Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dgray xplane (talk | contribs) at 18:07, 25 November 2006 (Thank you!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user has asked for Wikipedians to give him feedback at an editor review. You may comment on his edits at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Seraphimblade.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Talk page for Seraphimblade

Please feel free to post suggestions/comments/flames/whatever.

If you haven't posted a comment already, please put it under a new section, using markup:
==New section==
Your comment ~~~~

If you have, please post it under the section you started. Responses will be made on your talk page unless you request otherwise.

This page will be archived regularly, but that doesn't mean I consider the discussion closed if you have more to say. If your old comments are archived please start a new section on this page for further comment. Please remember to sign your comments using ~~~~. Seraphimblade 10:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If I contacted you on your talk page, I'll keep it on watch. Please feel free to reply either there or on this page, whichever's easier for you. Seraphimblade 03:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Light on the hill

The Chifley Centre did not write the speech. Perhaps you can guide me here - the speech was delivered (and one presumes written) by Ben Chifley, who died 55 years ago. That means the copyright has expired - correct? Joestella 12:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ben Chifley has been dead for 55 years. He is credited with writing the text. He did so in Australia. This is not a copyright violation. Joestella 13:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Your suggestion that this "seems very promotional" is beyond belief. It's a political speech. I am flabberagasted by the idea that an American could conclude that "Use of the term doesn't seem widespread enough to need its own article". I'm no supporter of the Australian Labor Party, and certainly no supporter of a socialist like Ben Chifley. But even I can acknowledge that the Light on the Hill ranks with the Tenterfield Address, the "Forgotten People" and "Well may we say God Save the Queen" as a key piece of our history. Since I doubt you have heard of any of this stuff, your AfD threat is rather like me nominating the Gettysburg Address for deletion on the basis that it could be merged with the Abraham Lincoln article and "seems very promotional" for the Republicans. Joestella 13:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if I was unclear-while the tone of the article does not seeming promotional, having any user who searches for "Light on the Hill" directed to a certain political party would seem to convey the wrong message (much as having any user who searched for "The smartest people on the planet" directed to a certain party would seem a bit off, even if a leader from that party made a highly-notable speech containing those words).

It looks like in Australia, the copyright expired in 1999. As that's not an obvious copyvio, I'll remove the speedy template-though I still strongly suggest a move to "Light on the Hill Speech" or the like, or a merge to the party page. Seraphimblade 13:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum to last-the reason it doesn't appear to be in terribly wide use is due to Googling, not due to me "being an American" (which I in all truth resent a bit). If one googles for "Gettysburg address", results upon results are found referencing the Gettysburg Address-there can be no question the term is in wide use and recognized. On the other hand, "light on the hill" references the speech itself on a few pages, some churches, a South African political movement, and an Australian politics site. While obviously the term exists, there is not nearly so much indication it's in wide usage or well-known. This is why I questioned notability/widespread usage. Seraphimblade 13:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant no offence - I don't have a problem with Americans. But as an Australian-based graduate of political science, I would say that my understanding of Australian history probably exceeds that of yourself, or a Google results page. In future, your concerns are probably best communicated through talk pages (rather than just tagging for deletion) and in a less patronising tone (there's no need to welcome me to Misplaced Pages, I've been here a while). Joestella 14:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Old page archives

User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 1
User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 2
User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 3
User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 4

copyrights

Thanks for the reply to me about that image, and yes, it would be good to find an appropriate licence, if the one ive set for it is currently appropriate, then i guess ill just leave it at that!

Removal of warning from User talk:Rebecca

I'm curious as to how an edit summary of " two critics views that happen to agree with your own still isn't an NPOV summary" (when I've expressed no views on the movie and in fact haven't even seen it) do not constitute an attack? Seraphimblade 03:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to on what grounds you think it does. Hesperian 03:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Effectively, Rebecca is making an accusation of POV and bad faith (attempting to put my own views on something), when what was inserted into the article was summarized, sourced, and, far from being POV, simply was a listing of the available sources. I suppose technically it isn't an attack per WP:NPA, but it certainly doesn't strike me as a very good way of handling things, nor as meeting assumption of good faith or being civil. Seraphimblade 03:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly Rebecca's edit summary implied that your edit was POV, but that is a comment about content not contributor. I don't see anything in her edit summary that accuses you of injecting your POV on purpose. Without the "on purpose" bit, its neither a personal attack, nor an accusation of bad faith. Hesperian 03:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I do see your point and where you're coming from, and upon reviewing it doesn't seem to rise to the level of a personal attack. Still, I would assert there are much better ways in which that could have been said, and one could ask for a person's viewpoint rather than presuming it. Seraphimblade 03:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the section as it stands is that it is picking two critics about random and presenting it as the only view. Similarly, I could have added a critical response section last week and found two critics giving very positive reviews, and the section would be completely different. Neither of these would be NPOV. Critical response sections are really hard to do in an NPOV manner, but at the very least, they need to cite an array of different views - otherwise, it looks like the author just picked out a couple of critics they agreed with. Rebecca 03:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page, those couple of reviews were really the only ones I could find that weren't on a blog or similarly less-then-reliable source. If you can find positive ones, by all means throw them in! As I stated before, I haven't even seen the movie, and could really care less about it-but critical reviews are very important to any film, and I think they certainly do deserve inclusion. As to those two, they did both really seem pretty balanced-the Movie Magazine one pointed out some flaws but overall said it was decent, Rotten Tomatoes didn't pan it too harshly but really did seem to be a reasonably good summation of what seems to be said about the movie. However, I still strongly encourage you to refrain from making accusations without evidence-I never even expressed a view on the movie, and in reality I've never even seen it! I can hardly attempt to put "my" view into something on which I don't have a view. Seraphimblade 03:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

XPLANE deletion review

Seraphimblade, Would you mind weighing in on the deletion review for XPLANE at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? Your comments/opinions are much appreciated.Dgray xplane 15:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer to help revise the article. I replied on my talk page and have listed sources at User:Dgray_xplane/XPLANE. Thanks in advance for your help.Dgray xplane 17:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to say thank you for your help in revising the XPLANE article. You are restoring my faith in Misplaced Pages and instilling a desire for me to learn so I can help others too.Dgray xplane 18:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)