User talk:Becritical/Archive 2

Be wary of the effects it can have on you[edit]

Hello friend--thanks for inviting me to participate in the upcoming discussion. I will be glad to help out with my ability to unite my fellow Wikipedians and bring them to consensus with you. (That is if I have any residual, unspent influence!) But first, I have to say you've changed a lot since late October/early November. Remember how great everybody got along following the coalition which was formed in order to gently remove Dualus (& his Lawrence Lessig peddling/spamming efforts) from our collective "democracy" we enabled? Remember that period of peace where everybody was so glad we took back control of the article, and we all worked together? Read this exchange I had with Gregbeard and find those same insights within yourself, because I can tell you care very much about the criticism section, but you've lost a piece of yourself in the process. When that happens, you become a stranger again, and old victories just become passing memories reflective of a time when big things like this were treated on a unified front by the likes of me, you, gandy, amad, centrify, andy, jackson, and even somedifferentstuff. If that day were to somehow come back once again, everybody was so much better then. I've chosen to hang my hat on the pinnacle of OWS's heyday--leaving myself in much the same fashion as Wikipedia had made me. That's why after all these days & weeks, I still have a bright face and feel like Dualus was just banned only yesterday. :-) Maybe that's why I want the talk page to go back to the way it used to be--where we all worked together rather than being for or against any particular issue--but just maybe that's how it should be, if I were ever to fully return... Take care of yourself, old friend! 가는말이 고와야 오는말이 곱다. 완젬스 (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (: I don't think people were ever working together on this part of the criticism section. It's too controversial, because while it's encyclopedic, it doesn't make people look good. Or it makes them look good to themselves and their constituents, but not to everybody else. Then that "everybody else" comes along and feels as though merely saying what those people said is to slime them.... it's kind of not our fault, is it? We're just repeating things. Anyway, this isn't my first rodeo, so losing myself isn't that much of an option. Thanks for the observation though, perhaps I should adopt a less vehement tone do you think? B^e——C_ritical 06:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I definitely agree! The best thing you can do in handling the situation is removing yourself from the computer, and realize your identity here is just "at the keyboard" only, which is a great way to stay detached and keep all these issues in perspective. All of this torment is voluntary, and when you ask yourself if you're consciously aware of the interactions you have with your fellow Wikipedians--they're all just like you, at their keyboards, voluntarily doing the same autopilot maneuvers as I find you doing as of late. When that happens, you have to do the opposite, and break out of your shell and adjust to the new dynamics because Wikipedia is rarely the same place two days in a row. Sometimes the way you go about discussing the criticism section with others will be effective one day, and ineffective the next. Try mixing up your reasoning style & be more adaptive. If necessary, study your individual opponents and find those rare occurrences when they got persuaded by a superior adversary. Anybody can be persuaded--it's just a matter of whether you can persuade them before they persuade you. My advice is to revamp your techniques and try a more calculated strategy to win a favorable outcome to the criticism section. All you have to do is garner consensus--see my playbook for all the tips & tricks you'll ever need. (but of course, I beg of you to please scrap your playbook for the sake of sanity!) Cheers, 완젬스 (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion[edit]

Dear Be, Thank you for your comments on the abortion talk page. You are spot on. For 5 years the lead sentence correctly failed to mention viability and correctly noted the precise type of pregnancy termination that abortion ALWAYS is: one associated with a dead embryo or fetus. A few months back some folks got together and began POV pushing to force a politically correct lead. They rammed this through without consensus and were very harsh to those who disagreed. And now they proceed as if their own version is sacrosanct and not to be touched. This is really a rather simple matter: they insist on using a medical definition - but wikipedia rules actually prefer a broad definition as the primary definition, with specialty definitions to be discussed within the article. Kudos to you, and good luck.69.138.131.238 (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and this is true about the general definition, as I understand it at least. Tell me, were the people you mentioned sanctioned in the recent ArbCom case? B^e——C_ritical 01:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you were banned at the ArbCom, or was it for something else? B^e——C_ritical 01:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banned, yes, for posting undeniable objective RS repeatedly with no acknowledgment by the POV pushers other than to ban me. Pretty amazing. Please see the collection of RS definitions in this archive (the IP comments are excellent): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion/Archive_45#Numbered_Collection_of_Definitions 74.5.191.140 (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the user was, and is, banned for multiple counts of block evasion [1][2][3][4], disruptive editing [5] or both[6] (and is on-going[7]).

The user's non-stop POV-pushing is almost singly responsible for the Arbitration Committee decision that "The articles and corresponding talk pages relating to Abortion shall be semi-protected for a period of three years from the conclusion of this case, such that no non-autoconfirmed editor (including IP address editors) shall edit them." Not good. see Evidence presented by ArtifexMayhem for all the gory details.

All that being said; You, B^e, are making some good points on Talk:Abortion... I think it will come around. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (: I'm not concerned with this user's past really: things get out of hand or people aren't right for Wikipedia, and they get banned. But if they want to come here and be constructive I'm glad for the input. B^e——C_ritical 18:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion:

"Abortion is the end of gestation for an embryo/fetus involving its death and its absorption into or removal from the gravida's body. [Rationale: This is the only definition that accurately applies to every single possible instance of abortion - gestation ceases - the pregnancy does not necessarily end as in the case of a miscarriage of or induced abortion of a twin in which one twin remains intact, and absorption covers early abortions that are absorbed by the uterus rather than expelled.] An abortion that is intentionally induced is often called simply an abortion; [Rationale: Many induced abortions are chemically induced and are not "procedures", so the word "procedure" is not universally accurate.] an abortion that occurs spontaneously before fetal viability is often called a miscarriage; an abortion that occurs spontaneously after fetal viability is often called still-birth. Although intentional abortions may be induced at any point during a pregnancy before childbirth, for humans they are most common in the non-viable first trimester of pregnancy. A scheduled abortion is called an elective abortion and is commonly induced for non-medical reasons. An abortion induced for medical reasons is called a therapeutic abortion. While in most circumstances the pregnancy ends when the abortion is complete, the pregnancy does not end when less than all embryos/fetuses of a multiple pregnancy are aborted. [Rationale: this helps the reader understand that medically, the halt of gestation, death and removal/absorption are the three items in EVERY abortion, and that "termination of pregnancy" is not always part of abortion.] "

69.138.131.238 (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OWS leading paragraph[edit]

It really would have been better to work together on reworking the lead paragraph rather than reverting wholesale. The original is problematic. Working on rewriting it also promotes cooperative editing and a collegial atmosphere. Reverting promotes a right side vs. wrong side atmosphere - and that always makes for hard feelings. You seem like one of the few editors involved in hot-button issue articles who has a good head - why opt for working against rather than with? (talk→ LesHB ←track) 02:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for saying that. I reverted it because it was pretty much the consensus lead, though it hasn't been totally stable. I'd rather keep a more stable version till we get consensus on a new version. Don't you think that's proper process? B^e——C_ritical 02:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's proper process as along as it's not flirting with POV. Which it is, once again. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 02:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that is to be decided. I think your version is flirting with POV, introduced by weaseling, and that the version I reverted to is fully NPOV as I said on the talk page. B^e——C_ritical 02:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how you can think it's NPOV, but whatever. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 02:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi Becritical, I was wanting to ask for feedback on the Rtnews banner at the top of the OWS talkpage. I made it, and wanted to know if it makes any difference ?

