Jump to content

User talk:WWB Too/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

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

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

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

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there WWB Too, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:WWB Too/WCSP-FM. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

WCSP-FM

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

Thanks for taking a look. I like the two-column reflist, and your other edits were indeed slight, but still an improvement. I'll move it over shortly. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, don't forget to take the colon out of the picture link. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Oh, that's excellent. Thanks for nominating it for review! I've read through Racepacket's suggestions, and I think I can address them all. May take a little while to research some of the questions involved, but I don't think this should be a problem. More from me soon, WWB Too (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Almost there. Please see comments in red. Racepacket (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations. Please consider helping the process by reviewing some other GA nominated article. Racepacket (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:DATE However, you can make them consistent if you wish. Racepacket (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

shiny present

Thanks for your contributions and improvements to the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Video Library logo 200px.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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

DYK for C-SPAN Video Library

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

C-SPAN

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

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

C-SPAN, another pair of eyes

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

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

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

Kumioko

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

  • References in the lede - There is usually no need for references in the lede because the lede should summerize information already available in the article. I didn't check them all but it appears that most are already in the article.
  • There are several disambiguous links here
  • The article has some problems with some of the links here including some sites that are redirecting to other locations and some dead links.
  • I would suggest adding a couple more images to the article. Maybe an image of Brian lamb and the corporate HQ or main building if possible.
  • I would combine the sections "Public and media opinion" and "Allegations of bias and other controversies"
  • I think the history could be a little fuller but its a big improvement
  • I think that Overview should be eliminated and incorporated into the lede and the appropriate article areas. The lede is the overview for the article.--Kumioko (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
WWB Too replies
Thanks, Racepacket and Kumioko, both. I see some to-dos here, and some questions to answer:
  • Not saying names on-air — This comes from a 2004 episode of "Fox News Sunday"; the transcript isn't online, but the segment concludes: "WALLACE: But if you want to understand the anti-anchor, consider this: In 23 years on the air, he has never once said his name. And neither does any other C-SPAN host." But I checked about Scully and "Washington Today" on radio, and you're right. The internal reasoning goes that, because it's only on the radio, it tells listeners he is a host and not just a producer's voiceover intro. Anyway, this much is certainly WP:OR. Perhaps the phrasing should say "no C-SPAN host has said his or her name on television"; as far as I know, that would still be true.
I have no problem with the TV statement. And as someone who listens to C-SPAN radio I don't have a problem with saying names of the narator, because I can't see the faces. Racepacket (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Forerunner TV channel — C-SPAN Extra was a digital channel that aired in the DC market only, starting in the late 1990s, before digital television had been implemented around the country. In 2001, once a national digital channel was feasible, C-SPAN 3 was launched. I'll see if I can rephrase this a little more clearly.
  • Past chairmen — Actually, all four names from this context-less list have been placed in context in the "Organization and operations" section of the draft. Not deleting useful information here, just trying to de-listify and include citations.
No problem. There is inherent confusion between board chairman and Brian Lamb's role, because in many corporations, the CEO is also the chairman of the board. Racepacket (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Allegations of bias — Actually, basically all of the material from that old section is still in the article, just in-context and in new sections. As Kumioko suggests, what I did initially was move the criticism from left-leaning observers to "Public and media opinion" (and streamlining slightly, I hope you will agree my revision is more clear). Same with the Lipstadt-Irving controversy; this is covered under the "Public affairs" section, where it is preceded by an explanation about how C-SPAN aims to offer multiple sides to controversial issues (and, in this case, badly misfired). So I think it's more useful as an illustration of the challenges of that goal. Moreover, the current siloing of otherwise unrelated negative views struck me as a bit forkish and the essay about criticism sections seems to suggest avoiding them unless they are necessary. So anyway, for the moment this material is in the article twice; I'll remove that imported section for now, but I'm obviously open to further discussion.
  • 25th anniversary praise — Racepacket, I think you refer to the inclusion of praise by the Washington Post and New York Times. I figured were appropriate, as they are two of the most prestigious newspapers in the country, and each made different points about why C-SPAN is unique and important. However, I'm certainly open to suggested changes.
We have to be careful about introducing puffing into Wikipedia articles. We have the same problem with University articles highlighting the magazine rankings. It is one thing if a survey article rates all of the public affairs programing and says that NBC is #1, CSPAN is #2 and why. It is something else when people mark an anniversary with a praise piece. These articles, although true and probably hanging framed on the wall of the home of Brian Lamb's mother, are not exactly the Columbia Journalism Review. How do we walk the line between a puff piece and a unbiased summary of third party reviews? Racepacket (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
