Welcome!
Hello, Steve Dufour, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Keep up the good work with Burbank!--ragesoss 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Muir and Thoreau
Hi, The rewrite of the first paragraph of Muir was very well done. Is Thoreau within your scope? The first paragraph there could use some help. It's beyond me. Thanks KAM 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Peace (rose)
Hi Steve - just to let you know I've moved your para on this out of rose to its own page Peace (rose), it is sufficiently noteworthy to have its own page. Also expanded a little on details. - MPF 00:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey! I see what you wrote, has been turned into it's own article. Very nice! :) --HResearcher 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for saying so. Steve Dufour 05:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Picture for Hak Ja Han page
Steve, I was trying to re-establish a faulty link to the Family Federation web site that Ed had put on Andrew Wilson (theologian), and I ran across a picture that I think would be ideal as a secondary picture for the Hak Ja Han article (and perhaps others). You'll recall that I thought a picture of Sun Myung Moon in prayer would be a helpful addition for that page, to tell the story of that side of his identity (and the picture you found is a good one). In the same way, if you go to 9/4/06 - Hoon Dok Hae and Victory Celebration at East Garden (today it's near the upper-right hand corner, but probably not for too much longer), there are 21 pictures under the main one, and the 3rd row 3rd collumn picture with all the leaders at the long dining room table with Mrs. Moon at the head of the table would be excellent in my view. Rather than showing Mrs. Moon only as some quiet adjunct to her husband, this picture shows her in a leadership role, meeting with church leaders in an impressive setting. It might even suggest something along the lines of Ed's concerns that she be recognized as the official successor and that East Garden is also a public place where leaders meet. The picture says copyright FFWPU-USA, so they would have to release it under GNU or something similar. I'm guessing you could find out about it more easily than I could. Also, a primary picture for that page would be nice! -Exucmember 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I will see what I can do. Steve Dufour 01:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- It seems that the only picture on the Hak Ja Han page now has been deleted. I thought that picture was a good one, the wedding photo. Any chance you can get a released copy of that picture too? A portrait photo might also be good for the top of the article.
- Btw, twice now I've thought about emailing you - I don't remember what about, but something that seemed email was better than posting here. It might be a valuable option for you to add. If you just go to "My preferences" (at the top-right of every page) you can enter an email address.
- One more thing. For a long time now the Unification Church page has had two sections for theology/beliefs (Unification_Church#Theology and Unification_Church#Overview_of_the_beliefs_of_Unificationists), and the presentation is very uneven (not representative). If the upper section is simply integrated into the lower one as is, however, it will be even more uneven, and may even have the unintended and undesireable consequence of misleading people into thinking that most of what Unification theology is about is an explanation of messiahship leading to Rev. Moon's claim of messiahship. I think there should be only one section, most of the detail should be in the Unification theology article, with just the most cursory sketch in the Unification Church article, and perhaps the Divine Principle article can be the one to be most representative, following the systematic theology outline of that text. But all 3 need more on Principle of Creation. I probably won't have time to get to all this, but these 3 articles are lacking. Perhaps one of the theologically trained people working on the encyclopedia project would like to at least give some advice and do a little editing. -Exucmember 19:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Those seem like good ideas to me. I've been really busy lately so I can't take on such a serious project right now. I'll see what I can do about the pictures. I'll post my e-mail address too, however if you leave me a message here I will see it since I visit WP every day. Steve Dufour 00:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Greetings Steve and thank you for your positive feed back concerning your comments in the discussion article for Bigfoot
User:Berniethomas68 02:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am thinking of nominating it for a featured article. Steve Dufour 13:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Bigfoot intro
Hey Steve. Re your comment on my talk page in which you asked if it is really necessary to mention in the intro that some people don't believe in Biggie. Yes it is. Your intro was "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is a legendary creature, which many people believe is also real." OK, that's a believers' POV, so what's wrong with balancing it. Tell you what, l will change one single word in your intro and ask you how long the the intro would have survived. Change the (second occurrence) of the word "also" to "not", so that your intro now becomes "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is a legendary creature, which many people believe is not real." Imagine the shock horror from the believers. And yet, you want the intro to say there are Biggie believers, but not to balance it by also saying there are disbelievers. Sorry, don't agree, which I why I amended it. Also, your intro says Biggie is a "legendary creature". So, Wiki was effectively advancing the POV that a creature actually exists, which is why I changed it to say Biggie is the name of a phenomenon. Incidentally, the word legendary doesn't only mean mythical.Moriori 22:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't believe in Bigfoot, but if it is real that would really be cool. :-) Steve Dufour 01:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Motivation for Sun Myung Moon's anti-communism
Steve, I've just made 4 edits to the Sun Myung Moon article, to the Views on Communism section. The argument that Sun Myung Moon is anti-communist because he was mistreated by them - and not for philosophical or theological reasons - seems like such an obviously empty accusation to those who are even a little bit knowledgeable about the man and his organization(s). But did I go too far? I want to be fair even to viewpoints I don't agree with, and you seem to have a good sense along such lines (you seem to have a similar perspective of trying to be fair). Please take a look at today's edits and let me know what you think. -Exucmember 18:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Will do. Thanks.
