Misplaced Pages

Chuck E. Cheese

I was driving through downtown Long Beach and noticed a new Chuck E. Cheese just opened and thought of you. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I really need to pay closer attention to my Talk page. I just now noticed this comment, sorry. I hope all is well with you! I've had rather limited and sporadic interaction with Misplaced Pages since ... well, the start of the TPm arb, actually, but I anticipate having a bit more free time soon. Hmmm, I see the Chuck E. Cheese article needs some serious work. (Between you and me, you'd never see me in a novelty chain pizza joint like CEC, as I consider myself quite the gourmet pizza connoisseur!)  ;-) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Per my own OR, Chuck E. Cheese's used to be more for older kids and adolescents. I've dropped many a token into their 'real' video games. I admit, I wasn't an adolescent (at least by normal categorization). Now full of pre-teens and toddlers, they just have quarter eaters that dispense tickets for worthless prizes. Going to my local Chuck E Cheese and finding it permanently closed was quite a shock. I had kilograms and kilograms of quarters I didn't know what to do with. Jim1138 (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I never frequented the one near me, but I had stopped in once or twice to check out the arcade. I've heard rumors that they serve food and drink there, but I've never personally verified that. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Helen Caldicott

I was just wondering where the February 20th came from in the reference you added. I don't see that date on the webpage and the retrieval date in any case would be today. Thanks in advance for your response. --Daffydavid (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, David. The Feb. 20 date isn't a retrieval date, which I didn't add. It's just one of several "page-updated" dates provided by tools (domain origin, website archiving, Google page cache indexing...) indicating the existance of that "advisory-council" information at that date. I was unfortunately unable to find the exact date the webpage was created, or the earliest date when Caldicott was added to the webpage. She has certainly been on their Advisory Council since before February 2014. Here's a 2012 video of her, for example, which describes her in the info-tab as a member of their Advisory Council. If you can find more specific information, please don't hesitate to add it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ian Stevenson

Hi there, regarding this: indeed, I had misread the text. The article says that Huxley was known for the advocacy, not Stevenson. Sorry, thanks and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No apologies necessary; and thanks for the attention to detail! Xenophrenic (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Bill Maher

Please template that kind of thing? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI Jim1138 (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You got around to templating before I did; it doesn't seem to have made any difference. Thank you for keeping an eye on those edits and posting an IaV report. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Jane Fonda

Note that although footnote 48, the Plebe Summer ... Procedures, is a dead link, there's a valid archive available at Wayback confirming that "Good Night Jane Fonda" calls are expressly prohibited. While the military is often criticized for unnecessary paperwork, it seems unlikely that even they would trouble to so specifically prohibit something that had no significant history of occurring. 2600:1006:B10A:9AF1:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a very valid point, and is just one of several reasons I left the content in the article. Another reason is that although the source is "anonymous", Burke knows who the source is and apparently trusts it enough to repeat the story. BTW, thanks for the header edit. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Question

If someone is called the "Worst Person in the World" by Keith Olbermann, would that be suitable for inclusion or not? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I really suck at hypotheticals. Your question, as phrased, lacks so much information that the only answer I can offer at this time is: Yes, or no; depending. Misplaced Pages policy defines several situations where such information would be allowed or disallowed based on the specific circumstance.

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann: Steven Emerson: “The Worst Person in the World” - For your consideration, but to make matters simple here is the story which Olbermann references. And the source is in the Emerson article - as I feel it should be, but I'd like you to humor me: Is Olbermann's labeling acceptable for inclusion on Emerson's biography? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on the information you have provided, no. That content is not acceptable for inclusion in the Emerson BLP. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's just say that a few persons would allow such material through. I responded to your concerns on my page about "aspersions", but I'll repeat a snippet here: I didn't know Emerson prior to Atsme's call for help at BLPN. Emerson supporters and detractors are too unreliable and the news is unreliable - accusations and claims of wrongdoing, even labeled as opinions seem to be distortions of the truth. I think it would be best to strip away all the praise and criticism opinions of Emerson being "a modern day Paul Revere" or "Islamophobe" from these different sides. Using "just the facts" is more neutral and we only have to worry about context. Most of the detractors comments are twisted and out of context, but it is not appropriate to cleanse the article of that. That would not be neutral. I stand at a very different point than Atsme - but I think Atsme is in-eloquent and inexperienced in such matters. Atsme does not know what he wants the article to be, nor do most others - because neutrality is something you only gather with a wide picture. As you gather a more complete picture, your opinions and stance would change - but these initial thoughts often prove concerning. So I have been reluctant to condemn or voice my actual thoughts on Emerson because I am still left with questions that no one can answer... its complicated to say in the least. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if you are being serious with this "page" claim, but a TV episode is not a page. Secondly, the Cambridge source is wrong - so how will the page and link which was cited in the discussions be needed again - the issue was resolved in all the original material and in some of the other sources. Because you cannot see the source I gave the quote and it matches with other quotes of the same material including the actual one being used from FAIR. You jumped into something contested and seem to be thinking "in sides" on the matter, but oi.... that kind of thinking is a destructive path. Cwobeel seems to be on track and I've given four citations of major criticism which has context and is not written by Emerson's enemies. Use them and run with them, Atsme will not fight them because the issue Atsme has is a simple one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have lost me with your reference to a "page" claim. Could you explain further?

As for the Cambridge source being "wrong", I would like to see the refuting evidence of that. Could you please provide that, before I comment further?

Of course I "jumped into something contested"; I frequently do that here at Misplaced Pages. But let me correct your misperception that I think "in sides". I do not; I think "in sources". You should, too. A few weeks ago, I found myself defending living people who were accused of "Islamophobia" because of things they said regarding Muslim extremists. This week, a mirror image situation, all because the most reliable sources are on the other side. *shrugs* Xenophrenic (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

AC/DS - BLP

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.