Besides that, I think you mentioned that developing articles need, or can have a criticism section, I have nothing to do with OWS and I'm asking in relation to a different article, Mother Teresa, anyhow was wanting to know if you know of any guide thats useful about a criticism section being cool. (I can keep track of conversations better on my talkpage) Penyulap_talk 15:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I assume you know about Wikipedia:Criticism. It depends on the article. The more controversial, the more likely it is that editors will choose to put criticism in a section where they can keep track of it and make sure everything is NPOV. That would often include religion articles. Advocating for the overall best practice of "integrating criticism throughout the article" can sometimes be used as a POV push method to give criticism more WP:WEIGHT than it deserves. At other times, this is perfectly legitimate. I prefer criticism sections for highly controversial articles or articles which attract a lot of inexperienced editors. Otherwise criticism is hard to evaluate as to WEIGHT and sometimes hard to notice when inserted. But there is one extremely powerful reason for keeping a criticism section: it makes it much easier for the reader. I just added It may also make it easier for a reader who is interested in criticisms to use Wikipedia to the Wikipedia:Criticism essay. B^e——C_ritical 19:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RT news thing is fine with me, I have no idea what others will say. Kind of thing that could get out of hand if everyone added their favorite news site? B^e——C_ritical 19:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in re OWS, NPOV and consensus[edit]

Hello, Becritical. You have new messages at El duderino's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please stop[edit]

Please stop reordering my comment on the OWS talk page. Please read WP:TPG regarding moving and changing the talk page entries of other editors. If you would like ME to reorder my comments, ask and give your reasons for wanting me to do it. If you think I'm using OD improperly and/or violating policy, please provide a link to the policy that backs up your claim. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 03:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To say I'm disappointed that you won't own up to violating policy and continuing to do so after being asked to stop would be an understatement. You wanted to me compromise for your sake and comfort level (even though what I was doing isn't against policy), and I did so. Now, when I ask you to at least admit you were in the wrong as an offer of compromise on your part, you won't comply? Nice. I guess I should have seen the writing on the wall when you didn't even bother to try and work things out with me at my talk page - rather, you chose to go elsewhere to complain about something that isn't even a policy violation. Don't think I won't remember your refusal to work things out amicably when you need/ask for something again. Not to say I won't work with you cooperatively in the future, but next time, I'll be less likely to trust you to work cooperatively or do the right thing just because it's right. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 19:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did you the favor of properly formatting and putting your comments in proper order, you reverted, and I reverted with an edit summary explaining why I was doing what I did. I thought that explanation would be enough, as I believe it was a very reasonable and proper explanation. Sorry you didn't feel that my edit summary was sufficient. B^e——C_ritical 20:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still denying. That's okay -- like I said previously, it won't soon be forgotten. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 20:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Abortion[edit]

Barnstar Cluster for Talk:Abortion
		For this edit I award you a Barnstar Cluster, a Diligence Barnstar for your fresh and clear perspective on the abortion lead; and a Peace Barnstar to keeping things relatively calm after the Arbcom. - Roy Boy 18:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] (Awarded if another editor endorses, please sign and/or add your statement and remove this text)

Hey thanks cool :D... well, I guess not actually awarded yet. B^e——C_ritical 20:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

closely related[edit]

Hi. In your recent edit at WP:V,[8] did you intend to mean that both NOR and NPOV are closely related to V, since that is what it seems to say now after your edit. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yeah... see my little essay Wikipedia:Why NPOV?

I looked at your essay, and NPOV seemed to be a minor part of it. In any case, lower down in the OR section of the V policy it says that V is closely related to NOR. V doesn't say that it is closely related to NPOV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want to be NPOV, except that we want to relate what the sources say without bias? NPOV is all about NOR and V, it's a necessary outgrowth of NOR and V and the goal of reliability. But if you're looking for other expressions of this I don't really know of any clear ones. That's why I put the essay out there. It seems pretty obvious that NPOV is not the beginning but the end result of the other policies, which have their basis in the need for reliability. "If you want to make a reliable encyclopedia you need to use the best sources, not go beyond them and not bias what they say." Just that little sentence, you get V, NOR, and NPOV. But the core or the core policies is V, and the other two are just saying "don't screw around with what has been verified." RS is an explanation of how to find V. B^e——C_ritical 05:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, lower down in the OR section of the V policy it says that V is closely related to NOR. V doesn't say that it is closely related to NPOV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's about what I said, yeah. B^e——C_ritical 05:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That brings us back to my first message here. Your edit seems to say that both NOR and NPOV are closely related to V, whereas the policy page V only says that NOR is closely related to V, so I'm reverting your edit. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, revert, that's fine but don't act as if a bit of reasoning is out of place on policy pages. B^e——C_ritical 05:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Reactions to Occupy Wall Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese (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) 11:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Official administrative warnings[edit]

I wanted to let you know that your concern about an official warning about edit warring (towards me) was made twice. Once by the Admin I sought guidence from and once at the end of the 3RR/n. While it didn't earn a block, it did earn such an official warning from the closing admin. I make this post as a conciliatory gesture to show that admin do make these warnings.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and be assured there are no hard feelings on my part. Cheers (: B^e——C_ritical 00:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

It might be worth knowing (e.g. via the talk-page history) that Jakeinjoisy has already tried to remove the RfC template once... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty annoyed that you added those two long paragraphs to the RfC. The instructions are very clear: keep it brief. I followed those instructions. The real misbehavior here was of course Jake's in deleting the RfC tag; I see no reason why his error should be compounded by substituting a different text for that of the RfC I initiated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The previous thread on the RfC there was consensus to include those paragraphs, if I remember right. We don't want people to have to read the whole discussion, and I don't think your original formulation have them a rundown of the pro and con arguments. I wanted to also include the table of pro and con. We after all don't just want ivotes based on "ick." B^e——C_ritical 23:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A grand total of 3 editors commented on the subject matter of that section. In any event your response misses the point that Jake also failed to get: the RfC process does not require consensus for starting an RfC. If someone had wanted to use that text to start an RfC, there was nothing to prevent that person from doing so -- but no one did. To have Jake delete the RfC that I initiated twice, and then to have you substitute your own text for mine -- well, let's just say I invite you to justify your own action in terms that invoke some sort of policy about RfCs. I doubt you can come up with anything. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now! I didn't substitute my text for yours! I didn't see any there, or mistakenly took it out. Perhaps Jake took it out and I saw there was none there. B^e——C_ritical 01:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look -- why is the text I used to initiate the RfC not there? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the diff of where you inserted a summary? What was the text you inserted? I do not find anything in the diffs, and I just wasted 15 minutes on them. B^e——C_ritical 17:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where I initiated the RfC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well your text is still there (It says: "Following a very long discussion (and straw poll) above, the question here is whether to include Dan Savage's "Spreading santorum" website as an external link for this page. Some people believe that it is a BLP violation, while others reject that view and believe that it is a proper EL and even belongs here per WP:ELOFFICIAL."). And if it's still there, what are you talking about?? B^e——C_ritical 19:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed the text I initiated the RfC with. So why isn't it here? Why only the text you added? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see the problem. I think it had to do with what the bot grabbed, but perhaps some editor did it. At any rate I fixed it. B^e——C_ritical 19:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V talk page[edit]

No, I don't mind you mentioning me, but what are you saying that I don't understand? (BTW, I've only been on Wikipedia for 2 years.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was thinking of this:

"This is in regards to this edit.[9] Unless I'm misunderstanding what BC is saying here, there are other thresholds."

