by Pseudoanonymous 02:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Fauna Barnstar
		Awarded in recognition of your small, yet important recent edits to the Dog article. They not only improved the neutrality and factual accuracy of the information, but added a wonderful poetic quality. Keep up the good work! VanTucky (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article African Wild Dog name controversy , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

On 16 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Religion Newswriters Association, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

On 24 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trina Belamide, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

On 29 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Barack Obama - Der schwarze Kennedy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

"By decree of Ptolemy III of Egypt, all visitors to the city were required to surrender all books and scrolls, as well as any form of written media in any language in their possession which, according to Galen, were listed under the heading 'books of the ships.' Official scribes then swiftly copied these writings, some copies proving so precise that the originals were put into the library, and the copies delivered to the unsuspecting owners." -- Library of Alexandria

Hi, The rewrite of the first paragraph of Muir was very well done. Is Thoreau within your scope? The first paragraph there could use some help. It's beyond me. Thanks KAM 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve - just to let you know I've moved your para on this out of rose to its own page Peace (rose), it is sufficiently noteworthy to have its own page. Also expanded a little on details. - MPF 00:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I see what you wrote, has been turned into it's own article. Very nice! :) --HResearcher 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying so. Steve Dufour 05:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Steve. Re your comment on my talk page in which you asked if it is really necessary to mention in the intro that some people don't believe in Biggie. Yes it is. Your intro was "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is a legendary creature, which many people believe is also real." OK, that's a believers' POV, so what's wrong with balancing it. Tell you what, l will change one single word in your intro and ask you how long the the intro would have survived. Change the (second occurrence) of the word "also" to "not", so that your intro now becomes "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is a legendary creature, which many people believe is not real." Imagine the shock horror from the believers. And yet, you want the intro to say there are Biggie believers, but not to balance it by also saying there are disbelievers. Sorry, don't agree, which I why I amended it. Also, your intro says Biggie is a "legendary creature". So, Wiki was effectively advancing the POV that a creature actually exists, which is why I changed it to say Biggie is the name of a phenomenon. Incidentally, the word legendary doesn't only mean mythical.Moriori 22:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe in Bigfoot, but if it is real that would really be cool.  :-) Steve Dufour 01:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I've just made 4 edits to the Sun Myung Moon article, to the Views on Communism section. The argument that Sun Myung Moon is anti-communist because he was mistreated by them - and not for philosophical or theological reasons - seems like such an obviously empty accusation to those who are even a little bit knowledgeable about the man and his organization(s). But did I go too far? I want to be fair even to viewpoints I don't agree with, and you seem to have a good sense along such lines (you seem to have a similar perspective of trying to be fair). Please take a look at today's edits and let me know what you think. -Exucmember 18:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks.

It looks ok to me. However I still think his anti-communist activities should be covered as a topic unto themselves as a very important part of his life and his contribution to the world; not mainly as an issue for debate between critics and supporters--although that could be mentioned in the criticism section. Steve Dufour 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is a very important part of his life and work, and deserves its own article. Why don't you start it? -Exucmember 17:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Steve Dufour 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I applaud you for your anti-racism. If I could give you an award I would. Well done.

I have tried and failed to track down any WP guideline or policy against "claim" as a word to characterize, well, claims. Could you direct me to the exact citation? Thanks. Robertissimo 04:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: Wikipedia:Words to avoid

Steve, your recent edits and comments seem to indicate that you are not aware of the existence of the Unification theology article, but I can't believe that's the case. Anyway, it would be nice to distribute some of the UC teachings material there too, and to give some needed attention to that article. Both Unification theology and Divine Principle could use substantial revisions, as they were never edited thoroughly from beginning to end, to create a coherent article, by anyone (see especially the history of Unification theology). To me this is the single biggest deficiency in UC-related articles. The main overhaul should be done by a church member, not by a critic, so that the core presentation is true to what Unificationists believe. -Exucmember 18:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware that the Unification theology article existed. To me as a member the article on Divine Principle seems like it should be the main article. We members almost never use the expression "Unification theology". I'll see what I can do in improving the articles. Thanks for your support. Steve Dufour 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand are the beliefs of the Unification Church really something that should be covered in Wikipedia at all? If people want to know they can visit church websites and find tons of info. But there has been almost no research or discussion of them by non-church sources. Steve Dufour 06:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Steve. The idea of that paragraph (and most of the Pop culture section) is that the sources are almost all saying people like to see themselves in Obama. Crouch's view is the less popular one, and so it is added to promote balance. It needs to be stated plainly so people can get the contrast. I take your point about using a more complete quote. How about using this quote from the third to last paragraph of Crouch's article?

"when black Americans refer to Obama as 'one of us,' I do not know what they are talking about […] while he has experienced some light versions of typical racial stereotypes, he cannot claim those problems as his own - nor has he lived the life of a black American."

Hope this makes sense. Be sure also to check the notes, the title of the article referenced immediately before this one suggests that one article inspired the other, "black like me", "not black like me"... Without contrary sources (Crouch, and also Noonan) the section risks getting ripped up by people who read it as too flattering of Obama. Let me know how you see it. Thanks. --HailFire 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not really sure what the point of Crouch's article was. I don't think it was really critical of Obama, more like just a rant about how the world was changing and leaving him (Crouch) behind. If you put the quote you prefer in the article I will not object. Steve Dufour 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Crouch is not criticizing Obama at all, he is criticizing the way he feels others (specifically African Americans) see themselves in Obama. The whole idea of the Pop culture section is to talk about Obama's celebrity and how it interplays with social perceptions, not substantiated facts. That's what makes it so tricky. The multiline quote you put in looks a bit disproportionate for the idea it needs to convey, but we can let it ride for now. Thanks again. --HailFire 17:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we are not supposed to cut up quotes putting in three dots ... whatever you call that. So I just pasted in the whole paragraph. BTW the more I think about it the more unreasonable Crouch seems to me. He spent his life struggling against racism and then when things have improved and young people don't suffer the same things that he did he complains about that. Steve Dufour 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! But the sentiment Crouch expresses has been pushed into the article before and unless it gets addressed, will certainly be pushed again. I think this is a good place to allow some room for it. Makes sense? Still thinking about how we could trim it down a bit. Maybe move the full quote to the Notes section, like was just done for the "I inhaled" quote that would not go away? --HailFire 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better? Be sure to check footnote! --HailFire 20:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least that quote let's people know there is some controversy. :-) Steve Dufour 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - the Crouch piece is getting more play - this week's Newsweek has a sidebar about Obama's not coming up through the civil rights movement, and Crouch's piece is prominently discussed. Tvoz | talk 18:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Steve, for the comment you added to the posting related to Transcendental Meditation on the Conflict of Interest Notice Board. It's an important point. TimidGuy 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There probably will not be any objective coverage of TM until the second or third generation has grown up in it. This has happened with the Mormons, for example. Steve Dufour 04:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where you said (→Background - no need for euphemism, we white people are not offended to be called that, although we are not really white, just a lighter shade of the normal human color lol - I wonder about the complexities of international coverage of wikipedia - is using "white" going to confuse people instead of Caucasion??--Smkolins 21:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)`[reply]

Both words are kind of silly; my skin is not white and I am not aware of any relationship I have with the Caucasis. Steve Dufour 04:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran across this list and your justified criticisms of it. I believe the concept is fundamentally not encyclopedic. I am surprised to find it in Wikipedia. I suppose, however, that any effort to nominate it for deletion would arouse cries of "fundamentalism" and "censorship." If this concept is appropriate for an encyclopedia how about the following lists?