- It looks ok to me. However I still think his anti-communist activities should be covered as a topic unto themselves as a very important part of his life and his contribution to the world; not mainly as an issue for debate between critics and supporters--although that could be mentioned in the criticism section. Steve Dufour 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. It is a very important part of his life and work, and deserves its own article. Why don't you start it? -Exucmember 17:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me. Steve Dufour 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Smiley.png/50px-Smiley.png)
Re: Joke
Hey. Sorry for doing that. I probably just made a mistake. Sorry!
- -)
Lbr123 22:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Mormonism
- Mr. Dufour, are you a Mormon? I'm not trying to single you out, but I noticed on the Rev. Moon page that you added "Mormonism" to the list of Abrahamic religions, along with the comment, (not an exact quote) "Best to include them, too." As far as I know, the LSD Church is a subsect of Christianity, not a completely different religion. And, no, I'm not a Mormon; I'm actually a Roman Catholic. I'd just like to hear your reasons as to why you included it in the list; no final judgements yet. Peace be upon you. George "Skrooball" Reeves 00:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, LDS Church, not LSD. Sorry about my schmuckiness. George "Skrooball" Reeves 00:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am a Unification Church member. You are probably right, Mormons should be considered Christians. I am not hostile to any religion. Steve Dufour 04:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, LDS Church, not LSD. Sorry about my schmuckiness. George "Skrooball" Reeves 00:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I can tell you from experience that always opens a huge can of worms. While Mormons self-define as Christians, no Protestant, Catholic, or ecumenical movement between them recognizes them as such. This is per Mormon rejection of the Nicene Creed. I can't speak to its inclusion as an Abrahamic religion. CyberAnth 04:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
UTS image
I am trying to save the aerial photo of UTS (Image:UTS_aerial.jpg), but it is listed as "fair use" and there are people who take a hard line in enforcing every point of the guidelines regarding them. It may be deleted in less than a week. Any chance you could get an aerial image (I think the aerial perspective is nice) - perhaps a bigger one - that has the copyright released or licenced or whatever? Giving permission just for Wikipedia is not allowed. The rules are quite complex, and I am not well-versed in them, but a "free" image is best. Perhaps Ed knows more about this. Btw, any progress on the photo of Hak Ja Han with leaders at East Garden (and other photos of her)? Also, btw, the UTS page is an example of a page where my contributions have been wholly supportive (other examples are New Hope Academy, including extensive discussion on Talk:New Hope Academy; Andrew Wilson, Moonies, etc. The bigotry that had been so prominent on the New Hope Academy page was my initial impetus to do some editing. Have a look. -Exucmember 18:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
For some reason the direct link above didn't work (so I de-linked it), but it worked when I copied and pasted it into the search box. Anyway, it's the picture on the Unification Theological Seminary page. -Exucmember 18:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's a nice picture. I really appreciate the work you are doing here, even if I have to disagree with you sometimes. Ed might be a better person to ask about pictures than me. I haven't been able to make much progress. Like you say it's hard to explain WP policies to someone who doesn't know WP. Steve Dufour 03:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the best solution is to have a picture that we want to use released into the public domain. Then anyone can use it without worrying about copyright. I think the people at New Future Photo, or other people who do photography seriously, would easily understand that. So if a public minded person is willing to release a particular picture into the public domain, making it freely available, then the problem is solved. It becomes complicated when people want to retain some rights to try to make a profit. Perhaps that's not a problematic issue with the public church photos we're talking about. Maybe some of the people you work with on the encyclopedia project could help. I'll ask Ed too. -Exucmember 05:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- I did get one person to release a photo to public domain. But it was of a slime mold. :-) I was working on an article on them for the encyclopedia project. Steve Dufour 05:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Anti-Racism
Steve, I applaud you for your anti-racism. If I could give you an award I would. Well done.
