User talk:Scottperry/Archive-2006-05-07
July 2005 - May 2006
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Scottperry. 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. |
Welcome to my talk-page. Please leave any comments you may wish to discuss with me here, and I will be happy to respond.
Scott P. 15:37, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Addiction article
Scottperry:
I moved the table you created in the addiction article to the talk page for now. To replace a lead sentence describing several definitions of addictions with one that emphasises one definition was less comprehensive. Other problems I identified with the chart are noted on the talk page. There were some format problems with the chart, as well.
I could find no reference in literature to "Mass behavioral addictions", leaving doubt in my mind how widely accepted, if at all, is that concept. If you can point me to some sources for a general/disfunctional/symbiotic model of addiction, perhaps I can help factor the information into the article so that it merges well with the work that has already been contributed to the article, which generally (but not yet comprehensively) describes the scope of debate about the concept of addiction. Talbiano
ACIM Article
You seem to be very interested in the ACIM article, and of course interested people are what makes this encyclopedia go round. So, welcome, again - and continue to be bold, and to commune with your fellows here to work on other things that may catch your interest. Your writing does not appear to be quite yet accustomed to the tricks and nuance of WP:NPOV writing style. Please take a look at the new lead, which is largely my version restored - the language is not familiar, because this is not a brochure. An encyclopedia article must be detached and lukewarm - if not entirely clinical. Another thing is that you routinely use the "as per above" style, which is improper here. See how I changed that part to understand my concerns in that regard. I will also do a little rewriting of the sections below. Sinreg, and happy editing. If you have any other questions dont hesitate to ask. -SV|t 08:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC) P.S: The preview button instead of lots of small saves - this isnt a rule, and its actually a very Good Thing that your getting in the habit of leaving concise comment, but its something to point out to new people. -SV PPS - This comment was written at the time of the ACIM edit, but I could not post it till now. -SV
Prostletysing and 3 revert rule
With each correspondence, you seem to nod your head in agreement or gratitude, yet you also virtually completely revert my changes. (Comparing the history on ACIM betwween your previous and current edits). Again the language "none other than" is POV. The claim that Jesus co-wrote it interesting, but secondary - otherwise is asserting the nature of that authorship as valid. It may be "fundamental" for the pro-ACIM pov, but its secondary otherwise. Your writing is improving, but it seems a bit like prostheletyzing to be so attached to an article without giving due consideration to external criticism - regardless of what my beliefs are.
Your objection to the term ghostwriting is likewise curious. Perhaps I should have used Holy Ghostwriting? -SV|t 04:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
it certainly is NOT secondary! it's central! whether you believe it or not is secondary. and the claim is not that Jesus "co-wrote" anyway.
Graytooth 12:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Comparing bronze apples to fresh sprouts
Ah, so now you spring your little argument youve been itching for a while to do. In otherwords, 'How can Wikipedia support the supernatural claims in the Bible, and not those in my particular brand new religion.'
First of all, Wikipedia doesnt support anything. Articles are to be written NPOV - that doesnt mean that articles dont ever use Biblespeak, rather when it is used, its used in proper context: "In the Bible, etc. etc." This is not the Schucmanism Encyclopedia. Even if the claim that Jesus wrote the thing was universal among Christians, this is not the Christian Encyclopedia.
Im not particularly attached to the term ghostwriting, but your wording - that [whatever it was called] is like channeling, etc - was not neutral, and placed too much emphasis on a trivial matter - trivial, because supernatural claims, despite our understanding of them in faith, are not encyclopedically substantive. <rant>This is of course the problem with religion - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and a lot of knowledge of just one thing is just plain dogma.</rant> You seem to be asserting that there is a dogmatic bias in wikipedia regarding the Bible. Its interesting, but you need to poing out specific examples, and then you need to deal with them on a case by case basis. Maybe you have a point here - I cant tell ATP. Dont forget "the log in your own" BTW.
Its obviously a very touchy subject, but we deal from time to time with people seeking to push a POV in their writing, and after a while they realize that theyve already added all the information necessary to the article, but leave the writing to others. Its an important distinction - I myself have a couple times had to defer to others sometimes in cases where a conflict arose between two different POV writing styles. The question is: are yours and mine different enought to require outside help in resolving any dispute. Finally, "Ill let you..." doesnt work here - its not your article, though you have had more part than anyone in developing it. And I was simply rewriting it for sake of neutral tone - something which you should welcome, not reject - as it legitimizes and adds to your work, just as your work adds to the project. Sinreg -SV|t 05:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"All of these assertions can be documented by ample already published source material. If you would like, I would be happy to provide appropriate footnoting for this.
- That stuff needs to be directly cited, and footnoted. "According to the ACIM literature..." etc. -SV
"Please elaborate. I cannot see the contradiction. BTW, Schucman never had any personal “followers”, only people who followed the teachings of ACIM who never ascribed any particular spiritual authority to her, other than having once “channeled” ACIM.
- "Devout believers" then? I think what I meant (when I wrote it) was that if youre going to be overtly specific about the 'type of process' above, then generalizing it to "recieved" can be contradictory to the notion of "inner dictation" (lowercase). I mean isn't "inner dictation" what everyone does when they think to themselves? ;) -SV
"The actual text includes numerous assertions that this is its core premise. Why not allow its core premise to be laid out in the article intro?
- Fair enough - I wasnt certain because Ive never read it - was only talking about wording. Citing it may be a Good Thing - using an early foundational citation. -SV
"It seems to me that your assertion here that spirituality is inherently impractical is an oxymoron, and may represent a certain POV. Considering the fact that all of the exercises and teachings are meant to involve real-life situations, and not merely theories, is it not POV to insist that such is inherently impractical, and therefore to imply that the fundamental premise of the book must be inherently flawed, as you seem to be insisting?
