User talk:Nscheffey/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

==July 2006==

The difference

You wrote: "I'll have my eye on you"

I want to make this very clear. The difference between what you are doing and what I am doing is that you are making me a personal issue, but I am making verifiabilty and original research an issue. About your comments regarding your opinon of my attitude please read this from WP:VER:

"Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting other editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.""

Ste4k 01:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, I am making this a personal issue, since I have seen you misuse AfD, misquote policy, chase other editors off Wikipedia, and generally behave like a dick.--Nscheffey^(T/C) 02:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. Ste4k 08:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Ste4k 12:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Per Big Brother 6

Is it good faith to assume bad faith without careful review? Ste4k 17:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe I did carefully review the article, and your comments on the AfD page seem to confirm what I feared: you are not using this AfD nom to actually delete the article, you are using it to draw attention to your beef with, I don't know, this television show, or all television shows. If you have problems with the article make a request for comment, or discuss it in WP:Notability, but don't nominate it for deletion when you know it won't be deleted. This is disturbing Wikipedia to make a point. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 17:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you haven't replied back in our conversation on my talk page about your nom of Big Brother series 6, and now another user has suggested a bad faith nom by you. I understand the ACIM issue is contentious, but AfD really isn't the place to deal with the problems you have with these pages. I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just trying to get a sense of your feelings on the subject. Do you agree that the Big Brother nom probably wasn't a good idea? Do you really want all of these pages deleted, or do you want them merged, cleaned up, or NPOVed? Just trying to open a dialogue. Thanks. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 09:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

These are two seperate issues. Regarding Big Brother, I retain my opinion, that an encyclopedia should list notable events that are historically accurate and important. I feel that too much time of too many editors is wasted bickering on that particular article. I also feel that the other editor purposely disregards factual matter in all previous articles. Whether or not it was appropriate to nominate the article as AfD has two sets of opinion. Perhaps you know of other television show articles, but for me, this is the only one that I am aware of.

and now another user has suggested a bad faith nom 

Before I reply to this, I'd like you to speak with that other user. I do not believe that he suggested a bad faith nom, nor do I believe that you understood him correctly. Be that as it may . . .

On the other topic, it matters nil to me about a single user that has an anonymous advocacy group behind his intents and his motives. I could easily take the time here to point out several personal attacks, etc, but the matter, in my opinion, has nothing to do with me personally; i.e. I prefer not to play games with immature individuals and bringing up any of his past harrassment issues would simply enflame rather than quench. He apparently believes that I am somehow associated with people of his past and User_talk:Andrew_Parodi#Importance_of_article he has not once acted in good faith with me, nor any of my comments. As a "cleanup" person, the manners in which I have in the past found systematic problem areas is probably unlike many others. Please see the comment by User:Superwad regarding one particular means by which I associate myself with articles near the bottom where he casts his vote to delete.

My chief concerns are with policy, disambiguity of the same, and for the encyclopedia on the whole, rather than any one article in particular. True, one may say that I have submitted several articles of one specific category to AfD, however, most of them were created by one author whom has yet to establish the reasons for creating the tree in the first place. It matters little to me whether the article exists or not. If it does exist, however, then it must adhere to policy and in that regard speak from a NPOV. Please see the comments of that author my talk page archives where he states that he refuses to cooperate for the betterment of the article on the whole. I believe that he may also be associated with this book and the company that produces it in a manner which is against the guidelines. I select the category [A_Course_in_Miracles]] for review, and find that he has been the original author of all of these articles within a short amount of time. It is my right as an editor to bring up this category for review by fellow editors, and I believe that doing so allows a consensus rather than if I were to begin edit warring, etc. Because I haven't been here that long, if there is another avenue for such matters, please point it out and consider me advised. I have already put that particular central article up for RfC, many of the rest I have cleaned up with Speedy Delete, and the rest should be given the due process and scrutiny.

That I happened upon this particular article was random chance. My interest in this particular article began when casually going through the AfD itself en masse, I came upon his article. I was under the impression that AfD entries were to be closed before they were removed, etc. and that they would last at least five days or something to that regard. This article's headers were removed and it was delisted from the AfD until I made a query about it on IRC to administrators there who corrected the problem. If the article about the book remains, that is fine with me, but it should be about the book and you can see my central concerns on that matter here.