Use of "claim"
I have tried and failed to track down any WP guideline or policy against "claim" as a word to characterize, well, claims. Could you direct me to the exact citation? Thanks. Robertissimo 04:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Here you go: Wikipedia:Words to avoid
Spero Dedes
Hi Steve, I noticed your edit of Spero Dedes page. As has been discussed extensively, the edits are tangible and notable. It is neutral, factual information relating to Spero's career. The cites fall within Wiki's guidelines, as a Rutgers beat reporter made a note of it, representing NJ's largest newspaper.
Your notation that we should remove "negative" information - I take it we can remove all mention of the double murders from OJ Simpson's page? That's pretty negative. MattyFridays 00:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- If only one newspaper columnist had said that it should be removed, yes. Steve Dufour 14:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Spero the play-by-play commentator for one of the most legendary franchises in the NBA. Not only is that notable enough for a WP Bio, the fact that he was on a national stage and screwed up his research is pretty notable. And two columnists noted it. MattyFridays 15:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think that it is very cool that he is the play-by-play commentator for the Lakers. However merely having a job does not make a person notable on WP. Steve Dufour 15:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey there. Good changes! Not sure if you caught the talk page message, but the article is currently under featured article review. Feel free to leave your comments! Gzkn 03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Wash Times
In reply to the comment left on my talk page, I have no doubt that the Moonies own the Times and UPI, but saying so on WP still requires a source to be cited. It's not the kind of "generally known" info, like "the sky is up", that can be left unsourced. - Crockspot 16:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Unification Theology
Steve, your recent edits and comments seem to indicate that you are not aware of the existence of the Unification theology article, but I can't believe that's the case. Anyway, it would be nice to distribute some of the UC teachings material there too, and to give some needed attention to that article. Both Unification theology and Divine Principle could use substantial revisions, as they were never edited thoroughly from beginning to end, to create a coherent article, by anyone (see especially the history of Unification theology). To me this is the single biggest deficiency in UC-related articles. The main overhaul should be done by a church member, not by a critic, so that the core presentation is true to what Unificationists believe. -Exucmember 18:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I was aware that the Unification theology article existed. To me as a member the article on Divine Principle seems like it should be the main article. We members almost never use the expression "Unification theology". I'll see what I can do in improving the articles. Thanks for your support. Steve Dufour 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- On the other hand are the beliefs of the Unification Church really something that should be covered in Wikipedia at all? If people want to know they can visit church websites and find tons of info. But there has been almost no research or discussion of them by non-church sources. Steve Dufour 06:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Stanley Crouch on Obama
Hey Steve. The idea of that paragraph (and most of the Pop culture section) is that the sources are almost all saying people like to see themselves in Obama. Crouch's view is the less popular one, and so it is added to promote balance. It needs to be stated plainly so people can get the contrast. I take your point about using a more complete quote. How about using this quote from the third to last paragraph of Crouch's article?
"when black Americans refer to Obama as 'one of us,' I do not know what they are talking about […] while he has experienced some light versions of typical racial stereotypes, he cannot claim those problems as his own - nor has he lived the life of a black American."