- Touche! Indeed you are right, though my comment nevertheless stands. Its a subtle point, of course, and depends on what the wording around it is. Just because the teachings "involve real-life situations" doesnt mean that the solutions it gives are practical. So theres a need to distinguish between the basic use of "practical" and the implied meaning of "practical" as a value judgement for the ACIM teachings. About this point "hard to predict, the future is" —depends on context. I havent read it yet - wildo shortly. Sinrega-SV
Minor edits
I just ran across some of your contributions. They aren't minor! Wikipedia:minor edits are those that don't change the meaning at all, like a format alteration or the correction of a misspelling. You may have the "mark all edits as minor" setting turned on in your preferences. May I suggest that you either turn it off or manually uncheck the box when making non-minor edits. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I think it would have interfered with the redirects were it not for the fact that I went through and corrected them. See here to see the redirect structure. There are a handful left to Chuck Anderson, Leader of Endeavor Academy, but only on talk pages. Bovlb 20:42, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
Or try Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. 02:50, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Policies and practices
The edits you've made recently to A Course In Miracles seem uncontroversial, and I have no reason to doubt them. But your edit summary concerns me. "editing based on personal interview with the publisher". Getting information "from the horse's mouth" seems so good, but it actually violates two priniciples of Wikipedia: no original research and verifiability. It is very tempting to assume that interviews with eyewitnesses are suitable sources. However the policies are strongly worded. My view, which probably violates the policy, is that these sources are sometimes suitable as references for highly-non-pov, factual assertions. That seems to be how you have used this source for this article, so this isn't a complaint about the edit. Just a gentle reminder about the policies. (FYI - This is on my mind because of an edit I made just last night to Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, [1], which I explained on the talk page. Talk:Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. It is almost the same situation. I felt very squeamish about it and told the guy to edit for himself in the future.) Anyway, you're doing good. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Nicely handled. You're a gentleman and a scholar. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:34, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Good idea!
Good idea on the Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts! I hope you don't mind but I added a table to aid in indexing what keys do what action, etc. If we get different users using different browsers to say what works that would help out. There could be a different table for IE, Safari, Firefox, etc. Dismas 00:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
ACIM Article
thank you for your message Scott. i appreciate it much. and thanks for the work you have been doing. (is this the proper way for me to leave you a message? i find the wikipedia system here a bit confusing)
Graytooth 04:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the message
Hey Graytooth,
My favorite way to communicate publicly on Wiki is to leave a message on a user's discussion page by clicking on the + (plus) sign tab next to the discussion tab. In that way, the next time the person I'm leaving the message for logs into Wikipedia, the person is automatically notified;
Also, I will sometimes insert a copy of the message into my own discussion page so I can keep a running copy of the messages I have sent out.
For private email communications, the Email this user link on a user's page will work. I appreciate working with you very much.
Take care,
Scott P. 23:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
device
i loved what you did with my miracle definition. i'm glad you edited it. the last quote i just kind of threw in there but the device for perception correction thing i think should be in there because it gives a clear and simple, concise definition that the reader can grab a hold of (especially for the brief intro) the other defintions of a miracle in the book aren't quite as precise as this one and that's why i liked it. i also think that it's a central tenet of the course. maybe the sentence could have 3 quotes?
ACIM teaches that a miracle is, "a device for perception correction,"
Graytooth 12:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. I agree.
Scott P. 17:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Finding hit-stats for a given article
I don't remember the specifics about that given article, but I'm sure I was referring to Google hits, not hits to that Wikipedia page (sorry for the delayed response--I was out of town a few days). Niteowlneils 00:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Why chopping out details about Wapnick's choice to become an agnostic?
Dear Asclape (hope you don't mind the nickname),
I noticed your recent edit of the Wapnick article, and I must say, I couldn't understand why you felt the details of his conversion to agnosticism had to go. Any reason for this?
Sincerely,
Scott P. 01:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Scott,
- About the references to Ken being an agnostic: from what I know, his agnosticism was quickly swept up by his spiritual experiences with music. Therefore, I didn't remove the comments entirely. I just made them less emphasized.
- My understanding of Ken's life is that he didn't really have the "angry agnostic" phase that Helen did. He simply walked away from Judaism and all religion, and then found music -- which led him back to a spiritual awareness.
- Hello Asclape,
- Actually, the single instance that I know of where Wapnick has ever used a swear word (though I have no doubt that his closer friends know of more instances) is when he once described a part of the Jewish belief system. I can't remember exactly where I found this, but I read it somewhere in my studies of him. It is a story of his dislike for the Yeshiva. Here is (roughly) how it goes:
- "I was in my final years at the Yeshiva and the more I learned about the principals of traditional Judaism, the less I liked it. I remember once while sitting in class while the instructor described to us the story of how God supposedly made the Sun stand still for a day so the Jews could conquer the city of Jericho. I remember leaning over to a friend sitting next to me and whispering the word, "bullshit", into his ear, and him nodding in agreement."
- If you would like, I would be happy to find the exact reference to this. In doing my research for the article, it is true that I don't recall ever coming upon the exact phrase, "I was relieved to leave the Yeshiva", I feel that my assertion that Wapnick was relieved to leave the Yeshiva is still valid, based on the above account. So please, don't take this material out. I think it adds significantly the article, and that to erase it would take away.
- I should let you know that while writing the article, I did indeed take a few liberties, like assuming that Wapnick's consistently derogatory remarks regarding the Yeshiva meant that he was glad to leave it. Still, none of the comments I made about Wapnick's apparent feelings in the article are without a verifiable source material that while not always stating the exact same phrases I use, always express phrases nearly identical to the phrases I use. If you have any questions about any of my assertions in the article, please feel free to contact me and I will be happy to provide exact source references.
- Actually, I should also let you know that since I am a personal friend of Ken, I plan on running this article by him at sometime in the next month or two for his personal verification of it.
- Thanks,
- Scott P. 16:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- PS. A source reference, finally. Dear Asclape, Here is a good source reference. It is not the exact story I told you of, however it is substantial enough as it is. It is a first hand account by Wapnick as found in a transcript of an interview with him:
- I grew up in a Jewish home in Brooklyn, and though my parents were not truly religious there was a strong awareness of our Jewish identity. Not surprisingly, then, I was sent to a Yeshivah -- a Hebrew parochial school -- for my elementary education. I did not like it at all. I had many friends and did well in my English subjects, but resented learning Hebrew. For the most part, I did very poorly in that area. My parents did not force me to remain, but by the time I realized how much I disliked it I was almost near the end. I decided to complete the eight grades and then go to a public high school. When I finally left the Yeshivah, I wanted nothing more to do with the Jewish religion. Despite these negative feelings, however, the eight years had given me a solid foundation in all aspects of Judaism. We had studied the Torah -- the first five books of the Old Testament -- three times, and the remaining books at least once. I was well versed in all aspects of Jewish religious and cultural life, and could even think in Hebrew, not to mention read, write, and speak it fluently. It was not for many years, though, that I would feel good about this education. Source: Miracle Studies Net
- -Scott P. 17:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
My E-Mail Address
Dear Scott,
If you would like to talk to me further about this situation, please E-Mail me. aesculapius_healing@yahoo.com Aesculapius75 07:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
About the Ken Wapnick article
When you talk to Ken, tell him Andrew said hi. I just talked to Ken myself about this article. He told me not to take it too seriously, like he tells me not to take anything too seriously.