I just noticed his first comment which is again made in bad faith. I will ignore it and move on to my other projects until later. I don't understand how User:Andrew Parodi has the right to "own" this article and his actions are gender offensive, calling me "buddy", in my opinion is simply rude. Ste4k 10:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, you haven't replied back yet about this matter and I would appreciate your concern. Thanks. Ste4k 05:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sorry it took a couple days to get back to you, been on vacation. OK, regarding the Big Brother nomination, which was speedily kept, I think you should realize that your view is in the very small minority. I think almost all wikipedians would agree that an article being the cause of much debate is not a reason to delete it. You said that "whether or not it was appropriate to nominate the article as AfD has two sets of opinion." I have yet to see an argument that this nomination was appropriate. Also, you said "perhaps you know of other television show articles, but for me, this is the only one that I am aware of." I'm not really sure what you meant by this, there are hundreds af articles about television shows. Almost every popular television show has it's own Thirdly, you said "I do not believe that he suggested a bad faith nom, nor do I believe that you understood him correctly." The quote in question was "it appears that the nomination of this page by Ste4k for deletion is a “bad faith” deletion attempt." I think I understood it correctly.

All of this relates to my larger issue, your misuse of the Article for Deletion process. I'm not prepared to dive into the ACIM debate, and I don't know what kind of personal problems you've had with other editors, but I think it's become very clear that your AfD noms were out of line. AfD is strictly for discussing whether or not an article merits inclusion in an encyclopedia, not whether it is contentious or poorly written. The only reason I even came across the ACIM controversy was that I was researching your other noms after being so surprised by the Big Brother nom. When I saw a similar pattern I decided to contact you. Just wanted to clear up this issue and make sure everyone is on the same page. As a final note, try to lighten up on the "gender offensive", "buddy" issue. It's hard to tell people's gender on the net, try to assume good faith. Thanks --Nscheffey^(T/C) 00:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it is up to any one user to write the policies and that they have evolved over a period of time. The person you are speaking about with the gender issue, had already been told several times, and not only by me, to cease and desist. About the Big Brother article, per policy, it should not be on this encyclopedia. I don't think that any editor of experience should be assuming bad faith when the discussions haven't anything to do with personal issues. The other editor, that mentioned bad faith in ACIM was pointing out the possibility that I might be from some faction that doesn't like ACIM. I actually complimented him on his page regarding the statement since the possibility could exist. We discussed it and there was nothing more to it. Without doing any investigation of your own, such statements are rather blind, in my opinion. If you are telling me that policy doesn't really matter, then as far as AGF goes, it doesn't really matter either, does it. About NPOV and staying neutral, I don't think there is any pattern that you can justify about me at all, and none exists. I hadn't ever heard of ACIM before there were problems arising from their actions. I don't think you have taken the time while on vacation to notice all of the BF comments, changing people votes in AfD, and etc, that certain editors decided they needed to do in order to protect certain articles. None of that, however, stopped me from doing the research on the cited sources. And it turns out that the book itself is out of print, and that the acronym "ACIM" is a registered trademark. The court case that those citations left out filled in most of the blanks that showed that all of the rest of the cited sources were actually a close knit association and a single company. Either way, I don't play favorites, I only read the rules. Policy is first, followed by guidelines and not the other way around. Sure, you might say, that just isn't the reality around here, and that 90% of the entire encyclopedia doesn't meet spec. I can only answer that by saying that it doesn't meet spec because the policies are ignored. So basically, since I am still new, not even being here more than a couple weeks, the policy is the only thing that I can trust for sure that meets consensus. So I suggest that if you believe that I have some sort of problem with AfD, that you consult the policy again for yourself and make suggestions for rewriting it. AfD is not the place to be discussing changes in policy. About Big Brother, had I know that the other editor owned the page and that he was allowed to do so, I wouldn't have ever bothered to work on it. And had I known that it makes no sense to discuss an article like the documentation says, I wouldn't have ever bothered to reason with an irrational, unreasonable person. Ste4k 22:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As others have noted [1] , your writing style makes it hard to understand what you're saying. What I can make out seems very confused. OK, first you say "the Big Brother article, per policy, ... should not be on this encyclopedia." To what policy could you possibly be referring? Does that fact that the article was speedy kept mean anything to you?