List of ex-republicans

List of former taco eaters

List of former ABBA fans

List of people who have changed from Ford to Chevy

List of ex-readers of the list of ex-Christians

This presents Wikipedia with a whole new field for new articles!Will3935 06:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What is really interesting is how few genuine ex-Christians, even if we use the term very loosely, there really are. Steve Dufour 13:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untold millions, if you simply look at the statistics of declining church attendance and self-reported affiliation over recent decades. Huangdi (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article African Wild Dog name controversy , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 21:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the Mammal Barnstar, that's very kind of you. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to ask. VanTucky 23:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the effort at Michelle Obama. You may want to put this on your user page:

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad to hear the news. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a cite for that being even (part of) a guideline. I don't see it. I can see, because of privacy considerations, the birthday shouldn't be listed unless there's a reliable source for it, but, if we can find a source, so can those attempting to invade their privacy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm sure that I have seen it somewhere among WP policy documents. To me it's more a question of taste than any practical protection afforded the subject of an article by removing it. I am also aware that in almost all cases someone puts the date back a few minutes after I remove it. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Jonathan Wells is a scientist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlideEraser (talk • contribs) 00:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Oh and thanks for the peace rose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlideEraser (talk • contribs) 01:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't think Jonathan is a scientist. He is a popular author on the subject of evolution, but not someone whose main interest is scientific research. (Of course many of the "pro-evolution" people are not scientists either. :-) )Steve Dufour (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about using the Soon Ae Hong as the page title, for a bio of Hak Ja Han's mother? (I moved it back there, from Dae Mo Nim.) And does she even merit a page of her own? Why not merge her bio in with that of her better-known daughter?

And what about moving "black Heung Jin Nim" (which is only a temporary nickname) to the real name of Cleophas? --Uncle Ed (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are probably good ideas. I have been avoiding dealing with articles on the True Family myself. I find that I get too emotional because of all the mean spirited attacks on them. Then it is not possible for me to be objective. It's probably not good for my health either. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Obama Republican and McCain Democrat for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Unification theology was about to drop off the bottom of my watchlist, I did some clean-up of previously tagged problems -- which in turn got me to thinking about the these three, long articles and their lack of sourcing:

1. Unification theology: 12,480 bytes, 2 citations (both Unificationist)
2. Divine Principle: 23,482 bytes, 10 citations (all Unificationist, 6 of which are to DP itself)
3. Unification Thought: 23,307 bytes 2 citations (both Unificationist)

Given the paucity of citation, and complete lack of third party sources, I could simply notability-template all three articles and nominate them for AfD. This would create a firestorm of a reaction from your more flammable fellow UC-regulars, but would at least force them to make at least some attempt to establishing notability by providing third party coverage (in addition to the normal proof by assertion that seems to be standard fare on AfDs these days). Instead, I'm giving you a heads-up, in the hope that the same ultimate results can be achieved without unnecessary histrionics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am planning to add a criticism section to Divine Principle, or maybe to Unification Theology, based on common mainstream Christian views. I just haven't gotten around to it being busy with other things. I personally feel that Unification Thought is not notable enough for its own article, although the general concept that the Divine Principle understandings can be applied to other fields could be mentioned in other articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Unification Thought is the most lightweight of the three -- and quite probably wouldn't pass muster at an AfD. Merging it into Unification theology probably makes most sense. My primary concern with the articles isn't so much the criticism that isn't there (although this is a problem), but the lack of any substantive sourcing for what is there. The articles are little more than wall-to-wall violations of WP:V. They really need to be sourced, or stubbed down to what is sourcable. Also the preponderance of citations to DP in Divine Principle must surely make WP:SYNTH a major concern. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article Religion Newswriters Association, and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Art LaPella (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll see if I can find some more information to expand it to 1500 characters. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, a pretty clear case of COI. Badly written piece too, I didn't bother, but I could have produced a lengthy list of style guidelines it was breaking too. Pretty poor showing considering they are supposed to be journalists. Your version was obviously far superior even at a cursory glance. SpinningSpark 16:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I am a supporter of the RNA. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Religion Newswriters Association, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barbara West (TV news anchor). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I opened up a discussion on the talk page of the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, in fact, that is your fourth. Too bad, I was starting to begin discussion on the talk page now I have to take the time to report you. I'll give you a couple of minutes to self-revet if you care to. Your first edit deleting the text was the first of four reversions. Really, edit warring is not tolerated here. Two other editors have been banned. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should my first edit, to improve the article by trying to solve undue weight problem, count as a revert? And it was you yourself who suggested editing the article for more neutral POV (which I think is a good thing) rather than deleting it. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize I was mistaken -- you reverted five times. Report made. Please, next time, stop at 3 so that you and I could have taken the time to improve the article. We could have. Maybe in 24 hours, we can try again. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it does count towards the 3RR rule. Please review the policy. If you can assure me that you will now start the process as outlined at WP:BRD and will start productive discussion, I will try to pull the report back. I'd prefer your participation rather than your banning. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Barbara West (TV news anchor). It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 20:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): See conditions below Request handled by: MBisanz talk 01:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents (as the person who made the 3RR report), Steve has started to productively contribute to the article in question and should be given the benefit of doubt -- i.e., I would life the block early. I would appreciate his feedback on the changes made so far and if he would suggest any other alterations. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 01:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying so. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed this block and agree its valid. But I am willing to offer you an either/or situation.

Either I leave you blocked, but let other people transfer your comments from this talk page to the article talk page

Or I unblock you, but you cannot edit the article or comment at the AFD for 5 days.

Which one will you choose? MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the second if I can still comment on the article's talk page. I don't have anything more to say on the AfD and I don't need to be editing the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea -- I could use his feedback. He made a mistake (as we all do) and in good faith sincerely thought his first edit didn't count. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 01:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll unblock, but if I hear any complaints or see any reverts, its a one-week non-negotiable block. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to be a good editor. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still seem to be blocked. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, according to the log you should be unblocked. Try to leave a note on his/her page. If you can't, make note of it here and I'll leave a note there. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 02:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am still blocked. I think I will just wait till tomorrow. Anyway I think Ms West's article would be improved by the suggestions you gave on the talk page. An alternative would be to create a new article on the Biden interview. That way any amount of detail on it could be given without unbalancing the other article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) :::I left on note on their page requesting them to look into it. I've gone ahead and changed the article with the talk page's ideas, shortening significantly the detail. I doubt that there is (particularly now) sufficient detail to warrant a child article at this point and I suspect that this issue will not really get any further press. This happens sometimes in some articles where the paucity of biographical details is out-of-balance with a signficant event in someone's life. The best solution is to increase her biography so that it doesn't appear so out-of-balance. I suspect that we can decrease the event detail even further but probably best to wait a couple of days for this to calm down and then we can reevalulate then. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 02:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm glad the article has at least been improved. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be viewing a 6 digit number when you try to edit other pages. That is the number I need to unblock fully, since you triggered the autoblocker at some point. MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I see a box that says my address has been blocked. Does my being on DSL make a difference? I am fine with just waiting for the block to expire. I'm going away for the weekend and should be back Monday. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [2] you were correct to remove it but your logic is shaky. There's no way that's a BLP issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is saying the Jews for Jesus are lying by saying they are Messianic Jews when they are not, and it's uncited, that's a BLP problem.Steve Dufour (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under that logic any statement about any organization which has living members is a BLP problem. `JoshuaZ (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the article was not saying that J4J are lying. On the contrary: the article was saying that since the J4J refer to themselves as MJs, the disclaimers made by other MJs that they are "not Christians" needs to be viewed with skepticism. Or at the very least with extreme care. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the view of mainstream Christianity the Messianic Jews are not Christians, this is based on the teachings of Saint Paul. The Jews for Jesus, being mainstream Christians, are well aware of this. If a Jew for Jesus said that he or she was a Messianic Jew that would be, to say the least, a deceptive statement. I don't think the sentence can remain without citation. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, please reread what Lisa and I wrote. No one is arguing the sentence should stay. The point we both disagree with is the claim that this is somehow a BLP issue. Moreover, it seems that you are letting your personal POV get involved here as the article on Messianic Judaism is quite well-sourced that most Christians consider MJs to be Christians (see the references given in footnote 5 in particular). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what kind of Christians would consider Messianic Jews to be Christians. One of the main points of the letters of Saint Paul is that Christians should not practice specifically Jewish rites. Of course in a general sense they are part of the Christian tradition, which might be the view of non-Christians and modern inclusive liberal Christian denominations. But Christian fundamentalists, including the Jews for Jesus, do not approve of Messianic Jews or consider them Christians. So a statement that members of the Jews for Jesus would say otherwise seems like a BLP violation to me, unless well cited. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve you seem to be missing the primary point: Regardless of your theological views of J4J and Messianic Judaism, there's no way a claim that some members of a large group say something is a BLP violation. Under that logic the statement "some Wikipedians are stupid jerks" or "some Americans are criminals" would be BLP violations without sourcing. Again, this is completely aside from the fact that you are making a claim about the Christian attitude towards Messianic Judaism. (If there's any disagreement by "fundamentalists" on this matter I'd be very interested in seeing a citation it should presumably be included in the article). But the bottom line is that saying something about unnamed members of a large group is not a BLP violation. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if the article had said some Jews are liars? I think that would be a BLP problem. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the group doesn't change the situation. Generalities about large groups of people some living some dead cannot be BLP violations. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try putting into the article: "Some people have declared themselves Jews and some Christians when they did not in fact believe in or follow the teachings of these religions." and see what happens. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be correctly removed. Aside from being unsourced it is far more POV than the statement in question. But that doesn't make it a BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the fact that the Jews for Jesus has only 150 full-time members is a factor. So an accusation against the group in general is more personal. (Another thing is that their article is being asked to carry the weight of all the controversy and conflict between the Jews and the Christians over the last 2000 years.) Steve Dufour (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official Jews for Jesus has 150 employees. That's a very different claim. Not every Catholic is employed by the Vatican for example. And the comment about other weight- well obviously that weight is highly relevant. I doubt any article however could ever carry all that weight without it being much longer. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. From the information given it seems like most people taking part in Jews for Jesus activities are members of regular Christian churches. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. inigmatus (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence not a "cult" or a new religion. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. J4J is in all honestly, Christianity with a kippah. Messianic Judaism, however, is not. MJ is a Judaism that accepts Yeshua as the Messiah. Converts to MJ are converting to a Judaism, not a "Christianity" - and that is the difference between the J4J and the MJ paradigms. inigmatus (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Jones-Kelly never leaked anything about JtP. All she did was authorize searches. The reason this is news is that Republicans tried to connect it to the Obama campaign and demanded an investigation. In the end, it's really a tempest in a tea pot. Yes it was illegal, but the damage to Joe was zero since none of it went public. Mattnad (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had a misunderstanding of what happened. It was still wrong of her to misuse her authority, but not so unusual to be worth writing an encyclopedia article about. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, I spent a little time actually research what reliable sources like Newsweek, MSNBC, and the toledo blade had to say about this topic. It turns out local officals claim he was working illegally. Now Collect is working suppress this information. See this [edit]. It's a bit frustrating that we actually have definitive information on this topic, and Collect is just excising it.Mattnad (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- MN misstates the issue involved, and the nature of his edits against prior consensus. I think you have a lot of reading to do about what MN is calling "vandalism." Collect (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that WP has enough info on Joe the Plumber already. Which is why I am getting away from the article and moving on. Does anyone really think he will be charged with the crime of illegal plumbing? Steve Dufour (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. Here's another photo of Christoph von Marschall for the article. I found it here. -- Suntag ☼ 13:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace the picture if you think the other one is better.Steve Dufour (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trina Belamide, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Steve, Merry Christmas!