I didn't mean any personal insult by taking out the bit about him being glad to leave the Yeshiva. I'll refrain from editing the article any further. -Aesculapius75 18:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Nice work. Let's just hope that Aesculapius will abide by it. Zoe 20:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
You must admit, the link to Parodi's son's site on Parodi Sr.'s page's External Links section is no great affront to Wiki policy...
I admit no such thing. What part of the following do you find difficult?:
- The article Michael Parodi is, and should be, about Michael Parodi.
- External links should add information or concern the subject of the article, i.e.; Michael Parodi.
- The link is to Amazon reviews by Michael Parodi's son.
- Michael Parodi's son is not Michael Parodi.
- Amazon reviews by Michael Parodi's son add no information about Michael Parodi.
- Linking to Amazon reviews, a priori, is inappropriate.
- Therefore, that link doesn't belong.
The point of this project is to create a fairly comprehensive online encyclopedia. It fails in many respects, but none of those are addressed by violating its clear standards to turn it into some form of personal therapy for its editors: if Michael Parodi's son doesn't like it, Michael Parodi's son can lump it. --Calton | Talk 00:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Regarding Leaving, Parodi page, etc.
Thanks for the note. I suppose what I resented hearing was this nonsense the others were saying, such as that my page was a malicious hack job, that I got my own father's ethnicity wrong, and that I was trying to ride the coat tails of his "marginal fame." There was a lot of bizarre reading into that situation.
My father is neither marginally famous (had any of you ever heard of him?), and I was not trying to ride his coat tails. Lastly, my grandfather came from Italy, meaning that my father (and myself) are quite correctly "of Italian descent." It was just a bizarre experience to not only be accused of these strange things, but to have the accusors then have the right to ban me -- and to top it off, accuse me of "vandalism" because I didn't agree with their editing on the page that I started. "Vandalism" seems to be the favorite word around these parts. It sometimes seems that some people tend to forget that Wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit. "Vandalism" seems to mean "editing I don't agree with."
I don't know. I think I'll just browse and read this site from now on, rather than contribute. It gets too frustrating to contribute something and then be accused of nonsensical motives. Aesculapius75 21:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Response RE: Michael Parodi article
Yes, there's a lot of information about my father on the Internet, but in my opinion that hardly qualifies as "famous." People within the relatively narrow world of semiconductors might know my father's name. But the average joe has never heard of him. Therefore, the comment that I was trying to "ride on his coat tails" was a type of surrealism of which Salvador Dali would be envious.
I suppose what messed with my mind was the accusation that the page was malicious against my father (when I'm the one who started it), and that I got his ethnicity wrong. I tend to be rather touchy about things to do with Italy, I suppose. Have you seen my edits to the page Italian American?
I'm glad to see that someone else agrees that this world "vandalism" gets thrown around FAR too often on this site. It's as though they've forgotten the very basis of Wikipedia -- that anyone can edit. Aesculapius75 00:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
People who need a life
Why should it matter who makes the page? If the page is factual, then what is the difference? Rhetorical question, by the way. I don't really care enough about this topic to even dissect it any further.
I hate to put it this way, but it seems to me that there are some people who edit on this site who need a life. Indeed, some red flags went up for people -- but what exactly was the red flag indicating? That, horror of horrors, someone was linking to a page on Amazon.com? Meanwhile, of course, there is a page about amazon.com on Wikipedia.
We go through all this sort of nit-picky nonsense back on Amazon.com. They have policies there, but ultimately everything is to the whim of individual editors of Amazon.com. It's all very subjective. (There was a time when you couldn't use the words "gay" or "Hitler" in your Amazon reviews. At that very point, some reviews were sneaking by with words like "fuck" and "shit" in them. There were cases where people weren't even allowed to mention book titles in the reviews of the books.) So, I'm afraid I don't need to deal with this on two sites.
Something humorous occurred to me in the last hour: if fame is what I was looking for by making that page about my father, then boy am I troubled and clueless person. The last thing anyone looking for fame should do is sit on their ass and create pages on Wikipedia. Aesculapius75 01:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Deleting, Amazon, rules, city hall
About writing reviews on Amazon.com, all of us reviewers have perfected the art of breaking rules all the time. You see, the rules at Amazon.com are so inconsistent, so inconsistently enforced, often so silly, and the volume of reviews is so huge, that most of us get away with whatever we want -- short of the totally inappropriate (e.g., phone numbers, etc.).
About "fighting city hall," I'm actually glad I did because I hope the page gets deleted. It became a big ugly eye sore. Look on the deletion page request and see that I added my name to the list. Please do me a favor and cast a vote for deletion as well. The page became an embarrassing nightmare.
I'll most likely browse wikipedia now and then for the information, but I'm not going to edit anymore because it's a thankless job and I hate arguing. (On the Bradley Nowell someone got in a tiff with me as to whether a band "embarks on tour" or "embarks ON a tour." What a waste of time!) Aesculapius75 14:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
"Pushing the edges"
Perhaps on some level you were trying to 'push the edge' as they say, just to see what you could and couldn't get away with. Well, maybe now you know. At Wiki you can't push the edge very much and get away with it for very long.
Frankly, I see just as much inconsistency on Wikipedia as I do on Amazon.com. Case in point, some are saying the page about my father should be deleted because he isn't famous. Earlier, I was accused of creating that page merely as a means of riding on his famous coat tails. And yet about 80% this site is devoted to people are not famous anyway. I could go on and on with this.
The main difference between Wikipedia and Amazon.com is that the editors on Amazon.com actually get paid for what they do and therefore prioritize their jobs. Why worry about a page about Michael Parodi, when the page about Madonna is such a mess? One will be read by very few, the other read many times a day.
About trying to push the edges of Wikipedia rules -- nothing could be further from the truth. There is not one rule I have broken. There is no rule in Wikipedia that says, "You can't start a page about your own father," or, "You can't link to a page on Amazon.com." There is no rule that says, "Pages about CEOs cannot reference their family." And believe me, had I known the controversy this would all cause, I would've NEVER done it.
