User talk:Becritical

Be critical of the uncritical, of gullibility. Be critical of the imPOV rished critics. Be critical of criticism, of criticism's lack, of selective criticality (used merely to attack). Be critical of everything till criticism comes full circle into knowledge, and into knowledge of fallibility.

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Will need your input

...for the WP:99% guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street

Leave a message on my talk page if you need me to do anything further. (I'm cleaning up the threads on my talk page so don't be alarmed when you see your thread missing). Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your help and advice! B^e——C_ritical 22:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I assume you didn't mean to do this [1] ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL, don't know how that happened :P B^e——C_ritical 03:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. When you recently edited Anontune, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of AnonPaste

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on AnonPaste requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 22:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

in re ANI

WP:ANI / User promoting a movement

Hey, I'm surprised that you haven't weighed in on the ANI discussion about the OWS article and specifically COI/other issues with User:완젬스. I think Penyulap may have mischaracterized the collaboration of other editors at the OWS article, and is too lenient with User:완젬스 perhaps because s/he isnt quite aware of the discussion history. But lately I haven't been following the discussions and article progression closely though, so I could be wrong. I thought there were several regulars including yourself, working together through compromise despite occasional disagreement. El duderino ^(abides) 22:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I'm supposed to know about it? B^e——C_ritical 23:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That explains it. I was thinking of adding a link at the OWS talkpage anyway. El duderino ^(abides) 23:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I would've done that myself but was concerned it might appear as canvassing. I'm not sure though. Just something to consider. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:44, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Wiki doesn't make it easy. I would have to have been checking you guys contribs or something. B^e——C_ritical 23:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's done neutrally, which I think it was.Use of "relevant" (there only because it was the sole current thread he's in) and "possible.". To follow-up, I'm a bit surprised at Amadsci's most recent post. But I'll refrain from any more play-by-play here. El duderino ^(abides) 00:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist was responding to the fact that I had posted the complaint at ANI more than anything else. He has personal issues with me, which may have started with this, but there were other OWS things that may have done it too. Not sure exactly. But anything I suggest can predictably be opposed by him, so his reaction wasn't too surprising to me. I had a feeling once this showed up on BeCritical's talk page that he'd come to ANI to get a shot in. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:45, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe Amadscientist is responding to the fact that you seem to not understand policy and ignore discussion and seem to take aim at removing opposition on Wikipedia and being as annoying as you can to those you actively oppose on Wikipedia like a batteleground Equaz.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Occupy Wall Street , did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use your sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Edison (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think BeCritical made a technical error there rather than meaning to blank the article :) Just for the record. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:34, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

It happened last time I tried to put a POV tag on that article too. B^e——C_ritical 04:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Becritical. You have new messages at Whenaxis's talk page.
Message added 21:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DRN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Occupy Wall Street". Thank you. --Amadscientist (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested

...in this proposal, which just showed up on my watchlist rather magically. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:20, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Very much so thank you :D :D :D B^e——C_ritical 21:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - choosing final drafts

Hello BeCritical. This is a note to let you know about a discussion I have just started at the verifiability mediation. It is aimed at making a final decision about the drafts we use in step 6, so that we can move on to drafting the RfC text in step 7. If possible, I would like everyone to comment over at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Final drafts proposal. Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Saw your edit at User Pages

Thought you might be interested in what I just posted at Jimbo's page. -- Avanu (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Becritical. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Equazcion ^(talk) 20:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Occupy Wall Street". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 May 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Mediation issues

After reading the mediation guide, which I hadn't bothered to do until now, it became clear that mediation is strictly for content issues. If behavior is mixed in, it could increase the chances of it being rejected. I've already cut down my initial comment to exclude the behavioral stuff, and I'd suggest not responding to Amadscientist's behavioral prods at the mediation page. That stuff may need to be dealt with somewhere else (though at the moment I'm not sure where). Equazcion ^(talk) 07:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, okay. B^e——C_ritical 13:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to take part in the discussion. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Occupy Wall Street, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Occupy Wall Street, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Pretty sure...

...he meant a "level-two" section header, as you did. (== ==) Equazcion ^(talk) 05:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right makes sense (: B^e——C_ritical 05:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oversight requests

Regarding this statement — please don't request oversight at the administrators' noticeboard: it's one of the most public pages at Wikipedia, so leaving a request for oversight there is likely to produce a Streisand effect. Instead, please send an email to the oversight team. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thx (; B^e——C_ritical 21:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Amadscientist. Thank you. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:POLICYPRICK listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:POLICYPRICK. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:POLICYPRICK redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PETTIFOGG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:PETTIFOGG. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:PETTIFOGG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - choosing the RfC structure

Hello BeCritical! You are cordially invited to a discussion at the verifiability mediation in which we will be deciding once and for all what combination of drafts and general questions we should have in the RfC. We would love to hear your input, so why not hop over and let us know your views when you next have the chance. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Mediation request re: "Formation of the New York General Assembly"

I am convinced that you and other editors wishing to include this language in the OWS article are critically ignoring WP:V, and I have requested mediation here. The request is still pending and I don't believe any discussion can yet take place, but I wanted to at least notify you of the request. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - to protect, or not to protect

Hello again Becritical. Do you think the upcoming verifiability RfC should use a system of protection and transclusion, as was found in the recent pending changes RfC, or should we just keep the entire RfC unprotected? There are good arguments both for and against, and at the moment we are at a stalemate. Could you give your opinion on the matter? The discussion thread is here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Becritical: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)