|
|
Hello! Welcome to my talk page!
Please feel free to to leave me a message, whether it's informing me of something
I screwed up, just to say hello, or anything else! I won't bite!
I have a few requests that I hope you'll respect while posting here:
- First and above all, be civil.
- If you don't agree with an action I made—be it reverted you and left a warning, marked your page for deletion, or anything else—please be calm and polite. I am a reasonable man, and we'll straighten it out a lot quicker without screaming and name calling.
- Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)
- Please start new conversations at the bottom.
- I generally like to keep conversations together.
- If you post here, I'll reply here and leave you a message informing you of my reply.
- If I leave you a message on your talk page, I'll keep watching it, but if you want to make sure I notice it quickly, leave me a {{talkback}} template (although not necessary).
- I always keep conversations together. If we separate the messages, no big deal, I'll probably go back and cross post here.
Since that is out of the way, please click here and leave a message!
I appreciate your vigour in trying to establish good practice at Wikipedia. WP:COI is a guideline, however, not a policy, and its adherence is in no way required. The term "conflict of interest" typically implies a monetary gain and having an employer, as the article mentions. The fact that I am a Baha'i doesn't in itself imply a COI, it's whether I fail to comply with policies, which I do. I contribute productively to articles, and just like Jeff3000, have often upheld policy of Wikipedia over what one could easily see as the best interests of the Baha'i Faith. The reasons you listed are irrelevant to establishing COI, and I think your assumption that I "feel strongly against homosexuality" is false, and its relevancy to my comment on the AFD discussion is a major red herring. I believe without doubt that the article on Unitarian Baha'ism does not meet notability and verifiability requirements, and I'll stand by that. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- I just read this and I think it's relevant to the discussion of COI and the attitude of Baha'is editing Wikipedia. It's in the book, Revelation and Social Reality, by Paul Lample, who is a current member of the Universal House of Justice.
"Thus, each practice has its own body of knowledge, its own criteria for justification, and its own methods of investigating reality and discovering truth. Different practices may interact and, through the exchange of ideas, influence one another; but change occurs as a result of a practice affirming new conclusions based on its own criteria. An individual is usually a member of more than one community of practice, and therefore, is able to contribute to change within a particular practice by introducing new insights from others.
...
Disciplines such as economics, philosophy, history or religious studies give rise to their own communities of practice. They have their own bodies of knowledge, standards and methods with which they explore reality and come to understandings that guide judgment and action. Baha'is who are participants in such academic communities of practice are correct to point out that they are obliged to conform to the accepted range of methods, criteria, and truths." (pp. 124-125)
- I hope that clarifies a bit my approach to Wikipedia, which is a community of practice with its own standards and guidelines that I feel compelled to support. WP is primarily not searching after truth, it is a compilation of verifiable and reliable sources, and such an encyclopedia is incredibly useful. I also support the Baha'i Faith, which has its own standards and guidelines, and provides something that Wikipedia can never provide. Supporting both at the same time does not leave a conflict of interest. Regards. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
For the last several month 've been suffering from extreme insomnia. My doctor says it's from a combination of pain and stress. in the last few weeks I've averaged about 20 hours of sleep per week. If I seem irritable please forgive me. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you get caught up for find the cause. I've gone through shorter periods of insomnia for a few nights. It can really take on one's outlook on life. Smkolins (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Haven't really found a cause, but I have finally found a medicine that works. I've been getting 6 hours a night the last two nights and it's made an amazing difference. - 21:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well that's a big plus. Good luck! Smkolins (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see the above page for a response to your query there. __meco (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
It's one of my early articles and I never went back to it for a long time. Because of the discussion about deleting it I went ahead and cleaned it up allot. I'd be interested in how you see things having been experienced in the issues of rescuing articles.see A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police and Emergency Services Smkolins (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I've got my hands full with the new Commons sexual content guidelines. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
First off, if you mean "notability", then please say say "notability", instead of using a confusing and cryptic obscure acronym like "GNG"[sic] -- I clicked on Wikipedia:GNG, and I still have no idea whatsoever what "GNG"[sic] is supposed to stand for... Second, your deletion tagging doesn't provide any explanation as to what has changed since this article went through a formal deletion nomination and survived, and I'm removing it for that reason... AnonMoos (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, just to satisfy my idle curiosity, what does "GNG"[sic] actually stand for? AnonMoos (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- GENERAL NOTABILITY GUIDELINES - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever -- the typical person could easily read through Wikipedia:Notability several times and still not catch that, which makes the use of a cryptic "GNG" acronym as the only explanation offered for a proposed article deletion rather obtusely annoying. AnonMoos (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
":::are you aware of the difficulty of finding conventional sources in this sort of subject, where most material is published via mainstream routes? I agree they need to be sourced, and I am prepared to source them, but it takes me a week or so to deal with a single one of them, unless I drop everything else entirely. I think you;re being a little unfair to the possibilities of keeping these articles in WP. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm well aware that obscure topics are hard to source, and sometimes must be merged as a result. Take a look at Heather Harmon. Most of the work on that I did in a week, while I was working full-time, and it survived the Afd. I would suggest you stop fighting the nominator and either find the sources, or accept the merge. Thanks. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- as you just said, it takes a week to do one article. Nominate only one a week, and I can keep up. I am not fighting the nominator--I am however trying to resist what I consider to be unfair practices in nominating articles. If you have an interest in the subject field, why not examine the appropriate magazines for sources yourself before nominating. ? I could easily fill in web sources of a sort, but we should try for something better. DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I can't withdraw the nomination at this point, it's been seconded and then some by other users with their Delete votes. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Stillwaterising. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Pandora's Box (BDSM), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of notability, including being the topic of a documentary film and of newspaper coverage. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this company meets WP:COMPANY, however I'm too busy with other things right now. Removing the CSD is fine by me. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Reverted change on page Stephan-Xavier Trano
Hello :)
Thank you for your help with this page. I had suspended it for a few hours in order to review the biography paragraph and work about the need of references. But I can do it while the page is online actually. Sorry for any convience caused :)
|
online