On one hand, I definitely understand the concern and I certainly am no fan of puff pieces. On the other hand, I think there are worthy points made in each of these articles: the WaPo states that C-SPAN influenced the development of similar channels around the world and shows overseas political news viewers wouldn't otherwise see; the NYT states C-SPAN is a unique kind of network, and its online archives are a valuable resource. I'm not fixed on any of the wording, though I'd like to see the references and assertions made survive. (And I'm not sure why CJR is necessarily a better source than the NYT or WaPo; none are infallible but I see no reason to doubt their sincerity here.) Rather than being mere puffery, I think they also balance the criticism from the earlier paragraph. As a whole, it shows the range of opinions about C-SPAN. Anyhow, if you want to suggest or make some direct edits, I'm obviously not opposed. WWB Too (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Overview — I will see if I can move this material into the introductory section without being too unwieldy.
  • History — I assure you I've included just about everything I could find in reliable sources; rather than creating a lengthy History section, many important things from C-SPAN's history are described under subsections about C-SPAN's programming. As above, I'm open-minded about where certain material should be placed.
  • Adding images — I completely agree, however some are likely to be fair use rationale, therefore inappropriate for posting in user subspace. This is my first goal once the draft is moved into the mainspace.
  • Minor edits — References in lede, disambigs, dead links; good points, and I will work to address those now.
That's all for the moment. Additional comments welcome, and I'll start working on the article this afternoon. WWB Too (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
And I've now put in a few hours' effort to address most of the issues described above. Currently I have not yet broken apart the "Overview" section, and the introduction still has citations. It's worth noting that most of the broken link and disambig issues are legacy issues, now reflected in the existing article. I'll continue working on the draft tomorrow, if not this evening, and I look forward to getting further input. WWB Too (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I suppose I'm not overly concerned about a hypothetical unreasonable person, though it is my caution and interest in showing good faith that has led me to seek the input of editors like yourself. To be sure, I don't think it's a problem for me to suggest the change, in part because I think it does actually make the article better, but also the COI guideline invites such suggestions. Sounds like you might agree that moving the grafs makes sense from a MoS position, so perhaps a situation in which to be a little bold? Alternatively, perhaps it makes sense to ask for input from other editors to be more certain there will be consensus for it? WWB Too (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't do it, and I suspect that there would be more heat involved than you anticipate. Racepacket (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I guess we disagree in this regard (and I have engaged COI-topical articles before, so I'm not unfamiliar with the risks) but I'm willing to let it go in the interest of seeing as much of the new draft as possible in the article. If you wish to edit that section to what you think is best and then take it live, I'm fine with that. That particular issue can be left for another time. WWB Too (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the note; next few days is just fine. I should be around in case you have questions or suggestions, and even as of today I am making small changes, trying to improve this version as much as I can. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Having read the old version and the rewrite and reading this discussion here and that most of the issues raised have been addressed I am left with the simple question - is the rewrite an improvement and without question the answer is yes, I don't see the integration of critical comments into the body of the article to be much of an issue it is actually a more correct position in regards to MOS guidelines. As such I am more than happy to have boldly inserted the rewrite in place of the previous version. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review - C span

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

I have finished the review and believe we can easily pass the article with just a hour's worth of work. I may be retiring in a few days, so let's finish this as quickly as possible. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. Rob, I'm certainly happy to share credit, although I don't know exactly how credit for GAs are apportioned? If there's a guideline, please share. Racepacket, I picked up where Rob left off, making updates based on your suggestions. In a few places I had questions / comments, about which I'd appreciate your input. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Blackboard logo.jpg

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Blackboard logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Blackboard logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

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


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

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store

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

You might want to list it on your user page, since that acts as a good index of articles on which you've worked and in which you've had a COI. Excellent work. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks; and no probs. You deserve support for producing excellent articles and handling the COI very well. Always happy to get involved if the same pattern repeats. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Booknotes linking question

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

Also - Let me introduce you to another Wiki editor who is also a C-SPAN afficionado - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rjensen KConWiki (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
FYI - Discussion continues: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam#Not sure about Booknotes in external links KConWiki (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI -

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Editors_for_hire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh OK a mistake.

