User talk:Stevertigo/Archive 11

Article: The New Crusade:America's War on Terrorism

I want to consult with you about the inclusion of external links to Amazon. I came across them in this article you created. I can see how some might see this as commercial and was curious what your thoughts are on external links to stores.Tobycat 01:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts about it - and appreciate the info. Good to know about the ISBN policy/procedure. When I mentioned commercial I guess I was referring more to the Amazon link than the article itself. I'm generally inclusionist and like the notion of information about books being in the Wikipedia. I suppose I am a little uneasy about an article linking to a point of purchase. Has there been much discussion among Wikipedians about that? I tried to find something about it and had trouble locating anything.Tobycat 22:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TFD on Template:News-trade

Do not remove the TFD header from a template which is being considered for deletion until a decision has been made on that template through the WP:TFD page. Doing so is a form of vandalism. Kelly Martin 01:07, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Numbers

I have added a comment on the talk page of this template, since the heading "complex extensions" occurs twice in the body of the template. Kind regards, --83.88.250.55 11:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism

What recommendations would you make for the lead? --Viriditas | Talk 21:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some people may see it as "controversial" (just as some people see birth control as controversial) but I'm not sure that term is essential here. Should we modify the lead in the condom article to state, "the use of condoms is controversial". No, of course not. That lead describes what it is and how it is used. In this case, the term describes an objective phenomenon that has been documented as a resurgence and acceptability of anti-semitism. The term does not assert that "most or all political opposition toward Israel's occupation of the Palestine territories is based on an irrational hatred toward Jews", nor is that definition supported. But, the article itself certainly has POV bias (added by some editors) which we are in the middle of trying to remove and would greatly appreciate your help. --Viriditas | Talk 21:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cited the source on the talk page, and the book is found in the "further reading section". This is a partial definition, however, and could certainly be expanded to futher differentiate the new from the old anti-semitism, but the article attempts to do that in the body. --Viriditas | Talk 21:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We are in agreement on the POV sources included in the current article, and these issues are being addressed somewhat slowly. Like you, I prefer to attribute neutral sources whenever possible, and if not, attribute claimants and their positions. Any help you can offer with the content is appreciated, and I am working on clarifying the definition in the lead which I base partly on Taguieff's concept of the ""the new judeophobia" that was translated from the French as the "new anti-semitism". --Viriditas | Talk 00:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, my lead is not based primary on Targuieff, but attemps to describe the new anti-Semitism as documented in his 2002 book, which your google source does not discuss. If I may ask, who or what is your source for the critique of Targuieff, and how is it relevant to a definition of new anti-semitism? Granted, it's highly relevant if Targuieff is defining a term used in relation to something else, like Israel or Palestine, but the topic is fairly clear. Again, my lead is not based solely on Targuieff but describes the concept of the new anti-semitism in relation to the definition covered in the article. Now, if I expand the lead to cover Targuieff's definition, a cited critique of Targuieff might be necessary in the criticism section. As it stands, your google source doesn't seem to be authoritative in any way, nor is it relevant to the article. Further, the anonymous criticism which claims that Targuieff "...gives an opinion in favour of the Israelis in the territorial war which opposes them to the Palestinians," is the opinion of that anonymous source. And the claim that he "...seems to confuse anti-sionnisme and judéophobie", is erroneous as he makes the distinction clear in his 2002 book. Again, can you cite the source for this criticism? --Viriditas | Talk 01:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have avoided my question about the source, and instead argue that because Targuieff doesn't have an article, it isn't worthy of inclusion. I haven't complained about anything, but I have asked you about the source for the criticism, so I find your reply strange. --Viriditas | Talk 01:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is just a note to let you know that I've read your insightful criticism on the talk page and I've moved it to its own section (since you aren't Jmabel). I should have a reply posted by tonight (I'm on HST). --Viriditas | Talk 01:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Why

• boggle* Why are you reverting my edits? – ClockworkSoul 13:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why are you creating articles like Porter's constant, which are speedy deletion candidates as they only contain an external link? andy 16:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why are all those one link articles now protected?

Lotsofissues 00:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) ›››Leave Me a Message‹‹‹

I have the same questions about Langyel's constant.NatusRoma 06:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Template:Tfd changes

Out of curiosity, what template are you having trouble fitting it in? I can't say I've seen that problem before. JYolkowski // talk 02:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

/JNT Page

Just wanted to let you know that you created the /JNT page as a regular article, rather than as a sub-page as it seems you intended. You might want to move it to the correct spot before some deletionist spots it. ;-) Jim^{Collaborator «talk»} 00:55, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

title vote on Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda

FYI: there is another title vote at the bottom on Talk:Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda zen master T 01:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your vote on CfD re: Category:Iraq War and Category:2003 Iraq conflict

Can you please go back and make your vote for which category to keep crystal clear. Maybe I'm misreading your comment, but it seems like you're in favor of keeping one of the two. In order to prevent the chance of any confusion, could you add a wiki link in your vote to the category that you wish to keep? Doing so will make tabulating votes easy and unambiguous. If I'm incorrect, and you do want to keep both, can you make that clearer in your CfD comment? Feco 01:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

cfd-howto

Hi - I'm curious what the rationale is for removing the howto section from WP:CFD into a template. Can you please explain? Thanks. -- Rick Block 04:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Will changes to the template show up as changes for folks who watch WP:CFD? If not, seems like it might mask changes (and I'm not suggesting this is your motivation). Even if it causes no harm, I don't understand the reason to do it (surely you're not so bored that you make random changes simply because they cause no harm :) ). BTW - you can respond here if you'd like. -- Rick Block 00:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Iraq war

Please don't make such major changes to 2003 Invasion of Iraq without discussion. Your move was very much POV and should not have been done. violet/riga (t) 11:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Of course I have no problem with you mediating. I don't think, though, that it is a matter of sources (but maybe I am wrong). In the specific instance I am calling attention to, I am most of all irritated by Rev of Bru's personal conduct, not explaining himself, ignoring my explanation, and then declaring that he has explained himself (just please, tell me where on the talk page you se an explanation) and that I have not explained myself! As to the substance of the edit in question I just do not know what his objections are. I think it is a matter of style and readability, he claims I am POV warring. I do not think I am POV warring, I think it is a matter of good style. So there are various elements to this problem. Please go over my account on the RfM page and then let me know if I am being unclear about something, thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I should ammend my comment about sources. It is possible that RoB thinks this is a matter of sources (in which case I hoped our discussion on the talk page in the "historicity section" would have settled them, don't know why it didn't). Slrubenstein | Talk 23:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I much appreciate the balance the Jesus page finally appears to be achieving. I don't agree with all of it, but that's because I have my own POV, but it is fairly well established as NPOV at this point, and I rather also appreciate the thing being locked down --eleuthero 05:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Guru

While you were posting a note that you've volunteered to act as mediator for the Guru article, I was posting a note, that eventually ended up on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, to protect the article. A glance at the history log and the talk page should make the need clear. I can't recommend any particualr version to protect as I haven't been following the actual contents of the edits. Thanks for taking the role of mediator. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:23, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. Something is wrong with the format of the page. I think those two templates together are messing up the page format... --Zappaz 00:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Steven, I have a problem with the factual accuracy warning because both Zappaz and Goethean cannot point to a certain fact that they think is wrong. They only think that the information is selective but that is not enough reason to give it a factual accuracy warning in my view. Andries 08:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Steve, thank for your effort in meditating this article. Zappaz, keeps removing contents from the talk page that he considers libellous but I consider it important to understand the controversy regarding this article. Hence I copied it to my user page. User:Andries/guru#Why_gurus_are_controversial_in_the_West Andries 18:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI, the Guru article has the {{protecteds}} template, but the page is not really protected. Is this intentional? ≈ jossi ≈ 16:32, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

time to mediate

Rev of Bru responded to your invitation for comments on the RfM page, and I have responded to RoB's comments. In the meantime, he is back at it -- accusing me of POV warrioring on the Jesus talk page, and reverting JimWae's compromise. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:In the news

