Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:48, 27 June 2008

Archives

Archive 1

Thank you

Thanks for this strikethrough. I appreciate the acknowledgement. I just want the article to not have to be changed every time some 'new' "fact" turns up.

If we only put in facts that have really reliable sources and don't try to 'read between the line' in order to 'have a full story' I think the article will settle down and be more stable without needing such vigilance and effort as (it seems to me) is being wasted on the article. Think how much good could be accomplished if we finished the article and moved on to other articles. Anyway, thanks, I appreciate your comments, and your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It's a pleasure to make your acquaintance. User:Pedant (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sorry I gave you that warning in the first place. Total ABF on my part. I would absolutely love it if we could bring that article to FA. It bothers me that it is a FA in other languages but not in English. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Hello, Ice Cold Beer. It's been exactly 6 months since I welcomed you to wikipedia, and may I say you are doing swimmingly. Keep up the good work, and have a barnstar.

		The Original Barnstar
		For keeping a level head, earning the respect of fellow wikipedians, and all around awesomeness, I award you this barnstar. Have a cold one to celebrate, eh? : D L'Aquatique 05:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My first one! Thanks for the kind words! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You earned it, man! L'Aquatique 06:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Pau Gasol Page

Thanks for taking a look at it and seeing what more could be done, it's much appreciated. I have fixed those things, albeit I'm still working on headers and possibly merging and or adding more information, but come take a look at it again and see what else you think should be done! Thanks! Gamloverks (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I added more to the 2007-08 part of the article with more of the trade controversy and added some more to the intro, if you happen to go by any Pau Gasol information that can be used, please refer me to it. I'm still looking for information about the earlier seasons for him so hopefully that can be improved. Do you think it is okay using wikipedia articles as a reference? Gamloverks (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If I get the chance, I'll go through and do a copy edit. Other Misplaced Pages articles are not reliable sources. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot! Now I have to go find an article with all the Memphis Grizzlies Franchise Records. Gamloverks (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I did find the article, so the Pau Gasol article now has no wikipedia references. I'm going to try to continue working on the earlier years to improve the content. Gamloverks (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I could use some help, my article keeps getting changed worse than the way it was, I'm not good at revising and rejecting edits, can you help me out here? Much appreciated! Gamloverks (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I've improved some more of the things on it, and being a reviewer of articles, I wonder if you could take a look at it again and see what more should be done. ^_^ Thanks! Gamloverks (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Male Unbonding

I've tried to carry out the changes you requested and I now think that the article is good enough to pass. Thanks. ISD (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I just did a minor copy edit on the lead and I'll take a look at the rest of the article tomorrow. I'll let you know then if I think it is good enough to pass. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made the changes you requested. Thanks. ISD (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for passing the article. ISD (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. You earned it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Rang De Basanti

Hi there! I've addressed the your remaining concerns about the article in your GA review. You might want to have a look at it once again. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! Thanks for passing the GA nomination. Thank you once again for the detailed review and intermediate copy-editing :) Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:GA nomination of Over the Edge (1999)

I find it unfair that you failed the article, without giving it a chance (on hold status) to address the concerns. Which is why I put it up for reassessment.--~SRX~ 00:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I welcome the community's input. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States Inclusionist (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PNC Park GA review

Just a quick question about the review. I revised the end of the "firsts" section, an added a new source. The last sentence (Pitt leads the series 3 games to 1...) however remains unsourced. This is a true statment, see Talk:PNC Park#Re-write, for all the links. However I don't really want to add four citations to the end of that sentence, is there a better way to cite that? I should have time tonight or tomorrow to work on the intro. Thanks for the review! Blackngold29 22:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that either Duquesne or Pitt probably has some sort of "online media guide" in .pdf format that may contain the history of the series. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Underwood Review

ICB-

A few things about the citations, which were the reason you failed the GA review request... I thought primary sources were good. They are certainly better than secondary sources. I personally know that a lot of the stuff is true without the web, since the founder was my great*4 grandfather (but this is the internet, there is no reason you should believe me -- but honestly, who else would care about this page?). However those web sites are the only place online that you will find that material. Deviled Ham may show up in the Simpsons, but it doesn't have a million fan pages. Some of the sources for B&G are not from the B&G website (and interestingly that article gets some things wrong, and I wonder where they got their material).

