User talk:Becritical/Archive 1

Hello, Becritical! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

December 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc. has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://michaelckekel.blogspot.com/ (matching the regex rule \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.com\b). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page The Meeting School. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, that was a vandalism revert, and Bradjamesbrown reverted himself moments after. Becritical (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

László Nagy[edit]

I received this from the World Scout Bureau "Dear Chris,Thanks for checking.The information came from an internal memo from the director general of the World Scout Foundation, where I am its chairman. The memo has been pasted below.SincerelyLars Kolind Lars Kolind, ChairmanLøndal Alle 2, DK-8740 Brædstrup, Denmark.Mobile +45 40 63 66 08 * Office +45 75 75 41 04Private +45 75 75 47 50lars@kolind.dk * www.kolindkuren.dk * www.twitter.com/kolind Here is the memo: Laszlo Nagy RIPFrom: John Geoghegan Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 at 9:55pm Your Majesty, Dear Members of the Board It is my sad duty to inform you that our good friend and former Secretary General of WOSM, Laszlo Nagy passed away this evening. Luc has just called me with this news. As soon as we know what the arrangements are, we will keep you informed. John Geoghegan" I need to know how properly to reference it, it is clear that he really has died. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively sure this is true, however sine it is a biography of a living person we should probably wait for a reliable source for it. There have been hoaxes or vandalism related to Wikipedia biographies in the past. I'm not accusing you of any such thing, just that the source should be better. I reverted it because there wasn't a source for it. But I won't make any issue of this since I think you are right. Becritical (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lysterfield Park[edit]

Can you clarify if you are withdrawing the nomination? Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't around. It seems to have been closed as keep, and that is proper since there were sources. Becritical (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templates[edit]

The section of your user page with the wikitext

====Templates====

[[Category:Wikipedia templates]]

[[Wikipedia:Template messages]]

categorizes your page as a "Wikipedia template". Your user page most certainly is not a template, else it would have a PHP- and JavaScript-based lexicon, whereas it appears human-english to me.

Please either remove the miscategorization or respond underneath this message, so that I may understand. Thank you very much. — Cpiral Cpiral 03:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Cpiral Cpiral 19:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Becritical (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ambassadors from New Zealand[edit]

Because they are on separate subjects, so warrant separate articles. A better question is why you merged them without discussing them, informing the contributing editor (i.e. me), or going through the correct procedure. Clearly, they fail the criteria for merger. Bastin 08:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Because they don't merit separate articles, and the "correct procedure" is to cumbersome in such a situation, as you'd have to do it on so many pages. The way you have it is cumbersome and not of much use to readers. Becritical (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These articles do not meet any of the standards for merger set by Wikipedia. Why would articles about completely separate positions, appointed and served separately, not warrant separate articles? Supposed 'cumbersome' policy is still policy, and to ignore it because you want to push through a move without 'cumbersome' consultation is not helpful. Bastin 13:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a real attitude about this, which is not helpful in the context of Wikipedia. We could put the issue before the community. I'm not so interested in wp:wikilawyering as in creating a useful resource for editors above and beyond the personal desires of its editors. Becritical (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Google[edit]

Hello! I, iBen (talk), would like to invite you to join WikiProject:Google! We're working on:

Putting {{WikiProject Google}} on the talk pages of articles involving Google. This helps to categorize articles!

Writing, cleaning up, and expanding articles about Google

Sourcing a BLP affiliated with Google

Spreading the word about the project

Updating the project page or the portal

and more!

It seems you might be interested, so stop by!

Thank you!

-- iBen (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert to 2010 Winter Olympics closing ceremony[edit]

In the future, if all you intend to do is revert the removal of one letter, it's better to just manually add it in, rather than reverting (manual or automatic) to a non-vandalized version, which inevitably leads to edit conflicts, especially on a high traffic, current events page like this. Thanks, --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... I usually just go through the tabs looking for vandalism, I'm not even looking at the page title. I guess that method goes wrong sometimes... Becritical (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: APS – Audio Pro Solutions[edit]

Hello Becritical. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of APS – Audio Pro Solutions, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Alfonso Maribona[edit]

Hello Becritical. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Alfonso Maribona, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page The Monkey Wrench Gang do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was just a default link warning template - I must have misread your edit history.

WP:ELNO discourages "material that violates the copyrights of others" and "direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content". The fact that linking to a copyright violation of the book would be in keeping with its ethos doesn't make any difference to that. It'd be fine to write about how the book appears on Freenet, if a reliable commentator has remarked on the significance of that, but we shouldn't add a copyvio external link just because we personally find it interesting or ironic. --McGeddon (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using a web site simply to source the fact that that web site itself exists, I'd say that it just became a straightforward external link, and fell under those policies. If the Freenet link wasn't breaking any WP:EL rules, and if there wasn't anything to say about it beyond the fact that it existed, it'd be fine as a simple link in the "External links" section. --McGeddon (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language articles[edit]

Regarding this edit, articles in foreign languages do not fall into any of the categories for speedy deletion. In general, if there is not a suitable {{db}} template to cover the issue you are concerned about in an article, that issue is not a valid criterion. Please do not make up your own criteria. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the criterion is valid, it comes under IAR. It's obviously not appropriate for the English Wikipedia, and, obviously, should not have to go to full AfD. However, I could be wrong since not all things are as obvious as they seem, in which case it might have been nice if you told me where the precedent is for this issue. It is as you said, "in general." If it is wanted for translation, it should be translated first, so there should be a mechanism for requesting translation before creating an article, in my opinion. Becritical (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD specifically excludes non-English articles from speedy deletion. It often happens that people post non-English articles, out of a misunderstanding. These articles are posted to WP:Pages needing translation into English. There is a whole process involved in tracking such pages; speedy deletion is not the proper option. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so because it does not exist on another wikimedia project, it goes to translation. Thanks for explaining (: Becritical (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though apparently it did [1]. Becritical (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retired Professor[edit]

has no partisan interest in the Jesus article, he was making a good faith offer as a disinterested party. Your response here violated WP:AGF and your insinuation, to someone acting transparently, amounts to a personal attack. Frankly, I think this should be reported at WP:WQA. I would rather you apologize to him/her and be more welcoming. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, AGF is something lacking, but not on my part. See my response on the Jesus talk page. ^BE_Critical__Talk 23:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not AGF, maybe clear reading? Becritical, you are absolutely right that I misinterpreted you and I apologize. In situations like this it often helps to begin with an "@ —" so it is clear whom you are addressing. But this is not meant to excuse my misreading. I am sorry, and thank you for your explanation. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, misreading people is extremely easy in a text-only environment. Cheers (: ^BE_Critical__Talk 00:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not for anything, BC, but I wonder if you notice in the Talk:Jesus#Edit requests to this semi-protected page section that the bottom of the subbed part of your eye-catching sig actually obscures a part of Ret.Prof's response? Is there a way to maintain the eye-catching without blocking out another editor's writing? I see that your sig above does not seem nearly as intrusive, so perhaps you've already worked on this? If so, then thank you very much! and have a good day!
— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 13:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Your sig also blocks some of Someone65's words in the Talk:Jesus#Request section.

Hmmmmmmmm, that's strange, I'm using Firefox, and it doesn't obscure any text... I'll try and work on it and make the black space smaller. Thanks for the heads-up about this (: ^BE_Critical__Talk 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked in Firefox, and the black part does not obscure the writing below it. It only covers the words in IE8, which I usually use to edit. Thank you for your consideration!

— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 16:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :D BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Becritical. You have new messages at Raeky's talk page.
Message added 16:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc.[edit]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		I've never seen anything like this before. You nominated it for deletion, it was deleted, and you brought it back from the dead and now it's a fully fleshed out article on it's way to GA status. That deserves some recognition. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, thank you!! That's really nice of you to recognize it like this :D I was able to do it because some new sources became available which we didn't have when it was deleted. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watch[edit]

Watch well. I welcome you...--151.76.106.157 (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at L. Sprague de Camp. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I see you did removed that tag. What was going on there? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm in the middle of cleaning up what I personally see as kind of a mess of non-notability surrounding the article Christopher Stasheff. I'm not sure Stasheff himself is notable, but his books surely aren't. And that article got caught up in the net for a minute till I checked it out. Sorry. I guess I thought it would not be notable because it doesn't currently have sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed your unsourced tag on Sprague de Camp's article to refimprove since it already had two citations and therefore unsourced was inaccurate. Shsilver (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, maybe I should have thought of that (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely stumped by the idea that Stasheff is not notable, or that his The Warlock in Spite of Himself series in particular is not notable. The latter is a bestseller, with multiple sequels; far more notable, than, say, the New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc. (which did deserve their own article as well, don't get me wrong). As for Lyon Sprague de Camp not being notable: words fail me! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and if anyone can actually find such a source- let me know. I haven't seen one. I AfD'd the Stasheff article itself, and all anyone could come up with is that it OUGHT to be notable- it was kinda sad [2]. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source for what? There's a reason that AfD was snowballed with trout on top! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what reason was that? If there are no RS, the article is ipso facto not notable. There may be RS out there. I just don't see them. Which criteria? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why[edit]

Why did you delete my comment ? Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

???? Which one? I certainly didn't mean to :( BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't... [3] [4] [5], or I can't find where I did. Did something else happen? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AHA! [6] lol BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, if you didn't do it deliberately or even perhaps not at all that is totally ok, sometimes happens in a busy article. Ah it happened there, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

incidentally...[edit]

totally off-topic, but do you realize that the CSS on your signature is a bit like (pardon the HHTTG reference) "having your brain smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick"? I'm just saying... --Ludwigs2 01:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way cool :D........ thanks..............um.......I guess......LOL......BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about Chiropractic[edit]

There's more discussion going on, this time about whether/how to incorporate sources which address the underlying/specific claims made by Ernst. It'd be good to have you check the sourcing and presentation in Talk:Chiropractic#Proposed_edits_to_Safety. Thanks! Ocaasi (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still watching?[edit]

Hallo. I am a registred user, now.

I wonder 1) an user push his own POV 2)I ask him "your evidences, please" 3)he presents nothing 4) I revert him 5) he revert me 6) I revert again.

Well... it seems that in this way i do "edit war". But the results is that, the user push his POV, even if he has no sources at all. So, what shall I do?--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can prove your apparent claim that traditional sources don't make the claim [7], i don't see any way that your viewpoint can stay in the article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation internal format in Bruce Harris[edit]

Discuss at Talk:Bruce Harris, please. --Lexein (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zeppelin[edit]

This is a well established article. Please discuss your point(s) on the article talk page Here Mlpearc powwow 04:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic[edit]

If you could help us out with the multitude of discussions on talk:chiropractic, specifically this one, it would be greatly appreciated. I noticed you in the archive making some very reasonable comments. Talk:Chiropractic#Controversial_changes_to_safety --Axxaer (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but find myself lost on that page. It requires much more knowledge of the subject than I am likely to have time to acquire. Last time it took me hours, and I just don't have the time or courage to attack it right now. It's too bad this is the case, as it leaves the article to the dedicated users, but it seems to be so. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 09:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Jatt hijacked[edit]

hi this article has been hijacked over the past weeks by the writers of article jat which is a geographicly religiously different tribe to the punjabi Jatt tribe they have inserted the history of their own region while Jatts are only found in Punjab and speak Punjabi. any help would be appreciated i have attempted to discuss this with the user involved but he refuses to listen. --Qaleechpuri (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the guys from article Jat who speak a different language and have different music, culture and do not even live in the region of Punjab have pasted all their history into Jatt article. while we have an all together different history different language different culture. its like the brits writing only their own history to speak on Australia Canada America that is how absurd it is. also in wiki ifyou look at Ethnic groups, social groups and tribes of the Punjab section you will find the tribe in Punjab pronounced and listed as Jatt pronounced with a hard double T while tribe Jat is pronounced Jaat with a soft T yet they have diverted all info on Punjabi Jatts to their own article Jat which is wrong because they have no history in the Punjab where MAJORITY of Jatts live.--Qaleechpuri (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add, world knows that Pakistan was carved out of India and the ethnicity is same but the partition was done on the lines of religion. One would also like to add just because someone speaks a different language cannot guarantee it to be of different ethnicity. Mr Qaleechpuri's reasoning that Canada, Australia and United States is different is got to do more with nationalism than with the race. It is well known and documented everywhere that Europeans migrated to these respective places. Irish for one have been a strong integral force of US and many Britishers migrated to US, Canada and Australia.The recent Prime-minister of AUSTRALIA Kevin Rudd's ancestry comes from Britain. Additionally to counter the argument of MR Qaleechpuri , the Blacks of America must be different from those in Africa according to his argument and same may be the case for Jews. No doubt there are linguistic differences in the the regions but is doesnot undermines the genetic affiliations. One understands Mr Qaleechpuri's argument since he is in quest for making different identity on the lines of Pakistani State. We the Indian jatt have no problem in this regard ,Mr Qaleechpuri is invited to give his valuable contributions on the lines of Pakistani Muslim Jatt. We would be happy to have his contribution but his attempt seems to be in trying modify and distort history for his regionalism and religionism gain.