"For years, Cracker Barrel had a policy of firing workers for being gay. The company actually issued a memo stating that people who did not demonstrate 'normal heterosexual values' could not work for Cracker Barrel. On employee pink slips, managers would write this reason for the termination: "Employee is gay." In 2003, Cracker Barrel managers promised to stop discriminating based on sexual orientation, but they did that only under pressure from shareholders. [1]

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

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

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

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

Gosh. That's a lot of words saying very little, Herostratus. If I'm parsing it correctly, you have three main complaints: 1) insufficient mention of razorblades (though see WP:UNDUE, surely) 2) critical information now "below the fold" and 3) financial puffery. So. In reverse order: 3) does the "According to industry commentators..." reference support the assertion or not; and is the assertion worth incorporating into an article about the corporation? 2) has any criticism been removed, or are you merely unhappy that additional information has been added "above the fold"? If we look at other articles, such as, say Steve Jobs, do we observe the same pattern there, of much description followed by criticism? 1) per UNDUE, is there enough about razorblades and this company to warrant inclusion?
I note your assertion: Especially in this case, to disabuse anyone who might have inferred that their mission is "poisoning America with inedible swill". Tell me please: who in this case is suffering from bias? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh fine. I guess I'll comment.
  • I don't think it's fair to be so hateful to someone who - all things considered - has made positive encyclopedic contributions to Wikipedia. Enter rules on civility.
  • It's also not fair to assume his edits are part of some scheme to hide the company's corrupt practices rather than enforce neutrality himself. Bias works both ways. Enter rules on Assume Good Faith.
  • I also don't think Wikipedia - as a project - should be more favorable in considering notability of negative information over positive ones, even if the media does.
  • If a neutral editor reviewed the controversy section and made their own edits without excessive "coaching" from the COI editor, that's probably the best way a COI editor can go about bringing genuine issues with bias on controversial content to light.
On that note, while I read Herostratus attitude as extreme and unnecessarily angry, he does bring up some good points. WWB TOO has made the article substantially more complete than it was before, but there are some slight puffiness issues. Knowing the role of a COI editor is as a cautious guest, interrupting the community process - even if it's not perfect or the way we like it - shouldn't be part of the process (RE arguing over a bias tag). The controversy section may need to be scooted up to avoid the appearance of a COI editor burying it.
There's really no need to use COI editors as an outlet for hatred and distrust against corporations. Especially since most of us are really quite likeable and deeply care about, donate to and appreciate the encyclopedic process. We also aren't big corporations. A 99% rally would be a better place to voice this frustration.
Meanwhile, I'm confident WWB TOO is a nice guy who would be willing to make edits upon reasonable request when there's a real issue. I'm a COI editor too. Messages like this make me wonder if we should wear witches hats or punching bags.
King4057 (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Association of Global Automakers

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

ANI discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding a matter in which you have been involved. —Scheinwerfermann T·C04:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

C-SPAN interview

I enjoyed that. I might wander over and see what's happening at ANI now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Just watched the whole thing. Small world…I thought your writing style and name were ringing a distant bell for me! We were both on the Commentator, though for the life of me I can't recall the nature or degree of your involvement with the efforts against OSPIRG's student-fee funding. —Scheinwerfermann T·C03:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Small world, indeed. And a surprise, perhaps, but then the Commentator has always attracted the argumentative type. WWB Too (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if you would apply that adjective to yourself. —Scheinwerfermann T·C23:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

fyi - note

I should let you know as you are involved, so to speak. ani here - Youreallycan (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cooperation

