User talk:Low Sea/Archive 1

Hello Low Sea! I noticed your comments in Talk:Zero_Defects. A few things. First off...welcome to wikipedia! If you haven't already, you may want to head over to the Community portal and the Village pump, both of which contain a lot of information about Wikipedia. Also, you may want to consult the help pages especially the getting started section and the Manual of Style. Let me know if you have any questions. You may do this by adding a comment to my user talk page (click on the + sign). Have fun and good luck!

--IRelayer 23:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Affirmative prayer
A tag has been placed on Affirmative prayer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding citations for use by others?
Is adding RS's to a page tagged {tl|Primarysources} considered "contributing" if I do not personally "integrate" the citation but do ask for others who are more qualified as SMEs to do so? Yesterday I added a citation from Columbia Encyclopedia (a very reliable source) and asked (via the talk page) for help from other editors to integrate it. Today I was told that I could only add the citation if I, myself was the one who created the specific inline references. The presence of the RS allowed the article to become verifiable and notable and the moving of the RS into external links effectively put the page back on the deathrow countdown for being unsourced.

It seems to me from what I have read that this was effectively a revert (since it returned the page to unsourced status) and that if it was a revert it violated WP:UNDO section 1.1 and section 1.2, to wit: 1.1 Dos 1.2 Don'ts Any guidance is appreciated. Low Sea (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, try to improve it, if possible. This may entail factual or grammatical corrections, or style changes such as trimming verbosity.
 * Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid and encyclopedic information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly.
 * We can probably be more helpful if you provide the name of the page and the times or diffs of the edits you're talking about. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you like. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * which page are you talking about specific, so i can have a look? Mion (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Eeep, sorry... the current page is Unity Church and the "revert" was by user Hrafn. There was one helpful edit between these. Low Sea (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just step into discussion with Hrafn on Talk:Unity_Church, he is human like you, assume good faith. Mion (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Please advise if any of the comments are inappropriate or otherwise not civil. I was tempted to undo the revert (for the reasons above) but have decided to see what response is provided. Thanks. Low Sea (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Low Sea, see Only make links that are relevant to the context, Manual_of_Style_%28links%29, what happened in short, is that on Wikipedia we write articles, not link directories (WP:NOT), sometimes a link is provided to support a fact, if a link is just placed out of the blue, usually it gets removed, specially for articles about persons and organisations, we try to minimize the external links, . If you want to contribute a fact to the article, do so by writing it yourself into the article, in this case the link wasn't removed but moved to external links because it is unclear which fact it was supporting, it is up to you specify the fact it should support in the text, if there is none it should also be removed from the external links. Cheers. Mion (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As you see, the discussion is not about the quality of the provided link. Mion (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) You're doing fine. Personally, I avoid using italics, bold type etc. for the purpose of emphasizing words in my messages in the sense of indicating the tone with which they would be spoken (i.e. accenting certain words), because that can be intimidating.  I do use italics and bold type for other purposes in my messages, e.g. helping people who may be skimming the talk page to find the key phrases.  However, as far as I know there's no policy which is clearly against expressing things in an emphatic way like that, as Hrafn did.  It may be irritating, but can be seen as forceful presentation of an argument, which I think is allowed.  In my opinion the only thing that's clearly uncivil is the word "lazy" in Hrafn's comment.  However, note that the no personal attacks policy, while it (in my opinion) condemns that sort of behaviour, also advises that when a personal attack is made against you, often the best response is to ignore it.  Even if it was wrong, objecting to it usually only inflames the situation further.  See that policy and WP:Dispute resolution for what to do if you find a situation intolerable, but in this case I think doing nothing and continuing to be polite yourself is probably the best option.  