User talk:Who123/Archive 1

Archive 1: Sept 21, 2006

Ste4k Consolidation

question

Regarding this comparison found at this site, which of the three source works are referring to the book advertised here on the bottom of the page, and here where it is being sold? If you know, please advise. I am trying to figure out how many different versions there actually are. There is another version printed in Hungary that claims to be Urtext, and calls itself the "Illuminate Edition". Do you know anything about that? I've only been researching this for a few weeks now. Please see my comments at User_talk:Sethie#About_the_.22CMC.22 in that regard. Thanks. Ste4k 19:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

These are various versions of ACIM. Please see the discussion for the article "A Course in Miracles". -- Who123 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

using the discussion pages.

Hi Who123, would you mind making these comments in the discussion section on the talk page? I cannot reply to your comments in the edit summary without editing something. Thanks. Ste4k 18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a section in the discussion section "Introduction". This has been discussed there. In addition, two others editors agree that the common abbreviations for The Course are not OR and do not require a source. Within The Course community it is very common knowledge.--Who123 03:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

An appropriate next step may be to file a user RfC in order to solicit more community input. From what I have seen, this user has left many other editors and admins dismayed. -Will Beback 05:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. That was very kind. -Will Beback 04:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You deserve it.--Who123 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Edits and questions

Dear Who123,

Why did you remove the templates that have all been explained both here in discussion as well as in the history, and not replace them with the single {{noncompliant}} template? On what basis did you remove two verified sources for this article and replace them with some personal web-site? After removing the sources, you did not remove any of the material in the article that they "might" have supported. And when adding the personal web-site, you didn't add any material to the article at all. The only thing you removed was some obvious OR. What gives? I am reverting your edits which haven't any explanation and suggest that you move questionable material here to the Discussion page in the future. By the way, if you need help on using citation templates, please see the appropriate documentation. Thanks. Ste4k 06:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ste4k, I did not write the ACIM article. I do not think the author is still active on WP as we have not heard from him/her. It seems from Scott P. that he was going to work on the article but does not have time now due to his upcoming marriage (see ACIM discussion). This has left a void in terms of having anyone currently active on WP with an interest in and a knowledge of ACIM that knows about the activity there. I have undergraduate degrees in philosophy and psychology as well as postgraduate degrees. I have read many books in these fields as well as in the area of religion/spirituality. I have studied various religious/spiritual movements. In particular, I have studied ACIM for 15-20 years. I do this for personal reasons. I have never received any financial gain from this. I have no desire to author books. Although I have limited time and no major desire to work on the article, it seems the task has fallen in my lap. Late last night I decided I would contribute to improving the article rather than just trying to help prevent its destruction.

I am unfamiliar with writing and citing articles on WP. I would appreciate your help in this in a constructive way. Thank you.--Who123 13:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k RfC

I am compiling information for an RfC regarding user:Ste4k's behavior. Frankly, there is a lot to document. I thought you might be more familiar with some of the issues than I am. If you're interested in contributing, the draft is at User:Will Beback/Sandbox. I've drawn up an outline of the talk page issues, but it needs to be filled-out. Feel free to add to it as you see fit. I expect to post the Rfc in a day or two. -Will Beback 04:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggest also contacting others users about her. On your page you have received complaints from:

User:Nscheffey (twice)

Ben Houston

There may be complaints on other pages as she says she does hundreds of edits a day.--Who123 05:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd already notified one and have now notified the other, plus a few more. I'm sure there will be others who'll also want to endorse it - I'm just looking for those who can add to it. In that regard, we need to add "diffs" to each assertion. (Diffs are links that show an edit. You can get then from the history pages by copying the "last" link). Cheers, -Will Beback 07:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I will do what I can to help. I used to enjoy coming to WP but since interacting with her I no longer enjoy WP, it has become a very negative experience. For the diffs I only know of the ACIM pages, the EA pages, and her user page.--Who123 14:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You may also wish to contact User:Jossi and User:Scottperry.

Even without going into every dispute, I think the RfC will have sufficient examples of problematic behavior. The initial request for comment is just the start of a process. We've already compiled many complaints and many instances of unhelpful behavior. I know there is much more information, but it is a very tedious process to collect and assemble this information. Ultimately the user's actions in the future are more important than those in the past.

There's a group of bullet points under "general" that don't have any examples. Some of them probably do have references available (perhaps in some of the existing diffs), while others would be hard to prove. I suggest that the ones you would like to include could be moved into a short summary of the overall issues, perhaps combined with your suggested actions. I'll write one too. I suppose it's fine for us to make separate summaries, but we should keep them short.