We've spent a lot of time banging heads with deletionists. Maybe it's time to start brainstorming on ways to supply the kind of writing that Wikipedia contributors would welcome. People have been asking me for years to explain more about the church teachings and church history. Why don't we get together and figure out which aspects are most interesting and relevant to Wikipedia's purpose, and concentrate on those? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ed! Wishing you and your family the best also. If you want to know what people are most interested in reading about....that would be controversy, conflict, and scandal. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's good, because that's what I'm most well-versed in. I'm continually surprised that a church, whose American membership is less than the number of days I've been a member, could attract so much attention.

The biggest controversies are really over its theological and philosophical conflicts with Christianity, Judaism and atheistic thought systems such as Marx's dialectical materialism. But I know quite about the scandals, too. (Like Aragorn, I know "Too much, too many dark things.") --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas. How about a section in Divine Principle on criticism of DP by other beliefs? And an article on UC anticommunism. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both sound good. I wonder if seminarians could help with explanations of how other faiths respond to ours. UTS has a list of over 800 alumni, including top names like Dan Davies and Frank Kaufmann. And what every happened to Richard Quebedeaux?

As for UC anticommunism, there would be the religious aspect on top of everything. Moon says that God exists, while communism says not.

• When ecclesiastic love waned, when waves of capitalistic greed surged across Christian Europe, when starving masses cried out bitterly in the slums, the promise of their salvation came not from heaven but from the earth. Its name was communism. Christianity, though it professed the love of God, had degenerated into a dead body of clergy trailing empty slogans. It was then only natural that a banner of rebellion would be raised, arguing that a merciless God who would allow such suffering could not exist. Hence, modern materialism was born. Western society became a hotbed of materialism; it was the fertile soil in which communism flourished.

• Christianity lost the ability to equal the successes of either communism or materialism and failed to present the truth that could conquer their theories. Christians watched helplessly as these ideologies budded and thrived in their midst and expanded their influence all over the world. What a pity this is! What is more, although Christian doctrine teaches that all humanity descended from the same parents, many citizens of Christian nations who profess this doctrine will not even sit together with their brothers and sisters of different skin colors. This illustrates the actual situation of today's Christianity, which has lost much of the power to put the words of Jesus into practice. It has become a house of lifeless rituals, a whitewashed tomb. (DP Intro)

But these quotes indicate that there's more than an academic question of God's existence. It's very personal. Belief in God is linked to great suffering, as well as to promises to alleviate it. So is disbelief. Perhaps it's not so much about one's believes as about one's desire to relieve human suffering. Doesn't the UC's desire to "glorify God" contain a humanistic element? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I attended a sermon in an American Baptist Church where the pastor quoted Jesus as saying the first commandment is to love God and the second is "like unto it", to love your fellow humans. Very good point. As for Richard Quebedeaux, I couldn't find sources on him that would make him notable. Unification Church of the United States could also use a section on church leadership.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Barack Obama - Der schwarze Kennedy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The category you recently created, Category:Multilingual World Leaders, is up for deletion here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 30#Category:Multilingual World Leaders. Just thought you might want to know. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions regarding natural born citizen often fail to factor in the subtle (and somtimes muddled) differences between citizen and the consitutional requirement natural-born citizen. Exactly how those differences might come into play under various circumstances are examined in the two law review papers I mentioned.

That said, given Obabma's stated circumstance of being born in Hawaii to a US citizen and a Kenyan, by mainstream interpretations of various law and precedent, his citizenship is in fact achieves the constutional threshold of natural born citizen. The legal challenge on that specific point is at best, extremely weak.

I think closing the topic was two steps away from a childish fit, but it is what it is and I'll let it go. The fact is that many questions surrounding the natural born citizen issue are not as clear as some would suggest and there is some conflicting thought on the matter. If you're looking for a clear answer regarding Obama, the clearest I can offer is in the above paragraph.

