User talk:Scottperry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome to my talk-page. Please leave any comments you may wish to discuss with me here, and I will be happy to respond.


For access to earlier discussions on this talk page dated between 2004-04-10 and 2006-05-07, please visit User talk:Scottperry/Archive-2006-05-07

Contents

[edit] Please help with ACIM page!

Dear Scott:

Another editor and I are currently in an edit war. If you read the talk page of the "JC as source of ACIM" page, you will see what is going on. I have repeatedly asked this person to stop inserting their badly written paragraph into the article. After a few days of arguing, the editor then inserted erroneous information into the "symbolic" paragraph, making it appear that both the "literalists" and the "symbolics" believe that ACIM is the "literal" result of communication between Helen Schucman and Jesus Christ.

I agree with the other editor that the page needs work and needs to be expanded. But so far, all this person has done is contribute things that decrease the readability of the page, and continue to accuse me of trying advance Wapnick's perspective, and to accuse Wapnick of being anti-Christian and anti-history. This is all very bizarre.

Because I am not a moderator, there is nothing I can do but revert what he/she continues to add. This is getting tiring. I think you are a moderator, so I was hoping that maybe you could do something about this.

Thank you.

Sinerely,

Andrew Parodi 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Jkrishnamurti.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jkrishnamurti.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Done, thanks. -Scott P. 04:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation and Recommendations for writing articles on Hindi Wikipedia

Hindi wikipedia invites and welcomes Wikipedians to contribute for the cause of spreading knowledge and the Hindi language. This page contains guidelines for writing a wiki-article on any topic at the Hindi Wikipedia, with special recommendations for writing in Hindi (Note: The script/font-family for Hindi is Devanāgari; the script/font-system for English is Roman script, also, the Hindi spelling system is not completely standardized). This article is yet in English language (mostly), in order to encourage even non-native/foreign people who have learnt/are learning Hindi to contribute to the Hindi wikipedia, and native Hindi speakers who normally write in English. The examples given below are only for explanation. Recommendations:

