Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:22, 7 July 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Steve Dufour, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Keep up the good work with Burbank!--ragesoss 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Template messages Dufour on WP

Muir and Thoreau

Hi, The rewrite of the first paragraph of Muir was very well done. Is Thoreau within your scope? The first paragraph there could use some help. It's beyond me. Thanks KAM 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Peace (rose)

Hi Steve - just to let you know I've moved your para on this out of rose to its own page Peace (rose), it is sufficiently noteworthy to have its own page. Also expanded a little on details. - MPF 00:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I see what you wrote, has been turned into it's own article. Very nice! :) --HResearcher 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so. Steve Dufour 05:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot intro

Hey Steve. Re your comment on my talk page in which you asked if it is really necessary to mention in the intro that some people don't believe in Biggie. Yes it is. Your intro was "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is a legendary creature, which many people believe is also real." OK, that's a believers' POV, so what's wrong with balancing it. Tell you what, l will change one single word in your intro and ask you how long the the intro would have survived. Change the (second occurrence) of the word "also" to "not", so that your intro now becomes "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is a legendary creature, which many people believe is not real." Imagine the shock horror from the believers. And yet, you want the intro to say there are Biggie believers, but not to balance it by also saying there are disbelievers. Sorry, don't agree, which I why I amended it. Also, your intro says Biggie is a "legendary creature". So, Wiki was effectively advancing the POV that a creature actually exists, which is why I changed it to say Biggie is the name of a phenomenon. Incidentally, the word legendary doesn't only mean mythical.Moriori 22:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe in Bigfoot, but if it is real that would really be cool.  :-) Steve Dufour 01:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Motivation for Sun Myung Moon's anti-communism

Steve, I've just made 4 edits to the Sun Myung Moon article, to the Views on Communism section. The argument that Sun Myung Moon is anti-communist because he was mistreated by them - and not for philosophical or theological reasons - seems like such an obviously empty accusation to those who are even a little bit knowledgeable about the man and his organization(s). But did I go too far? I want to be fair even to viewpoints I don't agree with, and you seem to have a good sense along such lines (you seem to have a similar perspective of trying to be fair). Please take a look at today's edits and let me know what you think. -Exucmember 18:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks.

It looks ok to me. However I still think his anti-communist activities should be covered as a topic unto themselves as a very important part of his life and his contribution to the world; not mainly as an issue for debate between critics and supporters--although that could be mentioned in the criticism section. Steve Dufour 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is a very important part of his life and work, and deserves its own article. Why don't you start it? -Exucmember 17:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Steve Dufour 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Racism

Steve, I applaud you for your anti-racism. If I could give you an award I would. Well done.

Use of "claim"

I have tried and failed to track down any WP guideline or policy against "claim" as a word to characterize, well, claims. Could you direct me to the exact citation? Thanks. Robertissimo 04:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid

Unification Theology

Steve, your recent edits and comments seem to indicate that you are not aware of the existence of the Unification theology article, but I can't believe that's the case. Anyway, it would be nice to distribute some of the UC teachings material there too, and to give some needed attention to that article. Both Unification theology and Divine Principle could use substantial revisions, as they were never edited thoroughly from beginning to end, to create a coherent article, by anyone (see especially the history of Unification theology). To me this is the single biggest deficiency in UC-related articles. The main overhaul should be done by a church member, not by a critic, so that the core presentation is true to what Unificationists believe. -Exucmember 18:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I was aware that the Unification theology article existed. To me as a member the article on Divine Principle seems like it should be the main article. We members almost never use the expression "Unification theology". I'll see what I can do in improving the articles. Thanks for your support. Steve Dufour 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand are the beliefs of the Unification Church really something that should be covered in Misplaced Pages at all? If people want to know they can visit church websites and find tons of info. But there has been almost no research or discussion of them by non-church sources. Steve Dufour 06:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Crouch on Obama

Hey Steve. The idea of that paragraph (and most of the Pop culture section) is that the sources are almost all saying people like to see themselves in Obama. Crouch's view is the less popular one, and so it is added to promote balance. It needs to be stated plainly so people can get the contrast. I take your point about using a more complete quote. How about using this quote from the third to last paragraph of Crouch's article?

"when black Americans refer to Obama as 'one of us,' I do not know what they are talking about while he has experienced some light versions of typical racial stereotypes, he cannot claim those problems as his own - nor has he lived the life of a black American."