It's always nice to have something archived and cleaned up, but could you please not deleting the header information in the process the next time? Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act

Was there a particular reason for your moving USA PATRIOT Act from the correct short form of its name? older≠wiser 22:34, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

What do you claim to mean by "proper?" From the article: Its given name is USA PATRIOT Act, which is a backronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. The short version of the name is given in the Congressional Act. Calling it the USA PATRIOT Act is not simply a whim of some Wikipedian subject to arbitrary guidelines about country-specific usage. older≠wiser 00:24, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

It is named what it is, and last time I checked, that was how it was most commonly referred to. It is a piece of crap legislation as far as I am concerned, but it also betrays POV and bias to call it something other than it's proper name or what it is most commonly known as. I did not move it back, so I don't feel any special obligation to check for broken redirects. older≠wiser 00:55, May 3, 2005 (UTC)</math>

Real

Please note that Redux reverted your changes to real, and mine too. I had this issue with this editor before, and I like more the order you put. Looking at the talk page of that article, it seems that it is Redux always defending the article the way it is, against others. Shall we join forces together and have Redux accept the more "real"istic order, as you wrote it, or shall we just give up on this and let Redux have his way? You can reply here, I will keep this page on my watchlist. Oleg Alexandrov

Thanks Oleg. Ive made some changes again, doing it more correctly this time. It may be that the disambiguation concept needs some reworking in general. Regards,-SV|t 22:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

IBDTSFY

What does IBDTSFY mean? Adam Bishop 06:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Alright...but did you just make that up? It wasn't on Internet slang yesterday, nor anywhere else on the Internet. Adam Bishop 15:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

guru

I thought that the guru article was protected during mediation. Why is Andries still able to edit the article? He continues to plan changes to the article to bring it more in line with the POV that he advocates. I cannot spend 12 hours per day on the guru article, which is what would be necessary to counter his advocacy. --goethean 16:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I have done as much as I could to make him understand the difficulties he has with his position and his inability accept other editor's points of view. Good luck with the article. --38.119.107.72 19:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I do understand your point of view but I think it is unacceptable that good content (though somewhat critical) should be removed only to restore balance. Instead I think that more positive views can be added. May be I can write them myself because I know a lot about the subject both from a Hindu perspective and from a skeptical perspective. It is just that I forget citations that do not ring as true to me and hence it is difficult for me to write positive things in the article because everything has to be referenced otherwise it is deleted. Andries 19:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I have already explained to you in Talk:Guru why your idea of "balance" and "adding favorable" material is unattainable given your position. You may want to continue the discussion there, rather than expand here, although I will not participate any longer as I have done all what I could to assist. --38.119.107.72 19:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

.72 well it is true that we have not come a millimeter closer in spite of extensive discussions. Andries 19:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

How many editors it will take to make you see your shortcomings regarding this article? Five? Seven? Ten? Fifteen? The problem is compounded: Your reticence to budge even a few degrees, and the fact that there are no so many editors out there interested, if one is to judge by the lack of response to your previous RfC. Without prejudice, I would invite you to read Wikipedia:What is a troll and specifically the section Wikipedia:Troll#Creative_trolling. Consider this option from the same article:

Concede. Sometimes, no matter how right you're sure you are, the consensus is going to go against you. When this happens, let it go. Maybe someday someone else will come along and raise the same issue, and the discussion can begin anew, and this time turn out differently.

Not that I am acussing you of being a troll. Just to point out that stubborness is one of their idiosyncrasies. Sometimes it is better to let it go for a while. Good luck.--38.119.107.72 03:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

This unsigned ad hominem against Andries doesnt impress me. -SV|t 01:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you familiarize yourself with Andries' contributions. --goethean 16:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The subject of guru is controversial, diverse, and complicated and invites to subjective viewpoints. Due to my own background I'm interested in certain aspects of gurus and read about those aspects. I cannot write about aspects that I have not read about. So please try to make good additions to the article that highlight other aspects. Andries 11:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

revert war (now between Goethean and Andries) has started. Andries 17:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that I moved the request for comments on guru to the archive page some time ago. Matters have cooled down. Andries 09:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Inclusion

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Inclusion sounds intriguing, but it could use a better mission statement. I read it and I am still not sure what the purpose of this project is... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I followed the links to references on meta and I think I agree with the principles. I'd like to help develop the project a bit or merge it with another. WikiProjects is going to have to be thinned out soon. Quinobi 4 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Google

Template:Google has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Google. Thank you. — Xiong熊talk* 21:31, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi Stevertigo. If I think of it, my request was indeed not well-placed, and your reaction was to be expected. So, please accept my appologies. About the edit summaries themselves, I think their point is at least partially to give an idea about what an editor changed when somebody else is examining a list of changes (like watchlist, or the recent changes). Sometimes it saves the time of looking at a diff, and putting edit summary seems to be good (and required) practice.

But, it seems you have been here for much longer than me, so I won't bug you more about that. :) Oleg Alexandrov 01:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Edits without summaries are not "self-explanatory" in Watchlists, no matter what your intent. -- Netoholic @ 05:58, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Fair point - 'Edit summaries are nice for watchlists.' But what does this mean - That uncommented edits carry an assumption of less validity relative to commented ones? That 'it would make my job of policing certain articles easier if you left a comment'? Maybe what you mean to say Net is 'regarding articles x and x, I noticed that your edits did not include summaries. Please consider adding a small comment for similar edits, for reasons x and x. Thank you.' Doesnt that sound nicer? -SV|t 08:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guideline on the edit summary is "Always fill the summary field.". I think, by looking at the pattern of your edits, especially with regard to articles, you tend to make very large number of minor, incremental changes to pages. I can see where, using that method, edit summaries may become tedious for you to use. I would suggest using a Sandbox approach to your editing, making all necessary changes in one major edit, and get back in the habit of always using edit summaries. Though even I admit noone's perfect, you seem to be falling quite behind. Edit summaries are critical on all main page edits, though I doubt anyone would be bugging you if you only forgot them on discussion pages. -- Netoholic @ 14:47, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Netoholic is right. The edit summary is an integral part of an edit. Be aware that any and every edit you make to any page whatever may eventually be used as evidence against you; and community norms place great reliance on edit summaries: for evidence of good faith, for evidence of specific intent, and as a tool for use in locating specific versions and diffs. Note however that "see talk" is an acceptable edit summary if you comment on talk simultaneously with the edit.

Netoholic is right again when he suggests Sandbox-mode editing (in some cases). Because each edit generates a diff in the edit history, large numbers of small, related edits are discouraged. Better to pull the entire page into a private user sandbox ("User:Stevertigo/Sandbox"), edit at will, and when done, pull the markup out and make one big edit to the actual article. On the other hand, if you make edits unrelated in kind, it may be better to make them individually, with appropriate edit summaries for each one. — Xiong熊talk* 02:20, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Template:VFD

This may sound impertinent, as I am relatively new to Wikipedia. However, I ask you to withdraw your nomination of Template:VFD on WP:TFD. I think most users, including me, feel this to be a bad-faith nomination. One, it appears you don't want this template deleted: if so, you should not nominate it for deletion. Two, if it were deleted, WP:VFD would not be able to function (assuming you actually mean to delete Template:VfD and not the redirect Template:VFD). You can't just delete a template that's being used as part of Wikipedia procedures. The proper place to propose changes would be on the template's talk page and Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. Broader changes in deletion policy should perhaps be brought up on the Village Pump. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome, and likewise I dont take anyone's newbieness for impertinence. I dont agree about my listing as being in bad faith, or improper, simply because it interrupts a process - how else is process to be reviewed? For one, VFD pages tend to be the nexus for catalysing policy and process changes - thats the way it always has been, sadly. Which is why some of us back in the day got together to put together the cleanup idea - as a way to separate process discussions about improvement versus those about deletion, when VFD was overused for any and every gripe including POV stuff. The category feature was added more recently, and helps a lot. People get into the nasty habit of putting things up for deletion in order to draw attn to something they want taken care of - when things change too quickly, its not such a good thing because things get overlooked, and the gears crunch too much. I suppose that is the reason why I added it to TFD - to draw attention to the problem - and so I suppose I agree with you that theres a better place for that discussion. But on the other hand, the kind of direct confrontation that comes about by feeding a destruction process a part of itself has some benefits - immediacy for one. This isnt an unreasonable thing to do given that TFD isnt all that active yet. -08:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