  1. Firstly for proper viewing, it is recommended to keep all links NOT-UNDERLINED. Otherwise the मात्रा below the Hindi alphabets might get partly hidden behind the underlines. For this, please go to My Preferences (मेरी पसंद) at the top of the page, then click Misc., and then choose "underline links -> Never". Save your settings. Also, do not click yes for "justify paragraphs", otherwise on some browsers, the devanagari script will appear highly distorted.
  2. All users are requested and encouraged to contribute articles here, especially, to create new articles on general topics. They are also encouraged to expand the existing articles, and improve upon them. A non-user can also do the same; it is recommended but not required to register yourself as a wikipedian user at the Hindi wikipedia. As far as possible, each article should be written with a Neutral Point of View (NPOV)—no nationalistic or partiality or hatred based articles are welcome. The articles should be based on facts—and appropriate references should be provided as and where needed. See the English wiki's help page for editing in general. Almost all the general wiki-features are available for editing on Hindi wiki too. Guidelines for the content matter is mostly the same as given in English wiki.
  3. Since the Hindi wiki is at its initial stages, users are welcome to take introduction and basic points from the English (or another) wikipedia's corresponding article and translate them for small articles. An in-page link to the English wiki's article will be deemed sufficient for references (a template might be created stating this). For longer articles, it is recommended to mention the references separately.
  4. Since most computer users in India and elsewhere have the standard Western-type keyboard, it is best recommended (but not necessarily required) to use the virtual (software) keyboard like the one of Hindimozhi or of ISIS (Tavultesoft Keyman)—which are freewares. These are advantageous because the contemporary Hindi-speakers in India often write messages/chat using Hindi words but written in Roman (English) script, and the layout of these keyboards is quite the same that such people use. For example, using the "normal" keyboard with this software, typing ga would give ग and ghaa would give घा.
  5. Create the article with its name written in Hindi (devanagari script). Always take care to include the nukta (dot below) for foreign / Urdu loanwords wherever it occurs in the standard spelling. For non-Indian names, use that spelling (for article name and other words) which is commonly encountered in Hindi newspapers, G.K.-books, Hindi-dubbed TV documentaries and Hollywood films and magazines. e.g., America-अमरीका (या अमेरिका), China-चीन, French-फ़्रांसिसी. For English acronyms/short-forms, use the initials in Roman script, and again create a full form in Hindi and redirect it to the short form. e.g. IPA (अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय ध्वनि वर्णाक्षर); UNO (संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ). Doing the opposite is also fine. But creating the article with the Hindi short form, as सं०रा०सं०, is not recommended. Also, the article proper must be written with the proper nukta, as फ़ारसी, and then, a non-nukta (mis-)spelt version फारसी should preferably be created to redirect to the correct spelling.
  6. Hindi wikipedia strongly recommends the users to write articles in everyday common Hindi in the खड़ीबोली dialect (Hindustani or Hindi-Urdu, i.e., बोलचाल वाली हिन्दी, which may include many loanwords from Persian and Arabic). The use of शुद्ध संस्कृतनिष्ठ हिन्दी is in general neither required nor recommended. E.g., use: वजह instead of कारण, ख़ास instead of विशेष, वगैरह instead of इत्यादि, लेकिन instead of परन्तु etc. However, for technical and specialized vocabulary, the use of शुद्ध संस्कृतनिष्ठ हिन्दी is recommended and usually mandatory. Thus: upper House of Parliament—संसद का उच्च सदन, but not Urdu—मजिलिस का ऐवान-ए-बाला ; Foreign Minister—विदेशमन्त्री, but not Urdu—वज़ीर-ए-ख़ारिजा ; knowledge/science—ज्ञान/विज्ञान, but not इल्म. Use spoken Hindi's ये and वो instead of यह and वह / वे. Do not use the title of respect जी after names, it is unencyclopedic. Thus: कृष्ण / श्री कृष्ण but not कृष्ण जी. Use the आप form and its corresponding 3rd person verbal conjugation for writing about respectable persons. Thus: श्री वाजपेयी मध्य प्रदेश में जन्मे थे. But not: वाजपेयी मध्य प्रदेश में जन्मा था. But do not use the pronoun "आप" itself in-text in biographies.
  7. English should be used sparingly, only when required; i.e., if the corresponding शुद्ध हिन्दी word is too "difficult and not generally encountered", or if it is a proper name of non-Indian person/place/terminology/title, or if the user is highly unsure of the proper translation. It is recommended (but not required) for English-to-Hindi translation while writing articles, the Shabdkosh online dictionary should be used. For each English word, that alternative should be used which is generally encountered in everyday spoken Hindi, and also fits well into the context. Use of intelligent guesses for newly encountered words is also allowed, and so are translations encountered in Hindi-dubbed TV documentaries, Hollywood films, Hindi-translated books, etc. e.g., दमपिशाच for en:Dementor (used in dubbed HP films).
  8. If used, it is recommended to use the English words within the articles using the English (Roman) alphabets rather than devanagari (or better, the devanagari transliteration should be used in the sentence, followed by the English word in Roman alphabet in parentheses). Such words should be italicized and not put in quotation marks. Preferably, there should be an in-page interwiki link (like :en:) on the word to the English wikipedia. If the word comes as an integral part of a sentence, so as not to break the continuity, the en: prefix should be hidden by writing the word again after the pipe sign (piped link). Thus, recommended: हैरी पॉटर ने ''[[:en:Pensieve|Pensieve]]'' के अन्दर ''[[:en:Little Hangleton|Little Hangleton]]'' गाँव में लॉर्ड वोल्डेमॉर्ट की माँ ''[[:en:Merope Gaunt|Merope Gaunt]]'' को देखा. ''[[:en:Resplendent Quetzal|Resplendent Quetzal]]'' पक्षी के ऊपर एक मेक्सिकन पादरी डा० ''[[:en:Pablo de la Llave|Pablo de la Llave]]'' ने काफ़ी शोध किया था. Whence,
    • हैरी पॉटर ने Pensieve के अन्दर Little Hangleton गाँव में लॉर्ड वोल्डेमॉर्ट की माँ Merope Gaunt को देखा