I didn't see anything I considered uncivil in what you wrote -- good for you! There's no particular rule about who has to do the work of joining up a reference with the specific sentences in the article that it's supporting.  In my opinion, both your edit and Hrafn's are quite reasonable.  You added a reference which you believe improves the article.  Hrafn moved it to external links because the user believed that the article was better that way.  Apparently Hrafn will accept it as a reference for specific things in the article if someone links it to specific things with footnotes or whatever, but apparently Hrafn will not accept it as a general reference for the whole article.  Things listed as general references for the whole article should be things that support a large proportion of what's in the article, and in Hrafn's opinion this source does not.  In general, general references aren't very useful anyway, since you can't tell which things in the article are supported by them.  Inline citations are better. If someone comes along who is willing to link it up to the specific things that it verifies, then that person can easily move it from external links.  I think it's reasonable to leave in it external links until such a person comes along.  You seem to have a clear opinion about what the article verifies, so I encourage you to go ahead and put it in as inline citations.  I can help you with the formatting of the reference links if you like. I think it was wise of you not to undo the revert.  You could continue discussion on the talk page to try to convince Hrafn that it would be better another way, but I suggest just leaving things as they are since you're apparently only disagreeing about a temporary state of the article, i.e. what it will look like while waiting for someone to come along and put in the inline citations, so I don't think it's worth the effort to try to change Hrafn's mind on that, though you can if you want.  If there's agreement among the editors on the talk page, then you can change it according to that consensus.  Reverting at this point would be going directly against Hrafn's expressed preferences, which Hrafn has backed up with reasons on the talk page, and would only be likely to start an edit war. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks folks for all the good advice! Some opinions do need to be changed (for the sake of the article's viability) but how to do that without starting an edit war will take some effort. I have some reading to do and some thoughts to ponder but I sense I will be following your advice about 99% of the way and I am definitely committed to remaining civil at every turn. 66.102.200.100 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Old Watchlist 2008-04-30
Affirmation (disambiguation) Affirmative prayer Assumption Axia College Baby On Board Bear Mountain (resort) Christian Science Common knowledge Cow dung Danbury, Connecticut Divine Science Druze Egyptian Museum Erasmus Darwin George Lhamsa Gulf of Georgia Cannery History of computer and video games History of video games HАGGER? HАGGER? HАGGER? Jesus KPFK Kaguya (mouse) Kush Law of Attraction Masaharu Tanaguchi Masaharu Taniguchi Masaharu tanaguchi Maya Angelou Model United Nations Movie ranch New Age New Thought New religious movement On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences Paramount Ranch Personal computer game Phineas Quimby Position paper Postgraduate education Proxy voting Religious Science Renaissance fair Santa Fe Dam Recreation Area Scientology Simon Fraser University Snuff film Stable (disambiguation) Tales from the Floating Vagabond Talk User:Low sea\sandbox\diffs Telephone directory The Law of Attraction The Secret (2006 film) The War of Heaven Types of motorcycle Unification Church Unification Church political views United States Junior Chamber Unity Church University of Phoenix War of Heaven X Y: The Last Man Zero Defects H　A　G　G　Ë　R　?? User:Acidburn24m User:Alvestrand User:Betacommand User:Bhimaji User:Carcharoth User:Catherineyronwode User:Childnicotine User:Coppertwig User:Davidgothberg User:Dawoodabro User:Destructo 087/HiddenPage User:DoubleBlue User:DuncanHill User:Dycedarg User:Editor2020 User:Franamax User:Happy-melon User:Hrafn User:Low Sea User:Low Sea/mynotes User:Low Sea/personal User:Low Sea/sandbox User:Low sea\sandbox\diffs User:Mion User:Nneonneo User:Nyttend User:Phil Sandifer User:SQL User:Sarcasticidealist User:Skookum1 User:SuggestBot/Requests Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 2 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Thomas' College, Matale Wikipedia:Bot requests Wikipedia:Citing sources Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests Wikipedia:Elections Wikipedia:Factual review Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Wikipedia:Requests for adminship Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy Wikipedia:Requests for feedback Wikipedia:Trash namespace Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Participants Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2008/February Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts Template:Belief systems Template:RFCpolicy Template:Subarticle Category:New Thought