Hope this makes sense. Be sure also to check the notes, the title of the article referenced immediately before this one suggests that one article inspired the other, "black like me", "not black like me"... Without contrary sources (Crouch, and also Noonan) the section risks getting ripped up by people who read it as too flattering of Obama. Let me know how you see it. Thanks. --HailFire 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd not really sure what the point of Crouch's article was. I don't think it was really critical of Obama, more like just a rant about how the world was changing and leaving him (Crouch) behind. If you put the quote you prefer in the article I will not object. Steve Dufour 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's right. Crouch is not criticizing Obama at all, he is criticizing the way he feels others (specifically African Americans) see themselves in Obama. The whole idea of the Pop culture section is to talk about Obama's celebrity and how it interplays with social perceptions, not substantiated facts. That's what makes it so tricky. The multiline quote you put in looks a bit disproportionate for the idea it needs to convey, but we can let it ride for now. Thanks again. --HailFire 17:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Generally we are not supposed to cut up quotes putting in three dots ... whatever you call that. So I just pasted in the whole paragraph. BTW the more I think about it the more unreasonable Crouch seems to me. He spent his life struggling against racism and then when things have improved and young people don't suffer the same things that he did he complains about that. Steve Dufour 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree! But the sentiment Crouch expresses has been pushed into the article before and unless it gets addressed, will certainly be pushed again. I think this is a good place to allow some room for it. Makes sense? Still thinking about how we could trim it down a bit. Maybe move the full quote to the Notes section, like was just done for the "I inhaled" quote that would not go away? --HailFire 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- At least that quote let's people know there is some controversy. :-) Steve Dufour 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI - the Crouch piece is getting more play - this week's Newsweek has a sidebar about Obama's not coming up through the civil rights movement, and Crouch's piece is prominently discussed. Tvoz | talk 18:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism
It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Josette Sheeran Shiner. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Smee 18:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will continue to give reasons. Steve Dufour 18:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
advice
I find it's probably best not to edit typos in other people's talk comments - you absolutely meant well, but people get funny about such things. Anyway, that's just my take in general - I don't see anything in your corrections that could bother anyone. Just thought I'd pass that along. Tvoz | talk 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- He's right. Don't edit other people's comments unless:
- They know you and like you (like me :-)
- You're not involved in a debate or dispute with them, or
- It's a newbie with atrocious spelling or grammar
- And well you're at it, try to get along better with smee and exuc ;-) --Uncle Ed 18:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. I will be on better behavior from now. :-) Steve Dufour 18:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I do joke around some times more than I should, especially when the topic is so serious as who is to be the next president. Steve Dufour 18:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Jonathan Wells
You weren't one of the people I was referring to, just so you know. I'm not sure I always agree with your edits, but you've always been cool-headed. eaolson 16:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Other resources for editor disputes
Steve, in reply to your question at the Village Pump:
- If editors can't agree on the talk page, they can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Admins usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
- If it ever actually does reach the level of threats or other open breach of policy, consider reporting it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI); or if it becomes blatant vandalism, then Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV).
- For extensive tutoring, there are experienced Wikipedians who offer mentorship, "adoption", or advocacy; and many admins will also make the time to answer earnest questions on their talk pages (though some are either very busy or away on "Wikibreak").
- Any time you feel overwhelmed by the complexity of it all, you can simply post {{helpme}} on your talk page, with a description of your questions or problems, and someone will show up to help you find answers or solutions.
I've taken the liberty of wikilinking the words "talk page" (on your userpage) to this talk page. If you didn't want that done, then I apologize. -- Ben 23:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Blocked one hour
Hi Steve, I have blocked you for one hour for violating WP:POINT and causing disruption on L. Ron Hubbard and Dwight D. Eisenhower. If you have a problem with the Barbara Schwarz article, you need to settle it through appropriate dispute resolution channels. Please use this hour to review those channels and let me know if you have any questions I can help with. Thank you, Johntex\talk 17:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now I can get some work done. Barbara Schwarz is clearly an attack article and should be removed, no matter how many hundreds of person-hours of work have gone into its creation. Steve Dufour 17:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- You made that same argument here and did not find consensus that it was an "attack article" in the sense of CSD G10. I cannot imagine why you would think such an article which has survived three AfDs would be appropriate for speedy deletion and frankly, I don't think you did. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- If someone with WP itself looked at the article and judged both Barbara's lack of real importance and the hostile tone of the article it would be removed right away as an attack article. Steve Dufour 17:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you mean, if anything, by "with WP itself". -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know who they are either, but I am sure there are some people responsible for the site itself. Steve Dufour 18:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Steve, thanks for the message and welcome back. If you will follow the link above to "dispute resolution", you will see several possible avenues for resolving a dispute. The first is to work on the article with other editors at the article's talk page. I think that process is ongoing and should be given more time to work. Your first comment to the Talk page (at least your first recent comment - I have not checked all the archives) was just within the past few days. That is far too little time to have given up on discussion as a way to improve the article. Also, please keep in mind the following: Sometimes failure to win other people over to your viewpoint is not evidence that the other people are wrong. In other words, while trying to persuade others of the rightnight of your opinion, please spend some time trying to consider their views as well. Perhaps your suggestions would improve the article, perhaps they would not. I encourage you to keep discussing your ideas. Best, Johntex\talk 19:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Steve, I have had extensize conversations with members and ex-members of Scientology. There's some heavy stuff there which is better left untouched: allegations of kidnapping, murder, etc. If you want to do an expose, why not work on the Genocide article. There are tens of millions of well-documented cases of mass murder there, if you want to point them out.