My edit summary there was

The minimum threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. There are no other minimum thresholds.

So I thought you were misunderstanding that it is a minimum threshold (that "threshold" means minimum in that context), and therefore thinking that my saying that verifiability is the threshold contradicted that there are other thresholds. But in fact, you can have one minimum threshold and then others after that. So anyway that's what I was thinking of and one reason why VnT is hard to understand. Glad you didn't mind my using you as an example :P B^e——C_ritical 19:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on the definition of 'threshold' (that is, is it possible to have more than one threshold?). In this context, I'm thinking that it's synonomous with "requirement" or "qualification". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hmmm, can you make a good case for that? If you could using some source or other, we might have a case for changing it to "a threshold," and if we could make that stick, then maybe no one would like it anymore and we could get rid of it. B^e——C_ritical 19:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfD[edit]

May I ask you to revisit and read my reasoning? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Crime/Security Concerns/Security[edit]

I've brought the discussion back here again.Racingstripes (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De nada[edit]

Not at all. I thought it was hilarious, and right on point. Which was the problem, per WP:POINT. I was actually tempted to do something similar myself. Good to be editing with you again. I know we don't always agree, and we got on each others nerves on the astrology article, but I respect you a lot. You're a good balance to my "kill them all and let God sort them out" mentality. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could sorta say that. I learned the ropes from Hrafn, if you know him. That definitely puts me in the "bad cop" camp. And considering how lenient you were with the astrologers, you're definitely in the "good cop" camp. You gotta loosen up and use your nightstick once in a while. Keeps it nice and shiny. Just remember to keep our story straight and write that they slipped and fell down the steps in your report. :) Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, it works. I was "lenient" with them because I think it's better to have all their opinions out in the open. Censorship of a fringe idea is a good way to stick to our purity of sources, but then people will hear it out in the world and think it makes sense. So it needs to be covered here, no? B^e——C_ritical 07:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A recent change contains copyright material[edit]

A change you made recently contains copyright material too closely paraphrased. Please see the talk pgae at Talk:Occupy Wall Street.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, looks like it's fixed (: B^e——C_ritical 21:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you active again[edit]

I've initiated discussion on how to address the inconsistencies between "what is occupy wall street?" (specifically what it encompasses regarding how to cover it in an encyclopedia) vs "what is the occupy movement?" because the articles were made independently of one another. Both are considered "active, ongoing protests movements" but clearly they overlap too much, with no coordination of what belongs on each article. I'd be glad to hear all your ideas, since you have a fresh perspective. I lean towards making both articles clear, understandable, and complementary to each other (rather than each article casting confusion about how information is being presented in the other article). There is also disagreement on whether every substituent city is autonomous, or under the watchful, all-controlling eye of the nycga. Also, welcome back! 완젬스 (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (: B^e——C_ritical 21:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're being a straight-shooter and calling the article a mess, because I totally agree. The layout made little sense, and overall the article did not read coherently or cohesively. I had to take a 2 day wiki-break because my head was fixing to explode over an argument I was having with someone who defended nonsense. (I'll return tomorrow after another long day of monotonous work which is what pays my bills) Either way, I'm glad to work alongside you and I'm also glad to be in good company of someone who "gets it" about normal, standard, and straightforward article issues. I just hope I can recruit you to tackle the Occupy Movement article as well. ;-) 완젬스 (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love to participate at Occupy Movement. And thanks for saying this, it was getting a little lonely after Gandydancer came down on me. B^e——C_ritical 23:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work. I've devoted about 3 weeks for work on wikipedia, because I was having a slowdown in my work life. Now it's hectic for a few days, but I just wanted to say you're owning it up on Wikipedia, and improving the articles very rapidly. You've contributed a little bit to my laziness, lol. I'll try to put in a few hours on Saturday and Sunday, and I'll stand behind the cleanup you want on the articles. They are the result of editor-complacency, and to do what needs to be done will naturally ruffle some people's feathers. Consider the unfortunate reactions of people who are resistant to consider the occupy movement in a 2011 sense (rather than a 2012 sense) as the natural consequence of disrupting the status quo. Your leadership in bringing about article improvements has been incontrovertible in my eyes. 완젬스 (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Oh you crybaby--here, play with this kitten. (It's really, really, really good to have you back!)

Gandydancer (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AWWWWW, thank you (*sniff*)

Oh brother...[edit]

Want to come over and we'll drink tequila shots till we are out of our minds drunk? Bring the new kitty and just for fun we'll watch my cat Kika spit and hiss at her!!! Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFL, I think we need it... :P B^e——C_ritical 19:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, maybe just for relaxation we could take in a cock fight too. Gandydancer (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... well we could either enjoy the cockfight or skulk around outside with signs saying how shocked -SHOCKED- we are that cockfighting is going on inside. But I suspect the latter would just get us laughed at. B^e——C_ritical 22:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well me-n-you with our big cojones will not be in that naysayer crowd! I say Viva la Ocupa Wall Street!, Damn the Torpedoes!, and Onward Christian Snowballs!!!, and so on and so forth!!! Err, what were we talking about? At any rate, whatever it was, I will...Fight to the Death!!!...right?

Gandydancer (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RIGHT! B^e——C_ritical 00:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Amadscientist has asked me to ask you if you want to be part of a project to coordinate all the Occupy articles (see my talk page). I'm sure it's a good idea but I don't know if I can take any more hassle right now - suddenly my talk page is getting crowded with evidence about what a bad editor I am (sigh). Wikipedia used to be fun, but no more... Gandydancer (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

What are you doing for Lent? Give up Wikipedia? Gandydancer (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation[edit]

Dear Becritical: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving your statement! Could you agree to the ground rules as well? And don't forget your policy draft for step two. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so[edit]

Kindly revert this edit. [10] By what stretch of imagination to you think there is any consensus on this change in policy? This is just tag-team edit warring since Dreadstar has already reverted twice. Fladrif (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's consensus of 3 to 1, but perhaps we should do an RfC on it? B^e——C_ritical 02:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't change policy pages on a 3:1 vote. We absolutely have to have an RFC to change a policy page. I was shocked that an hour after posting that we need other editors input that you would make this change. Why, because one additional editor posted a comment? Fladrif (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the change is as radical an uncalled-for as you seem to believe, I'm sure merely bringing community attention to it will be highly effective. I consider a the edit justified on the merits, and per the talk page for now. And if the policy is as obscure as you say, no harm in chilling a while till you can get more community input. B^e——C_ritical 02:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I mention you in passing here, do please come along and have a say. Penyulap_talk 09:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Occupy Wall Street [edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Occupy Wall Street , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Amadscientist (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

I could not help noticing that you have a dispute going over some removed edits. You posted right under a post of mine about a similar problem on Invisible Children, Inc.. I just thought it might interest you that the user with whom you have the dispute "removed" both your notification of the dispute and my request for an explanation of why they were removing my edits as well. I thought you might like to use this point in your further discussions. I think that when more than one person is having the same problem with an editor, something is up. Take Care.--Ishtar456 (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, curiously, both your problem and mine involve the "criticism" sections of our respective articles.