-SV|t 10:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I still feel the better way to review the process would be to bring it up on the relevant talk pages or on the Village Pump. But I understand your reasoning. In any case, I hope VfD will continue to improve. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

{tfd}

You show good spirit with your edit of the tag itself. I tried that once, too. I expect your change will be swiftly reverted. I suppose you and I could team up and revert all reverts, but we might be outnumbered. You have the right general idea, but I suggest Template:Tfd's content is not the place to fight the battle against rabid deletionism. Start by quietly moving {tfd} tags from template bodies to their corresponding talk pages. Don't get into revert wars, just move the tags when you see they're destructive.

Another approach is to start using {{tfdnotice}} (see documentation). Place that tag on the talk pages of users -- such as template creators and editors -- who might actually give a damn about templates being deleted out of hand. The sad thing about {tfd} is that, on the one hand, it deprecates the nominated template at once, and in some cases actually destroys its usefulness; on the other hand, it fails in the mission so strongly upheld by its defenders: to notify interested parties. Of course, deletionists would prefer interested parties stay ignorant long enough for the nominated template to wind up in the Bit Bucket -- which may be as few as 3 days after nomination.

As time passes, more outraged template creators will come to the table, and some will remain to oppose the deletionists -- just about anybody who comes first to TfD to defend his own creation will become biased against extreme deletionism -- and a more moderate climate will eventually prevail.

Work with me. — Xiong熊talk* 09:53, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and yes I will work with you on this to convince people to make some changes. I dont think its "rabid deletionism" per se - just the trappings of process causing reactionism on the part of its beurocrats. There is certainly a need for deletionists, but the real issue here is the misuse of a template to prejudice a particular outcome in favor of the process. Processes should be neutral, and tendencies for institutionalizing processes need to be countered - the process of deletion itself only exists because there is a percieved and understood need for it to exist - not because it has to exist for its own sake. OASN, perhaps we need to define m:exclusionism as a separate entity. Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion should get some attention too. GN -SV|t 10:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Template:TFD

• I was wondering what the reason is behind your new layouts of Template:TFD. Why shouldn't it explain that voting takes place at TFD, and invite people to come there and comment? A brighter color, otoh, may be a useful addition imho. Radiant_* 10:44, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Because all of that is irrelevant and self-explanatory. -00:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• That's your POV. But to a new user it would certainly not be. Radiant_* 09:07, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Antonine Plague

What are the ancient sources for the Antonine Plage? Kazuba 11 May 2005

• I recall adding a link somewhere back in late 2003 - I dont have specific information on it - I was simply compiling a list. Be bold in researching and adding that material yourself, should you feel like contributing here is worth your time. Sinreg -SV|t 00:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Creationism as a political doctrine

Stevertigo - I am quite disturbed, even frightened, by the recent political sallies to put creationism in schools, but I feel it is offensive and not quite correct to denote creationism as a political doctrine (I just checked that link). I have read that at one point someone proposed to the Indiana legislature to define pi (3.1415926535897932....) as 3.0, and that this measure was referred to the Committee on Swamplands, where it died. If that measure had passed, it would not, in my opinion, make pi=3 a political doctrine; it would remain a mathematical error. The associated political doctrine would be that people (surveyors, machinists, et al) use the value 3. Pi=3 is a (wrong) mathematical statement; the order to use that value is political.

I would judge creationism to be a body of religious or doctrinal assertions. When such assertions, which are inevitably based on authority that cannot be challenged in the minds of the proponents, and so is not science, which can always be challenged, are thrust on teachers, students, TV watchers, innocent bystanders et al, the political and economic processes are used to do that - political via school boards and so on, economic by the selective purchasing of advertising or selective withholding of it, for example.

I would also tend to mention geology as well as life in describing the broad claims of creationists; they attack not only biology, but earth science. You probably know examples - radioactive dating shows ages of billions of years, (see e.g. [1]

[2] and so on) and this is ignored or warped by creationists. The slowing of the rotation of the Earth is also used, because if you extrapolate backwards you find it was spinning at breakup less than 3 billion years ago; of course, the braking force must have been less long ago due to differences in ocean basins.

Anyway, I would recommend changing "political" to "doctrinal" or the like; also you have, I believe, misspelt "wherein" as "wherin". Good luck and keep up the battle. Sorry I do not know how to make this a separate editable entry so it is under Antonine Plague

Pdn 02:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

"Politics" simply means 'current legal and cultural discourse regarding social applications' - it shouldnt connote any prejudicial or limiting definition. Pi=3 is a mathematical error, but this doesnt change the fact that the movement for asserting it as proper is a political one, regardless if its basis is pure stupidity. Will respond more later, perhaps. Welcome to wikipedia, and good luck. SV|t 02:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Improper protection

I'm going to assume good faith that perhaps you aren't aware that you shouldn't use your page protection admin ability to solve your problems with other user's edits or to make sure only you can save them from "hasty deletion".

Please go through everything on this list that you've protected, which is still protected, and unprotect them if you've been involved at all in editing them. Of course, the ones linked on the Main Page can remain, but you must document them on Wikipedia:Protected page#Visibility reasons. -- Netoholic @ 02:53, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Please don't make me take this to a wider audience. I'm offering you a chance to cleanup your protection mess. -- Netoholic @ 06:04, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

How kind of you. Perhaps we got off on a wrong note somewhere, but thats besides the point ATP. If I do indeed have "mess" regarding my use of protection ability — then it should certainly be corrected. How do you suggest I do so other than by community review? -SV|t 06:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I explained already... unprotect any of those pages which you've edited. -- Netoholic @ 06:10, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Im sorry - you did say that. Hm. I dont think that really applies to most of those. The math stubs are certainly an exception, but that can be reviewed. All right- you win. RFC me. -SV|t 06:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:POV fork

You may be interested in that article that I created. Andries 09:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Hi there! Nothing personal that I've nominated your smaller templates on TFD, it's just that I believe policy and guidelines should be discussed before being implemented. Yours, Radiant_* 19:07, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, no, I don't think TFD is really the place to discuss things. However, the point is that you want things changed; you first tried that by changing the template, which is good (WP:BOLD) - however, it turns out that the majority objects. What you should do, then, is put up a consensual discussion somewhere, not unilaterally declare a new template, which edges towards WP:POINT. Radiant_* 19:26, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

We dont seem to be much in disagreement - but given the pretext assumption that only one must exist - calling any BB approach POINT is likewise a POV judgement. "Majority objects" would better be said "appears to object". TTYL -SV|t 19:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, that's a matter of semantics. Note that I didn't say it violates WP:POINT, I said it edges towards WP:POINT. Anyway. I don't really see the TFD business as much of deletionism (that's what VfD is for...) Instead, templates (and categories) are the primary way of ordering Wikipedia. For information to be most useful, it must be well-presented. And in that, I am very much in favor of consistency, similarity (such as WP:TS), the KISS principle, and opposed to instruction creep. Within that framework I am happy to discuss rewording (or shrinking) templates. And let me ask you this - how can there ever be a conspiracy if every edit is logged and accessible? TINC. Yours, Radiant_* 07:52, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