And there is more information and discussion on the topic at natural-born citizen. Jbarta (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace Cup Redddogg (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the middle of an ArbCom case over Ayn Rand, but I'll do what I can. Also, I do like your idea... it does seem like the concept is almost more notable as a pop culture one than a historical one. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to pull the pop culture info back from the abyss and give it its own article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked it out and it has zero sources. Oh well. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey friend, according to your comments here, you think maintaining articles on ID is a waste of time. Why do you think this? Wikipedia's coverage of the topic is outstanding; Intelligent design and Evolution are both featured articles, and POV pushers are swiftly dealt with. I'd really like to know.--Patton^t/c 14:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is one of the most important topics there is. The ID movement is very minor. There doesn't need to be long-long articles about the most minor person or event involved. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article is huge tells us there is a lot to know, and wikipedia should provide readers with a complete understanding of every topic. ID isn't very minor, there are loads of sources out there, so it's definitly notable if that's what you're saying.--Patton^t/c 13:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a lot of people could be spending their time better on more important topics, real science for instance. And of course I know that my suggestion will never really be implemented. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. You might be interested in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Jin Moon. Redddogg (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. I've proposed renaming True Family to the more neutral Family of Sun Myung Moon. Please join in the discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. Redddogg (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am a South Korean wikipedian. While editing Korean page about Rev. Moon, I borrowed the picture of him you had uploaded. So, I appreciate for it to you. And I hope we can share information. Thank you.--Godneck (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope you can work on the English Wikipedia too. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will. English webpage has so much information especially on Rev. Moon's life after 1970s. I can contribute to English webpage on Rev. Moon's life before 1950s. I think information on Korean webpage can also be helpful for you.(http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/문선명) --Godneck (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. I'm considering nominating Hak Ja Han for deletion. Would you like to discuss the issue on the article's talk page? Redddogg (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hak Ja Han Redddogg (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Barack Obama for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Avi (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, we haven't met, but I noticed that a year or two ago you very valiantly struggled to have the David Miscavige article comply with WP:BLP. I thought it might be gratifying to you to know that that train of events is, at long last, being looked at by the arbcom: [3], [4], [5]. There is also still an opportunity to submit evidence in this case, if you recall any particularly outrageous policy violations that took place while you were editing the articles: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Proposed_decision#Call_for_evidence. Cheers, Jayen466 20:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad to hear that improvements are being made. I am no longer involved with WP Scientology articles due to a secret backroom deal. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[6] = please provide a page number for this cite. Cirt (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to use the citation templates at WP:CIT? They are quite helpful. Cirt (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I never checked that out.Steve Dufour (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, quite useful stuff. Cirt (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steve. Can you help me, please?

Actually, I want to change Mrs. Moon's picture in her article. I think http://www.tparents.org/Library/Moon/Photos/Mph-1990/TMOTHER.JPG is much better than one now.

But, I don't know how to register it into Wikimedia. It seems that we have to know who the author is and about the license. Can you please teach me if and how I can upload it?Godneck (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I solved the problem. Thanks. Godneck (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Morton Kaplan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morton Kaplan. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

I have gone through a large amount of books and news articles in research about Hak Ja Han. Do you know of any other reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject? Cirt (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any book, etc. that discusses Mrs. Moon in any depth, rather than just mentioning her incidentally. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, I will keep on doing research on it. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I haven't been involved in Scientology related stuff here for at least a year or so. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your addition to the above article. Simply stating it is not enough. To back up your claims, you need evidence, specific evidence, of reliable sourcing. If you have it, please discuss its addition. Please remember that I can make all sorts of unfounded claims about myself and say that they are mentioned in several sources; that doesn't make them true, and does not help help the article at all.

Oh, and with respect, your accusation of sock puppetry is totally absurd, and may be seen as a personal attack against either him or myself. So please withdraw it or provide some sort of evidence. :) Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either of you. Please report me if you think my observation was impolite by WP standards. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your accusation implied that both Cirt and I were the same person, operating under different accounts in an abusive manner to evade scrutiny. If you weren't aware of this, that's fine, just bear it in mind for the future. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to learn that you are not Cirt. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to the wrong page to report suspicions of sockpuppetry. The appropriate page is WP:SPI, and users are asked to present evidence to support their claims, not merely to make them. Cirt (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt... you directed him to wt:spi, to report you and PeterSymonds. Why? Steve Dufour. Nothing needs to be done in this situation. Everything is ok, and nothing is out of the ordinary. Synergy 17:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I didn't think it was such a big thing anyway. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out that WP:ANI was the wrong place to report it, but yes I agree nothing more should be done by him. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Mainspace is calling (nice dyk's Steve). :) Synergy 18:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will follow your advice. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at this [7]

Merge/redirect/transwiki closes default to keep. I'm only the closing administrator, so it's up to the community to merge or transwiki. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am working on that now. I will move the quotes to Wikiquote and the rest to various WP articles and redirect the page to Unification Church political activities. I hope that is alright with everyone.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't log in. The person determined to have this bio removed has returned to Frank Kaufmann with a vengeance, no doubt slowly building back up the case to spring a new call for deletion. The last time this happened I aged 10 years trying to keep abreast of the manipulation of wiki rules as a newbie.

I will try to stay steady in the response to the one who wants this article removed, but I don't have the strength and knowledge. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much 68.160.207.156 (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That person's attitude is, well kind of interesting. However Frank's article is not really that strong. It is mainly a resume. There is no conflict or controversy that's gonna make it interesting to readers. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, which spurred me to look for an alternative image to place into the CC infobox. I found an already uploaded picture of the founder with 2 others prominent in the early days of the movement, and have substituted that for what the previous image. If you can find time to take another look, I'd appreciate knowing whether you feel this is an improvement. Astynax (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that when you place a prod tag on an article, or any other tag that goes on an article page, they should not be signed. The edit history is enough. When you place the warning notice for the author using the template, you sign that. DGG (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if I too may be permitted a gentle reminder, I'd offer that it is preferred that one note that he/she is prodding an article in an attendant edit summary (see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#How to nominate). I gather that you are no grand fan of the edit summary, and I'll not quarrel with your general usage, but there are real prudential reasons for which edit summaries are particularly counseled for prods, and I am sure that an editor who has watchlisted but otherwise does not follow regularly an article that you've prodded should much appreciate your taking an extra moment to note the prodding in an editsum. Thanks, and cheers, 69.212.18.120 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also. I am a fan of edit summaries. I just forget to do them sometimes. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve

Given all the great changes within the UC under the very good ministers Reverend Hyung Jin Moon and Reverend In Jin Moon, my personal feeling is the politics page is no longer relevant.

I'll defer to anything you all decide.

Best Regards and thank you for all your wonderful patience.

Marknw (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Marknw.Steve Dufour (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove material sourced to WP:RS sources, as you did here [8] at the article Hak Ja Han. I have added a 2nd cite to the end of the sentence in the main body text (if you had checked you would have noticed that the sentence is sourced later in the article, per WP:LEAD). So now there are two different WP:RS sources for this information. Cirt (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Hak_Ja_Han#Birthdate_-_secondary_sources. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, I see that not only is the picture back but that the article's edit history is full of of dung flinging by both the naturally evolved monkeys and the carefully designed ones. With articles like this I simply end up removing them from my watchlist and finding a quiet and peaceful area to edit in. Life for me is too short to battle over a single image. Personally I think that the image should not be there but I am all out of dung :) - Peripitus (Talk) 03:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in complete sympathy. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{prod}} tags from Peter Thielst and Eli Woods, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think either article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

Mark Hurd (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. I see that sources have been added to both. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Frederick Sontag, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