    • Resplendent Quetzal पक्षी के ऊपर एक मेक्सिकन पादरी डा० Pablo de la Llave ने काफ़ी शोध किया था
  9. Always start the first 1 or 2 lines of the article giving its definition (from any standard dictionary/other wiki) or suitable introduction. Thus, recommended: ललिता सहस्रनामन हिन्दू धर्मसुधारक आदि शंकराचार्य द्वारा रचित देवी दुर्गा को समर्पित एक पूजा-मन्त्र है, जिसे कई हिन्दू रोज़ श्रद्धा से जपते हैं । But not: ललिता सहस्रनामन मन्त्र जपने के लिये लड्डू-पेड़ा, ताम्बुल, सिन्दूर, लाल चुनरी के साथ नित्य इस मन्त्र का पाठ करें, तो जल्द ही गड़ा हुआ ख़जाना मिलेगा । Recommended: वैमानिक अभियान्त्रिकी (en:Aeronautical engineering) विमानों (en:Aircrafts) की अभिकल्पना, निर्माण और प्रचालन करने का विज्ञान, कला और कार्य है । (translated from Eng. Webster's New World Dictionary). But not: आजकल वैमानिक अभियान्त्रिकी के लिये देशभर में कई कॉलेज खुल गये हैं, जिनमें अग्रणी स्थान यूटोपिया स्थित लालू-यादव टेक्लिनक कॉलेज का है ।
  10. For names of countries, cities, places, languages, people, books, films, technical vocabulary, mythology, etc, start the article like this:
    • 1. The name in bold ('''अपोलो''')
    • 2. starting parenthesis, then English name in Roman script, in-page interwiki-linked to English wiki ff. by semicolon ((अंग्रेज़ी : [[:en:Apollo]];)
    • 3. The native name(s) if applicable in the italicized native script, preferably followed either by its italicized approximate Hindi pronunciation or non-italicized phonological transcription within / /, ff. by closed parenthesis (यूनानी : ''Aπollων अपोल्लोन''))
    • 4. the rest of the definition or introduction (प्राचीन [[यूनानी धर्म]] (ग्रीक धर्म) और प्राचीन [[रोमन धर्म]] के सर्वोच्च देवता थे ।) For country names, only the standard short form of the name is needed in the first line. If there is a common name for a difficult word in Hindustani, also mention it. Whence: अपोलो (अंग्रेज़ी : en:Apollo; यूनानी : Aπollων अपोल्लोन) प्राचीन यूनानी धर्म (ग्रीक धर्म) और प्राचीन रोमन धर्म के सर्वोच्च देवता थे । If you don't give the interwiki English/another language link (which would be deemed to be the default reference), then you MUST provide an appropriate reference.
  11. Please leave no article without an appropriate category. See the list of created categories here; you can also make a new category (pref. in Hindi). Please leave no article without at least ONE off page (like en:) interwiki link. E.g., the user can check the article name (say Apollo) on the finally redirected English page and append to the Hindi article ([[en:Appolo]])). These interlanguage links will help a bot to update all interwiki links for that article in all wikipedias. The category and the aforementioned link should be typed at the end of the article. If the article is very small, mention it as a stub/substub.
  12. Use of templates is welcome. See the list of templates here. If creating a template, name it pref. in Hindi.
  13. Use पूर्णविराम ( । ) instead of a period (.) for ending statements. The पूर्णविराम, semicolon, colon and dash (but not comma) must come after one space after the word to prevent ambiguity. Use the international form of the Hindu-Arabic numerals (1,2,3 instead of १,२,३), as used by the Constitution and the Government of India (even for Hindi). There is no need to use the हलन्त at the end of Sanskrit words wherever it occurs. Hence, prefer: संसद over संसद्; अथर्वन over अथर्वन्. Use the proper quotation marks “” from the Insert toolbox, not "". Write dates as 2 मई 2006 (ईसवी or ईसापूर्व). Write time as 3:45 pm. Separate common suffix-words like शास्त्र, विज्ञान, ज्ञान with a hyphen. Thus: रसायन-शास्त्र. For most others, leave both the words of the noun-cluster free. Combine them into one word only if it is very common to do so. Thus: सामवेद.
  14. The use of ज़ for the en:voiced alveolar fricative (/z/, as in zoo, rose) is fundamentally wrong. Its nearest counterpart is the en:voiceless alveolar fricative /s/ (as in sea), and not Hindi ज (en:voiced palatal plosive). Hence, it is suggested and recommended that for the sound /z/, whether it comes in English (etc.) spellings (z) for while pronunciation otherwise, should be transcribed as स़ (स with a dot below, available in the Insert toolbox). Hence: Reason रीस़न, not रीज़न ; Roses रोस़ेस़, not रोज़ेज़. But common Hindi words borrowed from Persian/Arabic (so-called Urdu words) are allowed to continue with ज़ spelling. Thus: ज़रा, नज़र, तर्ज़. The en:voiced postalveolar fricative (/ʒ/ as in treasure), inexistent in Hindi, can similarly be transcribed with श़. Thus: treasure ट्रॅश़र. The nukta (dot) available in the Insert toolbox can be combined with various consonants to suggest a more exact phonetic devanagari rendering of foreign sounds. E.g., since phonetically, English Think and this are not equal to थिंक and दिस, a better transcription could be थ़िंक and द़िस. Please take care of the dot below in so-called Urdu words, otherwise the Hindi spelling is deemed incorrect.
  15. For the following English vowels met, mate, mat, transcribe as मॅट (short vowel), मेट (not मेइट), मैट (not मॅट, as popular in Marathi). However in contemporary Hindi and here, it is acceptable to use ए instead of ऍ. Thus: अमेरिका is more popular than अमॅरिका. For cot, coat, caught, transcribe as कॉट, कोट, कॉट (not कौट). Transcribe English /t/ and /d/ as ट and ड.
  16. Use half-न before त, थ, द, ध, न, instead of anuswaar अं. Use half-म before प, फ, ब, भ, म. Use the anuswaar before all the rest of the consonants (not half-ङ, ञ, ण). If the मात्रा is not above the alphabet, use chandra-bindu, but only for nasalization. Thus: अन्दर, not अंदर ; अन्त, not अंत ; हिन्दी, not हिंदी ; सम्भव, not संभव ; पंचमी, not पञ्चमी ; अंडा, not अण्डा ; कंठ, not कण्ठ ; लैंड, not लैण्ड ; आँख, not आंख. However, both forms are acceptable in contemporary Hindi as well as here; the prec. are just recommendations.
  17. When proceded by another vowel, use the pure vowels instead of य (unless the य is clearly articulated while pronouncing). Thus : जाएँ, not जायें (not जावें) ; आएगा, not आयेगा . However, both forms are acceptable in contemporary Hindi as well as here.
  18. Please pay careful attention to the masculine/feminine gender (and singular/plural) in adjectives and verbs, else the sentence becomes ungrammatical.
For more information/suggestions/criticisms, please contact any one of the administrators of Hindi wiki here, preferably en:User:Magicalsaumy. This page can also be found here.