Next you mentioned the other editor who accused you of a bad faith AfD nom, Andrew Parodi. You say he broght up the "possibility that [you] might be from some faction that doesn't like ACIM," and that you "complimented him on his page regarding the statement." This is a patent falsehood, as proven by a glance at your edits to his talk page, none of which are complimentary to say the least.[2] [3] [4] [5] And the claim the "we discussed it and there was nothing more to it," is obscenely wrong, considering what actually came of it: he quit Wikipedia and you taunted him on the way out[6].

All of this worries me, since you seem to combine a flimsy grasp of policy with a stubborn and self righteous nature, a dangerous combination. Doesn't it concern you that at least six of your recent AfD noms have resulted in or are trending towards clear consensus keeps?[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Do you not feel that you may be in the wrong when the last three comments on your talk page concern problems with the AfD process, and now another editor has said on an AfD page that "Ste4k should be chastised for acting so dishonestly"? [13] I guess this is to be expected from a user whose first contributions to wikipedia were attempting to insert information about a cursed newsgroup into the Curse article, and then edit warring over it, resulting in its current protection.

In conclusion, if you continue to misuse AfD I will open an RfC concerning your conduct. I think I have enough for a strong case already, but I'm willing to give you another chance. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 04:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't let me keep you from pre-judgment.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Next_Door_Nikki
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pickled_Dick
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arthur's_Missing_Pal
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_Monism
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Complete Story of the Course
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathways of Light center
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Miracles Center
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DIPPR
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Wapnick
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation for Inner Peace
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Same_Same

Ste4k 20:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your talking about the incorrect person.

You wrote: " Next you mentioned the other editor who accused you of a bad faith AfD nom, Andrew Parodi. " This is not the person to whom I referred. Thanks. Ste4k 07:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is the person to whom I referred in the original comment. Who could you have possibly thought I was referring to, seeing as I included a link to his comment? Did you not bother to follow the link before you replied that I didn't understand him correctly, or are so many editors suggesting bad faith noms by you that it's hard to keep them straight? Thanks. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Note the time of day, please. Thanks. Ste4k 09:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This might also help jog your memory. Ste4k 09:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k you are one of the most confused/confusing people I have ever interacted with. Let me try to make this simple. When I ask you about another editor suggesting a bad faith nom by you, and then link to said accusation like so, I expect your replies to be concerning THAT EDITOR. The fact that you can't understand that is deeply disconcerting. Also, you have not replied to any of the points in my comment, which I would appreciate. Otherwise I will curse your userpage. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please defind bad faith. Ste4k 20:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard interaction with Ste4k: 1)Ste4k makes bizarre statement, usually misinterpreting policy. 2) Someone demands Ste4k explain her actions. 3)Ste4k refers them to WP:AGF.

Very annoying, but you are aware of that. I think this sentence from WP:AGF is custom made for you: "Don't put the burden on others. Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith." --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise I will curse your userpage

Explain this remark please. Thanks. Ste4k 20:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A joke based on your preoccupation with cursed newsgroups.--Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Explain "joke" and why I should consider anything you have mentioned, anything other than hostile, please. Thanks. Ste4k 21:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You have ignored my request here for nine days. Ste4k 20:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it is nonsense. You want to explain what a joke is? And as to why you shouldn't consider everything I've done hostile, how about actually reading the policy you constantly refer to? You are too much. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What comment?

You wrote: Also, you have not replied to any of the points in my comment, which I would appreciate.