• Banned : John254 (talk · contribs) (Community Ban), Justallofthem (talk · contribs)
• Topic-banned : CSI LA (talk · contribs), Grrrilla (talk · contribs), Makoshack (talk · contribs), Proximodiz (talk · contribs), Su-Jada (talk · contribs), TaborG (talk · contribs), Jack Russell Terrier (talk · contribs), Jpierreg (talk · contribs), Maureen D (talk · contribs), OngoingHow (talk · contribs), Seelltey (talk · contribs), Tturrisi (talk · contribs), Voxpopulis (talk · contribs), AndroidCat (talk · contribs), Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs), Anynobody (talk · contribs), Derflipper (talk · contribs), Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs), Orsini (talk · contribs), Shrampes (talk · contribs), Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), Tilman (talk · contribs), The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs), Touretzky (talk · contribs)
• To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*, Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs)
• Other restrictions :
  • Jossi (talk · contribs) gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
  • ChrisO (talk · contribs) is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
  • Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've saved a lot of people from wasting a lot of time and energy. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether someone from the ArbCom has contacted you privately, to let you know that they'd be sympathetic to lifting your ban. But if you haven't been following the case, and haven't already read the full decision, they'd actually like to: finding and remedy. I'm not sure that comes across from the generic message above. --Groggy Dice T | C 08:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I actually stopped working on Scientology related articles due to an agreement I offered to certain WP editors that if a certain other person was not harassed on WP I would not edit or nominate any Scientology related articles for deletion. Since this no longer seems to be happening the ban does not affect me. If it becomes a problem again I guess I will have to look into it. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just nominated an article you started for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean M. Kelley. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I guess if people want to find out about Dr. Kelley they will have to Gooogle him.Steve Dufour (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Rescue from Deletion Barnstar
		Thank you for your effort in saving Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010 from being deleted! --Лъчезар (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now I just hope it doesn't really happen. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, I commented on the AFD. I should've started that AFD myself actually. Garion96 (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any interest in the matter, please read my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese cultural artifacts controversy (2nd nomination), and then go ahead and look at the all-new version of Japanese cultural artifacts controversy. I would like to know if this radical change might change some minds. Unschool 03:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's somewhat silly, but I thought you might be interested to see what I've done with the article "List of fictional deer", which you helped to save from "nominated for deletion". Ironically, I had nothing to do with the article until then. I hope you enjoy it. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very nice. There is also the Monarch of the Glen, a fictional (and realistic) Red deer, or as we Americans say Elk. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve: On June 26, 2009, you left a post about the above referenced article at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to the effect that you thought it was a good article with good references and that the templates seemed unjustified. I have since left a post that the discussion has been moved to the article's talk page: David Ferguson (impresario). I have made some more edits to the article since then to improve its content and would be most grateful if you would take another look and comment on it at the talk page. Thank you again for your attention. --deb (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Steve, I just wanted to let you know that I've done some more editing and banner removals on the David Ferguson (impresario) article if you'd like to take a peek... Thank you for your comments. deb (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitism Borock (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a note of appreciation in your deletion notice comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icons of American culture. I'm note really sure whether to accept inevitable deletion or push to upgrade the fledgeling article. How long does one get to do that? ProfDEH (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note... how'd I wind up getting the prod nomination? I don't *think* I created that page... TallNapoleon (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems an editor decided to remove the prod tag. I've begun removing uncited statemenents, including the intro paragraph. I can't find wp:rs for a framework that discusses "world domination".--Work permit (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The article is much better now, but still I think could be AfDed. And I sent notices to everyone who did more than one edit in 2009 without meaning to imply that you were the creator. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh ok that makes much much more sense. Thanks Steve. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming International Conferences on Creationism to International Conference on Creationism in the middle of an AfD, and when you'd only a few days ago changed the names the other way, is rather silly, and at least a tad disruptive. Please refrain in the future. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. My mistake. The original author got the name wrong "Creation" not "Creationism", but then I added the "s" by mistake. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears a bit one-sided. How about a little bit more neutrality? Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations#The_article_on_me.2Fmy_organization_is_an_attack.21_What_can_I_do.3F. Good advice for defending a variety of groups where article just becomes an attack page, which frankly I think that is and might be merged on those grounds, tough I don't have energy to lead the way personally. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually I want there to be an article on the issue since some people do believe we are anti-Jewish and I'd like to see both sides presented.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the UC is not "considered" to be antisemitic, it has been "accussed" of it by dishonest persons

Steve, I'm not sure whether it was due to dishonesty or simply a misunderstanding that three decades ago someone accused the UC of antisemitism. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, True Family, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Family. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed your contributions to the editing of this article. I agree with the apparent consensus for substantial deletion. However, there is a negative usage of this expression, and it has a heavy presence on the Web [a la Google] : [9]. as I noted on the talk page, the expression is used in anti-Semitic discourse - as in the Protocols of Zion - to allege that Jews were conspiring to take over the world. Yet this expression is not mentioned in the conspiracy theory WP article. So I suggest you "re-direct" the term to conspiracy theory, and in that article, re-direct it to Protocols of Zion. Any valid claim that some people or country desire to "dominate the world" is covered by imperialism, I think. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree that World Domination should be deleted, but due to lack of sources that discuss it in depth not due to lack of importance of the topic. BTW I have helped edit Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and learned a lot doing it. It does not assert the the Jews want to dominate the world, just Europe, and was originally written about the followers of Napoleon not the Jews at all.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post AFD discussion, there has started an ongoing debate on the direction of this article.--Work permit (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm repeating my response on my talk page here (so you won't miss it: "I trust your judgment on this. So I leave it to you to do the actual Merge." --Ludvikus (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're aware of a legitimate, scholarly, "history" usage - I'd love to hear about it. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MooniesBorock (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add WP:Social networking links to main article space, as you did at Moonie (term) [10]. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was more interesting and important than most of the external links already there. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is in violation of site policy. Cirt (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make unsourced changes to Moonie (Unification Church). Thanks. Cirt (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, your edits were fine, in line with the cited sources. I self reverted. Cirt (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further evaluation, the sources do not say this [11]. Please, take care not to violate WP:V. Do not just edit in what you "know" or "feel" to be true, but rather let's stick to the secondary sources. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please don't violate NPOV and WP:NOR. Here [12], you added a phrase evidently something you feel yourself, that is not backed up to the secondary sources present in the article. Cirt (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I do think you are being a little over-exact. I think we can say the "N-word" is at least almost universally offensive. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please do not insert your own wholly unsourced POV into articles on this project. Cirt (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily, I would not mention this article, or family of articles, because I'm Restricted from editing this stuff. However, my careful study of my situation indicates to me that I have a Content dispute with the editor who contributed to this subject - and he is the editor who also Restricted me. So I believe I only have a tie here (no consensus against my views on Content) - there's NO consensus against my Content views on this subject at present. However, I've not been able to Remove the Restrict. So I certainly intend to obey it - the Restriction. But since I see myself as only having now a disagreement with one editor, the Restricting editor, I thought perhaps you might be able to make some Constructive contributions on the subject which might possibly alleviate the disagreement as to said Content. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been raised (on my Talk page) as to my communication with you here on said subject. The rule cited is this:

---

---

I think the rule advises appears to me to say that it is right and beneficial to WP that I contacted you. You are a WP colleague.

We are not personal friends. I think I need to say that here so that there's no misunderstanding regarding my conformity to said rule. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I am not "coming to Wikipedia." I also don't know if I would support your "side of a debate" until I check it out. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way you interject your objection on my page confuses things - it looks like I'm the guy whose calling you a "meat puppet." Could you please come back to my Talk page - and place your Comment at the bottom of the page of the appropriate - so it does not look like I'm the one that's interjecting that "Meat Puppet" accusation against? And calm down please. I'm the guy in WP trouble - not you. I think that I did the right thing - in contacting you. Make your observation somewhere at the bottom of the appropriate section. And what's that remark about "smartness" all about? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You don't have to bother. I made my own interjection - comment - immediately below yours - so I think there's less confusion as to who said what when. By I'm still wondering what you were thinking regarding my impression of your "smartness"? I can see you were agree. But I hope you don't think it was my fault for what happened regarding "meat puppets" (what a weird expression - I wonder how that was coined!)? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem here. I really didn't understand your objection to the article, so that's what the smartness joke was about. I knew you didn't call me a meatpuppet. I think WP should get rid of that expression since we are supposed to be so polite to each other. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great!!! I think I can say that as far as I'm concerned it's a big mess - full of WP:Original research. But I was Restricted from editing four (4) articles related to it because I created an obviously related articled which now was deleted by the Restricting editor: Revisionist historians (American) (which now is a mere #REDIRECT for which I'm not responsible). The Restricting editor holds that this was a WP:POV Fork. I think he's mistaken. But he's an Administrator - so I have no choice but to accept his Restrictions. Nevertheless, it looks like the article is evolving without me participating - and for the better. I noticed you deleted a portion which said something like now reputable historian would blame African slave for slavery. That seems to make sense to me. But certainly not because I'm a "meat puppet." How on earth did WP come up with that weird expression? --Ludvikus (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make unsourced changes only sourced to other Wikipedia articles. This is circular logic and very inappropriate, as you did here [13]. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dufour - this [14] was yet again another unsourced change. Please stop. If you do not I will have to seek out other avenues to resolve your inappropriate edits on the topic of Unification Church/Sun Myung Moon, chronically inserting your own opinions, POV, and wholly unsourced assertions into articles on the topic. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People author, organizations publish. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I think what Cirt (and Hrafn) are trying to tell us 'Moonies' (grin) is that no contributor should guess or speculate. Your edit comment they probably published it after an employee, or several employees, "authored" it is a red flag.

