Misplaced Pages

Thanks

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)

Unnecessary templates

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_spy 21:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

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

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)

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_spy 00:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked over the sources:

1. ^ a b "Stargate Infinity". Cookie Jar Entertainment. http://www.cjar.com/cj_shows_stargate.php. Retrieved 2009-06-14.
2. ^ Heyward, Andy and, Meugniot, Will. (2008). Animated Stargate Effects Test and Character Walking Models. . Shout! Factory.
3. ^ Sumner, Darren (2001). "Brad Wright (Interview)". GateWorld. http://www.gateworld.net/interviews/brad_wright.shtml. Retrieved 2009-06-07.
4. ^ "Stargate Infinity". This TV. http://eastern.thistv.com/view/Series/2606/Stargate-Infinity/. Retrieved October 3, 2010.
5. ^ 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.
6. ^ a b "Stargate Infinity: The Complete Series". Sci Fi Movie Page. http://www.scifimoviepage.com/dvd/stargate_infinity-dvd.html. Retrieved 2009-06-07.
7. ^ "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 . So questioning it is, I would think, legit considering the article doesn't have sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Rainforest Cafe

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. ThemFromSpace 01:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Steven Schussler ‎

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)

Nomination of Steven Schussler for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages: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)

Talkback

Proposed addition at Southern Poverty Law Center

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

Non-free files in your user space

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)

In re Dees and the SPLC

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 .

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)

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)

Interpretation

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)

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

SAQ at arbcom

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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Shakespeare authorship question. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages turns 10

The tenth anniversary of Misplaced Pages 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)

Interpretation of SPA

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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

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)

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, 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)

Random Smiley Award

Awwwww :P

WP:ARBPIA notification

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)