Thanks, it is interesting, but I don't know what to do with it. I think his edit warring things out and then not discussing is beginning to verge on disruption though. B^e——C_ritical 19:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't know if the fact that he removed your notice might not be an indicator that you have tried to solve the problem while he(?) is unwilling. I was just surprised by it when it came up on my watch list as "removed" because I have seen that edit note a lot lately from that editor. I agree, it is disruptive. But, Wikipedia is a hostile environment. Take Care, --Ishtar456 (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I recall removing things like that from your talk page is considered an indication that you have taken due note of them and take responsibility for them. So the removal itself is technically his indication that he's listening. B^e——C_ritical 21:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to turn Wikipedia into this?[edit]

I consider that proposal to be a fuming, scathing attempt to blatantly "hijack" wikipedia for the sake of orchestrating hate & vitriol from the readers. We serve our readers--we don't use them for political purposes (cough, cough, at least not without "consensus") so I'm going to try my best to explain it here why you might want to take a second look at what others are saying:

Nobody is "against you" for the sake of stopping you. We're all just pretty much seeing eye to eye on it, with you being the exception. This is absolutely 100% not a "personal edit war" from the other users who are all basically in agreement.
What you're doing is much too obvious to anyone with halfway decent judgment as it is 100% entirely written from a propaganda narrative. I know how to get controversial things done (like whitewashing antisemitism from the occupy article) but what you're trying to do is already "above the radar" and will never be able to silently make its way into the article.
Thirdly, we all attempt our own delusional & self-justified influence into the article, but we must learn to recognize it when it's pointed out. The only reason everyone puts up with my pro-ows glaring non-neutrality and olympian conflict of interest is because I defer to other people's judgment and continually respect my fellow editors, as this post *hopefully* demonstrates as well.

When you draw a line in the sand, and go into "full metal jacket" type of Chuck Norris implementation of your grandiose visions for the article, you must retreat from it rather than double down & threaten a roundhouse kick to anyone who dare form their consensus without you. I tried to make this post friendly and humorous to help you recoup and *hopefully* rethink what Amadscientist and SomeDifferentStuff are telling you. (not that I don't get into my fair share of friendly jesting with either of them, but hey! eventually you'll forget about this paramount issue, or watch a really good movie or have a good lay and that's when you realize you took life a little bit too seriously back in a Wikipedia edit war!) I'm on your side, fwiw. 완젬스 (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation[edit]

Dear Becritical: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 March 2012/Occupy Wall Street.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Whenaxis, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I c/p'ed all references on this version of the article #42 through #53. I didn't delete any of yours. I c/p them all 1 at a time, so you can open in new tabs. 완젬스 (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be, I was not notified of this and only see it just now...Gandydancer (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... ): B^e——C_ritical 20:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help please[edit]

Hi there Be. If I change an article name ( Great Dismal Swamp maroons ) to "Great Dismal Swamp Maroons" (cap M) do I need to do more than just change the letter M? I understand that it has a re-direct from Great Dismal Swamp Maroons already. Hope you can help me. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gandy, what you have to do is move it I think (see down arrow beside the watchlist star). But I think the title is correct per MOS, you don't use caps without a reason [11] "Use "sentence case", not "title case"; that is, the initial letter of a title is capitalized (except in rare cases, such as eBay). Otherwise, capital letters are used only where they would be used in a normal sentence". If I got it right, the Great Dismal Swamp is a place, and properly capitalized, but the maroons are not properly capitalized. B^e——C_ritical 20:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Be, if you have time would you please read the talk page? It seems that it is a little more complicated than that. I would really appreciate some help as I am emotionally involved in the issue and may not be using my head properly even though I am certain that I am right. Gandydancer (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No rush at all - I am not in a hurry...as is best in cases like this... Gandydancer (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

I thought this might interest you: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal. A very long-standing admin was just banned (not just de-opped, but banned) basically for repeatedly referring to an editor's COI in a debate. Don't consider this a warning, though maybe it should be... but really it's just something I thought you'd find interesting, given the current situation at our discussion. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:58, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation straw poll[edit]

Hello BeCritical, this is just to let you know that we are having a straw poll about how many drafts to include in the proposed RfC about Wikipedia:Verifiability. The result of this straw poll will have a large effect on the direction the mediation takes, so if you could let us know your preferred number over at the mediation page, I would be very grateful. I am thinking of leaving the discussion open at least until 10am (UTC) on Thursday, March 22, and possibly longer if we require more time to reach a consensus. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to OWS[edit]

I wasn't sure where to put this on the article talk page so will mention here. Is the poll set up properly? You have support and oppose below your version but nothing under the other version. Also, I find your version almost impossible to read - couldn't it be divided into a few paragraphs? Gandydancer (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't set it up, the mediator did. I guess you just say "support # X". And it wasn't originally impossible to read, remember? It got that way because people wouldn't let me summarise... they brought up every trick in the wikilawyer book to keep it out of the article. There is still a readable version here, which is what I tried to insert this time before the mediation. Go ahead and try your hand at paragraphing if you like, but I don't see any natural places to break. B^e——C_ritical 09:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-discussion & minor quibbles[edit]