Once it's ready to post we can put plain announcements on relevant talk pages. As requested, other editors will usually add comments or views. It's not like any other Wiki process. I'd like to post it tomorrow, if possible. -Will Beback 09:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As I think you know, I am fairly new to WP as an editor and do not understand much of the administrative tasks. Anything I placed there was in an effort to be helpful and to improve WP. I am particularly concerned about the user's apparent inability to get along with others and work by consensus. I am also very concerned about the users apparent desire to destroy articles, particularly ACIM.

I will spend some time on it again today. I do not think separate summaries would be useful. Please feel free to change anything I have posted. Has Nscheffey contributed yet? You may wish to contact him again. When you are ready then go. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.--Who123 13:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

ACIM reversion support

I appreciate your attempt at reversion but it must be reverted to "16:19, July 18, 2006 Who123" before the user destroyed the article.

This article has been stable for a long time with excellent sourcing considering the nature of the material. The original author was driven off WP by the user in question. Scott (who was familar with the material) has stopped editing. I seem to be the only one left that knows the material and I no longer wish to interact with that user.

I suggest that the page be "locked" at version "16:19, July 18, 2006" Who123--Who123 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know already that I support reversion, so I'll support your reversion of 16:19, 18 July 2006, before the question4ble user began her "improvement" of ACIM. I'm also familiar enough with the material to sort fiction from fact, so we can work together on it. The ninth Wikiprophecy foretells that when the w4r goddess has reigned for two-and-forty days, this age of d4rkness and desp4ir, having left Wikiworld scorched and barren, dark and desolate, will end as though it never was. It is told there will be a renewed awakening of insatiable thirst for knowledge and light, a rebirth of curiousity and high learning, dim at first, yet the w4r goddess will not long be able to suppress this, which was created ever greatest and one. And Wikiworld will shine forth with such brilliance as never before it was willing to recognize while the w4r goddess loomed ominously in the sh4dows. Yet will sh4dows vanish under the infectious light of this new age, for only sh4dows could have ever held it back. So it was passed down to me as I now pass it down to you ... or something like that. ^_^ —Antireconciler ◊ talk 01:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL Actually I think the reversion by Will Beback is fine too. It also is like a phoenix that restores ACIM from the ashes of destruction. I do not think a person needs to be an advanced student of ACIM to work on the article but some understanding seems important. It would be like most people (e.g. me) going in and trying to re-write an article on string theory with no knowledge of the subject. I would be happy to work with those that wish to actually discuss and slowly progress in a logical way to improve the article. I am not a writer and do not know how WP works that well. I think what I can bring to the table is a fairly wide base of knowledge surrounding ACIM and a fairly in depth knowledge of ACIM itself. I am not associated with any particular faction. I have a combination of training in the relevant arts as well as logic and science. I hope the ninth Wikiprophecy regarding the goddess comes to pass. I find that this goddess is like onto a dragon that destroys all in its path. People simply run from this fire of destruction. I await the Light.--Who123 01:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage reminds me that I also support being nice to editors who dispose themselves to take things that aren't attacks as attacks, because that way they might learn they aren't attacked. So, I appriciate your message. ^_^ —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I like a peaceful mind. Attacks disturb that peace.--Who123 17:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What is it that it is not the best place and time to discuss at ACIM discussion? I think all places and times good occasions for good reasoning ... don't you? I mean, you say at first that you understand ... but we are not understanding each other if you have to tell me to talk about something somewhere else. Won't you explain what you mean? —Antireconciler ◊ talk 21:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the discussion under the straw poll? We can resume discussion there if you wish.--Who123 22:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright. BTW, I like your first and fifth sigs. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 03:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Durogatory comments, and attempts to own an article.

Regarding you durogatory comments made throughout the discussion of A Course in Miracles, and in particular, just recently, comments made here in edit summary, [1] Please assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Don't stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia with threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks, or posting personal information. You agreed to allow others to modify your work. So let them. Articles, including reader-facing templates, categories and portals, should be written from a Neutral Point of View. We cannot check the accuracy of claims, but we can check whether the claims have been published by a reputable publication. Articles should therefore cite sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not. The first step to resolving any dispute is to talk to those who disagree with you. If that fails, there are more structured forms of discussion available. Thanks Ste4k 14:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I find this confusing. This seems like something other editors would place on your page. In terms of the last part, whenever I try talking to you, you stop responding and go into an edit war over content or templates based on your personal bias rather than consensus. I think posting this out of the blue on my page is an example of how you communicate. If you had something in particular that you wished to discuss with me, you should have posted that particular concern. I do not recall posting any "Durogatory comments" about you. If I did post something in particular about you that you felt to be a personal attack then please let me know so that I can look at it. I do not believe in personal attacks but we are all human and make mistakes from time to time. On the other hand, I find this post of yours on my page to be a non-specific generalized attack on me. I do not know what you mean by "attempts to own an article". I have not written any articles yet and even if I did I do not own any. I have noticed that you seem to be on a campaign to destroy ACIM articles (a subject which you have stated you had not even heard of until a few weeks ago). You say that you do hundreds of edits a day. What other articles are you currently editing?