As it stands, I'm bored stiff of this entire topic. If you want to e-mail me personally, do so (you have my e-mail address). But perhaps we could drop this whole topic and put it behind us. It is driving me to distraction. Aesculapius75 21:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Image copyright tags: display and rankings
I've moved Image copyright tags: display and rankings out of the article namespace and into the Wikipedia namespace at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/By popularity. I'm fixing the four links that were already linked to the old one. Please let me know if you have any questions. kmccoy (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for moving it to Wikipedia: namespace. I just renamed it once more if you don't mind. Let me know what you think please, I will await your reply before making any more changes. Thanks again.
- Scott P. 20:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- That's fine, just make sure you clean up the links to it. Honestly, I'm a little apprehensive about suggesting that just because a tag is more popular it's a better tag (numbers 3 and 6 are questionable, for example, and number 4 should never be used by an uploader), but I'm hoping that people will figure it out. I hope you don't mind if I delete the redirect at Image copyright tags: display and rankings in the next day or two? All the links will need to be changed, of course. kmccoy (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think your observations are quite valuable, and should be inserted into the chart. The fact that many tags are being used inappropriately is now being highlighted by the chart, and I believe, by inserting helpful comments into the chart, could be alleviated by the chart. Thanks for your consciencious work on this. Please check out the new column header I have made with the intention of hopefully enabling such comments. I already updated all of the links (I think)
- Take care,
- -Scott P. 22:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Barnstar award
- I second that. Thanks for your diligent editing on many parts of Wikipedia. Your contributions are appreciated. -Willmcw 19:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Wiki is one of the greatest things invented since sliced bread, IMNSHO. For me, taking the opportunity to edit here is far more of a selfish act on my part than it might be any kind of a sacrifice for me. For me, the Wiki experience feels like a very accelerated learning environment. Also somewhat addictive I might add. Which reminds me, I have work to be doing right now...... Can't pull myself away from this..... :-) Take care my friend, and thanks for your invaluable assistance in other parts of Wiki.
- -Scott P. 16:59:03, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
Deleting images
Dear Zoe (User:Zoe),
My friend, User:Aesculapius75 (Andrew Parodi), has asked me if I might be able to assist him in having a certain photo, containing him as a baby with his father, which he once uploaded to Wiki, kindly fully deleted from the Wiki files. Andrew is a professional book reviewer, and apparently had some difficulty in making the transition from book reviewer to encyclopedia editor. I believe that he has given up, for the time being, on editing at Wiki. At least perhaps until he can quite figure out both the 'rules' here, as well as what exactly we addicted Wiki editors get out of all of this. :-) The photo that needs deletion is at: Parodi Sr. & Jr. photo Thanks for all of your kindly assistance with all of this. Sincerely, -Scott P. 19:09:46, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
- Put an ifd template on the image page and list it on WP:IFD. Deleting photos unilaterally is generally frowned on. It will sit on the IFD page for a few days to allow others to comment on its proposed deletion. Zoe 19:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the help, I have placed the request at: WP:IFD for the Parodi photo to be deleted.
- -Scott P. 13:48:43, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
- Dear David (User:Dbenbenn),
- I have never submitted an image for deletion before, and I may be incorrect in my reading of the results, however it appears to me that you intended to delete a certain image that had been submitted, but that somehow you accidentally did not delete this particular image. I was wondering if you might be able to possibly either fix this, or if I am mistaken, let me know why this image was kept.
- The image in question is:
- Andrewmichaelparodiwithmichaellouisparodi.jpg
- The history of the deletion log for this image is at:
- It appears as if you may have intended to delete the image in your edit that was timestamped:
- 2005-08-26 22:40:23 Dbenbenn, but that somehow this image may have fallen through the cracks.
- Is there any chance you might be able to look into this deletion and let me know its status?
- Thanks,
- -Scott P. 17:20:19, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
- I didn't delete the image because it appeared the uploader hadn't been made aware of its imminent deletion. I've relisted the image. dbenbenn | talk 17:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Dear Dbenbenn,
- Thanks for helping me with this. I apologize for not thoroughly fully reading through all of the request procedures when I first made the request, and I see that you have now made the necessary postings as per procedures. I have written an update to the uploader which reads:
- Dear Asclape,
- Sorry this is taking so long to get the image deleted. I just found out that I did not file the initial image deletion request properly, so it is having to go through the whole deletion request process a second time. This time it's being filed properly, thanks to User:Dbenbenn's help. Thanks Dbenbenn! As far as I can tell, the image should be fully deleted by about Sept. 15th. I'll continue to follow through and let you know once the deletion is complete.
- Dear Asclape,
- Thanks,
- -Scott P. 18:36:55, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
- Again, thanks David for your help in this and for educating another newbie like me regarding proper Wiki procedures.
- Take care,
- -Scott P. 18:45:27, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
- By the way, I'll be happy to delete the photo immediately if you can point me to somewhere the uploader said that's what he wanted. dbenbenn | talk 20:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Re:Simple translation request
Dear Deepak,
I have heard the phrase 'Tumhari kya joskara', and I was wondering if you might happen to know what it might mean?
Kind regards,
Scott P. 11:45:56, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
- 'Tumari' means yours while 'kya' means what. I have no idea what 'Joskara' means. Probably if you could spell it a bit better I might help.
- --{{IncMan|talk}} 05:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Deepak,
- I know a wee bit of Hindi and I knew the first two words, but I was stumped on the third one too. I heard that phrase in a Hindi song some time back, and it keeps repeating itself in my head for some reason or another, perhaps I've gotten a vowel wrong or something. At any rate, thank you most kindly for the effort.
- Take care,
- Scott P. 13:31:00, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
- Never heard of the word Joskara before.
Are you sure its Joskara? --{{IncMan|talk}} 04:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't you think that your edits on the template are a bit vulgar. The language sounds a bit Lalu Prasad Yadav type. I have reverted it for now but please get back to me before you edit it again.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Dear Shresh,
- I've entered my reply to your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Hindi_language_user_tag_project. I am looking forward to seeing your reply. Thanks,
- Scott P. 16:27:52, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
re:hi-1
Hi. I've left you a message at Wikipedia talk:Hindi language user tag project.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 17:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Hindi
You flatter me. :) . I don't see what's wrong with hi,hi-1,hi-2 and hi-3. There was a minor spacing issue, but I sorted that out. The text for the hi-4 should go like this: "इस सभ्य की हिन्दी मातृभाषा जैसे कक्षा का प्रदान कर सकते हैं। "
I'm not 100% sure, it doesn't quite sound right to me. I suggest you verify with those guys who have tagged their user page with the hi tag. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:17, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Notice of reply to your comment at another page;
- Please see Bombaywala.... Thanks: Scott P. 18:45:51, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
Let me know if you can view the Hindi text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:49, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Hindi lang. user tag proj.
