Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fuhghettaboutit (talk | contribs) at 11:14, 7 July 2006 (Reply to comment on my talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. 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)

Archives