Thank you,

Cygnus_hansa 02:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forgiveness Article

Hi Scott, There is a war going on against ACIM on the [forgiveness] page. Help in the discussion would be appreciated. An editor (administrator) deleted it as insignificant. Censorship is the new rage I guess. Hope all is well. Thanks, Bob speet 20:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving Wikipedia

Hi Scott:

I know I've said it before, but this time it is for real. I've decided that I have to leave Wikipedia. I realize now that I just don't agree with its underlying themes or "policies". I don't want to go into that now; I just wanted to say that it was nice meeting you here, and goodbye. If you want to contact me personally, please do so via my own personal e-mail (andrewparodi@aol.com) rather than on my Wikipedia page. I'm not going to check my talk page anymore. This is my last post on Wikipedia.

Take care,

Andrew Parodi 08:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is unfortunate when WP policy is used to decimate articles and run people away from WP. I have been very fond of WP. It is getting to the point where either WP policies, or the abuse of them, is turning me away from WP.--Who123 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong license tag

Two images you uploaded, Image:William-thetford.jpg and Image:Wapnick-blue-frame.jpg, are currently tagged as screenshots of websites, which they clearly aren't. Please add a proper licence tag to the images so they won't have to be deleted. Thanks. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Buell Anderson

If you're around, could you please drop in on Charles Buell Anderson. I believe you were the principal contributor. Thanks, -Will Beback 07:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the push to delete or significantly rewrite all ACIM related articles?

