Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:10, 31 December 2011

License tagging for File:Q&A logo C-SPAN 200.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Q&A logo C-SPAN 200.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there WWB Too, 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:WWB Too/WCSP-FM. 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) 05:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

WCSP-FM

Good work on the page. I made a couple changes (hope you don't mind): I updated the infobox to WP:WPRS specs, put the RefList in 2 columns (neater look) and tinkered slightly. If the changes aren't what you are looking for, feel free to revert. :) Otherwise good work! Make those changes "live". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I like the two-column reflist, and your other edits were indeed slight, but still an improvement. I'll move it over shortly. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, don't forget to take the colon out of the picture link. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Racepacket gave us a solid good-article review with some great suggestions for improvement. If we can work to make the improvements in the review, we can get the article to good article status. --Bsherr (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's excellent. Thanks for nominating it for review! I've read through Racepacket's suggestions, and I think I can address them all. May take a little while to research some of the questions involved, but I don't think this should be a problem. More from me soon, WWB Too (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Almost there. Please see comments in red. Racepacket (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. Please consider helping the process by reviewing some other GA nominated article. Racepacket (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:DATE However, you can make them consistent if you wish. Racepacket (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

shiny present

Orphaned non-free image File:Video Library logo 200px.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Video Library logo 200px.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for C-SPAN Video Library

On 15 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article C-SPAN Video Library, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the C-SPAN Video Library offers a complete archive of the American legislative broadcaster's content since 1987? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

C-SPAN

Hey there, WWB! I am interested in C-SPAN. Mind if I work on your draft a bit? BurtAlert (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, BurtAlert! Please do. WWB Too (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

C-SPAN, another pair of eyes

I was the WCSP-FM GA reviewer, and i am taking a look at your draft. I edited some "puffing" out. I also wonder about "no C-SPAN host has said his or her own name on-air." Does not Steve Scully introduce himself at the start of "Washington Today"? Racepacket (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• What does the phrase, " out of forerunner TV channel C-SPAN Extra," mean? I am not familiar with the term "forerunner TV channel".
• The sections of the current article, "Allegations of bias and other controversies" and "Past chairmen" did not appear in the proposed article, so I carried them over.
• Misplaced Pages needs to avoid lengthy summaries of the praise printed on the occassion of the 25th anniversary.

Thank you for your sensitivity about COI. Racepacket (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko

Per your request here are some comments from me as well. After reviewing the version you drafted I woudl say its a huge improvement but here are a couple of notes about the article that might help

• References in the lede - There is usually no need for references in the lede because the lede should summerize information already available in the article. I didn't check them all but it appears that most are already in the article.
• There are several disambiguous links here
• The article has some problems with some of the links here including some sites that are redirecting to other locations and some dead links.
• I would suggest adding a couple more images to the article. Maybe an image of Brian lamb and the corporate HQ or main building if possible.
• I would combine the sections "Public and media opinion" and "Allegations of bias and other controversies"
• I think the history could be a little fuller but its a big improvement
• I think that Overview should be eliminated and incorporated into the lede and the appropriate article areas. The lede is the overview for the article.--Kumioko (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

WWB Too replies

Thanks, Racepacket and Kumioko, both. I see some to-dos here, and some questions to answer:

• Not saying names on-air — This comes from a 2004 episode of "Fox News Sunday"; the transcript isn't online, but the segment concludes: "WALLACE: But if you want to understand the anti-anchor, consider this: In 23 years on the air, he has never once said his name. And neither does any other C-SPAN host." But I checked about Scully and "Washington Today" on radio, and you're right. The internal reasoning goes that, because it's only on the radio, it tells listeners he is a host and not just a producer's voiceover intro. Anyway, this much is certainly WP:OR. Perhaps the phrasing should say "no C-SPAN host has said his or her name on television"; as far as I know, that would still be true.