I just recently started Wikiproject Cooperation and I thought you would be interested. Thanks for your time. SilverserenC 00:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I would ask that you respond to this statement, as i'm quite interested in what you have to say in regards to it. SilverserenC 05:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
After seeing your response, I think you did a good job on the article. Next time though, I would just leave the controversies section, though perhaps reference it better, and just focus on the rest of the article. Through expanding the rest of it, the controversies section would have become better balanced with the other information, as it is now. Then you could have discussed with other users specific issues you had with the controversies section, if there was any misrepresented info in there.
You might want to think about the comment I made User_talk:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Editing_Watch#About_Cracker_Barrel_and_HRC over there and the small number of improvements necessary to take this to GA. I think it's really close. SilverserenC 21:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Silver. I think you're right: I was arguably overconfident in my judgment—especially following several weeks immersed in research—and I should have explained better in my initial post on the Cracker Barrel Talk page. A partial result has been an unfortunate rebound effect; I still think the matter of the campaign contributions doesn't really belong (although the current language is better than what was there before) and I plan to write a clear and concise explanation soon.
I'm glad you agree that overall it was an improvement, and I would love to see it put up for GA. If I can help, I will. If nothing else, the process would likely obtain a more neutral independent review than what Herostratus (who seems to take this personally) is apparently fixed on. Same goes for my other projects: they passed muster once, and another look is fine. But I think a disinterested party would be more effective. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to see what I can do about the tags and then we can get a peer review set up. After that, we can submit it to GA and, if you want to keep going higher, we can have another peer review catered specifically for getting it to FA status and then finally submit it to FA. It's probably going to take at least a month if you have FA for your end goal, if not longer, in part because FA reviews take so long (and the current shakeup of delegates resigning at FA is probably going to make that process longer), but we'll get there.
It's really helpful that you have access to LexisNexis and all of the necessary sources. Just remember that, whenever possible, have an actual link to the reference so other users can peruse it. Even if it's only a paragraph and the rest is behind a paywall. I noticed someone on the CREWE FB page saying that pay to view news references can't be used and that's incorrect. Per WP:PAYWALL, the necessity of payment doesn't change the reliability of a source.
On a different subject, would you like me to be your mentor for Wikiproject Cooperation? :3 SilverserenC 03:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I really appreciate the effort. I do fear the page will be too volatile to pass GA for awhile, but I also hope the process will produce the consensus intended in due course. Regarding the PAYWALL issue, perhaps COI editors with substantial offline sources could be encouraged to provide (via email or perhaps even OTRS) that material to independent reviewers. On the other hand, I queried SmartSE about sharing my research file, but he or she said it also mattered what wasn't in my file, which I follow. I'd actually really like to see Foundation support for WikiProject Cooperation, and they would be ideally suited to reviewing offline sources. Anyway, I have lots of ideas along these lines—assuming that it is approved, and I'd like to help with that as well.
For now I'll leave it there and say: yes, I'd be delighted for you to be my mentor, or "guide", or whatever term is decided (just hoping no one suggests "minder"). I am not by any stretch a newbie editor; I've been active on-wiki since mid-2006 with my non-COI account, User:WWB, and know my way around pretty well. That said, I could use the feedback, especially on close calls, so Wikipedia gets the best material possible—oh, and to make it less likely I get yelled at. Can't wait to get started. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The Foundation generally does not get involved in article editing or anything related to it. I don't see it likely that they'd have anything to do with reviewing offline sources, which is left entirely up to the community. It would be nice if we had their support though, yes. It would boost acknowledgement and overall involvement in the project.
I'll try to make sure that minder isn't used. :P There's plenty of different kinds of mentorship. Sure, there's newbie mentorship, but there's also different kinds based on what specific processes or issues a user needs help with. At one point I was planning on becoming more involved in the copyright violations investigation area and, if I had done so, I definitely would have gone and obtained a mentor who was more experienced in how the process worked.
Anyways, i'll do my best to help out with whatever you need and remember that, if i'm not available (as I won't be this weekend), you can always go and ask other members of the Wikiproject for help. SilverserenC 05:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store peer review

Hi WWB Too, I left some comments at the peer review for Cracker Barrel, hope that they are helpful. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or clarification requests. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

