User talk:Steve Dufour

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]