I have no problem with the TV statement. And as someone who listens to C-SPAN radio I don't have a problem with saying names of the narator, because I can't see the faces. Racepacket (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Forerunner TV channel — C-SPAN Extra was a digital channel that aired in the DC market only, starting in the late 1990s, before digital television had been implemented around the country. In 2001, once a national digital channel was feasible, C-SPAN 3 was launched. I'll see if I can rephrase this a little more clearly.
• Past chairmen — Actually, all four names from this context-less list have been placed in context in the "Organization and operations" section of the draft. Not deleting useful information here, just trying to de-listify and include citations.

No problem. There is inherent confusion between board chairman and Brian Lamb's role, because in many corporations, the CEO is also the chairman of the board. Racepacket (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Allegations of bias — Actually, basically all of the material from that old section is still in the article, just in-context and in new sections. As Kumioko suggests, what I did initially was move the criticism from left-leaning observers to "Public and media opinion" (and streamlining slightly, I hope you will agree my revision is more clear). Same with the Lipstadt-Irving controversy; this is covered under the "Public affairs" section, where it is preceded by an explanation about how C-SPAN aims to offer multiple sides to controversial issues (and, in this case, badly misfired). So I think it's more useful as an illustration of the challenges of that goal. Moreover, the current siloing of otherwise unrelated negative views struck me as a bit forkish and the essay about criticism sections seems to suggest avoiding them unless they are necessary. So anyway, for the moment this material is in the article twice; I'll remove that imported section for now, but I'm obviously open to further discussion.
• 25th anniversary praise — Racepacket, I think you refer to the inclusion of praise by the Washington Post and New York Times. I figured were appropriate, as they are two of the most prestigious newspapers in the country, and each made different points about why C-SPAN is unique and important. However, I'm certainly open to suggested changes.

We have to be careful about introducing puffing into Misplaced Pages articles. We have the same problem with University articles highlighting the magazine rankings. It is one thing if a survey article rates all of the public affairs programing and says that NBC is #1, CSPAN is #2 and why. It is something else when people mark an anniversary with a praise piece. These articles, although true and probably hanging framed on the wall of the home of Brian Lamb's mother, are not exactly the Columbia Journalism Review. How do we walk the line between a puff piece and a unbiased summary of third party reviews? Racepacket (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

On one hand, I definitely understand the concern and I certainly am no fan of puff pieces. On the other hand, I think there are worthy points made in each of these articles: the WaPo states that C-SPAN influenced the development of similar channels around the world and shows overseas political news viewers wouldn't otherwise see; the NYT states C-SPAN is a unique kind of network, and its online archives are a valuable resource. I'm not fixed on any of the wording, though I'd like to see the references and assertions made survive. (And I'm not sure why CJR is necessarily a better source than the NYT or WaPo; none are infallible but I see no reason to doubt their sincerity here.) Rather than being mere puffery, I think they also balance the criticism from the earlier paragraph. As a whole, it shows the range of opinions about C-SPAN. Anyhow, if you want to suggest or make some direct edits, I'm obviously not opposed. WWB Too (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Overview — I will see if I can move this material into the introductory section without being too unwieldy.
• History — I assure you I've included just about everything I could find in reliable sources; rather than creating a lengthy History section, many important things from C-SPAN's history are described under subsections about C-SPAN's programming. As above, I'm open-minded about where certain material should be placed.
• Adding images — I completely agree, however some are likely to be fair use rationale, therefore inappropriate for posting in user subspace. This is my first goal once the draft is moved into the mainspace.
• Minor edits — References in lede, disambigs, dead links; good points, and I will work to address those now.