I've started up a peer review for Cracker Barrel right here. I've stated in there that, due to the whole COI issue, we'll be working on your draft version, which i've just a moment ago updated to the most recent edited version of the actual article, so we're symmetrical. So, you should probably watchlist that peer review and well, just wait for now. SilverserenC 05:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Very cool. Watchlisted, and I'll be available to help however I can. Thanks again, WWB Too (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll see about doing some myself tomorrow, but we can really speed up the peer review process by doing some of the other reviews and then asking the people to review us back. That's if you're interested, of course. SilverserenC 06:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure thing. I've been involved in GA review previously, but not peer review, so I hope some will translate. By the way, thanks for sticking up for me vs. Jimbo on the project page; I've left a polite reply to him as well. Not exactly the circumstances under which I wished to make his acquaintance. WWB Too (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for that. Just going off of past experience, when there's a subject that he's extremely vehement about, he acts like this. The community usually sets him straight after a while though. We just need to focus on expanding the Wikiproject.
Separately, since Mr. Kohs felt the need to discuss Jimbo's comment on the CREWE page, I feel like I should note his own duplicity in that regard. I thought it would be too forward to actually make a comment on the FB page, so instead i'll just tell you.
You should read this discussion, the entire thing. I just want to see if you are actually in agreement with what Kohs thinks is "ethical in the real world". Specifically, the comment I would like you to read is this one, though it would probably be better to read the rest as well. That comment is specifically about you, while the rest is about the CREWE group in general. SilverserenC 20:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Kohs' posting of Jimbo's comment to CREWE is surely what led to its inclusion in Jack O'Dwyer's column today, about which I can't say I'm pleased, but at least my response was swiftly approved by the site moderator.
You're brave to post at Wikipedia Review—not to mention willing to take abuse. I've never commented there and have no plans to, though it can be an interesting read. As for that thread, I don't really have a reaction. Kohs will be Kohs, nothing new there.
If I understand your question correctly: I certainly don't agree that Wikipedia is a place where normal ethics are suspended. I do understand his frustration based on what happened in 2006, but I disagree with his non-disclosed approach since. I've had plenty of success working openly and following the rules. However the rules may change, I plan to follow them.
Also, I've been taking a close look at the recent changes to the Cracker Barrel page today, and will have some coherent thoughts on those soon. I'll also start looking at Peer review this evening, and maybe select one to review then. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks like we've got our first peer reviewer! :D I'm going to be busy for the next hour or so, hopefully not any longer than that, but when i'm done, i'll get to work on implementing his proposed changes in the draft version (which i've just updated again with the most recent copy of the article). Feel free to work on the draft as well, per his comments. If you have any questions on what he means in a specific critique comment, feel free to ask him or me for clarification. SilverserenC 04:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I just realized that sounded a little too condescending. Sorry. >_> I sometimes forget that you are an experienced editor too and likely know your way around things. Sorry about that. SilverserenC 04:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, no problem. It's actually my first time at peer review—though I dipped my toe in the water earlier this evening, making a few minor edits to another article. It's late here, and I'll be offline shortly, then I'll then dive into it tomorrow. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In terms of reference 26 in the article that's a dead link, I found an exact copy replacement right here, but I noticed that it doesn't seem to discuss the three things it's being used to reference in the article. Can you explain that? I don't know if you were the one to add it or if someone else did, but i'm a bit confused on the info. SilverserenC 02:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've started going down the list too, though i'm focusing mostly on the formatting type ones, since you're the one with the info knowledge and sources. As for Bernard Lee, that should be fine. I really, really doubt you having a COI for the one article means you can't edit any articles outside that area, that would be ridiculous.
And it would probably be best if you raised the issues on the peer review page, yes. You might also want to throw Mark a comment on his talk page letting him know you did so. SilverserenC 03:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I left him a note right after yours. And you're right, I certainly don't have a COI with Bernard Lee, although you can count me a fan of his era of Bond films. Upon review, I'm not sure what's up with that dead AP / Forbes link. Yes, I added it, but now I can't figure out what that was supposed to verify. In any case, it's the second or third source in each instance used, so I'm just going to remove it. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
On second look, it appears I may have named more than one ref "<ref name=AP>" so I'll need a bit longer to study it. D'oh. WWB Too (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear, that would do it, yes. That might be difficult to untangle. SilverserenC 03:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Argh, yeah. And I think actually I'm about done with the easy fixes, so I may actually leave it where it is for the evening. Next up will be outlining replies / further questions based on Mark's notes, and then I'll leave my original questions to the end of the process. I'll have time tomorrow and this weekend, and I assume there's no great rush. I'll get to it soon, and I'll work on some peer reviews for others, as well. Thanks again for all your help. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Peer review actually sounds like a great idea to have them look over the draft I assume you're making for this other article. And posting it on the Wikiproject talk page sounds fine to me. We can see if some of the other members are willing to be reviews in the peer review as well, along with seeing if anyone has more specific ideas on how the process should work in the future. SilverserenC 04:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply

I think contacting the other users from the Cracker Barrel talk page would be a good idea, as long as they're actually trying to improve the article. I'm concerned that it would just lead to conflict, but I suppose it's better for us to take that necessary risk and deal with it if anything occurs. Hopefully not though. You contacting them would probably be for the better, yes.