Again via you we the Indian Jatts would extent the hand of friendship and ask Mr Qaleechpuri to keep science above petty regional and religious politics.--Sheokhanda (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope Qaleechpuri can give us some reliable sources here. The recent post by Sheokhandaa serves to give me the suspicion that Qaleechpuri has a point. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 08:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Becritical and thx for your efforts. i must make it clear that these are two different communites and are recognised as such by its respective members. for example the Jatt community of east/west Punjab share a common wesbite to discuss their culture and traditions by the name of www.Jattworld.com while those who are known as Jaat share their culture and beliefs on a website called www.Jatland.com spelling and different pronounciation is clear to those on those websites that a Jatt from punjab is never called a Jaat or Jat with a soft T. apart from when i started the article Jatt i quoted from the well known ethnology books compiled by great british scholars called the glossary of tribes and castes of Punjab and the NW Province by HA rose. Denzil ibbetson and Alexander cunningham. In those references which sheokhanda has included in his own tribes history it is very clear that the ethnographers are refering to the Jatt tribe of Punjab and not anywhere else. i am refering to the following texts in article Jatt which sheokhanda copied.

   * 1.1 Are the Jats and Rajputs distinct?
   * 1.2 Jats and Sikhism
   * 1.3 Jats as Zamindar Landlords
   * 1.4 Jat Characteristics.
   * 1.5 The Position of the Jat in the Punjab
   * 1.6 The Jat Elements
   * 1.7 Social distinctions among the Jats

above references in no way address the tribe called Jaat of haryana or rajastanbut the Jatts of Punjab who clearly have a different history and status from the Jaats or Jats. Yet sheokhnada included these references in his article which is misleading. Also the language barrier is different between these two peoples the Jatts speak Punjabi they have their own ancient folklore in the punjabi langauge like the romances of heer ranjha Mirza Sahiba Sassi Punnun Sohni Mahiwal which are sung by Jatt people these folklore and songs of romance are NOT shared by the Jaats/Jat tribe nor are they in their language. the language of the Jaats is Haryanvi language and historically this has nothing to do with the Jatt population of punjab nor is it spoken in anywhere in Punjab the home of Jatts.

In the article Jat sheokhanda has translated the word Jat in urdu/arabic script and is clearly written Jaat not Jatt. i myself am able to read the script anyone can confirm that it is written as Jaat and not Jatt a clear admittance on his part that his tribe is named Jaat/Jat and not Jatt with a hard T. even the page Jaat has been redirected to article [Jat]proving that is the correct name of their tribe and is exactly how it is pronounced where Jaats are found.

Also the article Jat is giving misleading information for ex the section # 5.2 Balhara rule in Sindh states that Balhara was a Jat king yet if one reads the actual book (Ancient Account Of India And China By Two Mohammedan Travellers in the 9th century)from where this references is taken there is no mention whatsoever of the tribe of this King or if he was a Jat! yet the article protrays him as one. again we find the same in # 5.6 Rai Dynasty where the writer claims these kings belonged to the Jat tribe yet there is no historical proof for this.

so my aim is to portray what is correct and accurately written by historians on the Jatt tribe of punjab irrespective of religion and not on the Jaat/Jat people of haryana/rajastan india! much appreciated for your help on this --Qaleechpuri (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Becritical, i guess Mr Qaleechpuri would accept this only when it will come from a punjabi sikh jat, then so be it I will help in that regard too. Though one would like to ask what you found in my post which led you to believe that Mr Qaleechpuri words have credibility even though I have given so many references ?--Sheokhanda (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally If I may say so the Jats of India accept Jat as one race though the word that he says Jaat is associated with hindi mainland Jat whereas word Jatt is associated with Punjabi speaking Jat since in Punjabi language there is an extra effort while speaking. Though regarding his Mohammedan travelers one might say that they choose to wrote what they felt fitting and since the conversion in the north India of Jats did not came peacefully but rather with invasion via arabs they might like to had hide that fact. This fact is well documented in any books whose references that I have given.

This fact is documented in Indian history books too. There another race in India called Rajputs who have muslim Rajputs too, they were converts but Punjabi Rajputs speak Punjabi whereas the Rajputs of Mainland India speak Haryanvi, Hindi, Rajasthani and other regional languages.Same goes for another race Gujjars they are in India and Pakistan and follow sikhism, Islam and hinduism.

The references that Mr Qaleechpuri about www.jatland.com and www.jattland.com, I urge you talk there and you will get answers that jat and jatt is same. India constitutes of 18 official languages and people have been moving from places within India learning various languages. Mr Qaleechpuri attempt to claim that he knows India well is not authenticated since I doubt he has ever traveled to India.

I would like to reinstate that if anybody did hijack something then it was Mr Qaleechpuri, that too my identity.

Additionally to kindly tell me what made you feel that Mr Qaleechpuri has a point is it the reference of European history or the Jews or the Irish ? One would love to hear from you .....--Sheokhanda (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing plz visit this too http://www.jatland.com/home/Jats and

http://www.jatland.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-24986.html and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheokhandaa (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.jattworld.com/jattportal/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6655&forum=1&post_id=72620#forumpost72620

plus a link that was written by one the most eminent journalist of India Rajdeep Sardesai http://www.hindustantimes.com/A-level-playing-field/H1-Article1-616119.aspx

--Sheokhanda (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have limited time to look into this. Yes the reference to races and blood instead of culture is what made me suspicious. You said "the Blacks of America must be different from those in Africa according to his argument and same may be the case for Jews," and I thought "well yes they are very different, as their culture is very different." Anyway, this is a lot of material and I need to read over your posts again later. But just reading the first paragraph of the Jatt article, I note that you should look at other similar articles such as Irish people as an example." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ,on the argument of just Blacks and Jews here, the page of Wikipedia extensively gives in the account of the things which I used in my argument.Here in blacks and Jews section you can get a sense about what I am talking about.Apparently the US president Barack Obama also seems to have ancestry of Africa via father's side, though yes not all blacks are from Africa some are from Oceanic region but many are from Africa who were brought to south America,Europe, America ,middle east and Asia as slaves which is well documented everywhere in books or in documentaries on many educational channels.Even in India there is atribe of african decent in southern states and in state of Madhya Pradesh.Times magazine had a very big article on his genealogy before Barack Obama got elected.Regarding Jews,there are over 100 jewish lobbies in US doing good for Israel, how is that possible if they do not have any ethnicity affiliations with Israel ?Though the culture you might argue is different in terms of National laws and way of living life.still the ethinicity debate is firm --Sheokhanda (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did find that the articles surrounding these subjects require extensive cleanup both to comply with the NPOV policy and to avoid other policy violations. I will make a series of edits in the next few days which will help to clean up, but it may be that neither of you are going to like what I do. However, it's my hope that it will head the articles toward a better and more encyclopedic status in the end. I also think we will eventually have to involve other editors. I'm only able to go so far with this and one thing I'm certain of is that this will require quite a lot of time and energy. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

really appreciate your efforts i hope we have not diverted you from more important issues. i am available to assist in any way if required. thx again! --Qaleechpuri (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we also have plenty of glorification of one Jatt called Bhagat Singh who was practically a terrorist who came to england and shot dead a police man for which he was hanged. i do not think he is a worthy Jatt role model for the younger generation in this day and age especially with all the extremism we have today.--Qaleechpuri (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC) --92.15.133.255 (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so it seems. This little nest of articles is such a mess that I fear there are not enough other editors currently interested to help clean it up. Wikipedia has had less and less participation. Well, we'll see. Try to edit under a username okay? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your records Bhagat Singh did not go to England but rather Udham singh went and shot Michael O'Dwyer who was was responsible for Jallianwala Bagh massacre shootout in which innumerable innocents people lost their lives.I strongly believe the one posting nonfactual information on Bhagat singh needs to have a history lesson in which Indian government will be happy to comply.Pakistani have a habit of misguiding and misleading world especially west but on the other hand are active participants of bombing namely London bombing on 7 july, Failed new york Time square bombing attempt, 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack. We as Indian have been committed towards eliminating extremist and fundamentalist people who have been killing innocent civilians all across the world. We are committed as a nation to help Wikipedia get true facts about the historical events.--Sheokhanda (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not trying to master the factual details here. I'm not qualified to judge who is right and who's wrong in such cases. I'm only trying to look at it from the standpoint of what is okay in a general encyclopedia article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 08:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi there whats the out come of this dispute as the article seems to be diverted to Jat by another admin. cheers.--Qaleechpuri (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's an "outcome" yet. I found a lot of plagiarism in the article and removed it. I think the consensus of those editors is that we already have an article on Jat people, and that this should be the only article. Your argument, of course, is that there is more than one Jatt people. If I were you, I would get a bunch of quotes from reliable sources clearly stating your argument that Jat and Jatt are not the same. Once you have this documentation on a page here so everyone can see it (use a sub-page of your userpage), then present this argument on the talk page of Jat people. The following discussion should reveal whether anyone is pushing a non-NPOV POV, and we can go from there. Is that something which is doable for you? I can show you how to make a sub-page if you want. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thx Becriticial for all your efforts. these days i have been really busy hopefully at the weekend i will make sometime to clear this up. thx again --Qaleechpuri (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAN[edit]

Well, the GAN process seems to be going relatively quickly now. Peer review might take longer, but that's because it's harder to do. Unfortunately, there's not much else you can do. If you think you can get it passed, try the GAN, but if you don't want to take that risk, do the peer review. I think you would rather have a good article than a rushed one. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 20:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?[edit]

Why did you mark my edits as vandalism? I've been trying to create a good and referred discography of Milli Vanilli. I completed the singles area and was on my way of ending albums. My edits are definetely much more informative and cited than what is now.--Parapazzi (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't know what happened there. I suspect that I looked at one page, then hit ctrl-tab one too many times and then the vandal button. Being able to revert vandalism with one click has its disadvantages. Anyway I put your contributions back in. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Francis Seraph Church[edit]

Thank you for helping with this article. I was afraid that the first registered user to edit the page would revert me, rather than removing more information that didn't really belong in the article. 71.79.64.65 (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Participating[edit]

Keithbob has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Participating in noticeboards and other community forums is an essential part of making Wikipedia work and grow. Thank you for taking the time to add to my thread on the Notability noticeboard. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice about User:Delicious carbuncle[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Cirt (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC[edit]

I believe you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be Critical[edit]

Be Critical, your name makes me think. Go ahead, you can be critical, but as for me, I'd rather be legitimate, and even compelling. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is merely part of the critical process for finding valid data and ideas. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

For being a fair minded, even tempered, and soundly analytical influence in Wikipedia; particularly in regards to the current issues at the Southern Poverty Law Center article. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks :D I'm trying. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Now that I'm in the right section) I have to admit that your reply was pretty damned funny. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} has sent you a Christmas cookie! May its sugary goodness fill you with warmth and love this holiday season. But don't eat too many!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:Wikipedia:CONTRIB/Holidays/General3}} to your friends' talk pages.