That's all for the moment. Additional comments welcome, and I'll start working on the article this afternoon. WWB Too (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And I've now put in a few hours' effort to address most of the issues described above. Currently I have not yet broken apart the "Overview" section, and the introduction still has citations. It's worth noting that most of the broken link and disambig issues are legacy issues, now reflected in the existing article. I'll continue working on the draft tomorrow, if not this evening, and I look forward to getting further input. WWB Too (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the utmost respect for C-SPAN's integrity and believe that you are doing a sincere editing job here. I just question whether the reputational risk to C-SPAN from having you integrate the criticism section into less visible components is worth the benefit. If it were me, I would not touch that with a 10-foot pole. I can just see the Fox News people having a field day with "C-SPAN Tries to Tone Down Misplaced Pages Criticism" headlines. If changes to the criticism section are made it should not be made at the prompting of anyone connected to C-SPAN. Racepacket (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I'm not overly concerned about a hypothetical unreasonable person, though it is my caution and interest in showing good faith that has led me to seek the input of editors like yourself. To be sure, I don't think it's a problem for me to suggest the change, in part because I think it does actually make the article better, but also the COI guideline invites such suggestions. Sounds like you might agree that moving the grafs makes sense from a MoS position, so perhaps a situation in which to be a little bold? Alternatively, perhaps it makes sense to ask for input from other editors to be more certain there will be consensus for it? WWB Too (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't do it, and I suspect that there would be more heat involved than you anticipate. Racepacket (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess we disagree in this regard (and I have engaged COI-topical articles before, so I'm not unfamiliar with the risks) but I'm willing to let it go in the interest of seeing as much of the new draft as possible in the article. If you wish to edit that section to what you think is best and then take it live, I'm fine with that. That particular issue can be left for another time. WWB Too (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• note - hi, looking here , looking there, getting up to date in a relaxed way. I am on-board with this in the next few days, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; next few days is just fine. I should be around in case you have questions or suggestions, and even as of today I am making small changes, trying to improve this version as much as I can. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Having read the old version and the rewrite and reading this discussion here and that most of the issues raised have been addressed I am left with the simple question - is the rewrite an improvement and without question the answer is yes, I don't see the integration of critical comments into the body of the article to be much of an issue it is actually a more correct position in regards to MOS guidelines. As such I am more than happy to have boldly inserted the rewrite in place of the previous version. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review - C span

Dude - best of luck. I am just laying out my stall here, if you make it (which I think you will as its looking fully qualified now0 - I demand/want/plead for at least a half a green star for my userpage for my contribution. Best regards. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have finished the review and believe we can easily pass the article with just a hour's worth of work. I may be retiring in a few days, so let's finish this as quickly as possible. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. Rob, I'm certainly happy to share credit, although I don't know exactly how credit for GAs are apportioned? If there's a guideline, please share. Racepacket, I picked up where Rob left off, making updates based on your suggestions. In a few places I had questions / comments, about which I'd appreciate your input. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Blackboard logo.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Blackboard logo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Misplaced Pages (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant 17:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Blackboard logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Blackboard logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store

Good Job! Excellent work on improving the Cracker Barrel Old Country Store article!

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You might want to list it on your user page, since that acts as a good index of articles on which you've worked and in which you've had a COI. Excellent work. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; and no probs. You deserve support for producing excellent articles and handling the COI very well. Always happy to get involved if the same pattern repeats. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Dee Dee Myers, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Today and Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Booknotes linking question

Hi - You may want to be aware of / weigh in on this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DVdm#Booknotes KConWiki (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Also - Let me introduce you to another Wiki editor who is also a C-SPAN afficionado - http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Rjensen KConWiki (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI - Discussion continues: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject_Spam#Not sure about Booknotes in external links KConWiki (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI -

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Editors_for_hire

You have been mentioned. - Youreallycan (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

...continued from Jimbo's talk page...

On November 18 2011, Cracker Barrel was a short article with a lede and two sections: one giving a brief overview of what the company does, the other describing some of their more odious and nefarious behavior (which is plentiful). On that date, your draft was copied over the existing article, effectively making the article anew. (You didn't do this, it was done by another editor, but at your suggestion.) This new article buried this vital information under a mass of material such as "there are two separate menus: one for breakfast, the other for lunch and dinner" and "specialties include made from scratch biscuits" (thank you for linking that; I had assumed that their biscuits were shipped in from Taiwan like every other restaurant on the planet) "and a breakfast platter named "Uncle Herschel's Favorite" and yadda yadda.

