing out eachother's faults. --JD 21:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been stressing at all, and I completely disengaged quite awhile ago. I'm working on the only article available to me now and my ability to research has been called into question. How can I work on any other articles anymore after being damned as a HOAX DICK CON ? Ste4k 21:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What article is it? —JD 21:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This one, and I am still only working on the outline . Ste4k 21:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah... I'm assuming you do want this to get better; and if you do, you might want to hold off on the RfC stuff, for now at least. Seriously, it isn't going to help in the long run. --JD 21:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. In the interim of resolution I will do nothing. Ste4k 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. —JD 22:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It has the same effect as being banned. Ste4k 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

my RfA

Unrelated to the discussion above, I wanted to thank you for the support on my RfA. It ultimately failed (43/16/7) but such things happen. I'll still be here, doing my thing, so if you do decide to stick around, I'll see ya.
Peace! - CheNuevara 17:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

New response on RfC

Hi - I don't understand what your new responses at the RfC mean. You seem to be posting other editor's comments, and then adding some bold & underline attributes to highlight certain aspects. Can you help guide me through this? Also, I'm a little concerned about the fact that you're adding formatting attributes to these messages that weren't originally there, and someone happening upon the page might think that the original comments had such emphasis. Perhaps you could add a note at the beginning of your response explaining what you are doing, as well as noting that you've made changes to add emphasis to certain comments? Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael, it is still a work in progress. I always do my research first and provide strong evidence and reliable resources. At present it is an outline, but I have made a few comments within it. I made a note near the bottom regarding your endorsement. I hope you find it stated civilly. Please let me know if it sounds to strong or there is some misunderstanding there. In regard to formatting, it is provided mainly as markup, and all of the actual sources are provided with permanent link URLs, that anyone can use to check. There is already a note at the very top of the response section. I haven't yet found an appropriately worded mention about adding emphasis here on WP. I don't want to give the wrong idea, nor do I want to state something that will get me into more trouble later. The emphasis and over all ordering is to provide a portrayal from my point of view. It is my response to the portrayal of me given in the upper section. I am wondering since you are concerned about the matter if you have bothered to check the other section on top for the same sorts of accuracy regarding sources as you have given to my response. Please let me know. Thanks. Ste4k 02:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, my comments on top are worded appropriately by adopting the recent style of one of the editors who endorsed the RfC. Ste4k 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your response to my endorsement is perfectly civil, no problem there. But I don't understand what you are actually saying: What were you not at liberty to discuss? And what are you asking me about that I might have investigated? --MichaelZimmer (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for giving a second opinion on the wording. I wouldn't want anything changing the temperature of our current mutual discussion. In regard to your questions: The link that you are providing next to your endorsement points to (in my opinion) a conversation between the two of us that appears to have ended mutually amicable. Since you are endorsing the RfC on the basis of a dispute, and you are pointing to that conversation, it appears that the other possibility is that your link is in regards to a different dispute with another person. To me, the ambiguity of your link is unstated in your endorsement. I am still unclear myself which matter you are referring to as a dispute. You are already aware that the RfC is supposed to have evidence provided by each of its endorsing signers. So in my current working version of my response, that question to me is still unresolved. Ste4k 03:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

your new response

(edit conflict))It is much worse than that. "How dare I edit your page so people can read it? Do you have vision problems? I have never heard of vision problems. Here, I'll fix. --mboverload@ 01:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)" This is a sloppy and misleading paraphrasing of his actual comments, to which you have appended his signature. This is wildly inappropriate. If this is a work in progress as you noted perhaps you should move it to a subpage in your userspace. As it is, you are posting misquotations on a well trafficked Misplaced Pages project page. --Nscheffey 02:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Typical RfCs

Ste4k, I think you've said before that you've never looked at another RfC. May I suggest that it'd be a good idea if you did so? For one thing, it is not necessary, or even common, for each certifier to add evidence individually. If the evidence of the dispute is already added by another editor then there's no point in having them add something else. Further, in your second response, you don't seem to be addressing the actual issues that led to the RfC. Of course you can say whatever you like in your own response, but simply attacking the RfC procedurally gives the appearance of wikilawyering. Lastly, the quotations and links contain many errors. I know how much you wanted the the diffs in the main portion of the RfC to be correct, so I'm sure you'll want to be accurate in your section as well. -Will Beback 05:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes Will, as it notes on top of my response, it is a work in progress. I am still only outlining it and haven't even finished that yet. I do notice some url problems as I am referring back and correct those along the way when I notice them. But usually during an outline for such an important document I try to gather all of the resources first. During a later phase I will check the entire statement for accuracy. During that phase every single link will be double checked. In my opinion only, during your preparation, as I have stated before, I believe that you were hasty. It appears that way to me especially since there were still edits being made even during my first response. Also because you decided on your own that it had actually been validated. In my opinion, that would have been better handled by a completely neutral party.