No majority agrees to anything at TfD; the most aggressive, honest estimation might be silent consent. A tiny minority dictates to the community at large in a field which is bitterly and unpalatably technical. TfD ought to restrict itself to the deletion of obviously useless or malformed templates, but instead has crept its own scope to include tools useful and in use by others -- to suppress the expression of ideas contrary to the deletionist agenda. Currently, a move is afoot to suppress notification of nomination to "outside" parties -- that is, anyone who might oppose. I fail to discover any legitimacy remaining in the process. — Xiong熊talk* 02:09, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

I dont think its technical - certainly for most people it is. I agree about the "conspiracy," though its more just the trappings of process and is therefore simply academic from that point of view. Join the light side, Xiong? :Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion - well put together a decent alert system - lots of good willed people around - we just need to consolodate these to an agenda to counter the 'munch' process bias. See also Wikipedia:Review -SV|t 02:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I've just joined m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians; I see we outnumber the deletionists 2 to 1. With that kind of support, I'm suprised at the deletionists' hold on TfD. Maybe it's time to get organized. Who is most active in our association? — Xiong熊talk* 02:51, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

You are! :-) -SV|t 03:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's nice. Back in Chicago, the way we do it is the ward-heelers go around on Election Day with a pickup truck, a baseball bat, and several cases of beer. We may have to employ less direct organizing strategies here. — Xiong熊talk* 05:33, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

LOL - Slightly less personally kinetic union organizing strategies—but with the same spirit perhaps. -SV|t 07:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

See also template

You made the neat See also template; I want to know if I can apply it to multiple links or if there is another template available for this purpose.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:48, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Template messages tables

Why have you neutered the Wikipedia:Template messages page by removing all the tables? It used to be somewhat helpful for finding the appropriate tag to use for various things. Now it's almost completely useless (IMO). - dcljr 18:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it completely breaks all the subpages - they link back to the main page, but the main page does not link to them! Alphax ^τεχ 10:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the page to the last working and polished-looking version. See Wikipedia talk:Template messages. Suggestions to improve the page should be made there. Wipe 18:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I've again reverted your edits. Please have the courtesy to discuss your proposals on the Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The courtesy to ask who? I understand the issue regarding subpages, though I think they need to be more prominently shown - all i did there was remove the bq tag and wikify the table... silly. -SV|t 23:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Not the courtesy to ask, the courtesy to discuss. If you look at the Talk page, you'll see the objections to your edits (including the important point that you didn't wikify the table, you unwikified it); if you think that you're still right, explain and argue your case. At the time I left the above comment, at least, you'd never posted to the Talk page, despite having made a series of significant edits. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I suggest you create subpages of your user page (say, User:Stevertigo/Template messages, User:Stevertigo/Template messages/Article namespace, etc.) and work on your ideas there. Then you can get people's feedback on what you've done without radically changing the workings of the current setup. - dcljr 07:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Depop Category:Sexual act

I depopulated that template because it was deleted by TFD. Templates must be depopulated before being deleted to prevent a mess of red links. Thanks for your message :) -Frazzydee|✍ 23:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

In the news

You changed "88 members" to "87 members". Here is the list of signatories: (pdf), and here is the source: us.house.gov. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:29, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

But there are 89 "Members who signed the letter". I think Conyers already discounted himself when he said 88. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:37, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

And the actual letter contains 90 signatures. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:57, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

You did not change the "In the news" section to reflect the truth, as I pointed out, and as corroborated by CNN. I hope that in the future, we can, instead of doing worse than CNN, do better. This is not only my hope, but my endeavor. I hope that others on Wikipedia share this ambition. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 05:01, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's protected. Forgive me if I'm wrong. The entire item is gone. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 06:00, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Review pages

I understand you want to propose some sort of process here, but right now it looks like the concept isn't well put together.

• Wikipedia:Review
• Wikipedia:Process
• Wikipedia:Article review
• Wikipedia:Review/Articles
• Wikipedia:Review/Categories

To save your fellow editors a lot of work, would you delete these pages, and gather your proposal onto one page? These right now have no substance. -- Netoholic @ 06:18, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Re: titlelacksdiacritics

Please read the reasonably large amount of discussion (all linked from the template's talk page, I think) before thinking of trying to delete it. --Joy [shallot] 08:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

procedural advice Q?

Hey, I want to make a major proposal — to replace AD/BC with CE/BCE. I am not asking if you agree (though of course I appreciate your views) but I wonder if you have any idea how I should make this proposal? There has been a long debate on the Jesus page, and my explanation for my proposal is very very long. It affects many pages, not just Jesus. And my proposal is I think too long to put on all the relevant talk pages. Is there any convention? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

"Make a Wikipedia: page with the full text of the proposal. Put a notpolicy tag on it," -- I am not very sophisticated. Can you tell me exactly how to do this. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here is the deal: For several days and hundreds of kilobytes, there as been a debate at Talk:Jesus concerning the use of BC/AD or BCE/CE. Half the debate is already archived. It is a convoluted debate and one reason my proposal is so long is I try to address all the issues that have already been raised on that one page. I won't go into that level of detail here but what you do need to know is that there are many people who object to BCE/CE. At first, they claimed that this was a matter of style and appealed to the Style Manual. I and others, however, think it is a matter of NPOV. The people who object to BCE/CE say it is POV, and that BC/AD is NPOV (want to know their reasons? You will have to do a lot of reading on that talk page!). So far the debate has been centered around that one article, Jesus. However, at the beginning of the debate someone told me that my arguments should not be about this page in particular, but Wikipedia policy in general. (After all, there are many pages with historical material that use AD/BC. I want to propose that most of these instances should be converted to BCE/CE; I spell out the reasons in my proposal). So there you have it: a controversy that started on the Jesus page but that affects all pages with historical information (i.e. dates), and that some believe has to do with our Style Manual and others with our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleting Template:Delete

Did you really intend to propose Template:Delete for deletion? If so, maybe you should list it on WP:TFD as well. --bjh21 17:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And the same for Template:Wrongtitle. I've removed the "tfdss" template for now. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wrongtitle

You've completely misunderstood this template. It is used for things like n-body problem and p-adic number and vi in which it is incorrect to capitalize the initial letter. It is also used for things like pi, since people writing mathematics in English almost always use the lower-case Greek letter for that, and when it must be spelled out, should be lower-case. Maybe one should write "Erdos" without the diacritical marks, but that doesn't change the application of this template to those other examples. Michael Hardy 04:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

... and you really ought to take the advice of one of the many who have objected to your proposal:

Have you looked at the what links here page? I daresay less than 10% of those articles fall under any of your five complaints.

Michael Hardy 04:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Its intended use - for diacritic-modified Roman alphabet-based characters only

You got to be kidding!! I've used this template repeatedly, and never for that reason! Diacritics are not what this is about. Where did you ever get the idea that that was its intended use? Michael Hardy 04:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You, as a mathie, use it for such a reason, but its use is far more (too IMHO) general.

From "what links here", it appears that that more general use affects very few articles. Michael Hardy 19:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is one-sided. As for the distinction between P-adic numbers versus p-adic numbers.. Will the title ever be lowercase first? Might be something to ask the m:developers - I dont think it will be the case that lowecase will ever be the default unless there's a way to handle hidden redirects and disambiguation-differentiation between the two.

No one has suggested that a lower-case initial letter in the title should be the default -- only that there are a few cases in which a capital initial is incorrect. Clearly, one would prefer to write p-adic number with the p italicized and in lower-case and the rest of the title not italicized, and it would be strange to propose that a capital P in that role is anything but incorrect. Similarly with n-body problem. And the fact that the developers have not dealt with this problem is precisely the reason why the template was created. Michael Hardy 19:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

So, in that case the assertion that the title is "wrong" due to "technical limitations" is wrong on both counts.