It's really going to help all of us, in our mutual goal of building this encyclopedia, if we buckle down and learn the strict rules of "proper sourcing". I recently had an epiphany where I realized that - harsh language aside - that Hrafn et al. have been rather patient. They are coaching us on how to abide by the standards.

Let's help them to help us, eh? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I hope they will follow the same standards. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People author, organizations publish. - Please do not just make up your own assertions about sources that are incorrect. The organization is listed as an author, and a completely different company published the book itself. Cirt (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then leave it. People will understand either way. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make unsourced changes again. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve do I speak for both of us? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I generally give people their titles, but the standard in articles is just the family name - almost always. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here [15] you added a new section with sources that mention the usage incidentally in passing at best - while also marginalizing info disagreeable to you and subtly moving it down from another subsection. You then commented on the talk page, indicating you really did not want this info in the article I suggest taking out the whole secondary meaning thing, since it is very minor and only sourced to one dictionary -- the others do not seem to mention this. You then added the material back in [16]. You appear to be doing this only to push a point, in violation of WP:POINT, as you yourself said you don't want the material in the article. I would ask that you please stop. Cirt (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like both the dictionary defintition and the examples included, but not one without the other. Sorry I didn't make that clear enough. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		I is my pleasure and privilege to award you this Barnstar for your minor edit of a DAB page wherein you recognized the truth about the true malicious history of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Keep up the good WP work! Ludvikus (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope people let it stay there. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steve Dufour. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toru Goto (religious persecution)Redddogg (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you note Steve... Please shoot me an email at fefferdan@aol.com and let's me in touch. Dan Fefferman (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References are bogus. They point to Wikipedia pages in most instances. I did a search in major newspapers about DF -- nada.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to help. That is not exactly the problem however. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem? Looks like a religious cult is invading Wikipedia. I can't verify any of the DF stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Members of "religious cults" have been quite active on WP for a long time, so there is no need to invade. The problem, in this case, is people using WP to promote their views rather than just give the basic facts about a topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is with the references. I can't verify any of the assertions. Even checking independently, I didn't find anything, except for one reference to a newspaper in Eugene. Whether or not the article remains, it should have good references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, I think someone has Hyun Jin Moon and Hyung Jin Moon's names mixed up in the The Washington Times Article. Thank you for all your good work. Best Regards Marknw (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Marknw. Great to hear from you.

Thank you Steve, You too. Just as a personal side note, I found this remark a little "creepy" myself: "Miniter, an Episcopalian who tried to avoid attending by saying he had to worship at his own church, said he found the religious weekend in New York last December to be 'creepy'." As if worshiping the blood of an innocent righteous man nailed on a cross every Sunday couldn't be seen by some as a little "creepy" also. You'd expect a little more understanding from someone who is suppose to be an intelligent opinion writer. Best Regards Marknw (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds a little dubious to me. I've never heard of any Times employee converting to Unificationism, as was mentioned -- in the WP story I guess. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, News World Communications, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News World Communications. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardin the removal of the criticism section of the article "Sally-anne test" 14:23, 2 June 2009 Steve Dufour (5,314 bytes) (off-topic uncited information removed, although interesting) Criticisms of the Sally-anne test hardly seem off-topic for the article "Sally-anne test" While the section was uncited, it did not present any new research only observing that this test leaves an important element unstated. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally%E2%80%93Anne_test&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.246.68 (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tom McDevitt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom McDevitt. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Unificationists, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced info about WP:BLPs, as you did here [17]. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a source. This is what he is best known for. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Is there a barn star for courage? Steve Dufour (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He or someone associated with him has been blanking the negative stuff and I'd just raised this at the BLP noticeboard, seeing if we could extend some mercy to him over what is obviously an embarrassing turn of events in the article. Deletion would resolve that. BUT could he then recreate it without the critical material, if PRODDED? If so, would an AfD be a better way to ensure it is not recreated as a hagiography? I'm just not sure if PRODDED articles be speedy deleted if recreated? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no, I checked and it should be AfDed, imo. Just so it can be speedily deleted if reposted in sanitized form. I'll do it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will AfD, or "vote" for it, if I must. I think a bad negative article on someone is much worse for WP than a bad positive one. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely, The AfD is up now, thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Edwards (2nd nomination)Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I probaby will not get involved with this one. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read my argument against deletion? (That I gave in: Talk:Sucker-trap#It_is_more_than_a_dictionary_article.21_.28And_should_not_be_deleted.21.29
And you still think should be deleted?
--Seren-dipper (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, List of for-fun lists. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - all various list of list articles. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at all various list of list articles - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. -Zeus-^u|c 16:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of published lists, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of published lists. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Martin451 (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling editors who disagree with you Hitler,[18] does not further the discussion, please refactor out this personal attack. Thank you. Okip 14:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that they would understand it was a joke. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not compare other Wikipedia users to Adolf Hitler, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 260. It is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Dew Kane (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That was wrong of me. However it was intended as a joking way of drawing attention to WP:Not a directory. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just closed the terrorism AfD. If you feel that the "result" entries on the talk pages of the articles you want to renominate should offer more of an explanation than just "speedy keep", please go ahead and amend my comments. I noticed that the other articles underwent their own AfDs, the Jewish one in 2008. The article has changed significantly since that almost unanimous "keep" decision, though. Huon (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thsnks. I don't know if I'll bother to AfD them. It looks like most people interested want to keep them and nominating them without the Islamic terrorism article too would make it look like I was trying to deny that these things have happened, not just WP's treatment. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit summary here, I never thought the purpose of the See also section was "to pass judgment", though I admit to having applied editorial judgment when I removed it, as per WP:ALSO. I certainly won't squabble over this trifle, but I think it is misleading to readers to add this link there. I actually came to this article looking for references to answer a question posted at the reference desk and was misled. I won't edit that article anymore, however, I just thought you might wish to reconsider. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. I didn't mean to imply you did something wrong. I still think the movie is related to the topic, or at least of interest to readers of the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thank you for your prompt reply. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Worm Ouroboros Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, can we talk about the Dog (disambiguation) page? MSW3 catagorizes both C.l.familiaris and C.l.dingo as "domestic dogs". Look under the comments where it says that Canis lupus

"Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate--artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding (Vilá et al., 1999; Wayne and Ostrander, 1999; Savolainen et al., 2002). Although this may stretch the subspecies concept, it retains the correct allocation of synonyms."

http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000738.

Yes, in some contexts (i.e.: "Dingoes cross-breeding with dogs") the word "dog" doesn't refer to dingoes, but in others ("the dingo is a domestic dog that has reverted to life as a wild animal") the word "dog" refers to dingoes as well. There are many "breeds" that are probably C.l.dingo that aren't Australian Dingoes and aren't nearly as wild. There's the Telomian New Guinea Singing Dog, that's a real dog, not an analogy like "Bush Dog". Look at this page and it's references: http://www.shiba-dog.de/dingo-en.htm, it seems the Shiba Inu is a C.l.dingo, too, so that opens the door to all the other native Japanese dogs, the Korean dogs, too, and away we go... That's all very interesting, but the point is, if it turns out that the Jindo is a C.l.dingo, it's still going to be a dog, obviously. And there's the American Dingo, I don't know, but might be on the dingo side of the familiaris/dingo clade. All kinds of east Asian and American dogs might be more dingo than familiaris, but that doesn't mean that my neighbor's Husky is any less a dog than my spaniel. It could very well be that MSW4 will unite them as one subspecies in the taxon "Canis lupus domesticus" or some such, but even if they don't, calling the dingo a "dog" isn't being metaphorical like calling Atelocynus microtis or some such a "dog", because familiaris and dingo are the same animal. Chrisrus (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC):\[reply]

Hi. I'm interested in the topic too, although I'm not an expert. I found the dingo page quite interesting and I'd like to see more people read it. However the dog disambiguation page is more about the word "dog" than it is about the animals. I'm sure that 99% of the time when people use the word "dog" literally they are talking about domestic dogs. When I left the page it had that as the primary meaning with a link to dingos on the list of "other dogs", including African wild dogs, etc. I think that's about right. If people are interested in the topic of dingos and/or feral dogs (as I am too) they can check out the articles on them. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put a see also link to Wild dog, which is also a disambiguation page.Steve Dufour (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most common referent of the word "dog" includes, not excludes, those dogs which are Canis lupus dingo (taxon), which is named after the Australian Dingo, but also includes lots of other dogs as well. Australian Dingoes have gone wild, yes, but they just ordinary domestic dogs. The dingoes that live on Borneo and New Guinea and Java and all the "Inu" dogs of Japan, the eskimo dogs, the Carolina Dog, all the American Indian dogs, all of these are domestic dogs that live closely around people and depend on them more than the Australian Dingo; they are domestic dogs and they are all C.l.dingo. The name of the clade of the two subspecies, familiaris and dingo, the name of this is "domestic dog" for a reason. The reason is, they are all domestic dogs. Only very rarely does the word "dog" exclude "C.l.dingo". Those rare occasions occur only when someone is contrasting dingoes and dogs, which is not the most common context for using the word "dog".

