Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nscheffey (talk | contribs) at 21:05, 13 July 2006 (→A suggestion from a previously uninvolved admin: restored conversation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

1. To discuss articles, please use the appropriate Discussion page of that article.
2. If I left a message on your Discussion page, I will watch the page for reply.
3. To contact me click on this link

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)

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)

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)