Charles G. Koch[edit]

I have no objection to the changes you've made; they're pretty straightforward clean-ups. However, is it really appropriate to be shining up the article when it's still got a pair of ugly tags on top? Maybe there's more value in correcting those. All you need to do is figure out what the actual objections are that motivate the tags and fix those. Dylan Flaherty 21:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, to save me reading that whole talk page, can you give me a summary? Or better yet put it on the talk page so others can comment? I hate to have to read up on a talk page where mostly people are quarreling. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove the tags again unless there is a talk-page consensus that the problems I have identified multiple times are fixed. THF (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is something more on the talk page, this needs administrative action, as putting them back in would be disruptive. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THF, I see they keep removing your tags. People did this to me. However, it appears they are all complaining that there is not some single Talk page section on the topic of your tags. Yes, I know you discussed it in a bunch of sections above, but it looks like it would be easier for everyone to restate your concerns in a newly created section, then readd the tags. This is just my opinion/suggestion, not me telling you what to do. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did create a new section. It was ignored, and DF just overwhelmed the talk page with several new sections playing WP:IDHT and demanding that I create yet another new section. It's plain harassment at this point. THF (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would support temporarily re-adding the tags if I could understand what the problems are, through a clear and concise summary which specifically states the problem. But if other editors don't agree that there are current problems, the tags would need to come off again. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go that far, 'BECritical. If the tags are placed legitimately, they should stay up until the discussion closes, not "if other editors don't agree that there are current problems". Naturally, everyone opposing the idea will not "agree that there are current problems", and that will be the excuse to remove the tags that really should stay up until the discussion is closed. THF needs to be given the respect and time needed to raise, disclose, and close his concern. There should be no rush here. We are building an excellent encyclopedia, not edit warring on tags because people keep complaining the tags are a "badge of shame". No, there's no shame in raising legitimate issues then following established policy to discuss and close the issue, then remove the tags. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works by consensus. To take an extreme example, if someone had a problem with the main page and put an NPOV tag on it, should it stay till that editor is satisfied? No, only till the WP:consensus (see definition) is that it's not appropriate. Of course, if the concerns are legit and there is no consensus for taking off the tags (as there is now) they should remain. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the concerns were legitimate, much less compelling, we should simply address them, not mess about with tags. Dylan Flaherty 01:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a legitimate and even compelling argument. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signature[edit]

Please reduce the size of your signature; they aren't supposed to be that large.— Dæ dαlus^{+ Contribs} 03:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did reduce it by a few pixels, thanks BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the use of inverse color; it fills the entire block. Dylan Flaherty 04:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange... it may be use of older browsers, it works for me on FireFox and IE, in multiple zoom settings. It's supposed to be white text on black background, and in mozilla it's shaded a bit to appear almost 3 dimensional. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I'm on chrome as I have fewer tabs, and it is rather faster. I have 80+ open in firefox.— Dæ dαlus^{+ Contribs} 05:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well anyway, is it okay now? I made it smaller. I'm not sure what could be wrong. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think so, but again personally, I need a freakin' screen ruler, because it's frankly hard to tell.— Dæ dαlus^{+ Contribs} 20:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks... it is adjusted in pixels, I think I took 2 off out of 6. And how it appears would have to do with your screen resolution. But anyway, I'm glad it looks alright now and thanks for the help (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pucca[edit]

Jesus christ man. Just let it go. The subject is notable. Just because it has no sources does not mean the article should be deleted. Sources should be added, because it is quite clear that notability is asserted and proven.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked and looked on google, google news etc. for a single source establishing its notability per WP policy. I didn't find any. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must be blind.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The aussie-nintendo website doesn't look like an RS to me... what you sent me to says "Posted 4th of December, 2010 at 10:59 am by Infernal Monkey" BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's your opinion. Either way, reliable sources have been found. Verifiability proven and notability is verified.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to disagree. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linking[edit]

You are aware that you don't have to do this to link to this section, right?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks, I know that's possible, it's just much easier to copy and paste it from the url. It makes an external link, but who cares? Why use pipes and double brackets when you can do it more easily? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can always copy the bit of text after /wiki/ and paste it as a piped link.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section headers[edit]

It is generally frowned upon to change the titles of sections in the middle of a discussion (particularly if it is being linked to on other pages). There are reasons to do so, and changing it now so it can be found more easily once a consensus is developed is not one of them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

for enlightening me about "abductive object." I taught one year of junior high English 33 years ago and I just couldn't recall the term. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary templates[edit]

Hello... sorry, but I need to ask what your rationale was for some of the templates you have recently added. For example, there is no conceivable reason whatsoever for adding a "notability" template to Toy Story 3, nor is it appropriate to add an "unreferenced" template to the same article when it already has (at last count) 134 references. Many of the other articles you tagged today also did not warrant such templates. --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ckatz, "unsourced" means there are no references in a article and you're adding that template to articles with at last 1 reference and at most 134 references. And you're adding the "notability" template to notable articles. Also why are you adding a deletion template saying "Unsourced, not notable apparently" to notable articles with references? Powergate92Talk 22:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for adding it to "Toy Story 3." I would like to address your concerns specifically, so I need links for the other objections. If you are saying that this [8] for example counts as a reference, then perhaps the "refimprove" template would have been better. But since that really doesn't count as a reference, I thought the "unsourced" does fine. But I'm willing to go over the templates I added and put "refimprove" instead if you wish. Okay, on to the "notability" template, that says "This article may not meet the general notability guideline." I attempted to put it on articles whose sources did not show them to be notable. If they're notable, the template is merely a request to show that fact by sourcing them. I thought I specifically did not add the template to Toy Story, as I was very aware they are notable, and please accept my apology for that. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I do think that the "notability" template was appropriate here, because there are no sources there showing it to actually be notable per Wikipedia:Notability (films). The template merely asks the question. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started replacing some of those templates and modifying them, but thought I'd wait for your response first. Notability is definitely in question for most or all of the articles I put it on, and needs to be proven with a source which meets the above guideline before it's taken out. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to several of the articles, notability is not in question... we won't deal with Toy Story 3 since you've established that was a mistake, but Stargate? It is a series that forms part of one of the largest sci-fi franchises around. Rudolph? Also notable, even if the current sources don't meet your concerns. In some cases, we need sources to establish the notability, and in the absence of those sources we consider removing the article. In other cases, however, notability is clearly not in question, so we tag for improved refernces (and not for notability). --Ckatz^chat _spy 00:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the sources:

^ a b "Stargate Infinity". Cookie Jar Entertainment. http://www.cjar.com/cj_shows_stargate.php. Retrieved 2009-06-14.
^ Heyward, Andy and, Meugniot, Will. (2008). Animated Stargate Effects Test and Character Walking Models. [DVD]. Shout! Factory.
^ Sumner, Darren (2001). "Brad Wright (Interview)". GateWorld. http://www.gateworld.net/interviews/brad_wright.shtml. Retrieved 2009-06-07.
^ "Stargate Infinity". This TV. http://eastern.thistv.com/view/Series/2606/Stargate-Infinity/. Retrieved October 3, 2010.
^ a b "Stargate Infinity Box Set". Total Sci Fi Online. August 20, 2007. http://totalscifionline.com/reviews/820-stargate-infinity-box-set. Retrieved 2009-06-07.
^ a b "Stargate Infinity: The Complete Series". Sci Fi Movie Page. http://www.scifimoviepage.com/dvd/stargate_infinity-dvd.html. Retrieved 2009-06-07.
^ "Stargate: Infinity — The Complete Series". EzyDVD. http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/800114. Retrieved 2009-06-07.

And didn't immediately see anything that established notability for "Stargate Infinity (often abbreviated as SGI or just Infinity) is an American animated science fiction television series." This is not like labeling a non-animated stargate series as non-notable. I'm possibly wrong, and possibly one of those sources, Heyward, is enough. I just thought it was questionable.

Re Rudolph, yes of course the character is notable, but maybe not every single little film ever made with that character [9]. So questioning it is, I would think, legit considering the article doesn't have sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rainforest Cafe[edit]

Hi Becritical. I removed the prod you recently placed on this since I don't think its overly spammy and its likely notable. You're welcome to take it to AfD if you disagree. Them From Space 01:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The creator is, I didn't find much on the cafe itself. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to article on creator, where the info can reside till big enough to fork. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Schussler ‎[edit]

Hi. I hesitated before proposing this article for one of our three paths for deletion because I always check on the history of the article creator before tagging a new page. Currently this is not really a biography, it is an article about a chain of restaurants with some brief mentions of the person who started the franchise. May I respectfully suggest that you find several substantial reliable sources other than the one local newspaper interview, that clearly assert notability, before another new page patroller sees it as a possible WP:CSD. Such entrepreneurs are not a rarity these days. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Steven Schussler for deletion[edit]

The article Steven Schussler is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Schussler until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cind.amuse 09:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Becritical. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 22:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Proposed addition at Southern Poverty Law Center[edit]

Please consider weighing in on what you think of the proposed addition at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#seeking_outside_input.2C_RS.2FN . Thanks. Drrll (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Hey there Becritical, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Becritical/Veganism. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In re Dees and the SPLC[edit]

Hello BeCritical. I didn't want to lay it on too thick at the SPLC talk page, but are you getting the idea why a number of prominent, firmly committed liberals thoroughly dislike Dees and his organization? If you haven't already, you might check this out [10].

How much legal expertise does it take to win cases against impoverished, ignorant brutes who are often representing themselves in court? SPLC fund-raising literature (actually all of its literature) stresses the damage and danger to life and limb that such groups (usually small gangs) represent. It doesn't, of course, convey the reality that these groups are also easy legal pickings. This results in lots of contributory cash pouring into the Center to build up its endowment and to provide handsome salaries for those at the top. It doesn't go to the victims of acts of hatred or their families. They have to settle for the typically very meager assets of their tormentors. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'll read it later, but Stephen Bright published by Ken Silverstein in Harper's Magazine? Isn't that an RS? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation[edit]

Hi, there is a dispute here about what you meant by a comment on the NPOV noticeboard. Your input would be appreciated. You needn't read the whole tedious section. The dispute is summarised in the last three contributions. Thanks. Paul B (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the headsup (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SAQ at arbcom[edit]

You are not involved, but since you recently commented at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question you may like to know that an arbcom case has been requested at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Shakespeare authorship question. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (: (x10) BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia turns 10[edit]

The tenth anniversary of Wikipedia is here! Time to spread all the anniversary cheer! Yeah! Ten years, whew! That's a lot in World Wide Web Years!--RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210Please respond on my talkpage, i will respond on your talkpage. 03:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of SPA[edit]

Hi Becritical,

I noticed that in this edit you characterize myself and Tom Reedy as “SPA accounts”. This was quite a surprise to me as it does not conform with what I have generally considered to be the going definition of a “SPA” on enwiki. Could I perhaps persuade you to re-read the essay Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and reassess your position on that basis? You are, of course, free to post such evidence as you please, and I wouldn't dream of suggesting that my interpretation outweighs your own in any way; but as my connotation of the term is quite negative I would hate for such a characterization to stand if it happens that it was made in haste or otherwise was based on a misunderstanding. --Xover (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the definition: "A user who appears to have a very brief editing history, or an apparent focus on one (or at most a handful of) matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to assess whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy or personal agendas, aware of project norms, not improper uses of an account, and aimed at building an encyclopedia...Evidence that the user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area, may suggest the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus"

The reason I posted evidence noting that a lot of editors are SPAs in this case, is that the evidence posted by the IP was using the charge of SPA as if it were something negative. However, there's nothing wrong with an SPA account. It's purely a matter of editing practice. I posted that as a correction, in order to say "hey, what if NinaGreen is an SPA? That doesn't matter, SPAs are the norm here. What matters is whether she edited properly and related to others properly." I think there are some SPAs in the case who have acted badly, and some who have acted well. The arbitrators know this and they won't whack anyone merely for being an SPA. A disruptive SPA may get whacked harder I guess because it doesn't have other mitigating factors. I can note that SPA isn't necessarily a negative on the evidence page if you wish. I'm sure you have had the appellation SPA drummed into you as a negative, but remember that you learned the term in a negative atmosphere. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am aware of the definition—hence why I requested you refresh your memory of that particular essay (pay particular attention to the points on who not to label as an SPA!)—and it rather strongly associates the term “SPA” with an editor that possibly has a short edit history, but that advocates for an agenda, and is not aware of or does not care about project norms. To my mind this would perfectly describe those whose only interest in Wikipedia is promoting the Authorship (or some similar) point of view (and attempting to insert it in as many articles as possible, but are not otherwise interested in improving those articles); but is rather a poorer fit with editors whose purpose is to improve the encyclopedia but happens to do most of their editing within the general area of their interest (which typically corresponds with their area of expertise). In particular, the Shakespeare WikiProject has within its scope just shy of a thousand articles which, while connected by way of relating to Shakespeare in some way, covers actual topics as diverse as music, painting, biography, literature, plays, theatres, bothany, history, computer science, festivals, hiking trails, geography, and popular culture (TV, movies, comics). If this then qualifies as a Single-Purpose Account then there is no meaningful distinction: if your only purpose is to “improve the encyclopedia” then you would fit that interpretation of the SPA definition. Or would it perhaps be better to engage in various WikiDrama, buck for adminship, or concentrate on vandal-fighting because that would give an appearance of a "broader" editing pattern? Would someone who primarily spends their time reviewing at FAC qualify (Sandy or Raul, say)? How about GAC (if pressed I'm sure I could find a few examples here too)? What about the WikiCup (whose singular purpose is to score points)?
I find this particularly disconcerting when, as alluded previously, I and Tom—who put in a lot of effort improving all the articles within the project scope, and all of the article and not a particular section—get lumped in as “SPAs” with an editor arrived within three months, whose demonstrated only interest is not only limited to the Authorship POV, but is even limited to one particular candidate, and touches no part of the article that does not advance her favoured POV.