Here you've lost me completely: what are these two "counts" you're referring to? It is as if you're suggesting that you've given two reasons why the assertion is wrong, but I can't find those reasons above. Michael Hardy 19:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The title is not wrong -- merely capitalized,

It is wrong because it is capitalized when standard conventions call for lower case. No one would begin a sentence by saying "P-adic numbers will be the topic of the next chapter" when they could write "p-adic numbers will be the topic of the next chapter", and no one would fail to think that the former looks not only incorrect but really weird. Michael Hardy 19:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

and the technical limitation: 'automatic capitalization of the first letter' isnt a limitation if its convention and policy.

The problem is that convention and policy that are broad and universal consider it incorrect to write "P-adic numbers" at the beginning of a sentence. Michael Hardy 19:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the formatting above is kind of choppy - and dissects my statements without really giving context (Yes, my statement that "its intended use is..." was incorrect.) Second, nobody agrees with me that the template wrongtitle is too general and overused - they point to cases like vi and p-adic numbers, claiming "its not used trivially" - it shows that they dont really understand the argument. Heres the argument again in a nutshell 1. take all the cases where wrongtitle is used 2. divide these by case-type (whatever way it can be sliced) 3. make sub-templates for each kind of use 4. vote on each kind of use based on its merits. Doesnt that seem reasonable?

Aside from that, the basic idea that "MediaWiki internals" be the object of top-line nitpicking is silly - its easy to correct in the first line, and the understanding that the title is problematic is "MediaWiki internals" and nobody cares - upgrade it when you do. Capitalization is trivial matter, in almost any case I can see on here. Your using math cases where capitalization is symbolically relevant and avoiding the basic fact that its used for trivial things like limpbizkit and iD software, etc. -SV|t 19:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

My Username

I realise that my name is unconventional; however, I do not think that it violates any of the name policy and it is not my intention to violate the name policy. I hope that you can see that I am proclaiming my POV but not flouting the rules here. Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 20:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I decided to avoid conflict :) Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 15:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

A good idea - got that out of the way. I disagree with the idea of redirecting to an unused account - If expressing a POV was all thats desired you could put a <bib>big banner on your userpage. Further, people express their pov in article issues all the time - the name thing doesnt really do anything to advance a POV other than to prejudice you as one seeking to advance one - which doesnt quite work as well. -SV|t 18:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleting TFD's too early

While I can't dispute you deleting a couple of the templates (like the blank one and the disruptive LevelCheck ones), I must insist you restore Template:Semi-policy and Template:Valid until the voting period is complete (5 days). If you wanna help with maintenance, start from the bottom of the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion page. -- Netoholic @ 20:42, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

Signing your votes on TFD

Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. -- Netoholic @ 02:24, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Sometimes I just use an -SV

Yes, but that's not helpful when someone wants to contact you or see what time you signed. Four tildes is easy. -- Netoholic @ 06:16, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Page protection

Greetings! I've taken the liberty of unprotecting several pages on mathematical constants you protected on April 27, as it seems to go against Wikipedia:Protection policy. A new editor came into IRC this morning asking why one of them was protected as he wished to work on it, and no valid reason for protection could be found by Rama or myself, nor were the pages listed on Wikipedia:Protected page. As presumptuous as I feel chastising an old hand, please don't do this in the future. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Neemuch/Temp

Please put your changes on Neemuch/Temp. RickK 09:25, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

censorship

i would greatly appreciate it if you would:

a) respond to my explanation for why i removed the far side comic which i placed on the talkpage the first time i removed it, which explains that it is a copyvio, that it is pov, and that comics are not encyclopedic unless the article is about the comic (have you ever seen comics used in this way in encyclopedias?).

b) refrain from accusing me of censorship when i explain my reasoning for the removal on the talkpage (an explanation for which there was no response), stand by to watch the addition of ridiculous, inaccurate, and generally bogus edits because evolutionists don't have the courage to put npov before their own bigotry and paranoia, and have given up on adding cited, sourced descriptions of creationism because they are inevitably deleted.

c) refrain from accusing me of censorship in edit summaries, which is not a place for such comments whether or not they are true.

thank you. Ungtss 13:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Worth a try

By your suggestion, Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:delete. Radiant_* 07:04, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Numbers template

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers we're wondering for what kinds of pages you meant Template:Numbers to be used. Anton Mravcek 21:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Fixed up the first paragraph of the ACIM article

Dear Steve,

        As per your suggestion, I have just enhanced the first paragraph of the ACIM article. Any further suggestions for improvements would be most appreciated.

                    Sincerely,

                    Scott P. 03:38, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Further cleanup of ACIM article

Dear Steve,

          As per some of your suggestions, I have gone ahead and further cleaned up the intro to the ACIM article.

                              Thanks,

                              Scott P. 14:30, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipede

Hi Steve. Image:Wikipedesketch1.png was listed on WP:IFD by User:Radiant!. I don't know whether you want to delete it in favor of Image:Wikipede1.png; anyway, I'll leave them both alone, since they're both used. Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 20:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

Hi. I did not revert Yce materials, but Presumably. It was copypasted from an article from the web, which alone is against Wikipedia policy of copyrights. Regards Fadix 01:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance with the ACIM article

Dear Steve,
          Thanks for your many helpful comments and your work on the ACIM article. As I feel certain you must have noticed by now, this article is of particular interest to me as I am a student of this work. I would guess that you are probably a bit more on the 'right side' of the spectrum of Christianity, than I. Still, what seems to me to make Wikipedia work as well as it does is the fact that Truth is always stronger than fiction, and in the meeting place of the Wikipedia, it seems to me that eventually folks are able to come up with a greater, more whole perspective on things. More whole and complete than any one particular individual's more limited understanding of something. Your input there has indeed broadened my perspectives. Thanks....
                              Take care,
                              Scott P. 17:14, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Sciencecenter.jpg

I am little confused as to who took this image. Can you clear that up? Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 03:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Special

This template was put on TFD, and the consensus was to userfy. Thus, I've moved it to User:Stevertigo/Special. Yours, Radiant_* 08:25, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Trust edit

Sad to see my "Trust is hope in action" go, but I think you're right about the inter-personal remit of "trust". The phrase just seemed so poetic... ;)

Trust

I think "Faith is hope in action" pretty much makes sense... maybe I'll have a go at the "Faith" article.

Weaverluke

creating experimental templates

Hi Stevertigo, I'm sure you've noticed that a lot of templates that you have created have gone through tfd. I would suggest that in the future you use your userspace for your experimental templates. Then if they get widely used they can always be moved to templatespace. Would save a lot of work at tfd. Thanks in advance. --MarSch 12:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps you could take a look through all those project templates of yours and userfy the unused ones that you want to keep and list the rest at tfd, thanks --MarSch 13:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Possible new mediator and committee chair

Mgm has nominated himself to be a mediator and indicated he's willing to take over as chair. In an effort to help keep the mediation process alive, it would be nice if you could comment on this at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. --Michael Snow 20:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'm trying to get the RFM page more readable by archiving old and/or failed requests. Can you go through the list of requests and give me an update on the cases you mediated or otherwise know about? Mgm|^(talk) 18:13, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Faith

Fair cop guv'nor. ; )

Weaverluke 08:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ethno-stub

Hi Stevertigo... any reason why you moved and deleted a heavily-used stub template, without consultation with TFD or the Stub sorting WikiProject? The template was named in accordance with the naming guidelines of WP:WSS, unlike the new name which you seem to have decided to use, and has been restored to its former place. If you plan to do such a thing in the future, please at the very least let those who use these stub templates know what you are doing, or - better still - put the suggestion up for debate in one of the places where such decisions are normally made. Don't leave stub sorters to suddenly discovere a frequently used template has disappeared. Grutness...wha? 06:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(you replied) I assume you were talking about Template:ethno-stub. I had simply forked it to separate ethnic groups and general ethnology stubs. Whats the heck's wrong with that?