But if that's not your cup of tea, how about joining me in Change of blood lineage, a stub I just started? :-) --Uncle Ed 15:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Ed. I know very little about Scientology and don't get involved with controversies about their actions, however I do defend their legal rights. I'll check out your new article too. p.s. I am defending Barbara Schwarz who is under attack from both Scientologists and anti-Scientologists as a personal favor, I know her from Usenet. p.p.s. I am fairly confident that nobody is going to kidnap or murder me because of my comments here. :-) Steve Dufour 19:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Excellent Change to "Conversely"
Great change. This is much better than "On the other hand". Your help in improving the language in the wiki article is greatly appreciated. Thanks - Eisenmond 17:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for saying so. I guess I'll keep hanging around here. :-) Steve Dufour 17:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed the revert as well. I will look into this when I have some more time. Unitl then, thanks for working to improve this article! - Eisenmond 23:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Barack Obama
Re: [1] Well, according to the sources, apparently the answer is yes. It must have been quite the feat to get the timing down though.--Bobblehead 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing personal
Hello Steve Dufour, if it's ok with you I just want to make my feelings about what is happening on the Barbara Schwarz page. I sympathize with you, because I too would do anything for my friends which is why I haven't been as vocal with you as I have Justanother. If you had begun serious talk of another AfD instead of Justanother I would have requested an RfC on your behavior. The reason I think Justanother is letting his feelings for Scientology get in the way is because Ms. Schwarz does not reflect well upon the CoS. This is very similar to a devout Catholic trying to remove articles about sexual abuse and their church. (Personally I think the Catholics would prefer a Barbara Schwarz to pedophile priests)
If I had a friend who had an article they found embarrasing here, I'd probably do many of the things you have except actually vote or nominate the article for deletion. I feel the same way about Justanother and his feelings about his faith, if he hadn't pushed for a new AfD vote I would not be pursuing the RfC on him. I also would like to thank you for taking time to participate, I really do want all views. Anynobody 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks much for your comment
Thanks, Steve, for the comment you added to the posting related to Transcendental Meditation on the Conflict of Interest Notice Board. It's an important point. TimidGuy 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- There probably will not be any objective coverage of TM until the second or third generation has grown up in it. This has happened with the Mormons, for example. Steve Dufour 04:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject updates
- I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
- Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
- Thanks Smee. However, I am an advocate of less coverage on WP for Scientology and more for other, more important, subjects. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 04:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
about your change to Mike Longo
where you said (→Background - no need for euphemism, we white people are not offended to be called that, although we are not really white, just a lighter shade of the normal human color :-)) - I wonder about the complexities of international coverage of wikipedia - is using "white" going to confuse people instead of Caucasion??--Smkolins 21:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)`
- Both words are kind of silly; my skin is not white and I am not aware of any relationship I have with the Caucasis. Steve Dufour 04:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You read my mind
I went to the WP:ANI to see about filling a request to have someone address the COI issues I've been talking with you about. I really admire the request you made, citing yourself as a possible violation shows great chacacter. Respectfully, you set it up incorrectly. If you would like you are welcome to add editors you are having concerns about under the notice I just set up (even if you think I have a COI, feel free to put me right under you :)). Here is the template: * {{userlinks| username goes here}} - description goes here follwed by your signature. Anynobody 08:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Scientology
Hey! Thanks for visiting my userpage! I'm honored. I haven't contributed to the Scientology article so I will not take any criticisms of it personally. I am quite interested in your critique of the article though. Briefly summarized, what would you say its problems are? If you don't have time to reply I'll understand. We are all busy.Will3935 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. In the first place there is way too much coverage of Scientology on WP relative to its real importance. In the second place the articles are being run by people who are hostile to it. In some cases hostility to Scientology is the main interest of their lives. When I tried to move, not remove just move, some opinion on the Scientology article, pointing out that even the articles on Hitler and Nazism were not so hostile towards their subjects, my change was quickly reverted. The reason, I was told, is that people already knew how bad the other things were but they had to be warned against Scientology. Steve Dufour 17:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't take offense at this question. It is not meant in a belligerent