If there is no meaningful (in fact, obvious) distinction there for you, then I fear we will have to agree to disagree.

Incidentally, I was not here particularly concerned about ArbCom's cudgel: if they should swing it my way it will be for failing to live up to WP:CIVIL somewhere (as my statement in the case mentions, frustration is an environmental hazard around these parts) and will probably be well deserved. But I do object, no matter the context, to being described as a SPA; especially by otherwise uninvolved editors. --Xover (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Thus, the need to note that calling someone an SPA is not a valid way of tarring them as a disruptive editor. Don't think it hasn't been tried any number of times, and lumping you and Tom in is a way of rendering that particular attack path ineffectual. Oh, and BTW, you all need to get some evidence together if you want this case to go anywhere. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. --Xover (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I added my rationale to the evidence page, which I hoped would make it more acceptable to you. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Be-Critical. I agree with you in your reasoning, and I posted the most relevant quote from the policy that indicates being called an SPA is not offensive in itelf, and that it boils down to whether the SPA is positive or negative for the encyclopedia (I was more plain - I just said "good or bad"). I was wondering two things:

can you provide a link to the wiki-tool that calculates a users total article and page edits/edits per page/etc.? I know one exists as I stumbled across it several years ago.
I was wondering why you didn't classify me like you did Tom and Xover (Shakespeare and very closely related)? On mine, I would ask that you at least note that I do have other substantial areas of interest, more like a quadruple purpose account. Basically, I don't consider myself an SPA and would like you to reconsider my inclusion. I have over 8000 edits on literally hundreds of articles,[11] ranging from SAQ (11%) and Oxfordian Theory, Parallels, Chronology (6%) and William Shakespeare (3%) to "General Theatre-related" including articles on various theatrical productions, theatres, performers (20%), non-authorship related Shakespeare Play articles - cast lists, play summaries, etc. - (5%), vandal reverts ("Shakespeare sucks!"), and other lovely phrases from the high schoolers - (3%), and then all the talk pages associated with them, and all the various interactions with other Wiki editors, administrators, etc. I've also uploaded scores of theatrical photographs on multiple subjects, and a number of photographs of the Central California coastline. If you are going to lump me in, I would really appreciate a fair description, as was provided for Tom and Xover. Of course, I would rather you reweigh my edit history, and remove me from the list, entirely, but that's your call. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here is the tool you asked for, and it shows why I said you were an SPA lol [12]. It's true you do have an interest in High School Musical 3: Senior Year and Carmel-by-the-Sea, California and a few others. I will note that on the evidence, but I think including you there is a pretty good call, as among the top 16 articles 4403 edits were to Shakespeare related articles and 688 were not- about 5/6ths of your edits Shakespeare related if my math is right? And that's assuming the edits to Francis Bacon are not Shakespeare related. You'll get more out of that tool if you create [[13]]. See evidence page, I'll make a change. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smiley Award[edit]

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat 20:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awwwww :P

WP:ARBPIA notification[edit]

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.

This is just a notification and not an assumption of any wrongdoing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Town sheriff[edit]

I can see a lot of problems with that idea, unless the sheriff had no interest whatsoever in the subject of the article, and then you'd have the problem of what kind of editors enjoy controlling the behaviour of other editors (which I'm guessing you might have a bit of a problem with now with admins who break bad). I think it might even be appropriate to have a probation officer that disruptive editors have to report their edits to on a weekly basis! Banned editors could have a parole officer to report to when their ban has expired. But all this bureaucracy would be dependent on volunteer labour such as you and me to make it work. I'd much rather spend my time creating content than ride herd on renegade editors.

Wikipedia is a grand concept, but any grand concept has to contend with human nature. That's what inevitably does in democracies and Communist revolutions and explains why tyrannies last so long. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

town sheriff[edit]

I like your edits - very nice. there's more to be done, obviously, but do you think it's complete enough to put up at Village pump (policy) as a proposal? --Ludwigs2 03:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, not quit yet, see talk page, and thanks I'm glad you like it (; BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Butcher of Kouta[edit]

Dear Becritical,

I was coming this morning to expand my Le boucher de Kouta article and found that it had been entirely deleted by you. Perhaps the guidelines to book notability have changed since I was more active on Wikipedia; there is a fair amount of criticism and discussion on BDK in academia. Can you direct me to those guidelines? Or is it now Wikipedia policy not to have articles for individual books, but only for authors?

Thanks for the guidance, Khazar (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I originally read your reversion to a redirect to mean that you thought this wasn't a notable topic. Upon looking again, I'm guessing you simply meant this article hadn't demonstrated its notability yet. As I mentioned on the discussion page of that article, I should have those sources up later this afternoon, demonstrating notability per the guidelines you linked to above. Best Khazar (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD notification[edit]

Please don't forget to notify the creator of an article when you nominate for CSD, e.g. The Love Game--SPhilbrick T 12:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll try to remember sorry. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Arbcom case[edit]

Hi,

You mentioned you're unsure of sources for Arbcom (Jerusalem), I'll provide you with some good sources later today. --Dailycare (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks (: I only need enough info to post. It's not really about sources and stuff, that's for you experts to fill in once the case is accepted. I only have to format the request in such a way they may hopefully accept it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are:

1("Jerusalem is not recognised internationally as the capital of the Jewish state" (BBC))
2 ("Seat of government: Jerusalem, though most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv" (BBC))
3 ("Though the annexation has not been recognized by any other country, Israel insists that the whole city is its capital." (The Independent))
4 ("cette «capitale» autoproclamée n'est reconnue par pratiquement aucun État étranger", "«territoire disputé»" (Le Figaro))
GA resolution 63/30 ("the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (is) null and void" (United Nations General Assembly))
SC resolution 478 ("(..) the recent "Basic Law" on Jerusalem (is) null and void" (United Nations Security Council))
7 (""Jerusalem is Israel's capital" he said, stating an Israeli position not recognised by world powers" (Al Jazeera))
8 ("Jerusalem must not be used as a metonym or variant for Israel. It is not internationally recognised as the Israeli capital, and its status is one of the central controversies in the Middle East." (The Times))
9 ("Jerusalem is not recognised as the legitimate capital of Israel by any foreign country" (Inter Press Service))
10 ("Canada court: Jerusalem not Israel's capital")
26 ("Capital: Tel Aviv" in an infobox on Israel. (El Pais))
11 "(Israel) claims the entire city as its capital but the move was never internationally recognised" (Daily Telegraph)
12 ("Israel has declared all of Jerusalem its indivisible and eternal capital, a claim not recognized internationally (Reuters))
13 (""Jerusalem is Israel's capital and will remain as such." That position is universally rejected by other countries" (LA Times, see page 2))
14 ("Jerusalem, the capital recognized as such by no government but Israel itself" (USA Today))
15 ("Israel insists (...) east Jerusalem (is) part of its own capital, a view disputed by the international community" (New Zealand Herald))
16 ("La comunità internazionale, inclusi gli Usa, non riconosce la rivendicazione di Israele che sia Gerusalemme la sua «eterna indivisa capitale»." (La Stampa))
17 ("Nel 1980, Israele proclamò la città sua "eterna e indivisa capitale", uno status non riconosciuto dagli altri Stati" (La Repubblica))
18 ("The battle for Jerusalem has always been a battle that Israel has waged alone, since even the United States has not recognized the city as Israel's capital" (New York Times))
19 ("No major foreign government has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital" (New York Times))
20 ("Israel (...) considers Jerusalem its sovereign capital. This is a claim rejected by the international community" (CNN))

--Dailycare (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That does serve to strengthen the position that the sources do not unequivocally endorse saying that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." Thus I can feel ok about presenting the case, since the claim in the article is such a blatant example of Wikipedia taking sides in a dispute. I'm not going to try to argue the issue before ArbCom except for a brief description, because they won't be interested. They'll be interested almost entirely in user behavior. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Tahash Timeline[edit]

Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling[edit]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Town Seriff[edit]

B-Critical, You are one of the few editors I see at [14] who is seriously trying to understand the problem and offer reasonable solutions. I also see that you have been a major contributor to Town Sheriff.

From my experience, the idea that a society is based on the rule of law means enforcement of rules. Social norms only happen when there is meaningful accounting for behavior. Wikipedia has very good foundation rules, but it has no real system of enforcement that can be appealed to by most editors. The Town Sheriff proposal seems to be the missing component for building a meaningful society.

A few observations:

I cannot get my peer group to become editors because they have seen the treatment I receive and will have no part of it.

There are times I look in on an enforcement discussion, say around 9 am Pacific Time and there are already thirty or so new posts. It can take a long time to catch up, and most of the time I do not. Another response I get from potentially useful editors is that they have to work and simply do not have the time. It is not the time to contribute to an article. It is the time to argue with other editors. Science Apologist frequently challenged me to report him, as have many of his followers. He knew full well that I did not have the time to do so. He also knew he had the vote. Like Ludwigs2, it was more likely I would get blocked if I reported him.

Many of the arguments are over a single edit that seldom has anything to do with the purpose of the article. For instance, QG's edit that started that case is for a reference for a point that is clearly an attempt to use the article to make a point in another article. The article for pseudoscience can be a good one without that item. A Town Sheriff could enforce an ordinance that any point of contention that turns into an edit war will be tabled for thirty days, and if there is still trouble after that, the item will be subjected to a panel of judges for a go-no go decision.

The litmus test for an editor is whether or not he/she is a fringe editor. The way that translates is "Fringe POV pusher." The fact that this branding is allowed should be the first hint that there is an imbalance of influence making the community collaboration become one of majority view collaboration. That tyranny of the majority suppresses new ideas and has already hurt Wikipedia. It will continue to do so. Not having a realistic avenue of appeal, minority editors have and will leave. If they care, they will find other ways of seeking balance. I know that I have around 600-700 daily viewers on the website I manage and a large number of sympathetic websites that link to it.

It is just a dominant editor ploy to argue that "fringe POV pushers" are trying to use Wikipedia to promote their subject. There may be a few, certainly people promoting themselves, but that is easy to spot. In most cases, if it appears an editor is pushing their subject, it is because they do not understand the perspective sought by Wikipedia. My rule of thumb is to seek a stable article that is useful as a quick reference. Making it pro anything makes it unstable. Making it anything other than who, what and why makes it useless as a reference. It is irrational to think that an article heavy with characterization of the subject will ever be stable.

I have spent the last twelve years of my life more or less 100% involved in working for the advancement of understanding in my field. One of my talking points to others in my field is to learn how to talk about our subject, and to do that, learn how our audience hears us. Do you really think I would stand up in a science conference and say I talk to dead people? What I would do is present research results directed at understanding anecdotal experiences and hypotheses. The problem is that I am talking to Wikipedia editors hiding behind masks while they hurl insults at me and it is difficult to get past that wall of ignorance.

That takes me back to my website and efforts to balance the story. An effort being joined by a growing number of people with growing access to the public. I think Wikipedia is an important idea but I think it needs a Town Sheriff to save the day.

Thank you for reading this. This will probably be my last attempt so no response is necessary. Tom Butler (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside[edit]

I wrote this template a while back - {{nono}} - and I'm trying to encourage it's use. basically you can use it to make inline redactions of other people's ruder comments without disturbing the flow of the text. i.e. if someone posts:

"I disagree with that stupid idea and I wish you would stop filling the page with such patent nonsense, and get back to real editing"

you can nono it to read:

"I disagree with that [redacted]stupid idea and I wish [we could] get back to real editing"

Use cautiously and sparingly: reasonable people will accept it gracefully, but people in a rage will become further enraged. wp:CIV is on your side so long as you don't change the meaning of their post, but it's still a risky act.