All the best.--Who123 16:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the one example that you did give. It must be noted that I did not make any of the changes in the article. I simply reverted the article to the last reversion by the Administrator. Do you consider a comment to stop your tag edit war a personal attack? It was not a personal attack. You have been asked by at least one Administrator and a number of editors to stop your edit wars over content and templates too many times for me to count. I have requested page protection but no one has acted on it. When you do this you always do it unilaterally. I think it would be helpful for you to learn to work with people by consensus instead.--Who123 16:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

About this. Yes, you are absolutely correct. We don't want any tags on any articles. Thanks. Ste4k 19:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand. There are tags on the version I restored. There are none on the one you did. If you are asking me to add the tags to your version I would be happy to.--Who123 17:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ste4k, I think it might be best to move this discussion to the RfC on yourself. I think any problems here are with you, not with me.--Who123 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k

It wasn't deleted. She just moved it about a lot. I think User:Zeo fixed it.Geni 02:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

ACIM

Just a quick response to your note. I haven't "returned" to Wikipedia. I just decided to check to see if I had any messages, and I responded to the message because it was directly related to why I left Wikipedia.

I'd like to help with the ACIM article, but I just don't want to get involved anymore. In my opinion, Ste4k created the ugliest scene I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and now that ACIM page looks like a complete battle ground. It's just too frustrating. Life has been good without the headache of trying to improve that article. I'm sorry, but I have to wash my hands of it. I hope the rest of you are able to do something that apparently I wasn't able to do: create a good ACIM page without getting caught in a bizarre battle. To be honest, I'm shell shocked from my experience with Ste4k and as a result just can't bring myself to contribute to any page anymore. Andrew Parodi 21:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Links

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ste4k

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Harassment_and_Wiki-stalking

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive124

Creating empty headings

It is best to only create a section heading when you are ready to actually include content under that heading as well. For example, here you created the heading "Comment by Who123" [2], but you didn't return to add content until more than 30 minutes later: [3]. Similarly, you created a heading on this talk page [4], and another editor removed it after 5 minutes with no further content added. Its no huge deal, but empty sections do add unnecessarily clutter to talk pages. If the delay is because you are testing or experimenting with your contributions, feel free to create your own sandbox in your user space to practice your edit, and then paste it in its entirety to the actual talk page when done. Cheers. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My normal procedure when adding a section is to first edit the entire page to create the section title. I then edit the section to add content. I find this reduces the frequency of edit conflicts. I suspect in the first case I was either writing the comment or was interrupted such as by a phone call. In the second case, the section title had been removed before I was able to add content and I did not follow up on it. I have not created any empty sections that I am aware of. The delay is because I am typing my response. I really do not understand the problem here as I am trying to avoid edit conflicts, which are frequent. BTW, how and why are you aware of these two disparate glitches? Am I being monitored by the secret police? :-) --Who123 18:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You can also click on the tab with the plus sign, and you can create a new section & content at the same time, and likely avoid edit conflicts. How did I notice it - just clicked "User contributions" on the left side of every user page. Happy editing! --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael, thank you so much for this shortcut! I did not know about it. The double editing and the edit conflicts have been frustrating.--Who123 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I checked on the ""User contributions" on the left side of every user page..." and do not see it. Is this just for Administrators? Nevermind, I found it. Thanks.--Who123 19:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Signature Tests

Test1--Who123 00:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Test2--Who123 00:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Test3--Who123 01:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Test4--Who123 01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Test5--Who123 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Test6--Who123 20:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Test7--Who123 21:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Test8—Who123 00:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Test9—Who 18:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Test10—Who123 20:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