As a process itself, it appears to have some rules and guidelines of its own. I am sticking closely to those, and am sure that they were agreed upon by earlier consensus. If the process has changed so much between the time of its creation and how things are conducted now, then perhaps it is time for editors to make modification to those rules. They appear to be written well enough for me to understand clearly. And I do not believe that this would be a good time for me to be challenging any rules. As you have mentioned before, and as I have seen written in other places, this document is only to serve as material for ridding WP of me altogether. Regarding wikilawyering, in my opinion, that is against the general spirit of the RfC. I have offered to you the opportunity before to negotiate these matters, delete this file, and we could walk away, putting this into our past. This was unacceptable to you, however, and because of that your position appears to be far more confrontational than mine has ever been in the past. Ste4k 05:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

-We didn't post the RfC while it was being drafted, we kept it in a user page while it was in rough form. It was only presented when complete, though (with your help) a few mistakes had to be corrected later. I'll certainly say that it is still an imperfect work, and I only wish that I could re-write portions, though it'd be inappropriate to do so now. If your new response is a work in progress I suggest you make yourself a sandbox, Uesr:Ste4k/sandbox, and draft it there. As it is now, anyone coming to read it might not understand why it is so fragmentary and error-ridden.

-I don't think you are interpreting the policies, guidelines, and norms correctly. The statement says that the participants should add evidence, not that each participant should add evidence. Also, policies are important, but they are not the purpose of tihs project. Let's keep our eye on the ball: creating a great encyclopedia.

-You seem to believe that this RfC was wholly my idea and my creation. On the contrary, many editors have participated, both in drafting the RfC and endorsing it. You also seem to be making ultimatums, implying that if I don't delete the RfC (as if it were mine to dispose of) something will happen. I hope I've got that wrong.

-You are the only one keeping this RfC alive. Usually RfCs fade away and if their subjects stop engaging in the reported behaviors (or if the preponderance of comments from others support the subject's behavior), then everyone forgets about them. In some cases the subject or nominator keeps picking at it like a scab. In some (overlapping) cases the issues grow worse to the point that they are brought to the attention of the ArbCom or AN/I.

-Due to your own efforts this case has come to the ArbCom earlier than anyone else sought. Because of your activities in your first week (the hoax), in your next month (a series of edit wars), and in the last week (your unhelpful responses to the RfC), I have recommended that the ArbCom take your case. My guess is that it'll be at least another week or so before the ArbCom decides to case the case, and if it does it'll be another two months before they decide it. Instead of belaboring your (second) response to the RfC I suggest that a better use of your time would be demonstrating that you are a productive and positive member of the project.

-You also seem to believe that you are blocked from editing articles. Not at all. You are not under any ban or block. Feel free to edit any article.

-Our email conversation has not been productive. Your last email contained rules for discussion, but not an actual discussion of any topic. There's no need for privacy, especially when it's only illusory. You're welcome to post any message you like on my user talk page (aside from nasty personal attacks).

-Though I do think you came to this project with bad faith that doesn't mean you have to continue acting in bad faith. Many editors come here to make mischief but find a topic that they care about enough to make real improvements. I urge you simply to be good and to work towards improving the project in a collaborative, respectful manner, remembering that we are each just one out of a million editors.

-Cheers, -Will Beback 07:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

-I agree with you, that both of our versions are certainly imperfect. I am still under the impression, though, that this document is far more important than any typical RfC. Regarding your concerns about anyone coming to read it and misunderstanding, I think you will agree that from my perspective your own section of the RfC appears to have the same effect. I am unaware of any reason that it would be inappropriate to make modifications now. There have already been modifications made which toned down the temperature in your portion. I don't believe that it is important about the other minor modifications made, especially since they were made in regards to accuracy of links and references. Since you have much more experience with WP than I have, perhaps you might invite my perspective a little more. It would help you to understand how people of lesser experience understand such things. That in itself is not something which you can ever truly return to.