That might have been what you were trying to do, but what you actually did was move some items into ethnic-stub, then delete the original template. As to what's wrong with that, well firstly there was no discussion at WP:WSS/C about making a new template and stub category. Secondly, the deleted template was on over 200 articles, so they all suddenly sprouted redlinks. Thirdly, the deletion was done without reference to WP:TFD - it was just suddenly gone with no warning. If you want to split the category into two different categories (which, given the size of the category, isn't really necessary), then please follow the guidelines listed on the various stub-related pages in Wikipedia and go through the discussion process first! Grutness...wha? 07:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ghostwriting and ACIM

Dear Steve,
          I know of no other instance where the term ghostwriter actually refers to a supernatural writer. Normally the term ghostwriter refers to an author that is intentionally not listed in any way on (or in) a book. In the case of ACIM, not only did Schucman leave a spot for the author she believed wrote the book when she filed the copyright (anonymous), but within the book it is full of references to having actually been authored by Jesus. To term the authorship of ACIM as a form of ghostwriting is not consistent with the dictionary definition of ghostwriting, which is:

"to write speeches, books, articles, etc., for another person who is named as or presumed to be the author."

          Here it is assumed that both the true author and the alleged author are being presented as real living, breathing, flesh and blood people.

          Ghostwriting is not to be confused with channeling, as these are two entirely different things. If you are asserting that Schucman actually knowingly wrote the work and surreptitiously tried to present Jesus as its true author, then this would not be referred to as ghostwriting, but rather as a false attribution.

          If you are asserting that Shucman herself ever claimed that she ghostwrote the book, then could you please list your sources for this claim?

                                        Thanks,

                                        Scott Perry

OK, lets compare apples to apples

If you want to insert the term ghostwriting into the description of ACIM, why not insert it into the various sections of the Bible where various Biblical authors claim to be quoting from God?

Why use this fuzzy self assuredness when the article about the Bible says that its authors "are inspired by God"? Let's be fair about this and say instead that the "claim to be inspired by God."

I'm willing to let you make these changes to the ACIM article if you would be willing to let me rewrite the article about the Bible in the same fashion. Deal?

Scott

Comparing bronze apples to fresh sprouts

Ah, so now you spring your little argument youve been itching for a while to do. In otherwords, 'How can Wikipedia support the supernatural claims in the Bible, and not those in my particular brand new religion.'

First of all, Wikipedia doesnt support anything. Articles are to be written NPOV - that doesnt mean that articles dont ever use Biblespeak, rather when it is used, its used in proper context: "In the Bible, etc. etc." This is not the Schucmanism Encyclopedia. Even if the claim that Jesus wrote the thing was universal among Christians, this is not the Christian Encyclopedia.

Im not particularly attached to the term ghostwriting, but your wording - that [whatever it was called] is like channeling, etc - was not neutral, and placed too much emphasis on a trivial matter - trivial, because supernatural claims, despite our understanding of them in faith, are not encyclopedically substantive. <rant>This is of course the problem with religion - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and a lot of knowledge of just one thing is just plain dogma.</rant> You seem to be asserting that there is a dogmatic bias in wikipedia regarding the Bible. Its interesting, but you need to poing out specific examples, and then you need to deal with them on a case by case basis. Maybe you have a point here - I cant tell ATP. Dont forget "the log in your own" BTW.

Its obviously a very touchy subject, but we deal from time to time with people seeking to push a POV in their writing, and after a while they realize that theyve already added all the information necessary to the article, but leave the writing to others. Its an important distinction - I myself have a couple times had to defer to others sometimes in cases where a conflict arose between two different POV writing styles. The question is: are yours and mine different enought to require outside help in resolving any dispute. Finally, "Ill let you..." doesnt work here - its not your article, though you have had more part than anyone in developing it. And I was simply rewriting it for sake of neutral tone - something which you should welcome, not reject - as it legitimizes and adds to your work, just as your work adds to the project. Sinreg -SV|t 05:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for not insisting on referring to schucman as a ghost-writer

Dear Steve,
          After reading some encyclopedia Britannica articles on other new religious movements, like Science of the Mind, Mormonism, and Christian Science, I have attempted to reword the intro along these lines, and attempted to remove some of the phrases you suggested as not being NPOV.

Scott P. 11:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Reply to point by point breakdown of ACIM intro

Dear Steve,
          Since my last edit, I came across your point by point breakdown re the ACIM intro, and here is my point by point reply:

1. A Course In Miracles (or "ACIM") is a book on spiritual principles,

• First thing - What is it? ~ A book by someone about something, read by someone, who draws x conclusions and bases x associations and concepts on it. -SV

I believe that all of these topics are finally now covered in the intro.

2. alleged to have been written by none other than the person of Jesus Christ,

• The wording "none other than..." is improper for an NPOV article. Because this sentence is speculative, (and particular to a POV interpretation) it can be dealt with later - deal with what it (the book) is first. Save claims and speculation for POV section or explicitly cite them as claims by x. -SV

I have removed this phrase.

3. via a certain type of channeling process known as inner dictation in which Helen Schucman describes herself as having been the "scribe".

• Same as 1 - but at least this is clearer. -SV

Inserted word: claim to refer more neutrally to this process.

4. The official copyright claim for the book lists Helen Schucman and "Anonymous" as the authors. Presumably, here the listing of Anonymous as an author is a veiled reference to Schucman's belief or claim that Jesus Christ was the true author.

• This is highly speculative, and more its speculative about a rather unconventional or difficult to rationalise claim. It needs to be determined then, if she actually claimed the work to be "ghostwritten by Gee-zuss" or if its only the claim of its practicioners. -SV

All of these assertions can be documented by ample already published source material. If you would like, I would be happy to provide appropriate footnoting for this.

5. The book was written in the style of a textbook, and contains various teachings and exercises covering the topics of forgiveness, brotherhood, and the nature of love.

• This (my wording) seems clear, but works only as an intro to the contents of the book - a secondary paragraph. -SV

This is included in the intro as I feel that a good intro needs to briefly touch on the type of contents to be found in the book.

6. Schucman describes having "received" the material between 1965 and 1978, and to have transcribed it with the assistance of Bill Thetford.

• This seems to contradict 3 - please distinguish her claims from the claims of her followers. -SV

Please elaborate. I cannot see the contradiction. BTW, Schucman never had any personal “followers”, only people who followed the teachings of ACIM who never ascribed any particular spiritual authority to her, other than having once “channeled” ACIM

7. The title of the book was derived from the book's core premise that love is a miracle, and it surpasses all others in value. -SV

• This seems like a claim, its not necessary to attribute it perhaps, but consider "title of the book is claimed to refer to love— as a miracle above all other miracles."-SV

The actual text includes numerous assertions that this is its core premise. Why not allow its core premise to be laid out in the article intro?

8. The 365 practical exercises it contains were designed to be performed daily over the course of a year, and contain various meditations, prayers and mental exercises intended to provide practical illustrations and applications for the advancement of spiritual wisdom through forgiveness and love.

• The combination of "practical" and "spiritual" is almost oxymoronic, or otherwise expressive of a particular POV which advocates a spiritual view. The problem with allowing for one such POV, it means that all variations of such POV must also be considered. Its not POV to represent POV as claims - it is POV to use language which implicitly accepts a POV premise. -SV

It seems to me that your assertion here that spirituality is inherently impractical is an oxymoron, and may represent a certain POV. Considering the fact that all of the exercises and teachings are meant to involve real-life situations, and not merely theories, is it not POV to insist that such is inherently impractical, and therefore to imply that the fundamental premise of the book must be inherently flawed, as you seem to be insisting?

9. The general teaching sections of the book consistently aim at enabling students to gain a conceptual framework (...) by which to apply the 365 daily lessons.

• Remove my "metaphoric language" - overdone -SV

I thought you were the one who inserted this. I agree and have removed it.

• IMHO my version was superior in that it seperated logically the general concept introduction, the claims of authorship, the contents, and the nature of the followership. Your version simply jumbles the first three and removes the fourth. -SV|t 08:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I have since laid out the intro with separate paragraphs for each of these three things.