What comment? Ste4k 21:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you constantly confused? Obviously I was referring to my previous comment, found at the end of this section. Your one reply to said comment was the "incorrect editor" nonsense, another example of your mind boggling confusion. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think that I read it? I read it now though. And you write: "In conclusion, if you continue to misuse AfD I will open an RfC concerning your conduct. I think I have enough for a strong case already, but I'm willing to give you another chance. --Nscheffey(T/C) 04:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)"

I have already addressed the fact that you believe that your interpretation of policy is the only correct interpretation. I think that the hubris required to pre-determine the outcome of an RfC in the same statement that you express doubt further demonstrates the inadequate lengths at which you have investigated anything. As an accuser, you should keep in mind that the burden of proof is on you and that I am neither required nor owe you any explanation. Ste4k 01:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What made me think you read it is that generally people read someone's comments before they attempt to respond to them. And I don't believe my interpretation of policy is the only correct one, I just think your interpretation is obviously incorrect. And yes, you do owe everyone an explanation for your actions, Wikipedia works through reasoned discussion. Refusing to explain your actions (for example, you have yet to provide any rationale for your Big Brother nom) is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 02:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Big Brother section above on this discussion page. My rationale was explained, "These are two seperate issues. Regarding Big Brother, I retain my opinion, that an encyclopedia should list notable events that are historically accurate and important." Ste4k 08:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Does that fact that no one agrees with you (speedily kept) mean anything? Please god, I dare you to actually respond to any of my comments. Instead I'm sure you will post something like "Please be civil, assume good faith, and abide by WP:OR and WP:NPOV." Prove me wrong. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 09:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Prove that no one agrees with me, and please refrain from calling me "god". Ste4k 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

When you nominate an article for deletion and it gets speedily kept that means no one agrees with you. Got it now or still unclear? --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

re: the section recently added

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Ste4k 02:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Please don't communicate with me through templates. It is a dick thing to do. And if you must use templates instead of thoughts, at least substitute them with "subst:". --Nscheffey^(T/C) 03:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, that you reserve that sort of thing for yourself, I see. Ste4k 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User Space connected to Main Space

Hello Nscheffey, you have an article in your User space which is connected to Main Space by category. Just sorry for letting you know. Ste4k 00:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

your comments

Ste4k, I know you don't like people posting on your talk page, but I'm a bit worried that you are misunderstanding the role of administrators on Wikipedia. "Since your an admin .... there isn't any reason to ignore your message," suggests that you would ignore messages from regular editors. An admin's opinions, advice, and input are not automatically worth more or more correct than any editor's. Keep that in mind. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nscheffy, I don't believe that you can know, have known, or ever will know what I have, do, or will like. Do you actually not see how your statement is offensive? Ste4k 19:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't, but I'm not surprised that you are offended. After all, you were reduced to tears when someone tried to make your talk page readable. I've told you this before and I'll tell you again: chill out. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to speak about that incident that you know nothing about? Or do you want to address the topic that you brought up? Ste4k 20:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You are completely out of control. Saying I "know nothing" is an insanely dick move. You are the one who hasn't addressed the topic, instead claiming you were offended. It amazes me that after so many separate editors have commented on your behavior you still feel you are always in the right. Even when you sought out a random user, his advice was for you to change your actions. Noticing a trend? --Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, yes, it appears to me that you are stalking me. Any reason for that? Ste4k 21:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, stalking. If i were you I would reply here with an "no personal attacks" template. Instead, I'll suggest you check the discussions at Administrators Noticeboard and Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents, where I have added to the discussion. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would I take your suggestion? With 90% of your recent contributions all centered around me, you're the one that finds me fascinating. What would you call it instead of stalking? Harassment? Trolling? Something to do with films that you like? Do you have a better link than that? It didn't have anything there about me, maybe they archived it. Is this another one of your vague references? Ste4k 00:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I do find you fascinating. It's amazing that you would claim there is nothing about you at these pages, when I know you've been there since you've commented on the discussion.[14] [15] Then to provide a non working link as evidence is just sheer insanity. Incredibly, your accurate-statement-percentage manages to fall even further. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 00:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Steak

If you need anything in regards to this user feel free to contact me. Action will hopefully be taken soon in some form. --mboverload@ 11:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

Even when you're right, don't edit war. -Will Beback 08:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What should I do?-Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The next step would be to create an an RfC regarding this user's behavior. I expect that there are many users who will contribute if you get the ball rolling. You can scan a couple of existing user RfCs to see how they're put together. The important parts are researching the "diffs" in the user's contribution list which are problematic behavior, stating which policies have been violated, and seeking input and a solution. There's a template, and a time limit (though that won't be a problem). Let me know if you have any questions. -Will Beback 08:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

