Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:36, 21 June 2016

Articles that look like shit and need to be fixed

• Degenerate art
• Lock Haven, Pennsylvania
• German mediatization
• Footlight Parade (not really shitty, but needs cleanup)

Reminder: To work on

• Flapper - review for writing, order
• A Matter of Life and Death
• Yiddish Theatre District
• This Is Not A Theatre Company
• Hollywood blacklist - re: The Front
• Seven Summits - badly organized

Xanadu (musical)

Would you kindly explain why you reverted every one of my edits to the article on "Xanadu (musical)", even including my addition of a relevant cite and the revival of a dead cite? -Tullyvallin (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Because you changed all the dates from the American form to the British form, which was incorrect. BMK (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Thirty Day Princess poster.jpg

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Note to self: Someone replaced it with a supposedly free poster. I have my doubts. BMK (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Center for Security Policy

My understanding is that in American law a charity is defined by Category:501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations. Maybe it shouldn't be so classified, but according to the article, it is.Rathfelder (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Your understanding is incorrect. A 501(c)(3) organization is a not-for-profit tax-exempt organization. Most charities are 501c3's, but that doesn't mean that all 501c3's are charities. Read 501(c) organization#501(c)(3). BMK (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I cant see any other definition of a charity in US law. The article says not all charities come within 501(c). It doesn't suggest anything which is not charity can come within it, other than a grant making charitable foundation. Charitable contribution deductions in the United States makes it clear that section 501(c)(3) qualifies an organisation "to gain status as a tax-exempt non-profit charitable organization".Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Nope, wrong. My wife works for a 501(c)(3), and it is not a charity, it is a not-for-profit law firm. The vast majority of non-commercial theatres are 501{c){3)s. Here's what the IRS says:

Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

Again, most charities are 501c3s, but not all 501c3s are charities. BMK (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't post here about this subject again, go to the article talk page instead. BMK (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

White washing

Hey BMK, I noticed this recent edit from you on CSP’s page: . I thought it was an *attempt* at a good faith edit and was a little taken aback by your accusation of “whitewashing.” I took a little time to go through a little of the edit history and noticed that there are a few instances where this has happened 12. I hope you don't take my comment negatively. I know there are socks out there, but I think you may be a bit trigger-happy with your accusations of “whitewashing” and are failing to assume good faith of other editors. I wanted to bring this to you first before I considered bringing this up to an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Armchair General (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The article has a long history of attempts to remove material that CSP deems to be negative. That's not going to happen.Ggiven its history, I think it's quite reasonable to put aside AGF in this instance and assume that similar attempts are exactly what they appear to be. BMK (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw no malicious intent with any of the edits cited above. The last edit was someone simply moving a statement from one section of the article to a different section of the article. Your belief that it is "reasonable to put aside AFG" and "assume" any edits that change some of the negative aspects of the article is "whitewashing" not only violates AFG editing guidelines, it also violates the "Assume the assumption of good faith" and the “Don't assume” editing guide. Take it easy and give people the benefit of the doubt. You're a bit trigger-happy and if this keeps happening I will bring it to the attention of the administrators.The Armchair General (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Irvington, New York may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• meaning "pleasant place" in ]<ref name=guilded>Higgons, Jenny (June 14, 2016) [http://www.lohud.com/story/money/real-estate/homes/2016/06/14/victorian-house-irvington-splendor/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Special:Diff/725299518

I do not think that the reintroduction of the "CS1 maint: Multiple names: editors list" error is the way to go. It is clear that they are editors. Nevertheless, I you would prefer for "(eds.)" to be displayed, you should request a change to the 'cite' template to be made at Help talk:Citation Style 1 . --Dcirovic (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not clear that they are editors, so whatever form it takes, the citation must clearly state that they are editors. Please stop making changes whichremove important information from citations. The information is much more important than that the cite follows some arcane Wiki-rule. BMK (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of separation of authors and editors is to enable proper integration with COinS metadata. In order for that to work, the names cannot have free-formatted additions. It is possible to bypass metadata integration by using 'authors' and 'editors' parameters. However, that is not the preferred solution.