Also, I do understand you're point - I don't think the act was blockable, but I recognize it wasn't all that brilliant of a move, so I can see the conceptual wiggle room. Most of the reason I'm being stridently oppositional on the point is that it's that wiggle room I want to bring under control. Regardless of what you might think of my comment, Sandstein's actions taken as a whole were fairly unsavory, and that kind of behavior needs to be delegitimized. --Ludwigs2 20:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cool template, and I can think of a few instances where I might have used it. It would also make a nice addition to a Sheriff's toolbox. I hope we can get going on that project again soon. Thanks for bringing it to my attention (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate to have two RFCs on same page at same time[edit]

This is entirely inappropriate. We do not need two Requests for Comment discussions going on — at the same time — on the same page. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum[edit]

Just a point. In this discussion that you redacted it was mentioned that the previous proposal to rename the article had failed. It hadn't. Discussion was ongoing and the IP 24 closed it early. SlimVirgin reverted him [15][16][17] In the end, though, SV restored his closing [18] to make way for her proposal, with the agreement of the original proposer. [19] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, what a complicated situation. Thanks for explaining! BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like Jayen466, the editor who proposed renaming, and you, I think renaming is a more easily-reachable compromise position. But, like Jayen466, I've come round to SlimVirgin's view that the term itself doesn't deserve its own article. It seems virtually no one uses it. If we are to cover it, it's the prank that is the subject, and so little of actual note can be said about that, it belongs as a small section in Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. I just wanted to make the point your argument for renaming has merit and may be the most politically (art of the possible) sensible position. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Personally, I think the renaming proposal (followed by tidy-up of the at times execrable sourcing and quote farming) has merit. But then I would think that, as I originally proposed it! That earlier discussion was not an RfC by the way. I believe a significant number of editors who would not support deletion, because the campaign is notable, would, like you, support renaming, especially now that we know that the neologism hasn't actually made it into the Partridge Dictionary of Slang ... despite the article giving everyone the opposite impression. (There should be a law against summarising a source in such a misleading way that the article implies the exact opposite of what the source says.) That spurious piece of info was part of what informed the previous discussion. Renaming is right, regardless of whether the article gets redirected or not, and it will be hard to get the community's attention twice. So I for one am sorry to see the section with your proposal gone. --J N 466 20:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see Off2riorob concurs. I'd prefer to back the SV proposal for now, as it's the position I believe best fits this situation. I hope clear and sensible arguments, like those from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, will eventually persuade enough editors over the course of the RfC. If that doesn't fly, I'll support simple renaming. But I'd like to give the full SV treatment a good shot first. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we'll see what happens. I think he is wrong in this case, but Jimbo may swing things into a consensus for SV's proposal. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience[edit]

You wrote at the pseudoscience talk page: "*Remove This is a general article on pseudoscience. The source seems relevant to an article or section on Quackery, but is not a source for general statements on pseudoscience. Also, we do not use patently false generalizations even when published in a reliable source which most likely depended on the common sense of readers to make valid meaning out of the statement. It is not a threat to public health for people to believe in the Loch Ness monster. Nor is it true that a superstition that does not threaten public health is not pseudoscience. We need sources dealing with the subject in general, not throw-away rhetoric in the introductions to articles on specific subjects. I could point out other problems such as the lousy writing, for example the statement that irrational beliefs are pseudoscience (they might or might not be). That example is just a start. It's a terrible paragraph. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)"[reply]

The article is on the topic pseudoscience. The source is about pseudoscience The peer-reviewed sources states pseudoscience issues "are a serious matter of public health." There are many examples of the pseudoscience issues. Do you agree the peer-reviewed source must be restored and summarised at the pseudoscience article. Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) QuackGuru (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from my talk page: "Hey, got your note on my talk page, but I only have enough WP time to focus on one issue at a time or I'll start acting stupid. I'm involved elsewhere at the moment. So maybe when that issue dies down I'll look in at Pseudoscience. Thanks for the headsup. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)"[reply]

I want to know why you thought the article entirely on pseudiscience belongs in the Quackery article but not the Pseudoscience article (PMID 21092400). QuackGuru (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience[edit]

This note is to inform you that Pseudoscience articles are subject to editing restrictions, as outlined by the Arbitration Committee. Please read and familiarize yourself with this remedy. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh... like I don't know that and like I did more than one edit to the talk page. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, whether you know it or not is independent of whether you've been formally notified. This is not an accusation of wrongdoing; it is merely a notification. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, the system is just intrusive and... what's the word, like getting patted down at an airport. Sorry to snap at you. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

heh, *that* wasn't snapping, that was fine. I know it can seem accusatory and intrusive, but seriously it is better to notify everyone and make sure everyone knows about the restrictions, than to cherry pick who to notify, and risk leaving out someone who is unaware and then runs afoul due to ignorance. Thanks for your understanding. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True (: Cheers. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Awarded for debating a difficult and divisive topic with intelligence, class, and civility, and being part of the solution, rather than the problem. J N 466 21:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WOW thank you way cool :D BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD[edit]

I have reverted you AFD of Lewinsky - it was pointy and you didn't even bother to explain why you wanted it deleted. I have the idea you don't want it deleted, please don't use wikipedia process in such a way, AFD discussions should not be opened for confirmation, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a chance of this article being deleted under Dreadstar's BLP rationale, as was demonstrated with Santorum (neologism). I do, however, believe that the article fails WP:NOT (a dictionary). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request - santorum[edit]

I'd appreciate your consideration in asterisking your recent comment? It is a total departure from the current discussion thread and your thoughts would be better served as an unrelated comment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noted your edit on the talk page and appreciate very much your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - "santorum" consensus[edit]

Becritical, FYI I've posed Question #2 here. I would appreciate any consideration you might care to offer. Any credible resolution will require significant editor input and your observations would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zeppelin and "English"[edit]

I just came across your comment ("'English' is not a place or country, it's a language") on the Talk:Led Zeppelin page and just had to say something. England is a country, from where the English and their language spawn. Why do you think the English language is called English? JonChapple ^Talk 10:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hummmmm.... I'll tell you that if you tell me why English is a disambiguation page. And why English language is the first thing on it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the word can mean a number of things originating in England, including the people, language and, by the looks of things, a surname and programming language. American is also a disambiguation page. What's your point? JonChapple ^Talk 16:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The first line of the English page: English may refer to something of, from, or related to England, a country of the United Kingdom" JonChapple ^Talk 16:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it may. When I first read it I thought it meant "English speaking." My point is, it may mean a lot of different things, so needed linking. And yes, you're right it is or used to be a sovereign country, but just as with "American," since it has different meanings you have to explain it. Certainly when you say "English" in the context of a band, what comes to mind is "English speaking," not England. I've been referred to and referred to myself as "English," meaning "English speaking." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be linked, but certain editors on here like to keep linked phrases to a mininum ("per WP:OVERLINK", usually) when it's fairly obvious what it would be referring to. Having said that, I understand that the most common use of "English" for many Americans would be the language, but when we're talking about a band, I'd think it should be clear it's referring to their nationality. You wouldn't read "Italian band" or "German band" and assume it means Italian- or German-speaking. JonChapple ^Talk 19:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'm coming to it based on what I actually thought when I read it for the first time. Maybe it's kind of like needing to link to an American state? Anyway, you're correct that it's a country not a language. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also, we could just have said "Led Zeppelin were a rock band from England that formed..." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inre your "comment on closing" santorum RfC[edit]

Please consider refactoring your comment to the "meta" section where I and/or others might respond without sidetracking the RfC responses? Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's "sidetracking" to discuss closing there; but if you want to refactor it and leave a link to the discussion of closing, go ahead. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 13:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I've responded in the "meta" discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue[edit]

I like and agree with your edits. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks (: B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 22:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verification[edit]

BeCritical, I agree that unverified information has no place in an encyclopaedia. Other encyclopaedic works wouldn't allow such material to be published at all, yet here at Wikipedia there is a school of thought that bullshit should not only be encouraged, but also can't be removed until undue effort has been expended to try and prove it's not bullshit. Of course sound judgement must be used to evaluate what is bullshit and what appears to be verifiable if someone spent the time on it, but good judgement can never be subject to absolute rules which are then only ever arbitrarily applied because that's the nature of Wikipedia. But even if absolute rules were predictably applied, that system would make Wikipedia beholden to robotic imposition of dogma, not judgement. Don't let the 'let's keep everything forever' crowd discourage or brow-beat you. You made intelligent, valid points in your verifiability posts that deserve better than being dismissed quite so contemptuously. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 16:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the morale booster. Yeah, that's my position, that sources basically are our substitute for having experts write articles. I'm actually currently thinking of a template which would give a new editor who wanted to source information a heads-up that there is material in previous versions of an article which might be worth saving, along with an easy link to the version before text was removed. That should go at least part way toward addressing everybody's concerns don't you think? B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 22:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your template suggestion is an excellent example of coming to the table with some proposed solutions, not just problems. I'd be happy to be used as a sounding board for a more detailed exposition of that idea.

I think it's worth repeating that experts invariably use extensive lists of sources to underwrite the credibility of what they write. In many credible sources there are long lists of footnotes or endnotes, bibliographies and suggestions for further reading. Even amateur researchers/writers at Wikipedia are able to operate just like experts in that regard if only it were more clearly understood that experts tend to gather sources in order to make synthesis (draw conclusions, propose hypotheses, oppose existing hypotheses), while we gather sources in order to reflect received wisdom without making our own synthesis. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I have so far [20]. It needs technical tweaking at least. I wish I could automatically send them to the page history of the day the template was used. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 01:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

I noticed your edits to the school articles back in early August removing unsourced information. While I agree with some of the edits, I feel it would be more helpful to Wikipedia if instead of removing unsourced information, you try to find a reliable source online or in print somewhere and add it in. That is what I usually do, as long as the information is not controversial or violates BLP (in which case I would definitely remove it). But again, thanks for helping to clean up some of the clutter. 50.47.213.240 (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You're position is that of many editors here, and I think I have to find some middle ground where text is not lost back in the history, but also not displayed without sources. My thought is that sourcing the peripheral articles, like on local high schools, barbie doll movie characters, and multiple articles on books by a single at-best-marginally-notable author is quite a burden to put on someone who wants to clean up. But I also recognize the need to preserve good content when appropriate. Tell me what you think of my template suggestion above? B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 22:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of...[edit]

Hello. I've respected your opinions on NPOV before. I'd like to see your opinion in a discussion thread I started (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Political_positions_of...), if possible. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chiming in. I replied/elaborated. Jesanj (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation[edit]

You're welcome. I appreciate that you thanked me even though we are on opposing sides of the issue. So ...

Daniel Case has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it was just good research and added a lot to the discussion B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 20:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

technical point[edit]

BC - when you delete the /* section name */ part of the edit summary your edit won't have the quick-link in the watchlist, and that makes it a real chore trying to find where you made your edit. FYI. --Ludwigs2 21:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it probably wasn't there because I edited the whole page rather than a section. Just highlight a bit of text, do control-c edit the whole page, and do control-f control-v to find it. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 21:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid WP:FORUMSHOPPING[edit]

Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Are you saying I forum shopped somewhere? B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 18:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Stasheff[edit]

Instead of hanging on to this issue for 14 months, perhaps you could have found and added some of the many references that others have added to the article. As for the broader issue, it is the job of the closing administrator to decide if policy based consensus exists to keep or delete an article. Uninvolved administrators do so. If you expect admins to do their own assessment of notability, then they become involved participants. I would oppose such a dramatic change. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I didn't think those references were anything that established notability. I still don't, and in fact I'm sure they don't unless I missed one, but there is a loophole in the policy which allows "importance" to supersede the GNG. Relative to administrators deciding if things are notable, that's not what I meant. Rather, if the issue of notability was a motivation for AfD, then I don't think it's too much to ask for an admin to make a call on whether anyone came up with an RS during the process. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 01:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edit for Astrology[edit]

I am making all recent contributors to the Astrology article and its discussion page aware of a proposed amendment to the text which discusses the 1976 'Objections to astrology' and the relevance of Carl Sagan's reaction. This is in response to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made on the published text, with the hope of finding a solution acceptable to all. Your opinion would be very welcome.

The proposal is here.

Thanks, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011[edit]

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 "Campaign for "santorum" neologism". Thank you.

I have no understanding of the Google issue[edit]

Hey - I am the only voting party so far and you gave a statement that formerly Google was an issue. I just wanted to make clear that I meant what I wrote - I truly have no understanding whatsoever of what the Google issue might be. Thanks for posting on the page. It needs people watching it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, and thank you too for being there (: The Google issue is that people are/were afraid that having the definition too close to the top would make it appear in Google search results. They thus thought that having it up there would promote Savage's campaign against Santorum, thus making Wikipedia an involved party. Possibly, some also wanted to characterize it as "vulgar" for POV reasons, and spent tons of time trying to get that sourced and in there, rather than just allowing the definition to speak for itself. The basis of the argument was "don't allow Wikipedia to participate in the campaign," justifying the inclusion of the characterizations as a substitute for the definition. Now that that's no longer an issue, you'd think they would change their views if they weren't just wanting to use "vulgar" to make a point. Present company excepted from that of course, I don't remember you being on that page before (; B^e——C_ritical 00:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I just Googled "Santorum". The first result is Savage's page, the second is this Wikipedia article, the third is Santorum's Wikipedia article, and the fourth is a discussion of the general (non-wiki) Google problem, and the fifth is his campaign page. I agree that Wikipedia editors should not tailor articles to the reaction of search engines, but I am more surprised that anyone ever asserted that it would be possible to do so in any kind of predictable way. Thanks for the info. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but feelings run high. Good to have you at the page. B^e——C_ritical 01:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gauqelin effect[edit]

Hi Be Critical. I saw you were curious about whether Gauqelin's correlation could be real. Just to point out that sports ability definitely shows a correlation with month of birth. In childhood the oldest in the class are notably taller, stronger than the younger ones. So they get encouraged more and play more sports, and it goes on from there. The same effects are found for achievement in academic tests and hence in who gets entry to competitive professions.