PS (after reading your latest comments on my talk page): Disputes are not uncommon, which is why we have a dispute resolution process. I can't say as I've ever seen an editor exactly like this one. Every unhappy editor is unhappy in her own way (forgive me, Tolstoy). The great thing about Wikipedia is that it, and its articles, rise above the limitations of its contributors. -Will Beback 08:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure I want to open an official RfC on this user yet, since I can't point to one exact violation of policy. But I think there are many editors (Mboverload, Antaeus Feldspar, etc.) that would agree with my general view. At this point I'm just pissed at the removal of my comments from her page, and her refusal to even address the issue. Isn't there a more streamlined way I could deal with this? --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ther are many ways of dealing, see Wikipedia:dispute resolution. Even so, my opinion is that the appropriate next stage is to seek community input through an RfC. This is not an issue tied to one article, but rather it is an issue tied to one user. -Will Beback 09:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you "can't point to one exact violation of policy" then be open to the possibility that this is a difference of interpretation, not a policy violation issue. Have you tried dialogue to explore the reasons behind the behaviour you consider problematic? Just zis Guy you know? 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k

Nathan, take care - as you are no doubt aware this editor is somewhat sensitive; I see strong evidence of good faith in working through some things that need doing, the project will benefit more from being kindd than form being aggressive here, I think. I do not think she is a troll. I have not yet figured her out at all, to be honest, but I think she has the potential to be a valuable contributor, as evidence working through the merge backlog, which is horrible scut-work with little hope of thanks and great potential for backlash. Count to ten, eh? I think you're right about Sculpture of Ancient Greece and have told Ste4k so. Just zis Guy you know? 12:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your reply on Ste4k's Talk. I salute you. Just zis Guy you know? 12:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No prob

It's no big deal...I let schoolyard stuff like that go in one ear and out the other. And I can sympathize about your roomate hijacking the computer--I had a roomate in college once who I think broke into my computer and sent nasty e-mails to our Complex Director -- almost got me kicked out of the dorms because of it. So don't worry about it, and apology heartily accepted. Have a good one, and hope he hasn't been too much of an annoyance to you :) Pat Payne 15:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep

Speedy Keep as per WP:POINT.--Nscheffey(T/C) 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Upon review I think this AfD nomination might be bad faith. The article's talk page shows that User:Ste4k has been involved in all manner of arguments over the tense of the page, reliable sources, etc, for a week, and now he puts the page up for deletion? Could this be an edit war gone nuclear? --Nscheffey(T/C) 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please back this up now point by point with facts instead of questions. Let me make this simple as you made things simple for me.

• I. What review did you make?

a) How many questions are you prepared to answer regarding that review and how little time will be necessary for those answers to come forth?

b) What is the name of the user whom started the consensus?

c) What was the end result of the consensus?

d) How many points were left unanswered by user JD_UK?

e) According to the History in that article how many times had JD_UK actually committed different sets of 3RR?

f) How many times was he reported for that?

g) What the decision made regarding each of those reports?

h) How many users participated in the consensus?

i) Which user refused to participate in the consensus?

j) How many times has copyright violation occurred on that article?

1. Which violations regarded the photographs specifically?

2. Which violations regarded the article on the whole?

k) How many cited resources are actually used on that page?

l) Which user expressed indecision regarding whether or not the article was considered pure fiction?

• II. What specific characteristics of bad faith did you consider during your review?

a) Can you explain any assumption on your part of good faith on my part per that review of that article?

b) Can you justify your remarks considering the length of time I have been an editor on Wikipedia?

c) Can you compare and contrast your recent investigation of me personally to the investigation you performed regarding that article?

• III How accurate do you believe your above statement is?

a) Which specific arguments of mine in Discussion of that article regarding reliable sources are incorrect?

b) Which specific arguments of mine in Discussion of that article regarding tense are incorrect?

c) Which specific arguments of mine in Discussion of that article regarding tense varied from the consensus?

• IV How many users agreed that the page should be nominated for deletion before it was nominated?