Here's to everybody who helped in the Hindi tag project.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
American Civil Rights Movement
Please vote for the American Civil Rights Movement in the nominations for the Article Improvement Drive. [Click here and scroll down to (Nominated in August or later: American Civil Rights Movement... to cast your vote]. Thanks! Mamawrites 04:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Mediate's placement of one or more derogatory templates on the Scientology article on Saturday
(The following is a copy of a dialogue that was recently posted to Mediatetheconflict: talk page)
Dear Mediatetheconflict,
By your recent creation of this user ID, and then your immediately placing one or more derogatory templates onto the Scientology article, it would appear that you may have some interest in suppressing, or censoring, the information now available at that article. As you must know, Wikipedia is intended to provide the free flow of basically uncensored information. If you might wish to correct or improve the factual accuracy of the information at that page, this would be most appreciated by all, however by attempting to merely disrupt that article via an apparent sock-puppet ID, I am not quite certain as to what you hope to accomplish, other than causing others to be concerned about your rationale and motives here. If you might have any questions about this, please feel free to message me at my own talk page.
Sincerely,
-Scott P. 20:49:10, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
- Re: Your personal attacks and hazing of a newbie
- Hi, Scotty,
- Gosh thanks for your kind welcome to Wikpedia. Is this all guns blazing bizarro paranoia just you, or is it some kind of hazing rituals all newbies receive? Although it seems that you don’t usually bother with basic civility, let me do that for both of us, as I explain the way it was for me.
- Regarding the attention to the Scientology article. Yesterday, the main article on the front page was Space opera in Scientology. I did some basic copyeditings there, then later followed the link to the main article and did some more there as well.
- Regarding the addition of the “very long” template, when I was scrolling through the article it occurred to me that its readability and usefulness as an article were impacted because the article is in fact, very long. I didn’t know if this was standard format, and it struck me as something that Wikpedia should address, until eventually I came across the guidelines. These are quite detailed and according to these the Scientology article is, well, very long!
- The inclusion of the template was done in good faith, and I did not put up any other. Ok, now the extensive and savage personal attacks on my motivation and intentions. Man, if you conducted yourself like this in the real world, who would put up with it? You’ve also totally ignored all of my other contributions (limited after one day, sure), and on the basis of inserting the very long tag you brand me as a vandal. Oh, and to top it off, you appear to have removed the copyeditings and wikfying I put into the article. Personally I think the criticisms were a little over the top and poorly stated as well, but there you go.
- Nice, Scotty. The funny thing is that if I said one thing anywhere near as churlish as you did, I’d sound as classy as you, and ruin the rest of my day. So, instead of doing some good work on what looks like a fantastic project here, I’ve been forced to deal with your nonsense, and wonder whether it is worthwhile contributing.
- - Mediatetheconflict 2005-09-11 12:53:14
- Dear Mediate,
- You say that you are a newbie, yet on your first day your edits clearly demonstrate a knowledge of Wiki rules and formatting that far exceeds that of my own, and I have been here for over a year with thousands of edits. Whatever the case, good luck in providing a convincing case that you have not been around the block a few times before creating this user ID. Perhaps the next time you create such a user ID, you might try only making edits that appear to be made by a newbie in every way, in order to create a better cover. But then again, the easiest thing might be to simply let Truth be the guiding principle always. So much easier than having to sneak, but perhaps too simple. Sorry to be calling this bluff this time. Maybe next try it will work.
- Dear Mediate,
- Cheers,
- -Scott P. 14:29:06, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
- PS: I must compliment you. Your other edits under this user-id look to be of exceptional quality. :-)
About the "Scientology Critics"
Hello Scott.
As you said on my talk page, I moved a part of the "Scientology" article to the new Scientology critics because I saw the tag which was once on the Scientology page and which said that the article was getting too long. I have no problem about you wanting to delete the one I created ;-), especially now that I know that the tag was erroneous. If I didn't reply to your message before, it was because I believed you'd already deleted it.
Have a nice day, Leptictidium 23:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
re deletion of scientology critics page
No, it was a bit of hastiness and a slip of the tongue, I just read that he'd been blocked so I noted that assuming it at face value. I don't have the ability to do IP checks and haven't even tried to track this guy down. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Petición de ayuda
Saludos. Siento no poder expresarme con corrección en tu idioma, pero me dirigo a ti, porque no sé a quien recurrir y sé que dominas en gran medida el español. Soy un antiguo contribuyente de la Wikipedia en español, que hace alrededor de un año volvió a ella. Se encontró entonces con que la Wikipedia en español estaba dominada por administradores que violaban sistemáticamente las normas de wikipedia, como la de la neutralidad y la de no borrar informacion útil. Me he rebelado contra su censura, y he reivindicado el sentido original de las normas. Uno de mis contertulios en mi página de discusión y que ha renunciado a participar en la wikipedia hispana resume así la situación que se vive en la enciclopedia en español:
Una vez que me convertí en escritor y no sólo en lector comencé a descubrir la realidad que esconde este proyecto. Ediciones honestas que buscaban enseñar a quienes quisieran aprender fueron eliminadas inmediatamente. Mis intentos de diálogo se vieron contestados por insultos y acusaciones injustos y por la extendida costumbre de recuperar la versión "oficial", es decir, la de eliminar todo incluyendo la corrección de errores ortográficos. Sólo he sido capaz de conseguir algún avance tras interminables discusiones, mediante la búsqueda de docenas de referencias a revistas, periódicos o documentos oficiales capaces de demostrar la insensatez de las críticas absurdas que con frecuencia se hacen y, principalmente, recuperando una y otra vez los datos que se intentan ocultar. Es decir, la cantidad de esfuerzo que hay que hacer es inmensa.