Time of day of birth is in the "position of Mars" as well, I think. Say time of birth is randomly distributed, then it acts as white noise and the month of birth effect is what is being measured.

I don't know how births were distributed during the day in France many decades ago, but it's quite likely that even then they were somewhat concentrated in the hours of daylight when midwives and doctors are at work. This might cut some of the white noise and allow the month of birth effect to emerge as apparently a "position of Mars".

The data should be re-analyzed to remove the composite "position of Mars" factor and use instead the components "month of birth", "time of day of birth" alongside other factors like parental occupation within a multivariate analysis. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thanks :D Given this, I'm still wondering why any scientist would see this study as threatening to conventional ideas. Seems like they would put it in the same category as the use of herbs in traditional shamanism, where there was a lot of magic but some chemistry as well. Any insights on that? B^e——C_ritical 13:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of scientists are completely unaware of the work, and those who become aware of it are likely to think "oh, the data's wrong or the analysis is, or there's a rational explanation, don't know what but I know it doesn't mean astrology's real". Itsmejudith (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet instead of saying that they seem quite vehement on refuting the results themselves, as if positive results did confirm astrology. B^e——C_ritical 20:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Science[edit]

I saw your notice at the creation science talk page, and would like to point out that you might get a better response if you posted to Talk:Intelligent Design and Talk:Creation–evolution controversy as well. Their talk pages are more acitive than the Creation Science talk page because the term creation science has sharply fallen out of favor in recent years, so that talk page doesn't get as much traffic. By the way, I'm one of the regulars on creationism-related articles myself. I moved to the astrology because things have kinda calmed down on those articles after a very busy summer. So have several of the other editors who are now editing on astrology. A lot of the discussion that is now taking place on astrology took place on creationism-related articles long ago, so that it's worth seeking their advice. Good idea! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (: B^e——C_ritical 19:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually saw your post at Talk:Creation Science :-) I couldn't find the relevant discussion at Talk:Astrology, so I'll just answer your question here--your view appears to be correct. AnswersInGenesis.org, to take your example, can (and should) be used in these articles as a source for creationist views (e.g. "Creationists believe that God created the Earth"). However, fringe sources like AIG or astrology journals cannot be considered a RS for establishing the validity of that view (e.g. "God created the Earth"). On the other hand, a peer reviewed scientific journal (like Nature) is considered a Reliable Source for scientific topics. Wikipedia is not required to give equal validity to these two "views". Mildly Mad^T_C 14:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for answering, that is what I thought and now I'm just figuring out how to get a wider pool of editors to participate over there. Be great if you stopped by (: B^e——C_ritical 14:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology and religion[edit]

This is a bit off-topic, and Talk:Astrology is enough of a zoo already, so I thought I'd bring it here. You wrote: "What's the difference between scholarship on astrology and religion? None that I can see." But I think there are very clear, objective differences between scholarship on astrology and on religion.

The most obvious difference is that most major, reputable universities have faculty departments devoted to religious studies, and offer courses of study which lead to at least an undergraduate degree if not a Masters degree and Ph.D. in religious studies. Religion is clearly part of the scholarly mainstream. In contrast, I'm not aware of any major university that offers courses of study, undergraduate majors, or other degree programs in astrology. I'm not aware of any major university that has a faculty department devoted wholly or partly to astrological studies.

So while one may not see much difference between religion and astrology from a subjective viewpoint, there are clear objective differences in the level of scholarship in the two areas. I don't mean to berate you about it - it's just that I had meant to reply earlier at Talk:Astrology but I think it's probably better just to mention it here. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 16:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's very true. And a lot of the way we decide how to treat things has to do with their institutional support. But it may be because astrology is covered under religious and cultural studies? [21] [22] And there seems to be something about astrology that gets people's goat, something that religion doesn't have. Astrology seems to be perceived as violating the boundary between science and religion that allows religion to get away with pseudo-empirical statements and not be called pseudo-science. Anyway, I think covering astrology as a cultural tradition and allowing it to speak through its own texts -just like a religion or culture- would be a better way to go, as long as any claims to science are discussed relative to the scientific view as well. B^e——C_ritical 19:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:External links[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:External links. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

First, I want to say that I was sorry to read that someone had commissioned an astrological chart for you and you felt that "Practically everything she said was wrong." Was this a personal consultation? You said that she was qualified, what qualifications did the astrologer have? The reason I am posting here is that this is your zone which can be deleted at will and I don't want this to distract from the discussions.

Second, you refer to RS a few times and I have been unable to find out what that stands for but suspect that everyone else on the page knows it. I imagine the S refers to sources. Can you please enlighten me? Thanks. Robert Currey talk 11:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fix image[edit]

I believe the correct image for now is the original, can you fix it? [23] Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 01:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think it's better quality... Dreadstar ☥ 02:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem (: B^e——C_ritical 02:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for what you tried to do[edit]

I want to thank you for what you tried to do for the astrology article. You were one of the good editors without an axe to grind. It would be a shame - for the page - if you lose all interest, but completely understandable. I'm going to take a break too because I can't see any hope of resolution at the moment. Hopefully things can change. In any event, thanks for trying. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for saying that (: Perhaps somehow things will improve. I will eventually pursue the question of which sources are allowable for describing the internal workings of a POV such as astrology. If I can get a definitive answer, that should help. B^e——C_ritical 16:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom mention[edit]

I have used diffs of your posts in an arbcom request filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Controversial_images.2C_NOTCENSORED.2C_and_Foundation_principles.

You are not listed as a party, and I have only used the diffs as examples of particular discursive moves. This notice is purely for your own information. --Ludwigs2 03:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Pregnant asian.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Pregnant asian.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Pregnant asian.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Pregnant asian.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to 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 tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Pregnant asian.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Pregnant asian.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [24], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to 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 tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance 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. Eeekster (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.[edit]

Thank you for your for your contributions to Occupy Wall Street (",) See WP:Tea 99.109.126.95 (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem, thanks for being kind enough to mention it :D B^e——C_ritical 23:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig[edit]

I would appreciate it if you could rework your signature into something less eye-catching - it seriously disrupts the reading flow of talk pages.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I, Kaldari, hereby award Becritical The Writer's Barnstar for his/her excellent work on the Occupy Wall Street article, and related topics. Kaldari (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks! Glad you liked my edits and it's great of you to say so :D I love WP sometimes. People like you make it so. B^e——C_ritical 00:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Could you clean up your [vulgarity]? Thanks The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. That's not considered vulgarity on Wikipedia. For example, WP:MAJORDICK. I'm sorry if you're offended, but that's the environment here and it won't change for either of us. B^e——C_ritical 03:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's vulgar and unwelcome, and not funny. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That attitude usually goes along with right-wing politics in the United States. B^e——C_ritical 05:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was either a random thought, or a smug, presumptuous, superior attitude. I'll extend the benefit of the doubt and kindly go for random. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prudishness (whatever one may call it) of that magnitude is usually not secular. It's usually born of religious conviction. Extreme religious conviction is usually fundamentalist Christian in the United States. Religious fundamentalism is usually Republican, AKA Right-wing. Thus, saying that my casual and (usually considered) benign use of the word dick was "vulgar" leads me to guess that your politics are Right-wing. But you should assume good faith. I used logic, and there was nothing in what I wrote that was "smug" or "presumptuous," or "superior." B^e——C_ritical 15:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Questions/General[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Questions/General. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Astrology[edit]

Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[25]]. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request2[edit]

I've asked the IP-editor (the one who signs with Asian characters) not to move my post from this section of the OWS talk page Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#This_is_materializing_apparently but s/he did it again, perhaps by mistake in his/her attempt to re-position the reply about Kelly. I'm getting annoyed but I know this is not something to take to the admin boards. What do you suggest if s/he does it again? (Pls reply here, I usually don't post on my own talkpage because it shifts around. The inconvenience is making me re-think the whole not-registering thing, btw.] -A98.. 98.92.186.80 (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why he's doing it... Keep your cool... He seems to have stopped now. Kind of strange. If they keep doing it and don't reply on their talk page, go find an admin at WP:AN/I, and ask on the admin's personal talk page to be helped. The admin might try talking to the user, or giving them a warning. I doubt things would go farther than that. Cheers (: B^e——C_ritical 06:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the dates. Your post was at 03:18, 17 November, his came first at 02:41, 17 November. He probably thinks you should have put it in order, but inserting comments out of order is pretty standard practice here if you indent your post properly to show that it's out of order. I don't know but maybe that was it. B^e——C_ritical 06:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on his talk page. I just got back and saw this minor mistake snowballed into drama all unbeknownst to me. I've apologized on his talk page, but I still don't know yet how it happened. If I remember correctly, there was a 4-line-break gap which I thought I had caused by accident. I didn't know I was undoing his edit by mistake. I think it's all good now--let this be a lesson not to talk on phone while editing facebook, lol. 완젬스 (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol :P B^e——C_ritical 07:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preserving well-formed content[edit]

Hi, Becritical. When you do big removals of unsourced content like this one at Reconfigurable computing, please add a note at the talk page pointing back at the edits in order to comply with the WP:PRESERVE policy. This will allow other editors the chance to asess wether some of that content should be truly removed or if they can find sources for it, even if they don't notice the change right at the recent changes page. Give the collaborative process a try, and play along with others. Thanks. Diego (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'm sorry I forgot to do that. I would like someone else who maybe knows something about the subject to check the removals there. I got alerted by a link to a porn site and multiple links in the same paragraph to a website. I googled blocks of text and found the exact same content on many different sites, as if someone were trying to do a ...what... google bomb or something. B^e——C_ritical 20:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Great job on the OWS article. Cheers, Magister Scienta ^talk (Editor Review) 21:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, you're really nice I'm sorry I was rude to you at first! Thank you!

Please don't apologize, mea maxima culpa. It was incorrect on my part to put that bad-faith tag on your talk-page, I hope we can work past it. Cheers, Magister Scienta ^talk (Editor Review) 21:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh we already have or I wouldn't have asked you to stay at OWS (: B^e——C_ritical 23:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear. Cheers, Magister Scienta ^talk (Editor Review) 23:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Affected vs effected[edit]

Hi - I effected a change in the affected sentence in Occupy Wall Street.... the correct usage in the OWS article is "affected" - the businesses were adversely affected by the free meals being served - as a verb "effected" would mean to bring about or accomplish something - so you could say the chefs effected a change in how people were fed or something llike that - but in the article, the businsess surrounding the park were most certainly affected not effected. Google "affect vs effect" and you'll see many sources confirming what I'm saying. Cheers Tvoz/talk 08:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They had an influence, but it wasn't a subjective emotional one, it was a causative one, an effect. I think I'll bring it up on the talk page and see what others think (; B^e——C_ritical 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

I already repeatedly tried mentioning other affiliations (i.e. I described him as a "Clinton administration pollster"). But Bloodofox insists that Fox, and only Fox, can be mentioned, supposedly because that's Schoen's "current employment", even though that's not the case. He's a partner at a polling firm, and an expert on the subject. That's his job, and that's why it's misleading to mention Fox but omit his other, Democratic, affiliations. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tend to agree with you. I do think "professional" is WP:PEACOCK though. B^e——C_ritical 23:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I suppose "pollster" at least implies that is his occupation. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's a Fox News employee and a pollster. We also describe firemen as firemen when they're mentioned. This is common practice. "Factchecker" is attempting to hide his employment, whereas we'd have no issue with a fireman. Now why is that? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Schoen is not a Fox News employee. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're flatly wrong. Fox themselves describe him as a "Fox News political analyst"; he's on the payroll. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I assume you also missed this one (my italics): "The Post also didn't disclose that Caddell and Schoen both work for Fox News, which spent the last election cycle pulling hard for Republicans, up to and including providing millions of dollars in donations from its parent company to GOP-linked groups" from mediamatters.org. Yeah. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He does work for Fox as of the 29th, and he's a pollster. Just say those two things. B^e——C_ritical 06:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BeCritical, what would be your rationale for describing him as a Fox analyst but not mentioning WaPo or WSJ? And if we're mentioning Fox because of its supposed value in helping the readers identify Schoen's political leanings, why do we not also mention Clinton and Bloomberg?