Dear Ste4k,
I am the one whose articles you have been trying to delete, many of which you have already had deleted, some of which fortunately were caught before it was too late. You seem to believe that I have some sort of a vested interest in promoting ACIM, and that you must stop me. I don't know. I certainly despaired when I came back from my 4th of July vacation to find so many of the articles that I had researched long hours to create trashed, deleted, or nominated for deletion! Indeed I am an ACIM student, and admittedly I have a pro-ACIM bias. Still, I have done this primarily to further my own study of ACIM, and if anyone else might have benefitted from my work, then I thought, 'so be it'. All of the main article was reviewed by several others familiar with ACIM and it was agreed that it was an accurate summary of the work. Will get back to you later. -Scott P. 16:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott. I am not pushing anything at all. My interest is not to delete all ACIM related articles. Although there still remains some significant question to the importance of these articles, it is in the best interests of both the encyclopedia as a whole and to the articles in question, that the articles be written from an NPOV and statements of fact with reputible previously published secondary resources that cite the information, all of the information, and with no disregard to any specific related information. Do you agree? Ste4k 16:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Scott, in the AfD for the article I am currently writing, you wrote: "This article seems to me to be an attempt by its creator to sidestep the traditional Wiki process of dialogue with the editors of the main article, and to ultimately thereby delete it." You may or may not be aware of the extensive attempts on my part to establish dialogue with the other editors regarding the "Authorship of A Course in Miracles". For my efforts to understand this article, I was treated with hostility, harrassed, and became the subject of personal attacks by "Andrew P." Andrew also made me his personal target, edited several of my comments in several AfD discussions, and in general protected that article from editing, even though it was obviously not citing its sources and/or was promoting only a specific brand of books with this title. Ste4k 16:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ste4k,
Unfortunately I have not had enough time to do as much follow through on all of this as I would like to have had. I'm getting married in three weeks and right now my time constraints are a bit tight. I had a feeling that this might have all been started by the author of the Jesus Christ as Source of ACIM article. This is an article that I had voted to delete earlier, but unfortunately my vote did not carry at the time. Is that article deleted now? I hope so. The info you uncovered about the early major donor to the ACIM publication who was a transexual pioneer is certainly noteworthy, and I believe deserves noting in the main article. Andrew has had run-ins with Wiki editors in the past, and I think still may need to learn a bit more about Wiki ettiquite and policy. Thanks for your message. Looking forward to working with you.
-Scott P. 12:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Scott. About the article mentioned, it was the first time I had ever seen/heard anything about books with this title. After a week or so, I am now practically an expert on that court case (given that I am not an attorney). Did I want to be? no. Do I want to be now? no. Do I care? no. Complete waste of time and energy? yes. Is selling 1.5 million books around the world important for one company? yes. Is that book still in print? no. Are other new copyrighted works that include various public domain versions of that book available now? yes. Have any of these new works, all under the same title, sold 1.5 million copies? no. Was the rank on Amazon as high as 500th top sale among Amazon users in early 2005? yes, for one version. What does that publisher's new version rank currently? zero, since it isn't even listed on Amazon anymore. Is the old version still listed? yes, with a rank of about 2000 or so. Who purchased a large number of one of the original versions of this book (out of the 1.5 million)? Amazon. Did they read them all? I doubt it. How many different publishers of different versions of this book under the same title exist? I've found three so far, but I no longer care. How many different publishers of the various versions of this book represented on Wikipedia? one. Is that NPOV? Don't ask me, it is enough to have convinced several editors that only one version of this book exists. Ask them. Is this book important because of it's content? no, the content of this book hasn't made any appreciable difference to society at large. Had it made any sort of impact at all, then more than one article, book review, newspaper column, or other notice of the press would have been written about it specifically. Currently there is only one editorial written about a different book that mentions this title in passing as being an inspiration for another author, and that is specifically referring to a version no longer in print. Is this book important because of the big commotion that it caused? No. The U.S. District court has heard thousands of cases, this particular lawsuit hasn't made any appreciable change in law nor is it likely to be cited as a major precedent. Were there any significant stories written about this court case in the press? None. Do articles about this book add to the repute of Wikipedia? At best, in my opinion, they detract from the credibility of this encyclopedia. Is this article notable among eight to ten non-professional editors on Wikipedia? yes, evidently so. Does that establish notability in the world? you have to be kidding. Does anyone care about the facts addressed by this list of questions? Not even the eight to ten editors previously mentioned care about the facts, and that fact is demonstrably proven by the sheer unwillingness of any of them to address any of these points directly. Will I bother to work on any of the related articles anymore? You couldn't beg me hard enough to make it worth the time of day. There are far more important things to be working on, like marking empty files for speedy deletion, for example. Does it matter to me that people want to use articles like these to discuss their religio-politico-philosophic views on Wikipedia? Do what you want; everyone else does, and the policies on Wikipedia are made to be the butt end of a joke. It was nice meeting you. Thanks. 13:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (by Ste4k)