FACIM

Why did you delete all reference to FACIM from the ACIM article? [5] I just came across that edit, but you didn't include a summary. The material had been on AfD and the conclusion was to "merge" it to ACIM. -Will Beback 08:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see above. Late last night I decided to help to improve the article. As noted, I have studied the material for 15-20 years on a personal level. It seems that the way to improve it is to improve on what is written as well the sources and citation. My time is limited and it will be a slow process. I will look at the material again. I will note any changes that I make in the future. I do not wish to re-write the article but it appears someone needs to. I would appreciate any help particularly in sourcing and citation. I think there are two books listed in the references that are particularly useful. I have one and plan to order the other. I think anyone involved with the editing of this article should purchase these books.--Who123 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, see discussion page.--Who123 00:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless there's a good reaosn for its deletion, the material you removed about FACIM should be restored and then probably revised. Regarding your question on my page, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. There are several different methods used. The one mostly used in the ACIM articles now is the most complex. In the past, at least, it was more commoon to just toss in a link, a practice I still follow too often because it is the easiest. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the the ACIM community to know the proper place of the FACIM material. The merge was performed due to the outcome of an AfD. However the AfD was irregular and a good case could be made at WP:DR. I suggest that you draw up a case for its recreation as a separate article. I'd support it, as it appears to an outsider as an stand-alone topic. -Will Beback 04:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I know a lot about ACIM and most that surrounds it. I do not understand WP policy as much as I would like. Since the material has been deleted for some time could not the article just be re-created?--Who123 04:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As you know, we can retrieve the info. I do not believe it has a place in the ACIM article. The organization is too polarizing. I think it should be in a separate article. I also think there should be links to it as well as the EA article.--Who123 03:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Merged articles

Unless the articles were deleted (the case with A Course in Miracles (book)), the contents should still be available in the edit histories. The (book) article has 150 edits. I can restore it and move it to your namespace, and then you could copy material from there. In the case of articles that might be best recreated under the old name, such as the FACIM article, those should go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. -Will Beback 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time now, but I can probably help you later tonight. -Will Beback 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Endeavor Academy

I'll return to Endeavor Academy tomorrow so we don't run into edit conflicts. Would you like to standardize the article with the Harvard referencing style? I think that even using Harvard referencing we will only need a single section for references as we don't seem to have notes to deal with. If I'm missing something, let me know. Take care as always, —Antireconciler ◊ talk 03:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer what you are doing but do not know how to do it yet. Look at Wikipedia:Footnotes. See how they put the references under "Notes" and not under "References"? One advantage until I learn the system is that I can use the Harvard system in the "References" section. Does this make sense?—Who123 03:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand. Footnotes style is also designed for footnotes, so it seems we're using Harvard style citiation in our notes/references section, and footnotes style in-text. It seems like a reasonable method, as you say. If you'd like to put in a second section for refs according to Harvard style, go for it. The style guideline recommends not mixing the styles in-text (I think ... and we aren't right now), so I can always come along later and standardize it with the rest of the article, but I think you'll find WP's <ref> and {{cite}} tags pretty intuitive. It's not as complex as it seems. ^_^ —Antireconciler ◊ talk 04:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think I need to add the references section now because I think you have it all under Notes. If I do come up with something else, it does give me or someone else the ability to add the reference section. I agree with not mixing styles on the final edit but may be OK during development. Once the EA article is done then I want to study the footnotes style. It seems that WP also has a program for working with the Footnotes style. Have you looked at that? Never mind. My mistake. There is no separate program. I understand the basics now.—Who123 19:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Defenders of faith

I don't understand why you reverted this edit [6], since the whole point of having a wikilink to key terms is so you don't have to define them in the original article. Not to mention that such a definition ("defenders of the faith") doesn't even appear in the apologist article. Not a dog 03:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably better to discuss it on the talk page of the article. I will discuss it there.—Who123 12:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, reading through that looong section you wrote on the talk page about apologists, you never really dealt with my question: why did you revert that edit, ie, why is it necessary to have a parenthetical definition of a term that is wikilinked. That's the whole point of the wikilink. Not a dog 00:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Insinuation

What are you insinuating here [7] ? Not a dog 19:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if you are wondering who I am, just ask. But a hint is here: [8] ;) Not a dog 23:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Before you continue with your accusations of me being a sockpuppet of a banned user [9], you might want to consider a few alternative possibilities: (a) perhaps I edited under an IP for days/weeks/months and learned the ropes that way before deciding to create an account; (b) perhaps I simply decided to sit down and read the policies and guidelines to familiarize myself with the project before creating an account; (c) perhaps I'm just a quick read; (d) perhaps my knoweldge of policies isn't as good as you seem to think [10]. Dude, you gotta assume good faith (another policy that I seem to have superhuman understanding of given I've only been editing since August 15). Not a dog 23:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

ACIM

Could you please leave the link to the Foundation for the awakening mind. It is relevant, true to ACIM, it does not bother anybody and it is OK to have some personnal websites. The Circle of Atonement is a personnal website too by the way. Thank you

Best to discuss it on the article talk page.—Who123 16:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)