Finally, do you really think there is a valid WP policy rationale for labeling sources in this way? If we were to describe or insinuate the political leanings of everyone whose contentious viewpoint is in a WP article, there would be an awful lot of descriptors added to articles. I notice that the OWS doesn't take pains to identify far-left commentators as far left; it just presents what they've said without attempting to paint them in a certain light.

Please note: this is a question for BeCritical, not Bloodofox. Blood has already made his policy rationale, or rather lack of a valid policy rationale, abundantly clear. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's called employment. Fox News employs him, despite you initially attempting to claim otherwise (and getting swatted for it); he is officialla Fox News political analyst. Here and there Schoen sometimes contributes to other Murdoch/News Corp outlets like WSJ and other media outlets. The issue is straightforward, despite your attempts at smoke screens. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"what would be your rationale for describing him as a Fox analyst but not mentioning WaPo or WSJ?" Because, describing him as a "pollster" is directly relevant to the data being presented, and shows he has expertise on the subject. Mentioning his affiliation with Fox presents a particularly relevant POV he has which is directly relevant to OWS. Its a matter of editorial judgment. Mine would say, the reader needs to be informed of his possible POV, but deciding whether or not he has POV and what it is should be up to the reader. Thus, mentioning Fox is a good way of heading the reader in the direction of questioning, but which way that questioning will lead will be up to the reader's own POV. It's a way of fine-tuning Wikipedia's neutrality. Not mentioning his democratic affiliation or Clinton et seq is a way of leaving the reader neutral, since it's highly likely that in general he's more republican than anything. We could avoid the hassle of all this by just giving his name and the data, which is probably the preferable solution. B^e——C_ritical 01:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schoen, Fox News employee[edit]

Be, "factchecker" is still attempting to present Schoen as a neutral pollster, not employed by Fox, on the talk page. Another user has removed his employment status and the employment status of another journalist in attempt to diffuse the discussion, but I see that as POV—Schoen is as much as a Fox News employee as he is a pollster, and I argue that it's POV to describe him as anything further. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schoen is as much a Washington Post employee and a WSJ employee as he is a Fox employee, but you've yet to show anything that demonstrates he's as much of a Fox employee as he is a pollster. In fact, you have yet to even demonstrate he's on the payroll. Spoiler alert: a claim by some uncredentialed blogger that he's on the Fox payroll doesn't cut it.

By the way, is there some reason you not only refuse to call me by the name I sign my posts with, but instead use my original user name, which I'm obviously indicating I don't want to go by, and that you additionally insist on putting it in scare quotes? Because it sure looks like an effort to taunt me over and over and over and over again. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, he "contributes" here and there to other publications (notably to other Murdoch/News Corp outlets), but he's officially a "political analyst" for Fox News. I've produced numerous sources making this evident. Attempting to downplay the comments of other political analysts won't get you anywhere, especially when they're matched by sources on the opposite end of the political spectrum, such as Fox News. You're in conspiracy theory territory here. Again, go to Google, type in "Schoen fox news analyst".

I just go with what I see when I respond, which is your user name. It has quotes around it because you're using some other user name in your signature. There is no need to assume a conspiracy. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me stop you right there. You haven't produced ANY SOURCES that make that claim evident, let alone "many" sources. (And this is neither here nor there, since we don't string together our own analyses of multiple sources in order to make a point). Not even going to respond to the rest, other than to say Please start referring to me as Centrify, and don't put the name in scare quotes. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Stop wasting my time and do the Google search; you'll find Fox, right wing websites, left wing websites, etc., all referring to Schoen as a Fox News Analyst. There's zero question about it except, apparently, with you. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Fox, he's a former pollster [26] B^e——C_ritical 20:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, I can only laugh! So now he's just a Fox News Analyst. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what's the most reliable source you have specifically calling him a "fox news analyst?" And he can be called a "former pollster," that's acceptable too. B^e——C_ritical 20:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhm. The anchor in the video describes him as a "former pollster for President Bill Clinton", not a "former pollster". So what, exactly, are you talking about? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, so that's what it means. I was looking for sources calling him "fox news analyst" specifically when I came across it. I haven't delved deeply into this debate. B^e——C_ritical 20:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is a pollster [27] B^e——C_ritical 20:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, what I think you'll find is that there is no reliable source that shows we should describe him as a Fox analyst and nothing else. That's a picture that can only be arrived at via a value-laden synthesis of numerous opinion pieces that are unreliable as sources of fact; google searches; and little factoid/snippets culled from various articles that do give the impression he's a Fox analyst, but don't do anything at all to suggest that he's not also a WaPo analyst, WSJ analyst, etc. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that. Perhaps "Douglas E. Schoen is a political strategist and Fox News contributor."[28]. So, "Douglas Schoen, pollster, political strategist and Fox News contributor... " Also, "contributor" is how he describes himself [29]. Since political strategy is not very relevant here, we could leave that out. B^e——C_ritical 21:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this still does not explain why on earth we could call him a Fox contributor (or analyst or whatever) but not a WaPo contributor, WSJ contributor, etc. And again, we've already got a quote in the article calling him a "quintessential Fox News Democrat". So why do we need to expand on that at all? Why not just call him a pollster and then let the critics say what they will? I'm troubled by the idea of taking criticism from opinion pieces and then synthesizing that into a statement of fact that we then present to the reader with a straight face. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explained that in the last post in the section above. I think we don't need to introduce him at all for credentials. But everyone knows that Fox is a red flag of heavy republican POV, so it's very relevant. The same as if someone were a member of the Communist Party and we were inserting his negative analysis of a Republican candidate. So is the WSJ, but not so obviously. "Making appearances on various news programs several times a week."[30] We have some editorial leeway at WP to decide what's relevant. B^e——C_ritical 21:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be one thing to note that a source being cited is from Fox. But I see no need to go around labeling everyone affiliated with Fox; that's POV-pushing. We don't go around labeling everyone who writes for HuffPo in every article that quotes them, just so everyone who thinks HuffPo is for radical lefties can know they're safe to think of that person as a radical lefty and ignore anything else about them. We've already got a critic calling Schoen a "quintessential Fox News Democrat", so the POV is already being represented as much as it deserves to be. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then it seems like we're just making the quintessential Fox News Democrat quotation understandable as to how it applies to Schoen. We have to mention he contributes to Fox news, or it's not understandable. How about moving the explanation down, and saying

B^e——C_ritical 02:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me, but my guess is that Blood won't like it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to read all of the above or the talk page lately, but I am fine with this compromise. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone Quote on OWS[edit]

Hey there! Noticed you deleted my quote from Rolling Stone as being not-notable. Just want to discuss it a little. Is it the particular placement that you found problematic, i.e. do you think it would work better in another section? I felt that it offered something different that wasn't there previously. I hadn't seen the entry mention the possibility that the mere actions of participatory democracy would be an end unto themselves. I'm not reverting it, just curious to hear your perspective fleshed out more.--Factchk (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a judgment call, and as with all Wikipedia edits bore the unpleasant possibility of deleting something someone cared about. Partly it was the source: Rolling stone is very liberal, and also not focused on such things as OWS. It's not a bad source, but it's also not the best. It did offer a different perspective, but in an encyclopedia you want the major perspectives, you don't want to try and be comprehensive. There's another consideration: if we aren't going to use republican sources such as Fox News, we have to be careful not to use sources with a high bias on the other side either. If there are biased sources, they should be mainstream news outlets such as the Wall Street Journal or The Washington Post or NBC or CBS, or more academic sources such as The Chronicle of Higher Education (Chronicle Review). So it was a judgment call. I'm not going to revert you if you put it back in. B^e——C_ritical 23:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help please[edit]

Could you please move the painting at the Fado article up to the info box? I usually look at how others did stuff to figure it out, but so far have never been able to figure that one out... Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did what I could, responded on the article talk page. Your template doesn't have a slot for a picture. Cheers (: B^e——C_ritical 03:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't encourage bigotry.[edit]

Hello,

your recent comment on IP user 72.195.156.226's talk page, available here, applauding them for the subjective humor value of their vandalism here was poorly received by at least one member of the Wikipedia community.

While I can understand some motive for approaching the IP user in a tone of camaraderie instead of accusation, lauding their flagrantly sexist offering as "making us laugh" doesn't paint a warm image of the Wikipedia community. In the future, when you find a bigoted comment amusing, please weigh your desire to publicly discuss its humour value against, in this case, Wikipedia's difficulty maintaining a community welcoming to female editors. Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, seriously. Reminds me of my days in college when all the girls looked askance at the guys because they were constantly being bombarded by the idea that all men were rapists. I remember my feminist theory class seriously discussing rape by the eyes. We were just emailing back and forth about the edit with a female middle-aged professor as part of the loop. If we're wrong, well, we're beyond help. If we're right, then you may need to get a sense of humor, and live in the real world. Something's wrong when feminism and much of political correctness gives the same feeling and impression as 1950s traditionalism. But then again, it should. It's a new world out there, where feminism and such political correctness seems as dated and out of tune as other forms of traditionalism. We left that kind of thing back a while ago, we're free from it, feminism won and thank you, we're done now. You should also understand that the IP was not actually being misogynistic. The 40-something lady I'm with right now says the IP was "just being funny." I'm not quite sure how to explain that, except to say that the younger women I know are so free that they are free to laugh at such things, and not in a derogatory or defensive way, but because they think it's funny as a comment on human nature and womanhood. I could go on and on, but there's no way I could adequately convey what I felt at your comment... it was sort of how I feel when a fundamentalist christian relative talks about sin. Camille Paglia would be good reading. B^e——C_ritical 05:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the tone of your response, I'd like to recommend that you read Wikipedia:AVOIDYOU at your leisure.

It seems that you feel the vandalism, which I'll repost: "Excessive nagging and bitching is a key indicator that she is indeed "knocked-up" or "pregger". Woman are naturally bitchy and easily irritated, so pregnancy can be difficult to detect compared to the normal habits of females." was not derogatory, based on your clause, "and not in a derogatory or defensive way."

We may disagree about definitions of misogyny and feminism, but I would like to inform you that there exist users who will feel less inclined to use Wikipedia knowing that Wikipedians support comments that "woman are naturally bitchy and easily irritated." I'm not looking to police your behaviour, so there's no need to get defensive. I'm relieved to hear that there are people around you who share your opinions; they are fine people to discuss the irrationality of womankind with.

Please consider what you are defending, and how it might hurt people. Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm so infuriated right now I really don't know what to say. The comment in question is only laughable to the extent that people think it's true -- the 'humor' here is a rueful chuckle of recognition, the viral hook by which misogynistic bullshit perpetuates itself -- and I can tell you right now that as a 20-something woman I feel much less inclined to put time into Wikipedia knowing that members of the community endorse this douchery. Also, considering the extent of gendered violence against women worldwide, the wage gap, &c &c, it's sheer idiocy to say that "feminism won" -- and are you seriously resorting to the 'Some of my best friends belong to X marginalized group and agree with me, therefore I am right' argument? Seriously? Not all women have the same opinions (I'm flabbergasted that this actually needs saying), and some, including me, will be alienated by this sort of remark. Saying that "Woman [sic] are naturally bitchy" is a nasty, pernicious generalization, and it's doubly infuriating that by protesting this characterization I'm playing right into it. Please bloody well consider what you're supporting, and stand down. Threonine (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't personalize your remark, I gave you what I hoped would be a thought-provoking response which would allow you to reconsider some of your views. As with all jokes, it was funny because it touched on an aspect of what is real which people don't normally put in just that way. Women are naturally bitchy and easily irritated, as are men. It goes in cycles more with women though, thus the humor. Disregarding that it was vandalism, do you think we should avoid talking about such facts on Wikipedia? I have a [redacted] who definitely gets naggy, bitchy, whiney irrational and depressed once a month, and I hear that was accentuated when she was preggers. I've never met a woman who wasn't naturally bitchy, it's the human condition. Or a man, but in this post feminist era, that goes without saying. I don't see Wikipedia as a place where facts are to be avoided, nor a place where you can't say you think something is funny if you do. I also don't see it as a place where anyone belongs who isn't able to participate in civil discourse, by which I mean in this case that they are able to display high levels of tolerance. Tolerance for humor would be part of that, and for people who find things funny which you find offensive. Certainly, I find things on WP, and editors, offensive, but I tolerate them. To be part of a democratic system and also to be part of Wikipedia, one needs high levels of such tolerance.