Dear Ste4k,
You obviously have a knack at uncovering significant and noteworthy facts. Still, some of the things you say above seem inaccurate to me. The fact that you uncovered that the large scale early publication of ACIM was apparently made possible by a donation from a transexual pioneer in the 70's is certainly valuable. The fact that the article does not yet have a direct link to the one legal 'alternative' publishers of a part of ACIM (that I know of) is also worthy of updating in my opinion. This 'alternative' legal publisher is Tom Whitmore of JCIM, who has apparently sold a few hundred or thousand paperback copies of a part of the text that is legally and uncontestably in the public domain. The only other 'alternative' publisher that I know of is Charles Anderson, who still publishes sections of ACIM that remain legally contestable. If you know of anyone else, please let me know.
Claiming that ACIM is out of print when Amazon.com lists it as still in-print, leaves me a bit confused. Is there another definition of being 'out-of-print' that I am not yet aware of? I had previously believed that being 'out of print' meant that the last printed edition has 'sold out' and the publisher has not since reprinted it. Am I mistaken in my understanding here?
Your claim that FIP has recently released a new English edition that is not found on Amazon.com also confuses me. I have searched the publisher's site and have yet to find anything on this. Could you please help me to understand what you mean by this?
Are there more than one spin-off publications? Off hand I know of dozens of books whose authors have stated that ACIM was their primary inspiration for writing. There used to be a 'spin-off publications' sub-section in the main article about this, but someone seems to have deleted it, go figure. If you were interested in finding out more on this, then you could do an advanced search in Amazon.com, placing "A Course In Miracles" in parenthesis in the subject field and you would find 219 books that list ACIM in their Title or Intro paragraph. Of these 219 books, I assure you that more than one reveiw in total has been written.
Does Wiki provide a forum for the exchange of ideas, some of which may be new? You betcha. Should topics which are new, yet not mainstream, which have still managed to inspire hundreds of spin off books and sold over a million be deleted from Wiki because they are new and non-mainstream? I don't think so. Whether or not you continue working with this article group, I do appreciate your contributions to it.
Thanks,
-Scott P. 13:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty simple, Scott. If you check the dates of publishing that Amazon lists for the three different versions of the book they have for sale under that title all from the publisher named Foundation for Inner Peace, then you check the statement on the web site of the publisher itself that says that they have added new sections to the previous book, and are now selling it under a new copyright, then check the date of that source, then you will probably get the picture. About the other two books that you mention, they are both apparently doing the same thing. That gives us at least three different books with three different authors and three different sets of content all of which have the same title and none of which are being contested in court any longer. I don't know if there are other publishers, but I have only given it a casual investigation and haven't searched for other court cases yet. Were this topic truly worth the time of that research, I am sure that the title "A Course in Miracles" would probably be best served by a disambiguity page that points to the various types of books and publishers written under that title. Hope that helps. Ste4k 14:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe you may be mistaken about the existence of a "new" alleged "Third edition". Could you please point me towards the specific page at the FIP site where such an edition is described? Thanks, -Scott P. 21:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the page you referred to me earlier about the copyright information. Ste4k 23:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I went to that page, the home page of acim.org, and could not find any reference to any "third edition" there. There is a reference to a new smaller paperback version of the 2nd edition, which ranks approx. 25,000 on Amazon.com, but not 0 as you have asserted above. The most popular version of the ACIM book has a sales rank is about 1,500.
The one other "legal" published version of ACIM is based on an earlier edition of the current book. You say this other book has a different author, I don't see where you get this either. This version has published so few books that it is not even offered on Amazon.com. Any further suggestions or specific urls that you might want to point me to? I have given you specific search suggestions and url's that substantiate exactly what I have asserted here. I am still awaiting these same kinds of information from yourself. I remain confused about what is beginning to seem to me to be a wild goose chase that you are trying to lead me on. -Scott P. 12:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP Policy and ACIM

Hi, Scottperry. I'm sure you've mentioned this elsewhere, but how are we to back up many of the actually useful claims in the A Course in Miracles page? Most of what is interesting appears to be one of a kind statements. Why does it appear that no one critically evaluates ACIM in a scholarly environment? I think we are right to allow our synthesized information to be on Wikipedia because it is credible. ACIM is what it means to be credible, by definition and simple deduction. A man who knows truth knows at last when he has it, and something has gone wrong if policy prevents him from sharing it in a way that it will be judged on its own merit, on its own grounds. As if truth was so ambiguous and so difficult to understand that the only way of maintaining something credible was to have a verifiability-not-truth, reliable-secondary-sources-only policy. As if the error of dogmatism was possible under a perfectly inclusive truth. As if it was not them who are so dogmatic as to police genuine information, and believe in the meaningfulness of what was "purified."