El gran problema es que las causas de la situación son muy profundas. Por ejemplo, es verdad que hay artículos larguísimos que describen cómo aplicar la política de neutralidad pero no hay ningún sitio donde se establezca breve y claramente qué es lo que no se puede hacer. Así es absurdo que se permita eliminar una edición completamente recuperando la versión anterior sin dar ninguna explicación. Si yo añado algo como "el 12 de marzo Aznar dijo que se estaban siguiendo dos líneas de investigación" cualquiera lo eliminará inmediatamente sin dar ningún motivo. Si lo vuelves a añadir y preguntas en la página de discusión por qué lo han borrado, que lo que has escrito es verdad, que se miren los periódicos que tienen edición digital accesible de ese día y todo eso el resultado es que te lo vuelven a quitar. Y no puedes hacer nada salvo volver a recuperarlo hasta que tú o ellos se cansen. Y es absurdo que esto sea así, porque la política de no neutralidad se resume en dos puntos: sólo se pueden incluir (1) hechos objetivos o (2) teorías existentes descritas indicando que son teorías. Si alguien elimina una contribución que no es puro vandalismo debería justificar que lo ha hecho porque no es ni un hecho objetivo ni una teoría existente. Si no se está eliminando el esfuerzo de una persona que ha querido participar en la Wikipedia lo que desincentiva dicha participación cuando se debería fomentar ya que en realidad se trata de generar un enciclopedia seria.
Yo no quiero rendirme. Y no he dejado de debatir con esos administradores. En mi página personal, he escrito un ensayo donde denunció las practicas que se cometen en la wikipedia hispana. Lo puedes leer en [[2]]
Temporalmente he conseguido algunas mejoras, consiguiendo, por ejemplo, que algunos usen la página de discusión antes de borrar lo que no les gusta o no concuerda con su ideas. Ayer estaba añadiendo información al artículo del 11-M y acababa de discutir con un administrador que quería borrar el artículo dedicado a Leonor de Borbón Ortiz, primogénita de los Príncipes de Asturias, Felipe de Borbón y Letizia Ortiz, y segunda en la línea sucesoria de la Corona española. Este administrador decía que en la wikipedia no debía haber artículos sobre la recién nacida (cuando otras wikipedias lo tienen). Puedes leerlo en Discusión:Leonor de Borbón Ortiz. Ahora no puedo escribir en la wikipedia hispana, porque otro administrador, llamado FAR, que se declara amigo del administrador con que discutía, me han bloqueado la IP, tachándome de vándalo. No me dejan ni el derecho a réplica. ¿Puedes ayudarme, por favor? ¿Con quién debo hablar para solucionar esta situación?
Usuario:Visitante, 12:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC).
- Quierido Visitante,
- Lo siento, pero mi espanol no esta sufficiente para ayudarle mucho. He visto que ud. ha usado la lista de los que pueden hablar espanol avancado. Quisas seria mejor usar la lista de los que lo hablan nativo. Beuna suerte con su trabajo bueno con el Wiki de espanol! Scott P. 16:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- I Blocked him because he did vandalic editions in another article. I even unknow he was in that discussion (although I have just read it, and he wrote offensive words)
- And be care, here, we think he is a troll.--es:Usuario:FAR
- Far quierido,
- Que no preocupa. Yo no haria nada con me espanol tan malo como diji ariba. Si hay mas problemas entre uds. con que nosotros aqui en el Wiki de ingles podriamos ayudarles, yo podria tratar consiguirle algien que podria hablar espanol suficiente para ayudarles mejor que yo. Dime si podria ayudarles asi. Es verdad lo que el dijo que su regla sobre el vandalismo es muy largo y dificil intender? Aqui esta nuestro regla en espanol 3 revert rule en espanol . Es possible que les ayudaria hacer lo suyo mas corto? No se. Solamente un pensamiento. Que la problema sera resolvado pronto. Buena suerte. Scott P. 03:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
A blast from the past: The Mishler interview
Because you are the person who were involved in indexing Bob Mishler interview on ex-premie you may be interested in the following dispute at talk:Hans Ji Maharaj. Thanks in advance. Andries 11:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Brainwashing and Mind Control
Please take part at the merge vote under Talk:Mind control#Merge vote --Irmgard 16:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Image:Wapnick.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Wapnick.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 00:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up on this. I have checked out the image. It is no longer used or needed in the article for which it was originally intended, and I concurr with this vote to delete the image.
- -Scott P. 02:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Scientology_Mindmap.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Scientology_Mindmap.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.
- I was not the original uploader of this image, and noting that there are currently not even any articles that use this Scientology image, I have no objection to this image's deletion. Thank you for your concern for this image.
Mishler interview again
Hello Scott, I understand that you made the transcript. Now some contributors start to doubt whether the audio files are real and whether the transcript is accurate. Could you please give your comments at talk:Prem Rawat. Thanks. Andries 21:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Bikram-choudhury.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bikram-choudhury.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 19:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Copyright info has been updated. If there might be any more photos that require copyright updating, please let me know. Thanks for the heads up.
Forgiveness-ACIM
Scott,
Thanks so much for all the help and input. It was great working with you on this. I incorporated most of your content and ended up rewriting some of both of our stuff. I think the only concept I left out was that comparing the mistakes in time as being far outweighed by eternal goodness. I liked it at first, but then I thought about "no order of difficulty." I think giving mistakes any weight would be giving reality to the unreal. Take a look and let me know what you think. I also shortened the headings so they looked better--nothing wrong with the content, just too long for the page. Thanks again!
--speet 06:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speet,
- I liked the way you clarified in your redraft of the Forgiveness article about the unreality of sin. I think that was a clear improvement over my last draft. I have two other further thoughts about that article.
- 1. After thinking a bit more about the structure of that article I have one more proposal for you. Make a minor restructure to it like this:
* 1 Formal religions and forgiveness
o 1.1 Buddhism
o 1.2 Christianity
o 1.3 Hinduism
o 1.4 Islam
o 1.5 Judaism
* 2 Other theories and belief systems about forgiveness
o 2.1 "A Course in Miracles" teachings about forgiveness
o 2.2 Psychological theories about forgiveness
+ 2.2.1 Forgiveness, deep trauma and, repeat deep trauma
* 3 The role of forgiveness in society
* 4 See also
* 5 External links
- 2. Also, I am not certain if you are aware of this, but the first edition of ACIM, which many people still have, does not have page numbers that correspond with the page numbers of the 2nd edition. I don't own a 1st edition so I don't know which page numbers the quotes you make would correspond to in the first edition, but most certainly they would be different page numbers. Thus, I would minimally suggest that you clarify that the page numbers you are quoting from are from the second edition. Alternately, both editions do have the same chapter names and numbers, and section names and numbers. If you simply referenced the Chapter and section numbers, you would be providing a cross-reference that would work equally well in both editions.
- I very much enjoyed working together with you on this, and found your work to be insightful and inspired. I wish you well on your book endeavor, which sounds to me like something that may have an incredible potential to help many. Thanks.