Thanks,

Scott P. 11:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Notice: Reply to last ACIM article comment now posted on ACIM talk page

Dear Steve,
          In an attempt to try to centralize our recent in depth discussion of the ACIM article, I have now posted some of our recent conversation about this on the ACIM talk page at ACIM talk page. Perhaps this was your initial intention when you first posted your in depth point by point breakdown there. At any rate, my most recent reply to you is also now posted there.

Thanks,

Scott P. 19:10, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

PS: Sorry I got a little hot and bothered about some of the changes over at the ACIM article. That was a bit stupid of me. Ouch! It hurts to have to say things like this....

Cheers,

Scott P. 04:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Merge-tasks

What is this template to be used for? Or is it no longer needed and eligible for deletion? -- Beland 06:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much

Thanks for helping in renovating my stubborn editions in the articles... thanks!

Deryck C., HK,CN

Bù xie/youre absolutely welcome. :) -SV|t 09:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WP:TFD

Template:Npov/perpetual, which you created, has been listed for deletion at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 05:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan

Hi! I noticed you added Image:Pakistan.gif to the top of Pakistan. The edit was done while the page was under protection, and it unfortunately made the country infobox get moved to the middle of the page under Firefox. It's also not a free image, and I'm not sure that it really belongs in the top of the article (I don't think many country articles have a map like that near the top). If the article weren't protected, I'd remove it, but since it is, I wanted to come to ask you. Please go take a look at the page in Firefox if you can, and do what you think is best. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 01:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I messed up the image link above, and also it's been reverted anyway. Sorry for the trouble. :)

Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II

Do you have a source for you posting to BDWWII:

"Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed."

I would like to source the article and I do not have quite the same figures as you state for this. Philip Baird Shearer 18:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Royal consorts and monarchs

hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free [3] cheers Antares911 23:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hi Stevertigo, i invited you to participate in the discussion above, unfortunately still have not heard from you? i would like to hear your opinion, maybe you could spare a minute? thanks alot, appreciate it... User:antares911

Benazir Bhutto

R you interested in to join the discussion of cleaning up the article of Benazir Bhutto? Talk:Benazir Bhutto--Raju1 03:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{Rfmchat}}

On-line version of civilization chronology published

Hey, I noticed you were a member of the Chinese Embassy.

I found a news story via Xinhua indicating that "A massive on-line chronology of Chinese civilization was initiated here [Beijing] Thursday to allow the public to input and edit all the historical documents dating from ancient times through 1911 when the Republic of China was founded."

The news story is sparse on details, however. I was wondering if you would be willing to find out a few things about it, such as what the URL for this new site is, where I can find more about the "China Culture Research Society" and whether or not it is a government organization (the term does not show up once in Google English). Any information at all would be great. I appreciate your help! reflectiongmail.com --Alterego 15:53, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

News trade

I've listed News trade at VFD. You can vote on it here. Maurreen 17:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Technical communication

What?! You don't think that " A technical communicator is a person whose job involves technical communication" clarifies the job immensely? Why, I try very hard to include such definitions in my technical writing at all times in case someone's not paying attention the first time--you know, "The 'Download the software' button downloads the software," or "The Distribution Center module is a center for distribution," or, gee, there are so many excellent examples. Elf | Talk 22:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Czechia geography stubs

Hi Stevertigo - you wrote Ive unprotected the page, since you said on a talk that it seems like its calmed down. Should you perhaps contact the other two or no?

Um... "the other two"? It's calmed down as far as the template's concerned, since a compromise name was found for that. Not sure whether it will have for the category - and since changes in template-driven category names can result in huge amounts of work (null-edits are required to shift all of the articles), I'd probably have been happier to have kept it there. But we'll see how it goes. (PS - sorry I got grumpy about the ethno-stub thing - it had been a bad day!) Grutness...wha?

Propertarian

Could you explain why you feel the article is POV? I'll try to fix it up if you leave a description on the article's talk page. 19:23, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. If you don't mind, I'll take down the NPOV tag you put up. Dave (talk) 19:53, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template

I saw you'd made some changes in the template History of Hong Kong, and the reason was nonstandard. But I don't think an official emblem must be used...let's see other templates of China, Japan, and Korea, and they do not use any of those official emblems, which are only seen on political templates up to the moment. In fact, there're other non-standard template like what u've depicted: A kiwi, instead a national flag, can be used in the New Zealand stub template as well.

Well, I've reverted your change, but it doesn't mean I'm not going to hear any opinion from you. You know, the pic is designately made for that template only. If you remove that pic, then it would be orphaned and soon sent to deletion processes. I wish this nightmare would not happen before I could have your reply as soon as possible. Your understanding is appreciated. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 22:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for being responsive, and bold in editing. I didnt know about the other cases, and there may be cause for standardization. Clearly its a trivial matter, and not a "nightmare," so it will stand. Perhaps as part of your involvement here, you could see to some kind of standard design process for these? The first step of course is either to 1) do it or 2) gain consensus, then 1. SV|t 23:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, as a creator of the pic, it could be a heart-breaking nightmare...(Just wanna cry T.T) --- Jerry Crimson Mann 23:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope youre being funny. ;) -SV|t 28 June 2005 03:59 (UTC)

Re: [Illegal drug trade]

When I was attempting to make this switch, there was some error with the system that did not resolve after many attempts, and I simply forgot about checking on it later on. My apologies. - Centrx 29 June 2005 02:45 (UTC)

Image:WOM Image3.png

Image deletion warning

The image Image:WOM Image3.png has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates

Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates, which you created, was nominated at WP:VFD back in May, and although it received only votes for deletion, it has apparently fallen through the cracks and not been deleted. Are you still interested in this WikiProject? BlankVerse ∅ 1 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)

Lost Liberty Hotel

If you unilaterally delete another article against overwhelming consensus to keep, I'll make sure you're not an admin on this project anymore. Gentgeen 5 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

Template:Rfm

Hi there! I was wondering why you restored this template? It was TFD'ed for instruction creep and not being in use, and while the present version is reworded it seems to have the same problems? Or am I missing something? Yours, Radiant_>|< July 6, 2005 10:18 (UTC)

• If I understand your remark correctly, then 1) you wish to reform TFD (which I'd heartily agree with, it's kind of outdated) and 2) you suggest TFD'ing the RFM template because it isn't actually in use. Or something. Anyway I think the RFM process would be potentially useful but isn't presently working. I would certainly support any efforts to get it back in action (e.g. the Mediation 2005 thread). Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 11:20 (UTC)

Mediation on Abortion

We seem to be heading for a deadlock again. We could probably use mediation on the article--Tznkai 7 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

What else?

What else would you suggest I do, please? Evercat 7 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)

Have you not noticed that the article was duplicated about 5 times? ie look at the table of contents for the last edit before I reverted. [4] Notice anything? Evercat 7 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

OK, sorry for being a little cranky. :-)

Anyway, apparently someone did a better job of fixing it now than just reverting half an hour... Evercat 7 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)

your question at WP:VPT

Hi - You posted a question to WP:VPT yesterday or the day before about United States dollar. Do you actually want the entry to span across the whole table? If so, changing it from colspan=1 to colspan=3 should do the trick (I'm not sure this is what you want, or I'd just do it). -- Rick Block (talk) July 8, 2005 04:30 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi Steve, you made a nice timeline some time ago. I would like to invite you to read and comment on my project proposal for a Grand Unified Timeline of Human History. Erik Zachte 8 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)

Project Journalism

Hi, when you have time, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Journalism, we could use some help with templates, advertising, organization and general input. Hope you're having a good summer. Best, Calicocat 18:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

headings.