You say that when you left the page, it had the dingo listed with the other Canids called dogs but which are not the normal referent of the word "dog". But the word "dingo" does not need to be disambiguated from the word "dog" any more than "chihuahua" does. First of all, it doesn't include the word "dog". Second, it's not like those other dog-like canids such as the Raccoon Dog or the African Wild Dog because dingoes aren't different than regular dogs, they are ordinary, regular dogs. The dingo shouldn't be on that part of the page bedcause that part of the page is for "dogs" other than domestic dogs which are also called "dogs", and the dingo isn't something other than a domestic dog and doesn't even have the word "dog" in it's name.

By the way, feral dogs are just ordinary dogs. You don't need an owner to be a dog. Chrisrus (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you 100% about the classification of dogs. I just think dingos and other feral dogs are a fairly minor topic to be brought up on that page, which is about the word "dog," not the animals themselves. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need "dog shark". Think about chocolate milk and milk chocolate. The reader can be assumed to speak English, so he or she knows that the second word is the head and the first is a noun modifier. If there were an animal called a "duck eagle", and it wasn't really an eagle, it should go on the "eagle" disambiguation page, but not on the duck disambiguation page. The opposite would be true of an animal called an "eagle duck". There used to be lots of these on many pages. For example, on the Mole disambiguation page there were mole crickets, mole crabs, and so on, but all we really needed were the marsupial moles and the golden moles and the regular, talpidae moles. On the wolf disambiguation page, somebody put the wolf spider, for example. Dog shark is no more helpful than adding dog house. Chrisrus (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. Cirt and I has just started a discussion on the talk page about removing some of the extra examples and trivia from the page. Please join in if you care to. Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned your comment at Talk:Junko Sakurada on at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Please don't be offended but I found it a little questionable by WP standards. Wolfview (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to be the main contributor to the article, would you, by any chance be able to address comments at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#Muskrat Range? I've requested a vector version be made of the range map, File:Verbreitungsgebiet Bisamratten.jpg, but the main concern was regarding the accuracy of the information being represented. Thanks, Connormah (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please format new citation additions to the article Hak Ja Han using WP:CIT templates? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out you added a dup cite. Just check more carefully next time? Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find the sources the nominator could not, and I do not doubt that he did try. Starting with a full-length review of this film in The New York Times, it was an easy job after that. If you might revisit the article, you will see that what was sent to AFD as mediocre stub,this has now become THIS... a decently encyclopedic and well-sourced Start-Class article that is now worthy of inclusion within these pages. It might not have before... but it now passes WP:NF. And yes... I even surprised myself with this one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, if you can find independent reliable sources, preferably at least two, which individually cover the subject to a "significant" degree as per WP:N, I don't think that anyone would necessarily object to the article being kept, or even possibly re-created. The problem is, so far as I can see, that the award, at least so far as I could see, has been discussed in articles about the people who have been given the award, often in a less-than-necessarily-positive light, rather than about the award itself. And we would need substantial mention in the articles about the award itself for it to meet WP:N guidelines. Susan Palmer's book might provide such coverage, and it is possible that some journal articles or other sources discuss it at length. If they do, and they can be produced, then I don't think that there would be any problem at deletion review for restoring the article, with the sourced material added, or in having it recreated with a clear indication that it is significantly discussed in those independent sources. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You previously participated in an AFD discussion regarding a child article of Jeopardy!. There is currently another ongoing AFD for Jeopardy! Kids Week and you may be interested in providing a comment or vote for/against deletion. If you'd like to participate you can find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Kids Week. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just suggested merging True Family into List of Unification Church members since the information in the first is mostly aready in the second. Please discuss if you like: Talk:List of Unification Church members#Merge in True Family. Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You previously participated in a discussion/AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Kids Week and I'd like to make you aware of another ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Jeopardy! (2nd nomination) in which you may want to offer your own opinion. Please feel free to comment...thanks. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Indemnity (Unification Church) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Borock (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Borock (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Second_prize_in_a_beauty_contest has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 00:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Peace Festival since you contributed to the article. Borock (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You commented on the deletion of above page. The discussion was however mistakenly placed on another page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APOX), so you'll likely have to comment again after this discussion is moved to its proper place. Travelbird (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me an image of a white rose that is symbolized as a "peace rose." Frankly, I wanted to delete my user page because of vandalism and uselessness; however, this is the nicest and grateful thing you ever have done to me. I'll take that as a thankful gift from a user instead of an anonymous IP address. Out of curiosity, why else (besides in the edit summary) would you give anyone a white rose? --Gh87 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have the picture on my page. When I run into a new user whose talk page shows up as a red link I sometimes start their page with the picture. The article Peace rose is also the first article I wrote on WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/As a Peace-Loving Global Citizen (2nd nomination). Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FEd_Poor_2. You received this notification because you regularly edited Unification Church related subjects. Please comment there. Andries (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit concerned that you may be too emotionally involved in the Unification church and that you hence have a Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. I suggest you start edit other subjects more. Andries (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I have a couple of articles I promised to work on and haven't had time yet.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here for further details. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States journalism scandals (3rd nomination). BigJim707 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really, really think "But I like it, it's interesting" is a reason to keep an article? Get real. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, because 90% or more of WP is against policy and this one is more interesting and likable than most. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a strong movement to reform WP towards a real encyclopedia I would be a supporter. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an open WP:SPI case looking at sockpuppet editing primarily on the Johann Hari/ Talk page. As you edited the Johann Hari/Talk page between 2004 and 2011, your input is welcomed. Yonmei (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Me with 02 heifers.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The owner did give permission for it to be in public domain. It was so long ago and the picture is really unimportant so I don't plan to pursue it. WP can get along without it, or if kept it will not cause any problems. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I chopped Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News of the sections about chapter content and substituted a list of chapter titles. Can you take a look and see if I went too far? I left a comment on talk under yours. RJFJR (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Von Restorff (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following your suggestion of last month, I've proposed that Werner Erhard and Associates and Erhard Seminars Training be merged into the History section of the Landmark Education article. You may wish to watch or discuss here. • Astynax ^talk 20:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly note that I've reverted this edit as George Went Hensley is a founder of a notable movement and at least one denomination listed in many NRM reference works (Melton, Lewis and Chryssides among others). The article deals with many aspects of the early years of the movement in more detail than the Snake handling article itself. • Astynax ^talk 20:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you nuked almost all of the talk on the page going back to 2006 on edit I suspect that was a mistake when you were rerating the page since the edit was incomplete. I went ahead an archived the entire talk page up to 2012 and kept your rating change in tact.Americasroof (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry about that.Steve Dufour (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. As a contributor who was not notified of the discussion taking place this may concern you. Semitransgenic _talk. 00:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Steve Dufour. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I was the one who recently started going about tagging many, if not most, of those religion articles which have been placed at "Top" importance. Basically, the Mircea Eliade/Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion is supposed to be counted as probably the most authoritative work of its kind since the Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics early in the 20th century. To help ensure that we do in fact cover religion from a more NPOV basis, I have started going ahead and tagging those subjects which have articles in the second Jones edition of the encyclopedia as "Top" importance to Religion. There are unfortunately still quite a few of those articles we ourselves don't have, as can be seen from the redlinks still to be found at User:John Carter/Religion articles. But, yeah, I do tend to think that those subjects which receive articles in the best of the print encyclopedias, like that one and the others on the list, probably deserve to be counted as "Top" priority, which allegedly are those which any encyclopedia should have, pretty much based on their being included there. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well okay. As long as the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, is also top importance in religion. But then I think there would be thousands of top articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the Catholic Church is included in the list, or Roman Catholicism at least. I don't know if I've gotten that far in the list, or whether the title used is clearly a different one - I know I haven't gone through all the redlinks and dabs yet, let alone any of the categories beyond Japanese religion. There is also a question about some of the pages which are currently redirects. And, yeah, I think that there will wind up being somewhere in the neighborhood of a few thousand Top-priority articles. There is a very real question as to whether we might add a Core-importance category as well, which I think under the circumstances could be very reasonable. Admittedly, I am myself unsure of how big that should be, or what should be included. But, with only four extant importance grades for Religion, I think it probably, in a way, makes sense to have a lot of Top-importance, so that we don't wind up having some articles which would almost uniformally be considered of some reasonable degree of importance stuck in "Low" importance categorization. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you want every article, or almost, to be a top article. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I do acknowledge that between them the Eliade and Jones encyclopedias have around 3200 articles. Yes, 3200. But I think the various religion projects themselves have somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 or more between them, including, for example, the various dioceses and archdioceses of the Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, and other churches, various individuals associated with religions, etc. But there are I don't know how many additional smaller, more marginally notable groups there are in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, or less well known individual gods of various lesser known religious/mythological groups. But, yeah, at about 4 million articles as it stands, the 3250 or so articles in the ER are about .1% of all the extant articles, and, maybe, around 3 or 4 percent of the extant articles relating to religion, and a much smaller number of the easily possible articles, and I guess I could see that it would probably make sense to give maybe a bit more attention to the more significant of them. Also, yeah, as WP:1.0 does use project assessment as a criterion for selection, I think we are probably better off maybe giving a bit more emphasis to the "lesser" groups than for instance Encyclopedia Britannica does, but as we are already several times larger than that source, I think it does make a little sense to do so. John Carter (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just saw how you changed the status of one of the articles in the ER based on your own personal opinion that it does not seem that important to you. I remind you of the earlier conversation we had regarding this subject, and how the choices were based on the most highly regarded reference work on the subject in recent years. Then I reviewed your recent edits, and saw that for the most part many of your recent edits have been such reversion. Out of curiosity, is it seriously your own opinion that you, on your own, apparently know more about this subject than the experts in the field? If so, would you please indicate your credentials, as you would clearly be one of the most qualified people on the subject of religion on the planet? You do clearly think that your own personal opinion is of top priority here. I honestly cannot believe that to be accurate.