- Your friend,
Scott, I agree with what you have suggested on the restructure. I was thinking that something along those lines might make sense. You are also correct on the references. This has been inspiring for me as well. You will probably see a little more of me on the ACIM site now and then. Any thoughts for a forgiveness picture to jazz things up a bit?
Thanks for the kind words, You brother in the fog, --speet 16:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The Rawat article, hoping you are well
Hi Scott,
Jim Heller here. I tried to contact you before a few times but to no avail. Sometimes I've just wanted to say hi, others I had a question concerning the early online ex-premie days. I recall how one of the last things you told me before you bid adieu to the ex scene was that exposing Rawat felt at odds with your Quaker and ACIM beliefs and I assume you still feel like that. Anyway, I trust you're well. That picture on your website is the essence of happiness!
I'm bothering you now though, Scott, for a particular reason. One of the premies editing the Prem Rawat article is alleging that the Mishler radio interview is a fake and I wonder if you'd be so kind as to drop in to that talk page and explain what happened.
Thanks,
Jim
P.S. an email would be nice too, if you like: jimheller@shaw.ca --24.69.14.159 01:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC) (Jim)
Scott,
Hi. It's me again (Jim). When I came back to see if you'd answered, I looked around a bit and saw that you've had some involvement in editing the Scientology page. Scott, would you please take a look at the Rawat page and tell me if you can't see a big, fat qualitative difference? As a recent apparent Wikipasserby, Bishonen, noted, the article reads like a hagiography. It sure is nowhere near as straightforward as the one on Scientology. So wouldn't it be ironic and somewhat fitting if you, of all people, took a hand in making that article fair and balanced? Completing a circle, in a sense, if you know what I mean.
Thanks, Jim --24.69.14.159 04:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Lahiri Mahasaya article
Hi Scott,
Could you please cite sources (book and page number in footnotes), for the 'Three notable principles...' of Lahiri Mahasaya? Since I've seen at least two of them used by one Lahiri Mahasaya lineage to malign others, it's important to have the sources cited, preferably with direct quotes from Lahiri Mahasaya. If direct quotes aren't available, then it needs to say 'so and so says Lahiri Mahasaya taught that...'. Either way, you're probably opening up the article to the need of other Kriya Yoga groups to explain why their lineage has an organization or teachers with titles. Thank you, Priyanath 16:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Priyanath,
- I have added the cross reference to that quote, I will add the page number cited in the next few days. Thanks for your inquiry.
Forgiveness article edits
Scott, I have spent a great deal of time on the forgiveness article as you know. We have had many discussions before material was posted to reach a consensus in the past. Your changes to the intoduction of the article have made it into a Christian argument and not a NPOV. I am going to ask you to remove all or the religious argument as to which religion is more entitled to be associated with forgiveness. My POV is that these opinions of yours are very improper. If you want to try and tone it down, cite your sources and add it only to the Christianity section, it MAY be acceptable. But frankly I do not see the value in trying to compare religions as to who can lay claim to the concept. Is the issue the content or the form? I have tried to just lay out content from a NPOV and stay away from these I’m better than you contests.
I am sure there are millions of Hindus, amongst others that would disagree strongly with such a western religion bias. Also, forgiveness is not a feeling; it is a choice or decision. Forgiveness is letting go. If you let go of something you CEASE to feel it.[3] Do you have any citations to Please be respectful enough to discuss your major edits.--speet 03:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
An additional thing on feeling vs decision from ACIM. Do you have any of Wapnick's materials on the text. He is always talking about the "decisionmaker." I don't think there is any place in ACIM that talks about forgiveness being a feeling.
I have had a quick chance to also read your edits to Christianity. It seems to be a rather conservative side of the Christian viewpoint. My preference would be to strike a middle balance and keep it generic. I will have to give more thought to it. Do you have any citations or reference material that you drew from? --speet 05:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think you have quite understood the intention behind my previous edit. As I said on the talk page, I am trying to make a clear distinction between (a) God forgiving us for wrongdoing (Christians call it sin but I'm trying to avoid that word as it's Christian jargon); (b) people forgiving each other. Only people who believe that God is personal think that he can forgive them. If you're an atheist, or even a Buddhist, then (a) is largely meaningless and irrelevant, but you can still get value out of (b). If you're a Christian, then (a) and (b) are strongly interlinked. Myopic Bookworm 16:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the nice note Scott. I look forward to continuing to work with you on the page. --speet 23:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Scott, I wanted to let you know I proposed some changes to the lead. They are on the talk page. Please chime in as I value your input. I took out the Gandhi sentence. The point is great and needs to be in the article. (I had forgotten that). It just didn't work for me there because length is apparently a big issue and it wasn't really a teaching, just how he lived his life and death in accordance with it. Just so you know where I am coming from. --speet 06:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Second to last paragraph
My talk on the forgiveness page re your 1-3 classifications was probably not a correct reading of your catagories. (I was saying it is a gift or a purchase and there is no middle ground). Upon reflection, I see you were saying something different. I would still like to develop the article on the earned v. gift distiction however, because that is where the material is at out there for reference. I think it is also a distinction that people can more easily get their hands around. While I agree with your categories, for me they are likely too nebulous to be actually helpful to someone struggeling with forgiveness. In my practice, where I see people getting hung up on forgiveness is confronting the fact that it is something they can do now instead of waiting for someone to meet all of their criteria for worthiness. The earned vs. gift distinction puts it right out there for the reader to personally grapple with. (eg. see the talk page). I hope I can get you on board with going with that distinction, because that is where I would be putting my effort to support the material. I won't spend the effort (or I will save it for my other writings) if others are just going to go a different direction. --speet 18:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Speet,
- I apologize for not replying to this comment earlier. What happened is that you happened to place it on my talk page just as I was getting very involved in a somewhat heated debate with Jossi over in another corner of Wiki about the article about his guru. This debate took a great deal of my time and energy over the course of the following two weeks, and to be entirely honest with you, it is only today that I am reading your comment about the forgiveness article on my talk page. Again, I apologize for this negligence on my part. At any rate, I agree with you entirely that this distinction between forgiveness being given only after earned vs: it being given unconditionally would seem to me to make a great subsection for that article. As it stands now, Jossi seems to be quetioning the value of this question even being placed in the article at all.
- I now have a bit of more energy available to focus on the forgiveness article, and if you were interested, I would be happy to continue this conversation further. I will try to email you about this, since it's been a few weeks now. Looking forward to your comments on these questions.