Since the article is already discussing "conservative" criticism, it is no longer needed to mention it twice (i.e. a "conservative" radio show host & i.i.e. in the article under "conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been...) so can we signify that Rush Limbaugh is not mainstream? Since conservative is already mentioned, can we change "conservative" to "controversial" on the second mention where you state "On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told..." and change it to "On October 5, 2011, controversial talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told..." because as you know (especially after the Sandra Fluke maelstrom he erupted, that he is definitely a racist, sexist pig.) In no way does he represent a majority tea-party view nor a majority republican view. He was even forced to apologize not just by the republican establishment, but also by all three republican presidential candidates. (for Romney & Newt Gingrich & Rick Santorum) Also, as I'm sure you already know, Glenn Beck is a cult leader. He instructs people to buy freeze-dried food (like Astronaut ice cream) and for people to hoard in gold, because Ben Bernanke is out to cause hyper-inflation. Glenn Beck also believes that the Arab Spring is the first domino in a chain reaction to orchestrate a global Caliphate which hopefully you know is also ridiculous. Glenn Beck basically says there are 4 E's which can save America from it's inevitable downward decline, and that through “Enlightenment, Education, Empowerment and Entrepreneurship" which of course is just a play on the letter "E" with a string of "feel good" messages which are vague enough to apply to multiple scenarios. Most people only know how loony (source) that Glenn Beck is based on fragmented remarks replayed on other mainstream television outlets. If you have bittorrent and can search for keyword "GBTV" and listen to an entire half-hour, he is inexplicably a cult leader. I don't know how anybody else (who isn't a racist conservative or a brainwashed Christian) can mistake him for being an actual prophet. He's just a charismatic capitalist who makes $32 million per year while "selling" a consumer-driven product, which is why a guy can get rich by telling conservatives that Barack Obama is a muslim & that occupy wall street is a domino which will lead to the muslim brotherhood eventually taking over Europe and then socialism/communism taking over America. If you have never watched an entire episode, please download or find a webstream so that you'll understand why I think Glenn Beck is even more crazy than the mainstream media reports. He's a nutjob, a paranoid schizophrenic, and a self-proclaimed prophet. Or, alternatively, he's duping his followers into believing he's something he's not, and laughing all the way to the bank to the means of $32,000,000 per year. Either way, he's a threat to the occupy movement; and, I hope you can put a couple descriptors about him, the same way you said "Rush Limbaugh, a conservative radio host..." since not all the Wikipedia readers (who want to know more information about Occupy Wall Street & its movement) will already know who Glenn Beck is. I'm just asking for a preface of who he is before you unload his obfuscating disinformation, that: "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around."

To me, if you carelessly disseminate his message for him (without source-boxing it to him, and prefacing it as "his statement" etc...) then you might be doing him a favor, but you're definitely hurting the OWS movement by not prefacing/qualifying/contexting his upcoming brainwash. As a Korean, this Glenn Beck guy scares the creeps out of me. For him to be so oppressive toward Asians & so influential in the Tea Party, it is a shame you haven't thought first to wrap his statement up in content disclaimers or put his message (about killing you) into the perspective of "who he is" (i.e. how we described him in the Glenn Beck article) so that average readers won't think that OWS protesters are actually capable of killing unarmed civilians who amicably support our movement. I see this quote as Glenn Beck's attempt to appeal to the same target individuals that our movement is trying to appeal to (the 99% i.e. 270mil of 300mil Americans) because he uses fear, while not really caring how the bottom 99% of America can benefit from the goals of the occupy movement. You know I'm very "pro-OWS" and so I see every addition of new content in terms of black & white--i.e. whether or not it helps or hurts the movement. Please understand my perspective so you can see why I'm flipping out about what might be just a "minor issue" to you, because it is imperative that our occupy movement succeeds in the court of public opinion. Once you allow Glenn Beck to testify as he pleases, then he can freely proselytize our OWS-sympathetic readers. All I'm saying is to shackle him, make him wear a straight-jacket and don him with a tin foil hat before he goes on the witness stand (and spews his quote which you recite for him) so that the jury knows how to disqualify his remarks as nothing more than hyperbole which I think a diligent consensus of our fellow editors would readily attest to:

Extended content
Noun {{en-noun}} {{uncountable}} Extreme exaggeration or overstatement; especially as a literary or rhetorical device. {{uncountable}} Deliberate exaggeration. {{countable}} An instance or example of this technique. {{countable\|obsolete}} A hyperbola.

Looking forward to your incorporation of this feedback into the finalized version--thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go through this and respond as I read.

Since the article is already discussing "conservative" criticism, it is no longer needed to mention it twice (i.e. a "conservative" radio show host & i.i.e. in the article under "conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been...) so can we signify that Rush Limbaugh is not mainstream? Since conservative is already mentioned, can we change "conservative" to "controversial" on the second mention where you state "On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told..." and change it to "On October 5, 2011, controversial talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told..." because as you know (especially after the Sandra Fluke maelstrom he erupted, that he is definitely a racist, sexist pig.) In no way does he represent a majority tea-party view nor a majority republican view. He was even forced to apologize not just by the republican establishment, but also by all three republican presidential candidates. (for Romney & Newt Gingrich & Rick Santorum)

I'm not sure what status Rush now enjoys within the Republican base. However, at the time he made this statement, he was solidly established as the "mouthpiece of the Right." He was not fringe, he was mainstream. If people have since turned against him, that's not really relevant. However, I think maybe what we should do is instead of calling him "conservative," just leave out the description. I'm not personally opposed to calling him "controversial," but some might be: we might need a source for that word if we use it. Got one? If so, this is fine with me.

Also, as I'm sure you already know, Glenn Beck is a cult leader. He instructs people to buy freeze-dried food (like Astronaut ice cream) and for people to hoard in gold, because Ben Bernanke is out to cause hyper-inflation. Glenn Beck also believes that the Arab Spring is the first domino in a chain reaction to orchestrate a global Caliphate which hopefully you know is also ridiculous. Glenn Beck basically says there are 4 E's which can save America from it's inevitable downward decline, and that through “Enlightenment, Education, Empowerment and Entrepreneurship" which of course is just a play on the letter "E" with a string of "feel good" messages which are vague enough to apply to multiple scenarios. Most people only know how loony (source) that Glenn Beck is based on fragmented remarks replayed on other mainstream television outlets. If you have bittorrent and can search for keyword "GBTV" and listen to an entire half-hour, he is inexplicably a cult leader. I don't know how anybody else (who isn't a racist conservative or a brainwashed Christian) can mistake him for being an actual prophet. He's just a charismatic capitalist who makes $32 million per year while "selling" a consumer-driven product, which is why a guy can get rich by telling conservatives that Barack Obama is a muslim & that occupy wall street is a domino which will lead to the muslim brotherhood eventually taking over Europe and then socialism/communism taking over America. If you have never watched an entire episode, please download or find a webstream so that you'll understand why I think Glenn Beck is even more crazy than the mainstream media reports. He's a nutjob, a paranoid schizophrenic, and a self-proclaimed prophet. Or, alternatively, he's duping his followers into believing he's something he's not, and laughing all the way to the bank to the means of $32,000,000 per year.

I'm sure his opinions are without much support in reality. You should be careful writing things per WP:BLP even on talk pages.

Either way, he's a threat to the occupy movement;

This is something we fundamentally disagree on: you think that seeing a rabid dog froth at the mouth makes it look threatening. I think it allows people to see that it's rabid. I think the Glen Becks and Rushs of the world are geese that lay golden eggs for Occupy. They do more to support the movement than, well, practically any others. By becoming the voice of Conservativism, they have screwed Conservatism over and boosted liberalism.

and, I hope you can put a couple descriptors about him, the same way you said "Rush Limbaugh, a conservative radio host..." since not all the Wikipedia readers (who want to know more information about Occupy Wall Street & its movement) will already know who Glenn Beck is. I'm just asking for a preface of who he is before you unload his obfuscating disinformation, that: "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around."

Like what kind of description? Rabid? What could we actually put into Wikipedia?

To me, if you carelessly disseminate his message for him (without source-boxing it to him, and prefacing it as "his statement" etc...)

It is prefaced as his statement. The preface now there is "Glenn Beck said on his internet television network GBTV..." I'm not sure what to do with that. Can you suggest what kind of preface we might add?

then you might be doing him a favor, but you're definitely hurting the OWS movement by not prefacing/qualifying/contexting his upcoming brainwash.