Now, Threonine, "douchery?" how misogynistic is that? Is that like dickery? As Nietzsche said, "Not by wrath does one kill but by laughter. Come, let us kill the spirit of gravity." You did analyze the humor well, "a rueful chuckle of recognition." So, since you acknowledge it, why is it exactly that you object to its being expressed? Yes, I know it's improper on WP, but my laughing at it and saying so? I'm supposed to pretend it's not funny, hide it in the dark as it were? When I said feminism won, I'm talking about the more enlightened societies, and I certainly acknowledge the wage gap. But then, the Civil Rights movement won and racism still exists. I did not intend to convey that there are absolutely no feminist issues anymore, although the issues of men are more extreme in the more enlightened countries. B^e——C_ritical 07:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derailing much? "Douchery" was a poor choice of words on my part, agreed, but we're discussing attitudes here, not vocabulary. And thanks for condescending to approve my analysis, but to clarify, the recognition I meant was the recognition of a stereotype -- 'hah, yeah, the monolithic Woman is totally like this' -- whereby said stereotype perpetuates itself.

I'm not looking to police your sense of humor -- though I do think the idea that jokes are/should be exempt from critical examination is pretty much bullshit; they take place within a cultural context just like any other statement -- just to suggest that you rethink endorsing hurtful comments in what's essentially a workplace.

(Parenthetically, characterizing any social justice movement as having won/lost is pretty simplistic for someone who seems to style themselves an intellectual. And characterizing some countries as "more enlightened" than others is pretty problematic.)

Anyway, disengaging now -- hope you give the topic some less defensive thought on your own time. Threonine (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...you may need to get a sense of humor, and live in the real world" was a personal attack.

I understand the need for tolerance; like I said, I'm not trying to police your behaviour. I think it's clear at this point that the sentiment behind the vandalism, and your support of it, were both hurtful. Of course, it's up to you how much you let the potential harm to others get in the way of your sense of humor.

In the interest of clarity, I believe you've misread Threonine's "rueful chuckle" -- I believe she was referring to recognizing the bigotry, not the accuracy you feel exists.

I'm not going to engage further -- I wasn't here to attack, I was here to provide feedback. Triacylglyceride (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the stereotype is accurate, so there isn't any question of "perpetuating" it. "Hurtful comments:" Yes, well I'm of the opinion that certainly Wikipedia needs more civility maintenance. But user talk pages are mainly exempt from that: they are more private spaces, and if you go to them you are, as it were, in someone's house. Also, getting hurt by such things is a choice on your part. Being easy to victimize just means you will always be a victim. Complaining and being hurt about a joke that is funny because of a stereotype which is accurate -as opposed to inaccurate/unfair as with a racial joke that doesn't partake of culture- just makes you look like a censor (in spite of you taking care to try and avoid that impression). I didn't endorse the IP's joke, just said it was funny, and I said maybe the IP should think about joining WP, since it is obviously more intelligent than most vandals.

"characterizing any social justice movement as having won/lost is pretty simplistic for someone who seems to style themselves an intellectual." I didn't style myself as anything, and "intellectual" is just another way for people to fool themselves. And if you'll look at what I wrote, it was nuanced, noting that winning is not complete for such movements.

"And characterizing some countries as "more enlightened" than others is pretty problematic"" LOL, no, it's not. Not characterizing them as such is an intellectual conceit by those who don't live in reality. To pick an issue I'm sure would be dear to you, female circumcision is practiced in some cultures, which cultures are less enlightened. And culture goes by country to a large extent, not to mention the legal structures.

"hope you give the topic some less defensive thought on your own time" Yes, well I'm not really the defensive one here, though it does engage me. Portraying me as the defensive one, when it is both of you who are actually more defensive, is part of your culture, where you believe that the other is threatened, that the other is the traditional culture which is threatened by the new thought. But that's an historical artefact, that is reversed here: you are defending what has become a traditional culture. I'm trying to show what's actually happening here versus the underlying assumptions.

""...you may need to get a sense of humor, and live in the real world" was a personal attack." It was a very literal suggestion. You aren't living in reality, and suppressing your sense of humor for political or social reasons isn't the best thing in my opinion. But it was also a personal attack, and you have my apology for that.

"I think it's clear at this point that the sentiment behind the vandalism, and your support of it, were both hurtful." See, that's where we most strongly disagree: I don't think the sentiments were hurtful. I think that taking hurt out of such things is part of the particular culture which has, quite legitimately, exposed prejudice and cultural stereotypes, but as with all cultures has gone beyond its helpful mandate so that it has become the oppressing culture. So what do I object to here? First, that you are hurt, which I believe demonstrates a disengagement from the hurly-burly of human and democratic discourse. Second, the oppression of that which is not mere stereotype, but an expression of human truth. So just where you think it's clear is where we disagree. B^e——C_ritical 21:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Yeah, but the stereotype was accurate". You continue to write that. Could you please provide a citation that "[W]oman [sic] are naturally bitchy and easily irritated" [31]? I imagine it is difficult to find PMS and pregnancy "jokes" humorous into one's adult years (which is of course a joke – many people remain foolish until they die). And is there a reason why you mention rape (those hysterical feminists, right?) and then recommend reading Camille Paglia, an antifeminist, who argues that "No" does not mean "No", but that "'No' has always been, and always will be, part of the dangerous, alluring courtship ritual of sex and seduction, observable even in the animal kingdom."[32] --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic, there is so much in that to answer. I'm not sure I want to get into it, either. I mean, from this being a talk page and therefore human experience and opinion being valid here, to your references to what one is if one finds certain things humorous, to Paglia... well, I'd rather not get into it all, please no offense intended. Would you really want to hear about my opinion that literature cannot validly be divided into more or less sophisticated? Suffice it to say, oppression is everywhere, but not always where you've been taught to look, and social fictions are sometimes the best thing for people to believe. I could link you to.... but it's probably on the blacklist (: Sorry, WP is just too staid. Reminds me of a conversation I once had about Jesus... I said Jesus (and surrounding doctrines) were logical, and the older woman who was with me just shook her head and said I'd come to feel differently someday. B^e——C_ritical 23:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just undid a perfectly civil comment [33]. Odd for someone who keeps raging against (imaginary) omnipotent, omnipresent censors and tells people that he abuses to get a sense of humor. But let me repeat my simple request: Please provide a citation that "[W]oman [sic] are naturally bitchy and easily irritated" [34]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any "humor" which can be summarized as, "Well, all them THOSE are like that; they're not like us normal people" is bigoted humor. I'm sorry, but it was about as funny as any joke about n*****s and their laziness, or k***s and their greed. (And I'm a middle-aged straight male, but the loving husband of a woman, daddy of a young woman, and son and brother of other women.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how can the humor in question be categorized as such? It can't. Anyways, that's half of humor, and humor isn't banned on Wikipedia. You hear the one about the wiki addict who...? Nah. This is a big deal because the group in question -women- has a politically and historically strong advocacy tradition. Stereotypes are usually what they are because they're true. You don't have much on me in the bona fides and I have a heritage from an oppressed religious group, as well as having lived as a minority all my life. I don't like oppression wherever it comes from. Just because political correctness has the oppression whip now doesn't mean it's not the same old whip. Do I get upset about jokes about my race? Sorry, no I don't. B^e——C_ritical 21:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You going to be upset if I find a beard joke or a joke about the oppression of traffic cones? Men with beards are certainly oppressed. But you can tell beard jokes. The difference? No advocacy group. B^e——C_ritical 22:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the joke had been about black people or Jewish people would you still be defending it? It's the same difference. It's hurtful to some people whether it's intended to be taken seriously or not. Kaldari (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good way of putting the question. I already answered that about jokes about my race above- no, it doesn't bother me, nor about religion or ethnicity as with Jewish heritage. Now, about black people: no, that would have been different. Why? Because although there may be statistical differences between races, they are for the most part too slight to give rise to legitimate racial stereotypes. It would not be different if the joke had been about culture. So how is that different from "women?" First, women are not a "minority" any more to any great extent: that's arguable, but I think it's time women were no more sensitive to jokes about how they are than men. Second, the joke wasn't based mostly on unjust prejudice. It was based on the reality of half of the human race, expressed as humor. So it wasn't prejudice ("making a judgment or assumption about someone or something before having enough knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy"), it was humor about reality. Sure, some women aren't bitchy by cycles, but anyone reading the joke knows it's about the statistically vast majority, not the tiny minority who by lucky chance have a different life experience than the norm. The woman who sent me the diff sent it as humor. Although I've lived as a minority all my life, although I have an unusual religious background which I changed to an even more looked-down-upon spiritual choice modified to be even more abnormal, though I have lived a very unusual life by choice and heritage...my main experience with oppression and unjustified prejudice has been the direct result of political correctness. Am I supposed to remain silent about this? Is it right that there is a generation now whose main experience with (the traditionally recognized forms of) prejudice, bigotry and oppression was inflicted in the name of eliminating bigotry and oppression? B^e——C_ritical 19:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a perfect world I would agree with you about people being too PC. However we do have real misogynists on Wikipedia who demean, insult, and dismiss female contributors (and not in a humorous way),[35][36][37][38][39][40] so I can sympathize if women feel miffed when they're told to just suck it up and stop being so sensitive. But anyway, I'm sure we're all beating a dead horse at this point :) Kaldari (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those just suck, although this person seems to be saying something till he gets to their looks. The IP's edit seemed different to me, very much all in good fun and not inaccurate. I would not have said the same thing to the editors of your diffs as I did to the IP. B^e——C_ritical 20:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be some disagreement about what it means to live in the Real World, let me share my perspective. In the Real World, one might laugh at or even tell a sexist/racist joke in the private company of friends who know one another well, and who know that the joke doesn't spring from any deep-seated racism or sexism. Let's face it, some such jokes are funny.
On the other hand, if one told such a joke at a company meeting, or among work colleagues, the joke-teller would probably be dismissed - explicitly or silently - as an insensitive asshole. If one told such a joke by company-wide email, there would probably be serious professional repercussions.
The bottom line is that there's a difference between what's appropriate in private among friends vs. what's appropriate at work among colleagues. That's not "oppression" or "political correctness". It's called professionalism, and it's pervasively and completely lacking at Wikipedia (in contrast to most other volunteer organizations I've encountered). MastCell ^Talk 20:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Well, my appreciating the humor on the IP's talk page may have been unprofessional per the social milieu, and that's something I should have avoided. I do want to act with professionalism, that is to go with the highest standard at Wikipedia not merely the norm. So I'm sorry I did that. B^e——C_ritical 20:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009[edit]

László Nagy[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lysterfield Park[edit]

Templates[edit]

List of Ambassadors from New Zealand[edit]

WikiProject Google[edit]

Your revert to 2010 Winter Olympics closing ceremony[edit]

Speedy deletion declined: APS – Audio Pro Solutions[edit]

Speedy deletion declined: Alfonso Maribona[edit]

March 2010[edit]

Foreign language articles[edit]

Retired Professor[edit]

Talkback[edit]

New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc.[edit]

Watch[edit]

August 2010[edit]

why[edit]

incidentally...[edit]

Discussion about Chiropractic[edit]

Still watching?[edit]

Citation internal format in Bruce Harris[edit]

Led Zeppelin[edit]

Chiropractic[edit]

Article Jatt hijacked[edit]

GAN[edit]

Vandalism?[edit]

Saint Francis Seraph Church[edit]

Thanks for Participating[edit]

ANI notice about User:Delicious carbuncle[edit]

SPLC[edit]

Be Critical[edit]

Thanks[edit]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Charles G. Koch[edit]

Signature[edit]

Pucca[edit]

Linking[edit]

Section headers[edit]

Reviewer granted[edit]

Thanks[edit]

Unnecessary templates[edit]

Rainforest Cafe[edit]

Steven Schussler ‎[edit]

Nomination of Steven Schussler for deletion[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Proposed addition at Southern Poverty Law Center[edit]

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

In re Dees and the SPLC[edit]

Interpretation[edit]

SAQ at arbcom[edit]

Wikipedia turns 10[edit]

Interpretation of SPA[edit]

Random Smiley Award[edit]

WP:ARBPIA notification[edit]

Town sheriff[edit]

town sheriff[edit]

Butcher of Kouta[edit]

CSD notification[edit]

Sources for Arbcom case[edit]

Article Tahash Timeline[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling[edit]

Town Seriff[edit]

As an aside[edit]

Inappropriate to have two RFCs on same page at same time[edit]

Santorum[edit]

Pseudoscience[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience[edit]

Barnstar[edit]

AFD[edit]

A request - santorum[edit]

FYI - "santorum" consensus[edit]

Led Zeppelin and "English"[edit]

Inre your "comment on closing" santorum RfC[edit]

Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue[edit]

Verification[edit]

Suggestion[edit]

Political positions of...[edit]

Appreciation[edit]

technical point[edit]

See also ...[edit]