tone (I wish we had voicemail). I honestly wish to be properly informed on this subject. Can you tell me of any specific misinformation in the article or of any information that has been censored from it? I have studied this subject a little and wish to be sure my understanding is accurate. Thanks!Will3935 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't object to the information presented in the articles, I have not checked all of it out however. What I object to is the mean spirited and unfair tone of Scientology coverage here. It seems to be run by people who have a strong interest to discredit it. This is in marked contrast to the coverage of almost all other groups here on WP and is also against the spirit of WP policies, as I understand them. Thanks for asking. Steve Dufour 03:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The which is worse question at the Pump [[2]]
Thought you were questioning the subjects of the articles rather than the articles themselves, or I would have kept my mouth shut, as I haven't read either. No offense meant. Cryptonymius 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, I disagree with your comment that you're out of line. If you think the Scientology article violates NPOV, or some other policy, or simply the truth, make an issue of it. People are very fond of saying how open-minded they are, and if we disagree with them then we must be idiots. Cryptonymius 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks again. I will start working on that. Steve Dufour 03:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
List of Ex Christians
I just ran across this list and your justified criticisms of it. I believe the concept is fundamentally not encyclopedic. I am surprised to find it in Wikipedia. I suppose, however, that any effort to nominate it for deletion would arouse cries of "fundamentalism" and "censorship." If this concept is appropriate for an encyclopedia how about the following lists?
List of ex-republicans
List of former taco eaters
List of former ABBA fans
List of people who have changed from Ford to Chevy
List of ex-readers of the list of ex-Christians
This presents Wikipedia with a whole new field for new articles!Will3935 06:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. What is really interesting is how few genuine ex-Christians, even if we use the term very loosely, there really are. Steve Dufour 13:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Post returned to sender
"Hi Athaenara. Barbara Schwarz is a friend of mine and she has told me that she feels hurt by what she thinks is an attack on her by certain people here. I reviewed the policies and, to me, it seems like the article on her doesn't really come up to the standards of what WP should be all about. I told her that I would do what I could to have it removed. That has been my motivation for trying to bring the article to the attention of the WP community, not any desire to disrupt. Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)"
- And this from someone with a prominent "I support NPA" userbox on her page. Doesn't exactly jibe with her psychobabble on the COI NB or on the AfD talk either. How does it go? Comment on the content, not the contributor. I think that is it. --Justanother 14:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Justanother. I am trying hard not to come down to their level. :-) Steve Dufour 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea, you should not. There is no real downside for me as I will get attacked no matter what so I may as well have some fun and show these guys (and gals) up for what they are (it is soooo easy). But even I am tired of shooting fish in barrels and my arm is tired from holding the gun so I am, what do they say? Giving it up for Lent? Sorry if I am not helping you out over at the Scientology articles. I appreciate your efforts to make them more NPOV and in conformance with WP:V, etc. I am not helping because I want to take a wikibreak and do not want to get sucked in to anything other that the AfD. Later. And thanks. --Justanother 15:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Justanother. I am trying hard not to come down to their level. :-) Steve Dufour 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Enjoy your break. Steve Dufour 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your comment on the article. How did you come across it? Andjam 03:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- You made a comment on the Barbara Schwarz deletion debate and I checked out your user page. Steve Dufour 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
AfD
Well, that was weird. The closing admin, CBrown, closed it as no consensus then allowed Smee to talk him/her to changing the close to keep. I ain't making an issue of it as I can see it either way but if you clearly feel that you should dispute the close you would do so at WP:DRV. In any event, Cbrown made a suggestion that you should look at over at User talk:Cbrown1023#No consensus?. Later, my friend. My best to Barbara. --Justanother 03:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
"See also"
Hi Steve! Recently you made an edit to Scientology where you replaced "see also" because you don't like being told what to do... Please don't misinterpret the tone of my message, I'm not at all angry or anything, I'm just letting you know that "See also" is a standard convention here on Wikipedia, so please keep those phrases in the future. Thanks! :) --Shadowlink1014 04:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. I made the change on an impulse. I do think that "Related articles" would be a better expression than "See also", if only because the later is in the imperative form and sounds kind of rude. Steve Dufour 06:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you mean what you said on Justanother's talk page?