Okay, my clock is running now, let's see what sort of review you actually made. I am sure that you will be able to answer all of these questions off of the top your head since you were thorough and haven't made any presumptions. About your earlier comments per what you expect me to reply to, please remember how much you pay me for a salary. Thanks. Ste4k 21:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, Ste4k, Ste4k. You are starting to embarass yourself. I have watched you have similar arguments with other editors, and I have yet to see you show even the most basic understanding of policy, or even common decency. This sad list of question further illustrates your problems. None of your questions have anything to do with whether an article should be listed for deletion. It doesn't matter whether your arguments about tense were correct, or whether a user commited 3RR, or whether there were copy vio photos on the page. None of these are grounds for deletion! Why can't you understand that? Here's what happened: you nominated one article on one season of a popular TV show for deletion. It was speedily kept. What do you think this means concerning your nomination? Perhaps it was wrong, inappropriate, and a waste of everyone's time? At first I thought I was possibly wrong in suggesting bad faith, and maybe you were just a new user unfamiliar with AfD. But, due to your previous action, which I cited extensively above, I can see now that you are just confused and stubborn. You have never replied to any of my questions or comments, you have obscured the conversation by purposefully referring to an incorrect editor, and now you have posted this embarassing list of questions on my talk page. Ste4k, Ste4k, Ste4k, calm down, think for a second, and say it with me: "My nomination of Big Brother series 6 for deletion was a mistake and I'm sorry." See, don't you feel better now. I'll have my eye on you. Cheers. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.

So in other words, you cannot answer these questions. Do you realize that you made your entire review in 32 minutes while also performing a complete review of WP:CORP, and looking for independant articles about the company Faceo? And you even had time to consider another editor's addition of factual information to an article vandalism? You are truly remarkable in your awesome powers of investigation. You also assume that it is okay to ignore people for days and then come back after the dust is cleared and pick things up again where you left off. I find it interesting that you would make changes to articles that you haven't the slightest clue about, and not leave any indication that you have read the Discussion or even participated in it. Have you ever bothered to read the bottom of WP:VER where Jimbo states it is better to have zero than misleading or false information? Why would you purposely INCLUDE something that is considered by several other editors to be POV? Please take the time in the future to assume good faith rather than make it your personal business to inadequately investigate other editors with prejuidice. Thanks. Ste4k 22:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is wrong with you, seriously? The link you provided as my "reversion of factual information" is so clearly vandalism as to be comical. Seriously, was that a mistake? I've seen you misreference things and obfuscate discussions so much that I am now flabbergasted by your capacity for error. What is the deal? -Nscheffey^(T/C) 09:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

in other words, you are smart and I am stupid. Ste4k 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's one theory. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 17:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls

I see you've met Ste4k. From her comment on my talk page "Hi, it's me the unprofessional bored sitting at home lady again" and her provacative behavior on the wiki, I have concluded that she is a troll. My advice: don't feed her. However, if that doesn't work, RfC may be necessary. JChap (Talk) 12:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I ran into Ste4k on Dissident Voice - the individual does seem like a troll and reported me twice for 3RR, both reports were found lacking by admins. She is going to be a long term problem because at her core she is behaving with minimal coherence and lots of agenda, whether by intent or not -- its the hardest type to deal with. Many individuals are aware of her now. --Ben Houston 01:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be having similar problems with her as everyone else. I cannot get any constructive work done as all my time and energy is draining dealing with her obsessive edits and discussions. It seems that she has learned that it is much easier to destroy than build so she spends her time in destruction.--Who123 18:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Though it is hardly the most important article, I thought her attempted AfD of Big Brother (Australia series 6) [[16]] was pretty outrageous, and clearly misinterpreted the policies quoted in the AfD (Like, sure the contestants on the show are not notable in themsevles, but the article is not about those individuals, it is about an actual television show, and most TV shows have acticles.) This AfD came after lots of lengthy arguments conducted on that article's talk page. Asa01 04:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. That was the AfD that first brought ste4k to my attention. It was a blatantly inappropriate nomination, but every time I discussed it with her she refused to listen to what I was saying, instead replying with things like "Please see WP:VER, thanks." Her behavior has certainly not improved since then. You may be interested in commenting on an RfC on her behavior that is being prepared at User:Will Beback/Sandbox. Thanks. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 02:00, 21 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 the page merge and edit warring 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 some 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 05:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've got lots to add. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 05:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do what you can to fill in the blanks. A couple of disputes may be left off entirely. I haven't even begun to list all of the editing tag battles, or the use of templates to communicate. However the picture is clear even without every bad edit shown. I'd like to get the RfC posted in the next day or two. Will that give you enough time for what you want to add? We can still add more after it's posted, of course. -Will Beback 10:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and post it now. Feel free to keep making revisions. -Will Beback 21:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Notification of Arbitration

I have asked for arbitration. See here Ste4k 08:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

re: your latest addition

Adding unsourced information to an article is distinctly different than removing unsourced information from an article.