WP:MOS <h2> use level headings. Dunc|☺ 21:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realm

Moved WP:RFM discussion to :Talk:Commonwealth realm. -SV|t

As you are the person apparently doing the mediation on this article, please could you take a look at the request to protect the page at WP:RFPP and either protect it or explain why you don't think it should be. Thanks Thryduulf 23:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

monarchy

I think you need to address the "original research" question as both gbambino and Peter Grey have tried to hammer me on it based on, what I think, is a misconception of what original research is and isn't. User:AndyL00:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Obviously some of the things I am now arguing in Talk would be original research *if* I were proposing those arguments for inclusion in the article but I'm not. Gbambino accuses me of original research over the "one crown or several" (his logic honestly eludes me)Andy 03:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Andy is using what he argues in Talk as justification for his edits to articles -- as I've stated at Talk, using a theory to back up a theory. As he has not provided respectible secondary sources (others more knowledgeable in the matter such as judges, lawyers, constitutional experts, scholars, parliamentarians, or even a publication) who argue the same points as Andy, his opinions stand as original research and thus have no place in an encyclopaedia. --gbambino 15:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, an attempted palace coup, I see. Bad monarchist, bad bad monarchist. Andy 15:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

What in the name of the nameless omniscience are you talking about? Gbambino's writing on my talk is supposed to be a runaround? -SV|t 23:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to his decision to preempt mediation by deciding the issue was settled his way and editing accordingly. Andy 01:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo, as per your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/1.1 Commonwealth Realm, the implication that I have been less than moderate is understood, however, I'm disappointed you find I am less informed. Though I may not be able to maintain Peter Grey's clarity, I've provided a good load of insight and sources which affirm the point both he and I are trying to make. The subject matter is indeed difficult and a little ambiguous at times, but at the root of it all the concept is actually quite simple. This is why it becomes frustrating when Andy needlessly adds further complication and ambiguity by pulling things out of context and using outdated legal nomenclature to support his POV-- when he does this I may tend to feel it necessary to give equally complex answers in rebuttal.

I've been cast as the biased monarchist counterpart to Andy, the biased republican. While it may not be hard to slot us into those roles, I believe that in this instance (and I've said this earlier, though it may have been buried in the tens of thousands of words which have been written on many pages) that what we're speaking about goes beyond republican vs. monarchist viewpoints. This is a matter of constitutional reality, about Canada's sovereignty, a matter about which there is no ambiguity, about which there really is no debate. I've also said this earlier: If proof of a debate (beyond this one) can be provided then we'll have to acknowledge it on Wikipedia, with no complaint from me. But, we still wait for proof of that debate.

In essence, what Peter Grey and myself are supporting is the accepted, acknowledged, truly undisputed (by any expert on the matter, at least so far) relationship of the Crown in and over the Commonwealth Realms, one which grants each country full sovereignty and equality. The Monarchist League of Canada may recognise and accept this reality, but that does not, in any way, mean it is their invention-- the numerous non-MLC, non-monarchist sources provided will support that fact. What Andy is pushing is his own personal interpretation of a heavily edited court ruling to try and verify his belief that Canada is subservient to an omnipresent British Crown, and therefore not a sovereign nation. I doubt you'll find any legal or constitutional expert who agrees with that. Am I wrong to think that without respectable sources Wikipedia should not allow Andy's assertions?

If Andy gets away with putting the Crown over the Realms, the Crown in Canada, and Canadian sovereignty into question at Commonwealth Realm, then he'll be off like a shot to use the same argument to change all the articles he previously, but so far unsuccessfully, tried to, to reflect this republican POV. This would greatly undermine the integrity of Wikipedia.

I'm sure you'll want to discuss this further with Peter Grey, as he is more eloquent, and succinct, than I, but I suspect he'll have a somewhat similar stance. --gbambino 00:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This really belongs on Talk:Commonwealth realm. While I agree that your language and demeanor are composed, I cannot say that ATM youre in a position to be neutral with respect to edits by Andy. Peter may be considered "moderate" in the sense that hes not a polar disputant in the issue, and as you say he would have a similar "stance," then you should not feel as if your general views will not be represented. Its long been my personal mediation angle to protect pages to force discussion, and if the polar views are untenable, then allowing two moderate sysops to to edit the article. This works extremely well, and most parties can find the results agreeable. Your comments toward each other (you and Andy) have been uncompromising, and therefore it becomes necessary to separate the editing of the article from the individuals in dispute. Sinreg,-SV|t 01:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:TPOV

Template:TPOV, which you worked on, is up for deletion at WP:TFD. Ther is soem question about why this template was created and when it is likely to be used. Your views might be pertinant. DES 06:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Theodosias

Just a short message to thank you for intervening at User talk:Theodosias, though I have no idea how you found out about it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure... on one condition!

Tell me whether I have been unreasonable on the Gay Nigger Association of America article (see the history and the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Firebomb? er... didn't write that! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey... did as suggested :-) thought that someone had actually added this! I only added the comment after several suspected GNAA members kept putting back the exact same text and causing a revert war. Problem has now gone away, so haven't put back block comment. I added my username to the comment so that comments could be (properly) directed to myself. It appears Chocolateboy thinks I did this because I'm a megalomaniac! Also, what about the logic he gave for the anonymous membership question? Is this faulty, or am I missing something? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks... incidently, I've bowed out of this article due to too much wikistress. Besides which, I have other articles to work on, like Microsoft Jet Database Engine :-) Will still be watching the article, so will watching with great interest what happens here! Ta bu shi da yu 00:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Commonweath realm

Sounds like an interesting idea. Count me in. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realm

Peter has apparently removed the Rouleau quotation. This isn't acceptable. Indeed, I believe that if you are to appoint temporary editors they must be acceptable to both parties. I don't recall you asking if Peter was acceptabel to both of us. Peter is not acceptable to me and I request that you a) restore the Rouleau quotation and b) remove Peter as a mediating editor. Andy 02:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought I was quite close to brokering an agreement about this, but then Gbambino backtracked -- and started misrepresenting what was happening on the Canadian Monarchy discussion. This is going nowhere until he and Andy are both forcibly taken out of the loop and somebody rational takes over. I'm butting out, this is taking way too much of my time.

In the meantime, the text at issue is frozen at the last edit, which is extremely misleading because it clearly implies that Rouleau definitively ruled in favour of the view that the UK crown is supreme. At the very least, could you place the following text in comments until things are settled:

A number of theorists contend that the "Crown" in any of the Commonwealth Realms is the equal of the British Crown, however, in O’Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 Justice Rouleau described the relationship between Crown and Commonweath Realms as one of "Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries".

--Chris Bennett 22:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Josephus on Jesus

Hi Stevertigo. You locked the Josephus on Jesus page over a week ago, and mentioned something about mediation, but you haven't commented there since. Is that the extent of the mediation? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Infotainment

The reversion was hasty of me. I apologize. Maurreen 02:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Karl Rove

It has been days... any chance you might un-protect this page? There are many complaints on the discussion page about the delay, which is making the page stale (many important developments have occurred in the last three days, but Wikipedia does not reflect them). Please have a look and re-evaluate. A lot of Wikipedians have put in solid good faith effort to resolve the edit dispute, which to my mind involved only one irrational user. Thanks for your help. 68.1.168.96 13:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Skin

This has to do with meta, but I'm using my account here and you can reply here. I like your skin, is there any way to download it, or any way I could use it? Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 14:53, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't be making any changes, but I won't maind a few bugs. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 17:39, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

It works. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 18:10, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Can you protect user:howabout1/monobook.css and user:howabout1/monobook.js for me so noone messes with it? Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 18:18, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. It says I can edit them, and I'm not a sysop. Can it be edited by me because it is my skin? Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 18:43, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not using it at the moment, but I probably will use it on and off. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 16:36, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

News trade

I've listed Category:News trade stubs at WP:CFD. Maurreen 18:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very gracious. You weren't rude; I was lazy and unkind. Maurreen 18:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Steve, you asked if I had considered adding a talk link to my signature. Thanks, but I tried your example in my sandbox and it didn't work. Also, I don't know how to make it automatic. Maurreen 07:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

HI, thanks for the tip. I finally figured it out. :) Maurreen (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:QOTD

Template:QOTD, which you created, has been nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 13:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)