Same as above... no one is brainwashed who doesn't want to be, and those people are not open to other ideas.

As a Korean, this Glenn Beck guy scares the creeps out of me. For him to be so oppressive toward Asians & so influential in the Tea Party, it is a shame you haven't thought first to wrap his statement up in content disclaimers or put his message (about killing you) into the perspective of "who he is" (i.e. how we described him in the Glenn Beck article) so that average readers won't think that OWS protesters are actually capable of killing unarmed civilians who amicably support our movement. I see this quote as Glenn Beck's attempt to appeal to the same target individuals that our movement is trying to appeal to (the 99% i.e. 270mil of 300mil Americans) because he uses fear, while not really caring how the bottom 99% of America can benefit from the goals of the occupy movement.

There's where we disagree, and if you're Korean maybe you haven't lived here or don't have quite the perspective on the ground: Glenn Beck does not, and never will appeal to the same people that OWS can appeal to: rather he will repel them right into embracing OWS. He is a FRIEND of OWS, by showing people what they are against.

You know I'm very "pro-OWS" and so I see every addition of new content in terms of black & white--i.e. whether or not it helps or hurts the movement. Please understand my perspective so you can see why I'm flipping out about what might be just a "minor issue" to you, because it is imperative that our occupy movement succeeds in the court of public opinion. Once you allow Glenn Beck to testify as he pleases, then he can freely proselytize our OWS-sympathetic readers. All I'm saying is to shackle him, make him wear a straight-jacket and don him with a tin foil hat before he goes on the witness stand (and spews his quote which you recite for him) so that the jury knows how to disqualify his remarks as nothing more than hyperbole which I think a diligent consensus of our fellow editors would readily attest to:

As a general rule, you need to embrace fully exposing information rather than trying to hide it. If exposure to Beck and Rush is going to convince the average American that OWS has no relevance, then the cause of OWS is lost. Censorship of Beck and Rush will only promote the liberal misconception that they have partners in Republicans, they just have to love and understand each other better. Obama seems to have really had this misconception, that's why he didn't use his advantage and allowed Republicans to block him. Liberals and the average American live in bubbles where they look out and they can't believe that people actually take Rush and Beck seriously. They need much more exposure to Rush and Beck in order to get it through their thick skulls that people actually believe these things. They need more, not less.

P.S you might like this. B^e——C_ritical 18:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
Noun {{en-noun}} {{uncountable}} Extreme exaggeration or overstatement; especially as a literary or rhetorical device. {{uncountable}} Deliberate exaggeration. {{countable}} An instance or example of this technique. {{countable\|obsolete}} A hyperbola.

Looking forward to your incorporation of this feedback into the finalized version--thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V[edit]

Thought I'd let you know that I've copied a draft of yours to a new page for drafts at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Group_3, which is part of Stage 4 of the mediation. I was looking back over the drafts for a good example of one which doesn't actually use the words "verification, not truth", but uses other words to express the difference between perceived truth and verification. Thought your one expresses the main point really well! Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! B^e——C_ritical 17:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have mention you here[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --ER 22:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

Edit-warring warning.[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New Testament Christian Churches of America‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--ER 23:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

Cheers, Be. Saw on noticeboard that you were having trouble with this editor and decided to give a helping hand. Major competence problem here. I've watchlisted and will keep an eye on the article. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant emphasis on subtleties! (-:[edit]

Regarding this diff, I was busy with work and came back to check my watchlist, and I was already brainstorming a way to propose you & I collaborate together on improving the various OWS articles (such as this failed attempt here with another editor) because after all the efforts you put into the criticism section of the "reaction to OWS" article, I realized you have the same energy, passion, and brilliance that could rival any editor in the current list of active editors (for OWS). As you may be starting to recognize, we're both trying to "make the OWS articles better" for lack of a better term. I never could understand why you wanted to hinder my efforts of removing "sabotage/toxicity" from the articles until you gave me the breakdown of OWS's target audience. I don't have the diff available, but it was when you said something like "30% of ows wiki readers are a lost cause, xyz % are independents, and that's who we are trying to appeal to which is what decided for me to give you a second look. I think in the last 5 days, you've cleared up many of the doubts I've had toward you. Let's say we get started together and coordinate our explanations (privately) on our talk pages, so we can understand what each other are trying to do. If others want to chime in (such as Gandy, Equazcion, or FactChecker@YourService) then they're more than welcome to the party. I have a long post about Trayvon Martin which I need to get out of the way, so I'll go ahead and take care of that first. What this new section to your talk page is formally proposing is that we try to instantly clear up any disagreements or miscommunications about what either of our intentions are, for any major edit or major revert we may happen to inflict upon one another. It's also a call to stick with this newfound commitment at least through Nov 2012, because that is the timeframe that the nycga expects this "occupy movement" to play out. (if you remember, the racist tea party resulted in a "shellacking" in the midterm 2010 elections, but so long as we win in the court of public opinion, we'll get 4 more years of Obama rather than the poster child for the 1%) So, I'll end this passionate diatribe with a microcosm of philosophy... --If you ever wanted to influence the perception which people/sheeple have about Republicans, capitalism, and corporate greed, then Wikipedia is your most efficient platform to reach the widest (and most persuadable) audience; and, if you know this and I know this, then let's minimize the amount of cross-cancellation effects we have on each other while working semi-independently. Let's try to coordinate our reasoning/motivation in a humble (no-ego) communication process whereby we don't cancel each other out as much, since that way we give each other the freedom I envision--you do your thing & I'll do my thing. And whenever there is a budding edit-war, we'll do our best to apply chemotherapy to our nascent disagreements before it can metastasize. The reason we do it is because we believe we can make a difference & not because we think we're just a drop of water in an endless sea. With that said, if you think you can make a difference in the world, you'll join me. If not, you can tacitly dismiss this proposal in a covert manner which leaves it ambiguous whether or not "you're in" while still maintaining your perceived independence/neutrality (and any breaks we give each other are pure coincidence) so let me hit "submit" so I can get started on my Occupy Wikiproject which will be red-linked for just another 30 minutes or so. Happy editing, 완젬스 (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly love to coordinate effort to improve things, and yes, I think it would be useful to resolve things on our talk pages before they get to any point where we would be interfering with each other's efforts. Anyone reading your post would think you were trying to subvert NPOV, but here's the thing: personally, I think really applying NPOV to articles will in no way harm Occupy. Occupy has so many facts behind it that full exposure is something to be embraced. So I do not think there would be any reason to "POV push" as they say around here. Just like the criticism, full exposure only helps clear people's heads. Same with economics. It's not like the statistics don't support the movement. And I would not be any more interested in Occupy than the Tea Party were that not true. So really, NPOV and helping Occupy are going to be mostly the same thing, and where they aren't then that's a way Occupy needs to be more vigilant, as with any incidents of violence- and exposure will help them achieve that. Just as an aside, isn't copyright freedom -piracy- in essence part of Occupy? "Occupy copyright?" B^e——C_ritical 01:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V mediation compromise drafts[edit]

Hello BeCritical, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the verifiability mediation, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at this section on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly FYI...[edit]

Hi There!