I am glad that you pointed out that their mission statement says that "everyone who walks in our front door gets a warm welcome and a good meal at a fair price", though. It's just really really important to include corporate entity's mission statements. It's just really what we're here for. Especially in this case, to disabuse anyone who might have inferred that their mission is "poisoning America with inedible swill".

I'm fine with not mentioning every time they serve razor blades in their food, but if that's trivial, why is "a group of friends had eaten breakfast at the Lebanon location each Tuesday for over 20 years" of encyclopedic value?

It's not that any of this is terrible. Well, actually, it is pretty terrible. The massive landfill of trivia and noxious puffery sourced to PR Newswire, the company website, industry flacks, and cherry-picked small-town reviews is pretty depressing.

The real problem is what you did with the material on your client's nefarious activities. First of all, you buried it. With this many-fold increase in the material such as "Cracker Barrel is known to have 'extremely loyal' customers" and so forth, this very key material which is absolutely core to understanding this entity was reduced from about 50% to less than 10%, buried at the bottom of what is now a very deep article. Second of all, you weasel-worded and hedged the material to make it less damning than it properly ought to be. You're good at this. I see you were careful to note the.... er, statement: "the company's founder, Dan Evins, stated that the policy had been a mistake". ("The policy" referred to was of firing gay people and so forth.)

Oh OK a mistake.

"For years, Cracker Barrel had a policy of firing workers for being gay. The company actually issued a memo stating that people who did not demonstrate 'normal heterosexual values' could not work for Cracker Barrel. On employee pink slips, managers would write this reason for the termination: "Employee is gay." In 2003, Cracker Barrel managers promised to stop discriminating based on sexual orientation, but they did that only under pressure from shareholders.

Wow. That's a big mistake. Years! Until 2003! Company memo! I know how it is though. My company once had a secretary accidentally bump against a computer and it generated a fraudulent stock offering. So I sympathize.

This is not mentioning your financial puffery: "According to industry commentators Cracker Barrel has been consistent in its sales performance, and it has been well regarded by financial analysts". O RLY? Then why is Sardar Biglari's hair on fire? Is it sub-par operating margins, or the disturbing cash flow trends, or what? Well, I'm glad you discussed these problems in the article. Oh, wait.

I don't really hold any of this against you. A man's got to eat. Your client pays you more than the Misplaced Pages does, and a man has to know what side his bread is buttered on, right? It's only human nature. Everybody does it. We're grownups here. If it wasn't you, it would be someone else, right? Why leave money on the table? Why listen to a bunch of goody-goodies? I bet they're not driving new cars! And, you know, some of the problems I outlined have been corrected by other volunteer editors, so no problem! Hey, our time is free!

There's nothing than can be done about any of this I suppose, but maybe you could do me one favor? Could you stop with the self-satisfied and self-righteous pretense and requests that I approve of you? That'd be great, thanks! Herostratus (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Gosh. That's a lot of words saying very little, Herostratus. If I'm parsing it correctly, you have three main complaints: 1) insufficient mention of razorblades (though see WP:UNDUE, surely) 2) critical information now "below the fold" and 3) financial puffery. So. In reverse order: 3) does the "According to industry commentators..." reference support the assertion or not; and is the assertion worth incorporating into an article about the corporation? 2) has any criticism been removed, or are you merely unhappy that additional information has been added "above the fold"? If we look at other articles, such as, say Steve Jobs, do we observe the same pattern there, of much description followed by criticism? 1) per UNDUE, is there enough about razorblades and this company to warrant inclusion?

I note your assertion: Especially in this case, to disabuse anyone who might have inferred that their mission is "poisoning America with inedible swill". Tell me please: who in this case is suffering from bias? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Association of Global Automakers

I've added a challenge on the talk page. I see your COI editing remains as uncontroversial as ever ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)