- Your friend,
RFC
Dear Scott, I am really surprised by your choice of words in the RfC: Dispute about whether or not an endorsement by a radio station director renders a radio broadcast transcript as 'official' enough not to require that it be posted in articles as an 'unofficial transcript'.
- You fail to descibe that the interview took place in 1979
- You fail to describe that there is no official transcript available
- You describe that enail as an "endorsement". That is only your assessment.
I have added ab RfC summary to the talk page, to present te questions in a manner that will enable editors to assist with the dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Question: was the USENET post prior to the publishing on ex-premie.org? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Jossi,
- I apologize, but my recollection of the year that I first posted the interview to EPO was mistaken. After compiling a full chronology of the history of the transcript, I came to realize that it was ca. Dec. 28, 1996 that I first posted the transcript. This was after Stirling's posting of it to the Usenet. I have also attempted to rewrite my own Documentation & History of Mishler Interview Chronology in an attempt to provide more helpful information and less POV. I hope you might find this information to be helpful. I apologize if I may have taken some of these questions about the source of this interview a bit too personally. I have tried to remove any inappropriate remarks about the interview that I may have made. Thanks for your inquiry.
- I am sorry, Scott, but I think that creating that "chronology" may have been a good idea, if you kept it at that, rather than add your own commentary about your perceptions of my intentions and the intentions of other editors. I find that approach to be somewhat anti-wiki. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Jossi,
- If there is any specific thing that I have gotten wrong in the chronology, or even slightly misinterpreted, please email me and I will be glad to correct it. Thanks,
- -Scott P. 22:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oh yes. here it goes:
- Delete any specific mentions of my name or any other editor's names, and your assessment of motives. If you have concerns about editors contributions, I would expect you raise these and discuss them in these pages.
- Delete the email address of the Mr. Jim Hawthorne, as you do not have his permission to post on a public site
- ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oh yes. here it goes:
- You still have not addressed by concern that your documentation and posting on an external site and then link it to the RfC summary are very un-wiki ways of going about it. I find that very disingenuous, Scott. I would not have expected that from you, given the ability we have shown to work together so far in other articles. ≈ jossi ≈t • @ 22:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Jossi,
- As per your kind suggestions, I have gone through the web-page and deleted all direct references to any Wiky contributors. I have also attempted to better clarify there whenever an opinion is being stated vs: a fact. Thanks also for the suggestion that I blank out Hawthorne's email address. I don't know if you would want this, but if you really wanted me to post this full chronology to Wikipedia, I would think that it might deserve its own article, as it seems to me to be so pivotal to many aspects of the Rawat article, and so widely discussed on Rawat's talk page. Just a thought. The reason that I started the web-page in the first place was because you seemed to be asking for me to somehow cite Hawthorne's email to substantiate the transcript in the article, and I could think of no other method to do this.
- Again, if you might know of any part of the chronology that I have somehow gotten wrong, or even slightly misinterpreted, please email me and I will be glad to correct it. I have enjoyed working with you on the forgiveness article, perhaps now I must learn to practice more what I preach! (or edit) Thank you for bearing with me.
<<Thank you for listenting. It is much appreciated. As for the idea of including this chronology in WP. I am afraid it that would not possible as it is a case of original research as well as being pivotal only to the allegations made by Mishler, that take a very small portion of the aritcle. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
ACIM on Wikisource
What you say about FACIM's copyright claims makes sense. I don't have anything else to do it seems except convince someone that acim.home.att.net is in fact the first edition that FACIM doesn't claim to own anymore. Since there are some edits to the body of the text between editions, I'll check the errata for the first edition and compare this with the version at acim.home.att.net. I don't really have any other ideas except asking FACIM for permission to post an online copyrighted version. Appearantly that's not unprescedented for them. -Antireconciler 06:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Antireconciler,
- I don't think that FACIM has yet given permission for the 2nd edition to be fully published (including the numbering system and the changes made after the 1st edition) and I doubt that they will.
- Suggestion: Stick with the first edition, and just to triple cover yourself, do the following three things, which I would be willing to help you with if you wanted.
- Write and send a snailmail letter to FACIM stating that you are planning to upload the 1st edition to Wikiquote at some time in the near future, unless you might happen to receive any requests from them, asking for you to refrain. Also note in this letter that you would certainly gladly receive and consider any stylistic considerations that they might have for this upload as well. Write this letter in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation. I've been in contact with them about some of the published facts found in the main Wiki ACIM article, and I have found them to be very helpful.
- If you don't hear anything back from them, which you may not, then after 30 or 40 days from the time you write this letter, post a copy of this letter on an internet site as proof, and then do the uploading of the first edition to Wikiquote. (If you might happen to hear back from them, then simply follow their legal advice to remain within the bounds of the remaining copyrights.)
- Once this process is all over, also post a copy of the published FACIM discussion about what is and what is not copyrighted in an associated page on the same internet site as the copy of the letter, and also, perhaps if there is feedback from FACIM, a summary of that interchange with ACIM.
- Again, I'd be happy to help you do any part of this that you might want me to. I feel that by doing this, it would fully satisfy Wiki's copyright requirements, and the public domain status of the 1st edition would be better clarified for anyoone who might ask.
- Hope this helps,
- This sounds reasonable, but I'm not interested in leading this effort. ACIM seems to be sufficiently accessable in any edition that I can't say a Wikisource version would have much use. I do appriciate all of your advice though.
Jesus Christ as source of "A Course In Miracles" article
Hi Scott. I just thought maybe you'd like to know that the article Jesus Christ as source of "A Course In Miracles" has been nominated for deletion. I wanted to let you know in case you cared to voice your opinion on this issue. Andrew Parodi 05:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hey Andrew,
- I agree that there is some valuable material in the Jesus_Christ_as_source_of_"A_Course_In_Miracles" article, but it also appears to me that not many folks may yet be ready to wade too deply into this discussion, and as such, others are trying to delete the article. I have saved the article on my computer for whenever folks might be ready to debate this, what I consider to be a rather deep topic. Meanwhile, I have made a suggestion for a perhaps overly brief summary of the article that might be able to be merged back into the main ACIM article for the time being at: my merge proposal. I have proposed this only as a starting point for a discussion on how this article could be merged. Based on the current discussion at the AfD page, it looks to me like the weight of the opinion might be that a merge may have to be in order. Hope this helps.
- -Scott P. 13:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