As for the unsourced section, that's the part about canning technology and MIT. Whoever started the article didn't know the company name and probably has a canning tech background, but all of that material is from the two books that are referenced on the page, just whoever wrote it up did not cite material specifically, they cited it generally. I don't have the books so I can't make specific cites, but yes, that section is cited to those two books (although I can make that more clear). That is the only section that is not clearly sourced, but you say there are "sections" plural which are not sourced.

Honestly I'm appalled that you have a problem with a primary source in this case. B&G has nothing to gain by changing or embellishing Underwood history, since they were not a part of it. In fact if they were to get it wrong, they would look bad for doing so. Thus they are motivated to make sure it is correct and so are a reliable source.

You really need to explain why you failed the GA nomination, since you are wrong about the sources lacking reliability. If that is your only problem, then, given that you are wrong about it, the article meets GA standards.--Wmjames (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, secondary sources are better than primary sources. If you still disagree with my decision, you may have the good article nomination reassessed. Also, take some time to consider if your familial relationship with the founder presents a conflict of interest. Thank you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages makes it clear that reliability is the most important criteria, not whether a source is primary or secondary. The fact that I am a descendent of the founder makes me an expert since this is history that I grew up with. Wikpedia wants experts on subjects. If you could be clear about which sections you think need cites, that would be helpful. I got the Goldblith book and added cites there, but I have to clean up the citation formatting. I added some photos as well. Thank you. --Wmjames (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY, Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. As for which sections need cites, the answer is: all of them. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, reliable sources. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages." B&G is reliable, and is not Underwood so is secondary anyway. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Secondary sources may draw on primary sources," as B&G has drawn on the original source, the old Underwood company.

"All of them" is neither true nor helpful, as you can see a most of the material was cited, just you didn't like the citation source. Not liking a reliable citation source and a fact needing a reliable citation source are two different things. If you are going to comment on sources, make sure you know what you are doing and give specific, actionable, and accurate comments.

If you feel that B&G is a primary source, you must explain why.

If you feel that B&G is not reliable, you must explain why. "Because they are a primary source" is not a valid reason. You need to verify that B&G has its facts wrong, and you have not done that.--Wmjames (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget this, per WP:PRIMARY, "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment...."--Wmjames (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I consider this conversation to be closed. You can take my advice or you can not take my advice. The choice is yours. If you feel that my review was erroneous, please take your concerns to good article reassessment. Thanks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

GA review - Apprentice series

Hi

Can i ask why you recently moved this nomination? I do not believe it to be in the wrong section, as the article for series three is already in the Misplaced Pages:Good_articles#Social_sciences_and_society, under Television_and_radio_non-fiction section? I simply listed these two nominations under the same section. Please can you explain your reasons? Regards, δ²_(Talk) 00:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like they were in the correct section and I should not have moved them. Sorry about that. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! In addition, I take it that the articles are not up to scratch, can you provide any more direction as I did not see much difference between series three and series one articles? Many thanks, δ²_(Talk) 01:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The series three article has more content and more sources. The series one and two articles are basically just summaries of the show and nothing else. Therefore, I suggest that you work on expanding the article and sourcing it properly. Good luck with improving the article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Casino Night"

Hi, I've made the requested changes on the article, except for one. My reasoning for this can be found on the article's talk page. Happy editing, Mastrchf (/_c) 21:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale has been added. Mastrchf (/_c) 01:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Dundies GA review

I have addressed your concerns and believe the article is ready for GA. RedThunder 23:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Done with point 4. RedThunder 00:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas H. Tongue GA review

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I have addressed both issues, please let me know if the re-wording works for you. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I re-worked the part you had an issue with, let me know if that sounds good to you. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel and 9/11

Hey Ice Cold Beer, check out the section entitled hello on my talk page and inform me at User:Redmarkviolinist/Talkpage2 on how I dealt with the questions that Xiutwel asked me. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ _{Review Me!} 18:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop reverting things that you disagree with

Seriously. You've reverted several passages that I've reviewed that, while obviously strongly opposed to your viewpoint, were not nearly soapboxing. You look like you are doing POV pushes when you have virtually no commentary when removing passages that you aren't even in the discussion of. Its childish.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.90.242 (talk • contribs)

It's not that I disagree with you (whether I do or not I won't say). What I don't like is that you have been making inflammatory remarks with you own personal opinions of George Bush's economic policies. The talk page is for discussing changes to the article. If you want to discuss the article, I won't remove your comments. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)