Hope this makes sense. Be sure also to check the notes, the title of the article referenced immediately before this one suggests that one article inspired the other, "black like me", "not black like me"... Without contrary sources (Crouch, and also Noonan) the section risks getting ripped up by people who read it as too flattering of Obama. Let me know how you see it. Thanks. --HailFire 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd not really sure what the point of Crouch's article was. I don't think it was really critical of Obama, more like just a rant about how the world was changing and leaving him (Crouch) behind. If you put the quote you prefer in the article I will not object. Steve Dufour 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Crouch is not criticizing Obama at all, he is criticizing the way he feels others (specifically African Americans) see themselves in Obama. The whole idea of the Pop culture section is to talk about Obama's celebrity and how it interplays with social perceptions, not substantiated facts. That's what makes it so tricky. The multiline quote you put in looks a bit disproportionate for the idea it needs to convey, but we can let it ride for now. Thanks again. --HailFire 17:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally we are not supposed to cut up quotes putting in three dots ... whatever you call that. So I just pasted in the whole paragraph. BTW the more I think about it the more unreasonable Crouch seems to me. He spent his life struggling against racism and then when things have improved and young people don't suffer the same things that he did he complains about that. Steve Dufour 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree! But the sentiment Crouch expresses has been pushed into the article before and unless it gets addressed, will certainly be pushed again. I think this is a good place to allow some room for it. Makes sense? Still thinking about how we could trim it down a bit. Maybe move the full quote to the Notes section, like was just done for the "I inhaled" quote that would not go away? --HailFire 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Better? Be sure to check footnote! --HailFire 20:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

At least that quote let's people know there is some controversy. :-) Steve Dufour 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI - the Crouch piece is getting more play - this week's Newsweek has a sidebar about Obama's not coming up through the civil rights movement, and Crouch's piece is prominently discussed. Tvoz | talk 18:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for your comment

Thanks, Steve, for the comment you added to the posting related to Transcendental Meditation on the Conflict of Interest Notice Board. It's an important point. TimidGuy 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There probably will not be any objective coverage of TM until the second or third generation has grown up in it. This has happened with the Mormons, for example. Steve Dufour 04:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

about your change to

where you said (→Background - no need for euphemism, we white people are not offended to be called that, although we are not really white, just a lighter shade of the normal human color lol - I wonder about the complexities of international coverage of wikipedia - is using "white" going to confuse people instead of Caucasion??--Smkolins 21:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)`

Both words are kind of silly; my skin is not white and I am not aware of any relationship I have with the Caucasis. Steve Dufour 04:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientology

Hey! Thanks for visiting my userpage! I'm honored. I haven't contributed to the Scientology article so I will not take any criticisms of it personally. I am quite interested in your critique of the article though. Briefly summarized, what would you say its problems are? If you don't have time to reply I'll understand. We are all busy.Will3935 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In the first place there is way too much coverage of Scientology on WP relative to its real importance. In the second place the articles are being run by people who are hostile to it. In some cases hostility to Scientology is the main interest of their lives. When I tried to move, not remove just move, some opinion on the Scientology article, pointing out that even the articles on Hitler and Nazism were not so hostile towards their subjects, my change was quickly reverted. The reason, I was told, is that people already knew how bad the other things were but they had to be warned against Scientology. Steve Dufour 17:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take offense at this question. It is not meant in a belligerent tone (I wish we had voicemail). I honestly wish to be properly informed on this subject. Can you tell me of any specific misinformation in the article or of any information that has been censored from it? I have studied this subject a little and wish to be sure my understanding is accurate. Thanks!Will3935 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the information presented in the articles, I have not checked all of it out however. What I object to is the mean spirited and unfair tone of Scientology coverage here. It seems to be run by people who have a strong interest to discredit it. This is in marked contrast to the coverage of almost all other groups here on WP and is also against the spirit of WP policies, as I understand them. Thanks for asking. Steve Dufour 03:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Ex Christians

I just ran across this list and your justified criticisms of it. I believe the concept is fundamentally not encyclopedic. I am surprised to find it in Misplaced Pages. I suppose, however, that any effort to nominate it for deletion would arouse cries of "fundamentalism" and "censorship." If this concept is appropriate for an encyclopedia how about the following lists?

