User talk:Mybesteffort

Second welcome, and suggestions
I came here to welcome you, but was happy to see that Jameson beat me to it. It looks like he's provided you with a very nice talk page template also! I hope you feel more welcome than you did as an unregistered editor.


 * Jameson also was remarkably helpful (given his seeming busy-ness) Mybesteffort (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You've already taken what would have been my first bit of advice, to register. I'm going to take the liberty of adding the userpage template to your userpage, so you'll have something there.


 * Again, kind. Thank you Mybesteffort (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing says "newbie" (other than an unregistered user with only an IP address) like having a redlinked userpage. Feel free to remove it if you don't like it, or if you don't trust me. (After all, I am an ex-member.) But put something there.

Although I'm an ex-member, I try to be very fair, and I dislike the kind of prejudice I sometimes see biasing edits on Wikipedia. If you need a character witness, ask User:Ed Poor or User:Steve Dufour, both current members.


 * I do think ExUC is a good Wikipedian; our editorial disagreements have been few and minor. His heart is in the right place! :-)


 * Fruits always are good enough for me. Mybesteffort (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to activate your email. Click on "my preferences" at the top of the page between "my talk" and "my watchlist." Then you can complain about an editor privately, and not be accused (rightly or wrongly) of "personal attacks."


 * I will do this, but I do not understand how this enables one to point out bad behavior of an editor, or other "private" communications Mybesteffort (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes you can speak your mind plainly in an email to a friendly editor, without worrying whether someone less friendly will misunderstand or twist your words and misrepresent what you said. -Exucmember (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the impression that User:Hrafn was an administrator? I can't believe that's true, or that he will ever be an administrator. I have never met an administrator that makes the kind of full frontal personal attacks that he does (for example, his personal attacks on you), or who gets into fights all the time. I have never in more than two years of editing met any editor who is more tendentious than he is: His edits, taken as a whole, seem to be the textbook case of tendentious edits.


 * Yes, he clearly presents such a persona, in my limited experience with him. I guess I presumed he was an administrator (even though I don't really have any idea what such a thing is in this wikisphere) simply by his legalistic manipulation of Wikipedia guidelines.  I guess it was his command (even if used in a horrible way) that gave me this impression.  Also I presumed (for some reason) that only people with some standing would be allowed to tag an article for deletion, and plaster threatening banners all over it, further to take a measure so bold as to litter up articles on their face (not in talk). I guess it was command, and tagging up the face of an article was not something normal editors would be permitted to do.


 * I think that something like recommendation to delete only should be permitted for administrators. I think that if an editor feels strongly enough that an article should be deleted, he or she should present the request to an administrator.  The administrator could quickly check to see if the request is legitimate or personal.


 * I think if Hrafn asked an administrator if he could recommend the article for deletion, probably an administrator would have agreed. Mybesteffort (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, now you've seen that this is not an executive decidion, but an Articles for Deletion discussion is a community action in which anyone can participate. Consensus is the goal. The consensus of the community was to keep the Frank Kaufmann article. -Exucmember (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)




 * That's not normal really, but it's not abnormal either. It's not an abuse of the "unreliable source" tag. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks!! Mybesteffort (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw, notice how I cited what's called a "diff" in referring to Hrafn's personal attacks on you. This is a better way to point out problematic edits that simply characterizing them, which the other editor is likely to disagree with. More importantly, it allows an objective reader to simply click and immediately see the problem, for example in this case Hrafn breaking Wikipedia policy, even after sarcastically lecturing you about it earlier. You can see "diffs" by going to the history tab and selecting an edit or range of edits to compare.

On the Frank Kaufmann article, I wouldn't waste time right now talking with editors who make lots of tendentious edits or who demonstrate a strong "POV" bias, except to specifically defend your edits to the article page. Instead I would concentrate on finding references from reliable sources. The text of the article should not generalize too much from what the source actually says. (Otherwise a tendentious editor may challenge it.) So just say in the article what it said in the source. Smoothness/readability is not a first priority when an article is being considered for deletion. The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion for the Frank Kaufmann article may be no more than 5 days long. So I'd advise finding references now.

One reference that is really needed is anything that says what Kaufmann's main work has been for 25 years. Not every source has to be independent of the subject (which is a subjective judgement anyway), but the more independent the better. The main point is that the source be judged reliable. This could include church publications if used sparingly. Some tendentious editors have a ludicrous definition of independence, and in other articles they argue for practically the opposite standard of reliable sources.