If you think that having "(eds.)" is important, than it should be equally important to have it present in all references. The best way to accomplish that is by altering the template. --Dcirovic (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You know what, I don't give two shits about metadata, I'm here to write an encyclopedia, and if metadata gets in the way of that, then the metadata needs to be fixed. The tail should not wag the dog. BMK (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Mail

Check it. Can't remember template! _Muffled 20:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I did, was just going to answer. Template is template:ygm as in "You've got mail". BMK (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, I see- cheers! _Muffled 09:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't get that either! Something's a bit bizarre. No worries _Muffled 15:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you check your spam folder? BMK (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Outlook; no spam folder. Receiving others from WP recently- you didn't happen to send with some fat attachment maybe? _Muffled 17:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Nah, this last one was barely 2 lines. BMK (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

John Randel Jr. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Surveyor and American Institute

No, No, Nanette (1930 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ed Ward and Michael Cleary

Commissioners' Plan of 1811 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Superblock

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Stark Mad

Ok, where should I begin. In the case of Stark Mad, the original paragraph was made by a poster/editor who used an IP address instead of having a Misplaced Pages account, thus his IP addresses vary. These postings concerning Warner Brothers and or First National Pictures, usually silent, but some sound, usually have a citation heading "1957 MOVIES FROM AAP Warner Brothers Features and Cartoons..". They link to Internet Archive, Media Digital History Library, a collection of the various catalogs of available for home prints. So you're correct when you say "This Material has been added to a fairly large number of film articles in the past." Assuming it's the same editor from IP to IP the citing in some of the articles using the "1957 MOVIES FROM AAP" doesn't always represent what the line or text the article is describing. It's just a stray citation, though I know what he's generally inferring and that he may even be well meaning. You can go through any number of films with this citation at List of early Warner Bros. talking features. The poster misconstrues, that Jack L. Warner ordered destroyed the pre-1948 negatives but still maintained prints of those films that were intact and good for rerelease, show-at-home, television, whatever. His paragraph did not say that and I tried giving some of it a rewrite so that it was literate, accurate, and coherent and not coming off as jibberish. As fleeting as the IP poster was, the Jack Warner sale of his survivingng prints (rather than negatives) was more complicated than what the IP poster citated. (*See Saving Cinema: The Politics of Preservation) Koplimek (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of the IP-hopper from Khazakstan who posted this stuff. The rewrite was appreciated, but it's still essentially unsourced. Have toy posted on Talk:Stark Mad#Unsourced material? BMK (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hiya

Just wanted to let you know that there in fact is an ANI discussion regarding you. It is about your having told an individual to stay off this page. Just FYI. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

And it's been closed as non-actionable. John Carter (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. In defense of the OP, he did notify me, but I deleted it. BMK (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

File:David T. Abercrombie.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:David T. Abercrombie.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Chuckletime

"'... who indulge in all sorts of irrelevant activity " _Muffled 15:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

William A. Boring

Old trick - I changed the external links to references because I was going to run Reflinks on the article to clean up bare URLs - all of them were bare, references and external links alike. Soon as I finished I un-changed them. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, got it, thanks. Sorry to interrupt you mid-action. BMK (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries - if you ever catch me at it, that's what I'm doing when I convert external links. Makes my life so much easier.

Keep up the good work, and happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Inarticulate edit summaries when reverting

I see from your contribution history that you have a bad habit of either omitting an edit-summary or providing an unhelpful one (e.g. "better before", "fixing", "restore layout", "better here") when reverting good-faith edits. Not only does this owner-like behavior fail to teach newer editors, it disregards the importance of reaching a consensus. Per Help:Reverting, "reverting good-faith actions of other editors can also be disruptive and may lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing." And per Help:Edit summary#Always provide an edit summary, "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was." Thanks, and happy editing. – voidxor 22:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)