One of the major stumbling blocks in regards to the overall spirit of RfC has exactly to do with leaving your portion standing as is. I was under the impression that you were willing to negotiate the content and make changes as they were pointed out. I used the Discussion pages as advised to do this, and I believe you can agree with me that this only exacerbated underlying tensions of several people rather than address the purpose of a typical RfC. During that period of time it appeared to me that regardless of pointing things out, nothing was being done to resolve the situation. This gave me the impression that there was a general uncooperative aura about the entire period in question; and this is contrary to the spirit of an RfC as well. Keep in mind also that I was being told to apologize. I cannot apologize for that entire document as stands because to me there are many things stated which are factually untrue. Had efforts been made to modify the document it might have reached a form which I could agree with. But you must keep in mind that an apology is also an acceptance that one believes what is being said. If I were to apologize for things I know to be in error, anyone of any repute could point to this document in the future, and say that I, by endorsement, stated your entire section as fact. That in itself is a very large part of why I feel this document is more important than any typical RfC.

-In regard to the policies involved, this section of WP:RfC certainly applies. The bold type faced remarks and accompaniment appear to be stated as very important and read,

"Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it." ( no emphasis added )

In that regard there are zero signers who were actually involved in a dispute about the article curse. In itself that entire section is clearly a different dispute than anything else addressed by the RfC. The section also completely fails to address any of the remedies applied by administrators in IRC. Discussions took place there which resolved that dispute and remedial efforts were conducted. I spent quite a bit of time in "bootcamp" learning how my actions were regarded and how to correct them. The section also fails to note that the 3RR's applied were punitive, or even connected to the article curse as they were. I don't believe that any of the work I performed in rehabilitation is addressed at all. The entire section appears to me not only incorrect in its facts but trying to punish me again for something that has already been dealt with. While this is probably the most impeding factor to resolution here, there are several smaller issues that appear to have the same theme.

-Regarding ultimatums, I believe you have that reversed. From my perspective I am being asked to sign by apology something that I factually disagree with. That it is not deleted threatens my future credibility on WP. It's existence has completely stifled any of my efforts to work on WP out of fear that it will be used against me. It has completely subdued and censored me. As an editor it's affect is nearly the same as if I were banned indefinitely, or indeed, as long as the document exists which is permanently. How can I work on a system where I feel so entirely unwelcome? Regardless of whom authored the document, you conducted and produced this document, and even hosted it in your user space. You are also the primary editor whom has been discussing it with me (and may I add, doing your best to do so civilly).

-Regarding the life of any published document I believe it is even stated in your portion of the RfC that it is considered a general problem that I felt that certain published references to the article on Endeavor Academy had "faded away". Just the mere mention of that in this document gives it an enduring quality in my mind were I to factually agree with it. On another note, you should bear in mind that I am an individual and the effect of stereotyping me compared to others whom you have dealt with in RfC's brings up disturbing connotations. I am quite positive that you haven't any idea how much I have read on WP. Indeed some of the complaints made in the RfC discussion about me were that my research capabilities are worthless. I normally respect the privacy of other people to the extent that I do not make any public note of their failings even if I am aware of them. It may only appear that over the past two days that I have been digging into the past, but I had actually seen and read all of those remarks over a period of a month. I have been constantly advised to ignore various statements made by various individuals. I don't believe the RfC gives me even a tenth of a percent of credit for ignoring as much as I have.