Just wanted to give you a friendly FYI...

This is from the GLAAD website... http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

Problematic: "transgendered" Preferred: "transgender" The adjective transgender should never have an extraneous "-ed" tacked onto the end. An "-ed" suffix adds unnecessary length to the word and can cause tense confusion and grammatical errors. For example, it is grammatically incorrect to turn transgender into a participle, as it is an adjective, not a verb, and only verbs can be used as participles by adding an "-ed" suffix.

You seem to be very persistent on including the above derogatory word on Jamie Clayton's Wiki page so I just wanted to let you know this info. Also, with all the references and info available about her on the net it seems a little repetitive (and weird) that you keep putting it in there. Anyway, have a great weekend! :) MissDepeche (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Clayton Page[edit]

Hi There,

I got the message you left. Thank you! Yes, Jamie Clayton is a transgender woman. She is also a human being and deserves respect. Just like you and I. Just like everyone deserves. It is rude to use improper language when talking about her. Also, she is not a "transgender actress". Her gender has nothing to do with her career. You wouldn't say "black actress" would you? How about "elderly actress". I removed the article with "gay actors" in the title because Jamie is not gay. Also, the video that accompanied that article is referenced ("a transgender voice") and is a great example of the positive work Jamie has done for the trans community. I apologize for not explaining the edit... I had no idea I was supposed to. I don't want to cause any trouble on Wiki and I hope that this has helped you understand my edit (and possibly Jamie) a little more. Thanks again and have a great Sunday!MissDepeche (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jamie Clayton Page[edit]

Hi Again,

I got your last message, thank you. I thought I explained that the reason I removed reference number four was because of the title of the article. Also, that the video that accompanies the article is referenced (number one). The video is beautiful whereas the article says Clayton was "born a man". This is extremely offensive. I do not know you and I don't expect you to understand what trans people have to deal with on a daily basis. Especially someone like Miss Clayton who has chosen to live her life visibly to inspire others and show the world that we are all equal. What I do hope though is that you have some sensitivity to trans people in general. Jamie is doing so much good for our community but, she can't control what the media says about her. Yes, she is trans. At the end of the day though she is just a woman. A woman who is trying to be successful and change peoples minds about a very misunderstood subject. I do not know who created her Wiki page and I do agree that editing is a collaboration but, Jamie is not hiding anything as people can plainly see in all the links and references. I ask that you question your involvement in the editing of her page and ask yourself if this is really a subject that is close to your heart. Thank you very much for all your time. MissDepeche (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BeCritical,

Well, I have to say that after reading your last message it is obvious that you haven't listened to anything I've said. Again, you have used a derogatory word when discussing Miss Clayton. You are not only offending her, you are literally offending every single trans person. I'm new to this but, I guess it really is true that behind computer screens people are big bullies. The reference I deleted is not just offensive to me, it is offensive to the entire LGBT community. A community that you obviously do not belong or relate to. Which makes me wonder why you are even concerned with Jamie's page. There are plenty of other references. I really do not understand why you care so deeply about including this one. I really hope that you and the people in your life you care about never experience the level of insensitivity you are displaying towards Miss Clayton. MissDepeche (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V mediation step five[edit]

Hello BeCritical, this is another update about the verifiability mediation. We have now started step five, in which we will work towards deciding a final draft for each work group. I would like you to submit a statement about this - have a look at the mediation page to see the details of what you should include. The deadline for this step is 10.00 am on Friday 6th April (UTC), and unlike the other steps I am going to be strict about it. If you don't leave a statement by the deadline, then you won't be able to participate in steps six or seven. If you think you are going to be late turning in your statement, please let me know as soon as possible - I can't promise anything, but it will be much easier to work out alternative arrangements now than it would be after the deadline has passed. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinating some cleanup[edit]

Hey friend, maybe you can give me some honest feedback. Lately, I've taken a wikibreak because I ran into a huge brickwall. My principal motivation was to "cleanup" the occupy mess here on Wikipedia. Back in late 2011, there was an apparent bandwagon of reducing the "celebrity reaction" and other low-key details about the movement. Now I feel like life is cyclical. So tell me, are we back in an "expansion phase" on the occupy articles?

Secondly, what is my blind spot? I recently ran into some good action by rectifying a Keith-Olbermann dispute with Equaczion which was terrific because I feel slighted by him, but was able to propose (and him accept) a compromise. However, even with Gandy, I feel like I'm oblivious to some major "attitude affront" which I emanate but am consistently unaware of. Back in late 2011, I was like the "party guy" who was able to rally everyone against Dualus and coordinated the subtle efforts in getting him banned (such as calling him "invincible") plus lots of other small tactics which created a holistic "bad guy" image for him to fit into. Now I'm suddenly the guy who wants to massively improve the article, but nobody sees me as the "party guy" anymore; and, everyone tries to block me. Am I perhaps the last one to get off the bandwagon, or have the tides shifted & I'm the last one to get on board the new tumbleweed of wiki-decision making? Where did I go wrong?

Thirdly, how do I go about raising a discussion about what can be fixed? I try to reach out on editors talk pages, I almost constructed an occupy-wikiproject, and lately I'm thinking of recruiting FB editors who are totally new to Wikipedia (and would expose me as the leader of all these sudden random ip-editors) but that's where I'm sitting at the moment. I got passion; I got energy; and when I have free time available (since I think I'm the only one of us who struggles in the world of freelance employment--where if you don't produce perfect work every time, then your referrals end and your reputation dries up) I love readying the main OWS page for whatever will happen next. I'm anticipating the next big thing for OWS, which should have happened in April (but won't obviously, because of "social issues" being dominated by Trayvon Martin) so now I'm left twiddling my thumbs and doubting the FB grapevine. I think the OWS movement is in a lull, and I don't think they can build up a pyramid of interest which climaxes on May 1st (Mayday) since there is a lot of bureacratic inertia amongst the inner-workings gridlock I get to listen to every day. Sometimes I just gotta tune them out for a day or two, unlike here.

So with that said, give me some advice. I'm a Wikipedia editor and I want to make a difference this year just like I was making last year. Sometimes I do what I feel is right, even if it's not doing what's popular. Maybe I could vanish and get a new screen name (starting out as an IP again) or maybe outing myself here so everyone knows who I am (and as Amadcientist said, it's not too hard to figure out). Maybe you have a good enough barometer for the winds of Wikipedia that you can tell me which things I'd like to accomplish (after all, you know me by now) that would not run into resistance (because everywhere I try in good faith to accomplish a lot, I get stonewalled & blindsided due to my inability to predict which areas where my improvements would be met with low resistivity). Thanks for your help--you'll be unleashing a passionate OWS supporter if you can just give me a battle report and summary assessment of my current dilemma. All the best, 완젬스 (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"However, even with Gandy, I feel like I'm oblivious to some major "attitude affront" which I emanate but am consistently unaware of."