I think what you have invested in creating the ACIM family of wikipages is right and noble and it is a mistake that this information should be challenged on the authority of policy. I've explained why ACIM is in principle unintelligible from reliable-secondary-sources on the A Course in Miracle's Talk Page, and I foresee no lasting solution unless ACIM could be lastingly exempted from Wikipedia's policy. Perhaps you have something else in mind? I don't understand the political situation here, but I believe you to be the primary supporter of keeping this kind of valuable information on Wikipedia (for it deserves nothing less). I just want to understand what your plan is. I want to do what I can to help.

—Antireconciler 01:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I did not know the political situation. My one desire is that all parties should communicate effectively and peacefully, and that's the end I work toward. —Antireconciler 02:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The original article size limit templates were initially conceived due to early limitiations of early Wiki servers. They are not strictly enforced due to subsequent equipment upgrades, and are now only occasionally used when one or more editors feel that a page is overly wordy. Personally I don't think that the ACIM article needs to concern itself too much with this. In my view, the ACIM article is much like a book review. Several folks who are students or are deeply familiar with the article have reviewed it and agreed that its representation of the ACIM content is accurate. That should be enough to establish sufficient source linkage without having to insert direct quotes and quote source reference pointers in every other sentence as some here would seem to be asking for. I must say that it appears to me that the current bruhaha about the article group at Wiki may have more to do with a few certain personality clashes than with real concerns for accuracy. My sense is to wait until the bruhaha blows over, then to fix what has been broken.
-Scott P. 23:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think that's a wise choice. I don't think the article is overly long either. Someone looking for information on the topic will probably be most interested in one or two sections, and I think that's why we have tables of contents with links.
—Antireconciler 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott. I have studied ACIM and related issues for perhaps 15-20 years. I have noticed the ACIM article for some time and thought that it was a reasonable introduction to those new to ACIM. There were aspects that I would have changed but did not. I was shocked to recently visit the article and see massive deletions by those who knew little to nothing about ACIM. I do not see a problem with the OR tag at the top of the article. As has been noted, there are few (if any) unbiased sources. I would like to do what I can to help improve the article. If I can help just let me know.--Who123 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Are editors saying that there are no reliable sources that describe ACIM? That seems to me to be innacurate. I my last visti to the library I found numerous books on the subject. Surely the article can be developed based on reliable sources rather than personal knowledge on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Khalid-el-masri.jpg)

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Khalid-el-masri.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ytny 02:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RfC on Ste4k

You may wish to add your thoughts: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ste4k--Who123 18:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Mother-teresa-03.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mother-teresa-03.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACIM Articles

Hi Scott, hope you are having a wonderful wedding. When you get back to WP please let me know. I would like to work with you on the ACIM articles.—Who123 15:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

Hi Scott. This is meant in a friendly way so please do not take it otherwise. You may wish to look up the definition of a minor edit. Take care.—Who123 16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to look this up, but was unable to find it. Could you please point me in the right direction? I consider a minor edit to be one that does not significantly change the meaning of an article or discussion post. Am I mistaken in this? Thanks, -Scott P. 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The easiest way that I find it is to act as if I am editing a page and then click on "What's this?" next to the checkbox for Minor edit. Or, you could just click here Help:Minor edit. I think minor edits are for edits that do not change the meaning at all. Just a thought.—Who123 13:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image rights

The image Image:Acim-book-framed.jpg which is uploaded to Wikipedia Commons is licenced with a licence that states that you have released the image to the public domain. Do you hold the licencing rights to the cover of the book? If not, this licence is invalid and the image must be treated as copyrighted material. __meco 12:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Updated copyright template per suggestion.
-Scott P. 21:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/o/User_talk%7EScottperry_457e.html"