•  Regarding your comments about the request for arbitration that I have filed, you are factually incorrect. That filing has absolutely nothing to do with the RfC that you produced and conducted. Indeed there isn't even any mention at all in the RfC regarding the reason that my request for arbitration was filed. I believe that you even mentioned something to that effect in the discussion of the RfC, yourself. As I mentioned (and which you should assume good faith) in my original response to the RfC, "Since that particular user has such a strong obsessive fixation with me, and because there are other actions pending about that user, I will say no more about it at this time." Because of the sensitive nature of wiki-stalking in the first place, you should keep in mind that a person who feels they are being stalked will try and avoid the person who is stalking and in that regard privacy is important. Conversations and a hopeful resolution to that dispute began on the subjects talk pages, but were unresolved. As a matter of fact my attempts to reason with the subject were scorned. I believe you are aware of the essay written known as "WP:DICK". Regardless of the content or applicability of its title, the document is only an essay and does not supersede one of the non-negotiable and important principles of the encyclopedic project, that being no personal attacks. Certainly, as you have pointed out to me, even on discussion in talk pages, I as well as many others have made several personal attacks to others. Be that as it may, I don't believe that anyone should spend two thirds of their contributions making a constant and relentless pattern of the same on a single editor, even as discussed in the policy WP:HA. After seeking the advice of other parties both in IRC as well as in e-mail with an advocate more than two weeks ago, the subject followed me again to an article which I was working on in order to avoid other articles which were clearly controversial. This in itself was a suggestion of many other editors. They had advised that to avoid conflicts it was best to work on articles that were clearly uncontroversial. Returning again to the WP:BACKLOG for maintenance work, I found a list of the "oldest merges" that needed attention. This was a list of articles that hadn't even been touched for as long as a year. Clearly these were not only uncontroversial, but required attention and I began my efforts to work alone again on the encyclopedia. The subject in question followed me to one of the first merges I performed on that list and began a confrontational issue which has been blamed on me to this day. The apparent "reasoning" for that issue was that I had chosen the incorrect method of merging; i.e. that I chose one article's name rather than the other. The subject contacted me again on my talk page and was advised to "fixit". During the initial conversation, which was the last attempt to make it absolutely clear to him that he should not be stalking me, I framed our conversation with clear Warning that he should not be engaging me. You yourself have mentioned to me that you had warned me about pending RfC if I did not begin to comply with various guidelines so I am sure you understand my position. The subject ignored that warning purposely and escalated the matter by requesting a WP:3PO. I am sure that the party who responded to his request was unaware of our previous history. As far as that party was concerned, this was only a dispute about an article. I disengaged as much as possible and was the least confrontational in that regard. That in itself has actually been blamed on me as well in the RfC. Regardless that I truly believed that the term "Greek Statue" was more appropriate because of its shortness and likelihood to be entered as a topic, I conceded the matter quickly so that I could resume working on the list of chores that I had assigned for myself. I stated that it was not important to me which way the naming of the article fell. I'd like to point out to you at this time, that the RfC itself names the resultant article "Greek Statue" at least twice, rather than by the name agreed to by consensus. I would also like to mention that the subject himself refers to the article by "Greek Statue" in the discussion of the RfC. I had not mentioned any of these things, hoping that his pattern would wane. On the contrary, however, the subject showed a clear disregard to any of my feelings, and with pointed comment demanded an apology here on my talk page. You are also unaware that during conversations in e-mail with the advocate, I had rechecked myself in his regard by letting the matter drop. Upon his direct demands for an apology however, it was clear to me that he had no intention of leaving me alone then nor in the future, and he has continued with his line of reasoning to this day. As far as I am concerned, the matter is between him and myself. Nobody else that has participated in the RfC has done anything that I am aware of to impede his actions.

-Regarding my being blocked/banned. In my opinion, I have too much respect for the encyclopedia on the whole to perform any editing at this time. If it is the opinion of other editors that I am a hoax, a liar, a con, making a point, a trouble maker, unable to research, worthless, gaming, making decisions in bad faith, anal, a dick, unable to accept criticism, thin skinned, a w4r goddess, a troll, a wikilawyer, etc., then I will not edit or work on this system. My few contributions of late have been minimal and even restricted on article discussion pages to exact civility demonstrated by certain endorsers of the RfC. (i.e. Jossi during formal arguments).

-I believe that I understand your perspective about "illusory", however, I believe that you should also understand that most of my private e-mail affairs are conducted as either business, or recreational. I don't believe that our conversation could be regarded as recreational. I think that you should understand that what you had put in writing may have affected my real life in ways that you cannot be aware of. Put simply, what you may believe is only illusory is a part of our family's means of support. As you have noted in the RfC in not-exactly an appropriate fashion, I am technically proficient regarding computers and telecommunications. Speaking from a computer security standpoint, I am sure that you are unaware how your statements could affect my real life. I hope that you understand that matters of computer security are on a need to know basis. It is inadvisable to discuss topics in public which allow the education of persons' whom might tend to act in a criminal fashion. If you would like to continue our discussion in e-mail in that regard, please feel free to do so.

-Regarding your final statement, Will, as long as you believe in my bad faith, we will never put this behind us. I have offered you the opportunity to discuss that particular matter in private but I don't believe we have yet reached that point of friendliness in e-mail. Indeed, it is my opinion that your own belief prevents you from seeing the truth beyond it.

-Ste4k 11:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)