You're an advocate, that's all... you are a danger to those around you, because agreeing with you opens them to attack as allies of a WP:COI editor. That's all I know about anyway. You also talk openly about tactics against other editors. That's fine. You're occupy. But don't expect everyone to want you in the room. To get more allies, stop talking in ways that make everyone nervous, and instead talk about RS and policy. I've told people these kinds of things before, they never listen, and eventually quit.

Interesting perspective on the inner workings of Occupy!

Vanishing and coming back as a policy-only guy who writes few words would probably help.

Wikipedia is a very frustrating place. Very, always.

Always be anonymous. Always.

Most everything you would want to do can be accomplished purely through Wikipedia policy. I don't see you as actually breaking the rules most of the time. But the reasons you give for your positions, while honest, are wrong for Wikipedia. To gain respect around here you have to put everything in terms of policy and building an encyclopedia, and putting it in terms of battles and advocacy just makes people want to shun you because they know you'll probably get banned someday, and they don't want to go down with you. And of course, if you do this you will be working within Wikipedia rules, and not openly trying to subvert the encyclopedia as you are now. And since you're really not that much of a POV pusher, you have no good reason to do act as an advocate, or to reveal so much of yourself. In other words, act within the rules, speak only of the rules, and let people judge you on your edits alone. If you do this, you will be a good Wikipedian in the real sense, as well as more effective. B^e——C_ritical 13:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus Question[edit]

You've given me some great advice. I hate "letting go" of my wikipedia screen name and WP:Vanishing, but truthfully I believe it's the most intelligent option. I really liked being so open about my involvement on facebook and predicting that particular NYTimes article, but if that's what I'm into, then maybe I should join a forum or something like that, lol. Indeed, I see what you're saying. I am feeling the hints that I should treat Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia where anyone can edit, and there are basic rules which help determine how the community judges an editor. If I stick to a "basic editing style" whereby I predictably cite WP:Policies at every corner and angle, then I'll be treated as a full fledged Wikipedian rather than a Korean, pro-OWS wiki-personality which I'm unable to break out of (without WP:Vanishing).

I really liked my "shoot from the hip" & "tell it like it is" type of style I built here. It helps other editors trust me, since they know my agenda is to help OWS and there's no subversiveness or duplicity--kind of like how I trust editors more who lay down their political beliefs on their user page (such as my obama user box, or others who identify as liberal/conservative/michael-moore/ron-paul/etc...) but more on that later.

Can I ask, what percentage of your personality do you "show" here on Wikipedia? Like 50% or more like 10% because I really try to understand how much the "wikipedia hat" takes place of who they are in real life or on facebook. I've always treated Wikipedia sincerely since I believed it helps others recognize my real personality and my real passion. I'll probably wrap up my OWS editing career on this account before May 1st, and stick to my non-OWS articles like the Trayvon Martin shooting. (and then phase it out in a few weeks)

These insights will help give me greater understanding of what perspective my peers on Wikipedia have when editing the OWS articles, since that is where my core interest lies. I'm glad to know you're pro-OWS and hopefully would like to see Obama re-elected. I apologize for letting myself be convinced you wanted to poison/make-toxic an article I cared deeply about; but, since we're the #1 search result on google for Occupy Wall Street I felt like we're the #1 destination for managing the perception problems which OWS faces while it struggles to establish itself.

I'm so sorry that the movement has been a mixture of disappointment and success. The mere fact that no one is in charge gives the group an indeterminate figurehead. If you ask a random occupy protester who the leader of our movement is, they'll honestly say they don't know. That's why I'm careful about creating the NYCGA article for fear of disrupting the balance which our readers consume to formulate their narrative of the occupy movement. I don't want to disilluion the ignorant folks (like this poor schmuck) who support our movement for the completely wrong reasons! Do you know how scary it is that if we told the truth to our supporters we would lose a sizable majority of them? It's crazy how much the occupy wall street movement is able to appeal to people in unique, personal ways--much like "hope/change" meant a different thing to different people--all who rallied behind Obama. It's no longer working because OWS is losing its appeal (per the polling research in my ows article I cited on the ows talk page) which is only worsening as the media frenzy drowns itself in the Trayvon Martin news/entertainment 24-hour cycle.

Sorry if this post is ramblesome--I really studied my past interactions during my recent wikibreak and it feels good to lay down my honest thoughts & get great feedback from someone who wishes to empower me and supports my goal of improving the OWS articles. I just hope my time spent being involved in the OWS movement isn't all for naught. This was the liberals free opportunity to creating a political movement equally effective as the tea party; but, a handful of attention-whores & psychopaths (in leadership, no less) have been unable to protect the movement from their own self-interests, such as greed/fame/celebrity status. This ends with my paramount agreement in your statement that, "Always be anonymous, always!" because those are the people who have no vested interest and cannot steer a group cause toward a personal endeavor, no matter how good their intention is. I've learned a lot from the OWS movement, and I hope you have too. Thanks in advance, 완젬스 (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is my last post on your user page about this discussion. I don't want you to think that your reply will trigger a further Wall of text response from me on your talk page. This is my last post and I'll appreciate your final reply on this matter. Thanks! 완젬스 (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the walls of text do make you less effective and more prone to burnout, I find them interesting- especially insider reports on OWS, and observations such as "Do you know how scary it is that if we told the truth to our supporters we would lose a sizable majority of them?" I'd be interested on you expanding that: what truth? OWS should be aware that direct democracy works only in small groups, while representative democracy works in larger groups. To scale true democracy, you have to focus on duties as well as rights, and you have to have a high level of organization. And you have to have a way of marginalizing undesirable people and elements. If people don't get beyond their idealism to being practical, well, let's just say they always failed in the past 10,000 years, but we won't say they will fail this time. One of the failings of the Left which OWS corrected is that it doesn't like to focus on opponents. The Right does that to great effect, but the Left is too nice, and has to get the hell over it. So if occupy fails, remember why: the anarchist type of model only works for small groups. The critics are right that you have to have a focal point for energy, that is a leadership and demands, if you are going to be effective. It's my perception or intuition that occupy is many orders of magnitude too weak to overcome current institutions. If you are going to wait around for however many years for the system to fail and for us to have another Great Depression, then your day will arrive; but if you are going to change the current system without a deep crisis, you have to have institutions to fight institutions. That's my 2 cents anyway. So what "truth" were you talking about above? And just curious, since you're leaving, who are you in Occupy anyway?

I would say I show about 10% of who I am on Wikipedia. This isn't the place for personal stuff, and for someone like me who does enjoy controversial issues, it might even be dangerous. I live in a conservative community, just for example. I have online identities for several issues... one I say whatever political and religious stuff I want, one is for another issue, there is Wikipedia, and real life. I keep it mostly separate, or think through any connections. Wikipedia is its own pond, and people are most effective here as pure Wikipedians. If no one can easily tell from your edits which side of an issue you are on, you are at your most effective here. Either that, or you have to have arguments which are very grounded in policy. If you are well-grounded enough, you can often do unpopular things, as I'm doing with the criticism section. With enough effort. And with OWS, there are too many facts on its side, such as the economic ones, for there to be any problem here. Best, B^e——C_ritical 17:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Becritical. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 11:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]