If you wish to see which articles were listed in the work in question, please see User:John Carter/Religion articles, which lists them all, including the roughly 1500 we don't yet have. Many of them are in fields not clearly obvious, like Scoiology of Religion, Psychology of Religion (to some degree), etc. While they might not be clearly so important to you, I cannot honestly believe that your opinion is somehow more important than that of the recognized experts in the field. Also, particularly with many of the articles, like on experts, they are of comparatively poor quality at this point, and the importance of their work might not be obvious.

I sincerely urge you to perhaps assume a bit more humility than you have recently displayed in your acting on your own somewhat ill-informed opinions. The assessments were made to help bring the religion related material into a more encyclopedic manner. Presumably, based on your actions, you would oppose that effort. I sincerely urge you to perhaps adopt a bit of humility and, perhaps make it easier for others to help develop the encyclopedia. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message. I am only giving my opinions based on what the articles themselves say. You, and everyone else here, has the right to make edits based on your views. I don't know how to judge the importance of something except through opinion. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Blessing ceremony of the Unification Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TLC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Unification Church funeral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spirit world (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given your comments at Talk:Polygamy: What Love Is This?, you may want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polygamy: What Love Is This?. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't paying complete attention to the article and was looking it up on the BBC which only mentioned it early this morning. I thought that film mentioned was for the 2009 weddings and was just aired a few years after they occurred. I was about to mention it on the talk page so someone could put the link in when I saw you edited the article. --Thebirdlover (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I started the article and have been watching it but also missed it. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, FTM cross-dressing, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited True name, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haku (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Unification Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parliamentarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Artificial waterfall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International Center (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for tagging this for notability. 4 years later, it's unresolved. You may want to consider taking it to WP:N/N, or using prod or AfD if you are still concerned. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steve Dufour. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Steve!

You recently removed some chimpanzee images from Monkeys in space, with the argument that chimps are not within the scope of the article. I disagree and I think some others do); there is no sense in having separate articles for makaks and chimpanzee in space, in my opinion. Therefore, it is more reasonably to change the title of the article, to make it reflect its content, than ther other way around.

If you disagree, you're welcome to re-revert, and to argue your opinions at Talk:Monkeys in space#Title. Best, JoergenB (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your valuable opinion at Religious harmony in India. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timeline of the Unification Church may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)

news/nation/2012/10/113_118992.html Rev. Moon - self described messiah]. By Kim Rahn. 09-03-2012]</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/05/28/2009052801371.html |title=[주간조선] 통일교의 젊은 회장, 문선명 7남 문형진 – 1등 인터넷뉴스 조선닷컴 |publisher=News.chosun.com |date= |accessdate= 94%C2%B7%EB%A0%88%EC%A0%B8&year=2010&no=535904&selFlag=&relatedcode=&wonNo=&sID=505 |title=mk ´ş˝ş [šŽČ­źŇ˝Ä] šŽźą¸í ĂŃŔç ŔÚź­Ŕü 100¸¸şÎ ľšĆÄ |publisher=News.mk.co.kr |date= |accessdate=2012-05- 94%C2%B7%EB%A0%88%EC%A0%B8&year=2010&no=287491&selFlag=&relatedcode=&wonNo=&sID=505 |title=mk ´ş˝ş [şŁ˝şĆŽźżˇŻ] ˝Ĺ°ćź÷ źŇźł 3Ŕ§ˇÎ ťó˝Â |publisher=News.mk.co.kr |date= |accessdate=2012-05-23}}</ 02&spage=10&boardId=22423&listType=02&boardSeq=457314&mcategoryId=&id=mayor_040100000000 도정활동25시 > 현장스케치]</ref> According to his followers, "Rev. Moon believes that fish can provide food for the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page contains an extensive quote which appears to be from this 2007 message.

Can you provide evidence that this is in the public domain or that it has been released by the copyright owner under a Wikipedia-compatible free license?

I ask because I believe that the length of the quote is too long to qualify under Wikipedia:NFCC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right. I will take it off. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A statement along the lines of "This user [agrees|disagrees] with speaker when he said small quotation" would almost certainly be fine though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was arranged like that, because Indus valley civilization and Mehrgarh are viewed to be having older religious events than any other events from Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. I have alphabetically arranged and mentioned. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

one of my friends has sthe same name and in Canada. jkust wondering!DesertGrass (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

i hope i finally found the correct section.

I would like to know why you deleted my name Nico Haupt from 9/11 conspiracy theories / No Plane thory ? It was there for years ! Did you doublecheck that with the member who added it apprx. 18 years ago? Also why do you block a discussion about google 1649ish ? I just added 3 new sections : Anagramm, zwanzig and shave. You will find the original article at justpaste DOT it/google1649ishUpdates ! It's water tight !

I'm also not a "minor 9/11 skeptic" as you say. I actually coined that term which is still used in England and created the whole 9/11 Movement with the first organisations and research groups !

I met Morgan Reynolds several times and he was influenced by me, Gerard Holmgren and Rosalee Grable.

I have 2 imdb entries and worked once with Christoph Schlingensief ! Do you wanna delete this too ?

What is wrong with you ?

Ewing2001 (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)ewing2001[reply]

nicohaupt2@yahoo.com

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 23#Caesar's wife must be above suspicion until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ghinga7 (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 22:19, 11 April 2007‎ you edited Elizabeth Thackery (“Putting notablity first, if you don't think that is notable please delete the whole d**n article, thanks, have a nice day”).

You may or may not think that the article now falls within the Notability guidelines and, accordingly, you may or may not choose now to remove the tag.

Nat (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]