Per policy: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

In the future, please provide reputable sources that justify the link that you provided. And please assume good faith. Thank you. Ste4k 08:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, chill out. Both of those links obviously belong in the article and your attempt to remove them has been reverted by another editor. You need to seriously calm down, you are not making any friends with your behavior. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review this and reconsider your actions from an objective viewpoint. Thanks. Ste4k 08:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, for once, make a cogent argument as to why these links should not be in the article. I am familiar with all of the policies you have linked to, and I still see no basis for many of your actions. I'm also not the only one to think so. You need to calm down and be reasonable. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 09:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not uncalm. I don't know why you would think I am. I don't know this man, and I don't dislike him, and I don't like him either way, he is just another human. He was involved in a one-million dollar law-suit. I think that if he knew that you purposely just added a direct link associating his biography (as an author) to a book that he didn't write, and he was sued a million dollars over, that he would probably make it worth some litigation on the part of the encyclopedia if he was so inclined. Don't you? If you have not been reading the ongoing conversation, then please do so since it is at least four or five screens long now. Thanks. Ste4k 09:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only have I read the talk page, I've commented on it. The link to ACIM should be on there because he was involved in a one million dollar law suit over it. That makes it relevent to the article. What about that don't you understand? I have yet to see you directly reply to a point I (or any one else) have made. Try it. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 09:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. He was not involved in a one million dollar law suit over that book. He was involved in a one million dollar law suit for his book, a different book, one which does not have the content that the book you are pointing/associating him with has. At the time of the lawsuit the book that you are pointing to did not even yet exist. Now that I have responded to your point please be kind enough to respond to mine. I think that if he knew that you purposely just added a direct link associating his biography (as an author) to a book that he didn't write, and he was sued a million dollars over, that he would probably make it worth some litigation on the part of the encyclopedia if he was so inclined. Don't you? Ste4k 10:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First you say he was "not involved in a one million dollar law suit over that book", then you say that I added a link to a book that "he was sued a million dollars over." This is within the same comment. Do you see how I have trouble following your logic? The point is, he is associated with the ACIM movement because of this lawsuit. A link to the ACIM page deserves to be in this article. Your idea that he would litigate over this link and so we shouldn't include it is lunacy. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 10:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k's block

I didn't realise you were an admin. I was wondering if you would be able to tell me why you blocked Ste4k. I'm not trying to stick up for her or anything like that, I'm just genuinely curious. If you're not able to tell me, no worry. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 21:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not an admin and I didn't block Ste4k, i just added the indefblockeduser template to her page. You can check her logs to see who blocked her. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right. Thanks. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 21:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

ACIM

You may wish to vote in the "straw poll".--Who123 02:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you do not mind but I liked your signature as a template for my own. If you do mind or have any suggestions, please let me know.--Who123 00:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of this? Suggestions?--Who123 01:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. They say imitation is the highest form of flattery, so thank you. Maybe you could have the 123 part link to your talk page, that might be useful. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I do like your sig. I think I will stay with this for now as it uses different colors than yours. Good sugestion on the 123 link but I think I will leave as is for now. Thanks for the help by example.--Who123 11:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• The ACIM article is no longer protected. I have done some basic housekeeping that was, IMHO, logical and well documented. I would appreciate your help.--Who123 22:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Are you still interested in working on the ACIM and EA articles?—Who 02:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Guinness

Hello Bibi999 here about Guinness.... No way dude it isnt ME that calls Guinness dark-ruby but the Guinness company itself! go to their home page if you don't believe me! And please spell properly...coloUr thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bibi999 (talk • contribs) .

Awesome. Feel free to add that to the article just phrase it a little more formally. Thanks. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 02:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)