About the new Barbara Schwarz article making her look more historical? If you were being sarcastic, that's ok too. If you weren't, then I'd just like to say I think we understand each other now (in that she really is worthy of historical note). Thanks, Anynobody 07:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think she really is an historically important figure, although I may end up being wrong about this. As of now I still think she is not notable enough for a WP article. What I like about the new article is that it is more dignified than the old one, so I hope that it will hurt her feelings less. Almost no one else will come to see it however, I expect. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 11:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think she'll end up in a child's history book or become super well known either. American judicial/legal history books are where she'd be found, especially those about history of the FOIA. I imagine people like lawyers and mental health specialists will have a legitimate use for it (the article) though. Anynobody 00:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Be still, my tongue. --Justanother 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this sounds critical, Justanother but if you were really trying to "not say anything" about my conversation with Steve Dufour, you wouldn't have posted that. Don't get me wrong, if the three of us were sitting in a room somewhere and the only barrier between expression and not is your resistance I wouldn't say that. However, here you have to select the section you want to edit, then sign your username. Your actual tongue shouldn't be involved unless you have that naturally speaking software and a mic, even then you have to say stuff like "colon" and "tilde""tilde""tilde" and use your mouse. The point being, words don't just "slip out" here, so I'm calling this creative trolling.
Steve Dufour I'd also like to take this opportunity to mention I don't have any issues with your WP:COI now that the AfD is over. I always appreciated your honesty in admitting it in an upfront way, and hope you don't have any hard feelings about this. So I don't want you to think I see Justanother and yourself as the same type of editor. I never doubted your motives so I always WP:AGF, which is why I tried so many times to explain to you directly why I felt you should abstain. In case the article comes up again, and because I'm kinda curious to see what you think I'll impart this one last analogy about voting on Barbara Schwarz. If Michael Jackson fans could AfD his article for mentioning his legal woes over pedophilia, could Wikipedia still work? Anynobody 06:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Next step
Steve, the important thing to always remember is that, contrary to how the ill-intentioned would present it, it is totally appropriate to fight to your last breath to see that articles here comply to wikipedia policy. If you do that and keep your words mild then you are unassailable. If you also contribute (add material) to a significant extent and not simply delete material then you will garner resepct as an editor and not simply be "tolerated". While you might not feel comfortable adding much about the beliefs and practices of Scientology, you already know that a lot of the article are phrased in a POV manner. Many of them are also not true to their sources and take things out of context. I have made many productive edits by simply going to the so-called critical source and finding it not so critical as presented and making the appropriate changes. Changes such as that are contibutory edits. There are also many great sources that are complimentary of Scientology and that have not been sufficiently represented in the articles. I will show you some as I rediscover them. Finally, re Ms. Schwarz and apropos of my first point, please see the below for policy related to just how much material should be in that article. While my case for deletion under the borderline status was a bit experimental, it is certainly the intent of that line that borderline information (for example, Usenet, the degree of stress to her ideas, etc.) should be removed if it tends to harm. Point being that this is the policy, BLP is one of the most policy-enforced areas here, and there are tools to enforce the rules. We should create a sandbox version of the article in compliance with this and is we cannot sell it on the talk page then we take it up the WP:DR chain. That is many degrees less controversial than an AfD although the "other side" will still scream bloody murder. I suggest that you start the proposed version in your user space and invite editors that you care to to contribute. You do not need to accept changes from anyone if you do not like the change as it is in your user space. Then you can present it on talk for discussion but not for modification (just an up/down discussion) and go from there. --Justanother 13:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Non-public figures
Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source (see above).
In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.