You should also add comment(s) to the Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion for the Frank Kaufmann article. Don't be afraid to do this just because you are a new user. You might want to mention areas of Kaufmann's notability that are not fully explained in the article, and ask for more time to find reliable sources. You do not need a reliable source to mention a fact in an AfD. Hrafn should not have nominated this article prematurely, in my opinion. -Exucmember (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This is enormously helpful.  I will follow your advice. Mybesteffort (talk 16:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Exuc. Thank you so much for your incredible help and support, and for this fulsome welcome. See interleaved responses above. Mybesteffort (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice for article improvement

 * Here's what would help the article: any reference in a non-church-related publication to any of the conferences. References do not need to be available on the Internet - they can be in print only. They do not need to be in the U.S. or in a major publication. Even conference proceedings can prove the existence of a conference. But you're right, pictures won't work for this purpose. We may be able to use the picture of the Peace march through the Old City of Jerusalem in the article, though, if the copyright holder can be identified, and if he is willing to release it into the public domain or license it with some kind of free license like the GNU General Public License.

Three photos 1. 2, 3 were given creative commons licensing. Mybesteffort (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * More pressing, however, would be to assemble references to individual conferences. Of course any news story (from a real news source) about Frank Kaufmann (one from India perhaps? - his work in Kashmir and elsewhere seemed very welcomed) would be quite helpful. A source other than what we have for "advised governments" may be needed. IRFWP mentioned in news stories might also help, depending on the content. -Exucmember (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to comment on my talk page:
 * I know it appears as you describe, but that's not quite it. Wikipedia editors act within a certain mind-set based on Wikipedia rules. One of these that may seem a little odd at first, in that it doesn't seem to care what's really true, is verifiability. Here's the first sentence from that policy page: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." So many things that really are true get excluded. But if you think about it, this is the only way a system like Wikipedia could work. So you cite something specific from a reliable source instead of making a sweeping statement. If editors are cooperative (as they're supposed to be) and put the quality of the article above the letter of the law (as they're supposed to - see the oddly named policy "WP:Ignore all rules"), the article will usually come out pretty well.


 * On the other hand, sometimes an editor repeatedly violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as you saw - failure to assume good faith, failure in civility (first item mentioned is "rudeness"), no personal attacks, and please do not bite the newcomers. You were the victim of a particularly objectionable violation involving a combination of these last two. Such behavior can damage an article, but it's best to stay calm and continue trying to improve the article, as you did quite admirably.


 * So specifics cited in reliable sources are the key. Btw, do you know what award(s) Dialogue and Alliance has won? -Exucmember (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

DnA was chosen in the top 10 of 650 reviewed religion journals in a survey conducted by the ATLA, which is the reason ATLA decided to request DnA as a title for its collection. This fact is only reported in a letter to the DnA editorial board. I do not believe it can be found in any published format. Mybesteffort (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:March - FKaufmann in front 22-Dec-03.jpg.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:March - FKaufmann in front 22-Dec-03.jpg.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

email (reply to comment on my talk page)
Hello. Thanks Mybesteffort (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Is there a way to be notified by email when changes are made on the pages that I've added to my watch list?
 * 2) Can other users know my email address if I "enable email from other users?"


 * I'm not aware of one. Good idea, though. Perhaps you can recommend it. (I'm not sure how.)
 * No. The only way would be if you then reply to someone who emailed you using a regular email program. If you think you might do that some time but possibly live to regret it, you could set up a gmail account that forwards to your main account, and put the gmail address in Wikipedia. Then you have the option to reply by gmail or through the Wikipedia mailer. If at some point you want to abandon that gmail address and set up a new one, you can. This should completely safeguard your main email address.


 * Notice that I didn't make my reply interleaved with yours. That method is not common and not recommended, because it's sometimes hard for someone else to figure out what was said first, second, etc. On the other hand, my entry was unusually long, so your interleaving was a logical choice. I should have numbered my entries as you just did, and then you could have responded in a block below.


 * 3. I recommend you copy and paste all the history code into a file and delete "Image:March - FKaufmann in front 22-Dec-03.jpg.jpg" and upload it again with a new name. Its name has an error (2 ".jpg"s), and while you're correcting this I think you should add the place name at the beginning. Was it Jerusalem? Then, "Image: Jerusalem March - FKaufmann in front 22-Dec-03.jpg".


 * Btw, very nice work just now adding references for the Kaufmann page. Good quality edits. Unusually good for someone of your experience level. I guess that's a side benefit of a crash course rough ordeal introduction like you had as opposed to a longer smoother one. Check the edit history to see a couple more comments I just made above. -Exucmember (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it customary to respond back to your talk page? Or should I just stick to the place where the conversation transpires? Thanks Mybesteffort (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Usually conversations stay on just one page. I have your talk page on my watch list, so I'll see changes. If there's some important new issue that's urgent and you want to make sure to get my attention promptly, you can start a new thread on my talk page. I'd prefer to comment on the last issue you raised by email, so please set it up. -Exucmember (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is properly set up. Thank you. Mybesteffort (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD's
I've just nominated American Freedom Coalition and World Association of Non-Governmental Organizations for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete image

 * Place db-author on them, for one. That'll indicate that you, the only uploader, wish to have them deleted. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD of UC article
Since you have worked on Unification Church articles you might be interested in Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. Borock (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge
I've just proposed merging Unification Church and antisemitism into Divine Principle. Please join in the discussion, if you like. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)