List of ex-republicans

List of former taco eaters

List of former ABBA fans

List of people who have changed from Ford to Chevy

List of ex-readers of the list of ex-Christians

This presents Misplaced Pages with a whole new field for new articles!Will3935 06:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. What is really interesting is how few genuine ex-Christians, even if we use the term very loosely, there really are. Steve Dufour 13:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Post returned to sender

"Hi Athaenara. Barbara Schwarz is a friend of mine and she has told me that she feels hurt by what she thinks is an attack on her by certain people here. I reviewed the policies and, to me, it seems like the article on her doesn't really come up to the standards of what WP should be all about. I told her that I would do what I could to have it removed. That has been my motivation for trying to bring the article to the attention of the WP community, not any desire to disrupt. Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)"

And this from someone with a prominent "I support NPA" userbox on her page. Doesn't exactly jibe with her psychobabble on the COI NB or on the AfD talk either. How does it go? Comment on the content, not the contributor. I think that is it. --Justanother 14:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Justanother. I am trying hard not to come down to their level.  :-) Steve Dufour 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, you should not. There is no real downside for me as I will get attacked no matter what so I may as well have some fun and show these guys (and gals) up for what they are (it is soooo easy). But even I am tired of shooting fish in barrels and my arm is tired from holding the gun so I am, what do they say? Giving it up for Lent? Sorry if I am not helping you out over at the Scientology articles. I appreciate your efforts to make them more NPOV and in conformance with WP:V, etc. I am not helping because I want to take a wikibreak and do not want to get sucked in to anything other that the AfD. Later. And thanks. --Justanother 15:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy your break. Steve Dufour 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Writers who illustrated their own writing

I have created a new category Category:Writers who illustrated their own writing per the discussion on Category:Writers who also draw/paint in which you participated. Please help me populate it. I'm sure there are a lot more writers who belong in it, but I can't think of them. Thanks! -- Lesnail 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I will help out with that. Steve Dufour 19:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Lesnail 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

New article

Thank you for wikifying Unity Church. I am curious as to how you came to find the article Alexander Everett, that I created? I only started it an hour ago... Smee 05:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

I must confess that I checked out your edit history. :-) Steve Dufour 05:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you do not do that. Thanks. Smee 05:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

Sorry. It was a good article, BTW. Steve Dufour 05:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. And thank you. It is sourced to (12) citations from referenced reputable material. Later, Smee 05:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

Slime Moulds

Please don't taste one. Many fungi are deadly poison. The bright colors might be a warning.Steve Dufour 19:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not call slime moulds fungi. They have feelings, you know, and can be very good, honest, hard working individuals, climbing up trees all day and all night for weeks to reach food, as well as sweet and generous allowig thier friends and family to use thier corpses as construction material, and are also quite inteligent beings, finding logical soloutions situations such as being cut up into peices and used in experiments, and have amazing teamwork abilities, gluing themselves to each other to form tiny slugs, and causing said slugs to glue themselves to the other slugs untill they form large blobs up to a metre in diamater, never arguing about which way they are going. They are protitsts. 124.197.50.143 13:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am aware of that fact. I was drawing a parallel between them and their relatives the fungi. Have a slimy, moldy day. :-) Steve Dufour 12:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, they're not related to fungi. 124.197.50.143 13:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope I didn't hurt their feelings by saying they were. :-) - Steve Dufour 01:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Top articles

You have previously expressed an opinion on Chicago top articles. Your opinion on current nominations is welcome at WP:CHIASSESS. New nominations for promotion and demotion should be made on the talk page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

May, 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Noah's Ark. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Orangemarlin 06:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

message moved from user page

Hey Steve, do you work for Heifer International Benfranklinlover 00:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

blanking the page for Jeffrey T. Kuhner

Hi Steve, as you may know, blanking a page on Misplaced Pages is considered vandalism. Please be constructive in your edits, as vandalism is unacceptable.Athene cunicularia 13:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

speedy

I'm curious why you didn't mark it speedy. Lsi john 03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that. I did propose it for deletion before I nominated it. Steve Dufour 04:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

{{speedy}} at the top. I believe. As long as it hasn't been AfD'd before.. you have to check the rules on speedy. too late now.. but thats okay. Lsi john 04:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind for next time. Steve Dufour 04:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Barack_Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
You removed a POV tag in error yesterday. There is an extensive discussion on that article's talk page. Feddhicks 16:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)