As for your Steve Scully draft, I would like to try submitting it to Wikiproject Cooperation members for review. On the talk page or elsewhere. Maybe King will want to make a new section on the main page for it. But, either way, yes, i'd like to see how well we can get a review done as a Wikiproject first. All you really need is a few neutral eyes looking over it to make sure it's all sourced well and is written properly. Just from a quick glance over it myself, I can say that your draft version seems much better than the current state of the article in Mainspace. SilverserenC 00:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, actually Mark Arsten already contacted some of those editors on their Talk pages, but only Dr.K has responded as yet. Like you, I'm not interested in conflict, but nor would I want anyone to feel excluded, since it is consensus we're after. Meanwhile, I've laid out a case for my suggested changes to the more controversial aspects of the article, and Arsten seems to agree with my take, but I'm still hesitant to make those changes without someone weighing in more definitively. Maybe I should post a new message on the Cracker Barrel Talk page?
About Steve Scully, I'll definitely post a message to WP:CO-OP with an overview of the current article and proposed changes. I'll let you know when it's up. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I had forgotten Mark did that. I guess we're good on that front. If there's anyone you know of from the talk page that was left out of notification, feel free to let them know as well, though I think he got everyone.
If you feel that it will draw more people in to the peer review, then sure. The more eyes, the more improvement.
I'll be waiting to hear from you. :3 I assume you're just trying to update the article, not get it to any higher grade level, correct? I'm not sure if there is enough sources on Scully to do that, not without some hardcore digging, at least.
Oh, and I wanted to apologize for not being around very much in the past few days. The new semester started this week and i'm still trying to adapt to my schedule. Organic Chemistry is pretty much hell, by the way. SilverserenC 02:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, no worries. I have a friend whose graduate studies were in organic chemistry and, based on what I've learned from him, I'm perfectly happy with my B.A. in English. I can wait on Cracker Barrel; I'm not in any hurry, but I'm curious what the final approval is supposed to look like, and who needs to be involved.
As for Scully, my goal is just to bring it closer in line with Wikipedia guidelines and make it more readable; I've already done a pretty deep dive on what is available about him, and I don't know if there's a great deal more to be said. C-SPAN is fairly well-known for de-emphasizing their on-air personalities, and none of them go out of their way to seek publicity. They'll be happy just to see a better focused, readable article. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
There's not really a "final approval" on a peer review. Either it gets closed eventually for lack of comments for a period of time or we fix everything they've directed and no one else adds any more suggestions. After the peer review is closed, we can just go and list the article for Good Article status and, fingers crossed, the reviewer will pass it. The reviewer might also suggest some improvements that need to be made before they pass it, mind you.
Better articles are usually better, yes. :3 SilverserenC 03:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, good to know about Peer review; as you know, it's my first time going through it. How do you think the process should be handled considering what's under review is a proposed draft, as opposed to the live article? At some point it would be copied back over, and I presume this would be prior to GA? WWB Too (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you want to copy the draft over after the peer review. :P I don't think they'd accept a userspace draft as a GA. SilverserenC 03:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Makes sense, although I presume you wouldn't suggest that I be the one to do it. I do think the article is very close to being in GA shape, and my remaining issues are now pretty much isolated to the questions I've raised about the current treatment of Policy towards sexual orientation, Campaign donations and Community involvement. As noted, Mark generally agrees with what I've said, but I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to declare consensus on those points. WWB Too (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Hi -- I've posed a couple of questions for you here -- I'd be grateful for your reply there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nomo. Just saw your comment. As to the Tennessean article, it's online here, but (as I explained in a previous thread on the page) I didn't link to that version because I figured Ongo.com would likely be a WP:COPYVIO issue. As for the Tallahassee Democrat story, that one doesn't appear to be online at all. I do still have it in my research, and it sounds like SmartSE was willing to share it as well. Can you clarify your question? WWB Too (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
1. Please respond where the question is posted (article talk page). 2. The question is, how did you acquire the 2 sources? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have this article on your watchlist, or do I need to pay you a visit every time I pose you a question on the article talk-page? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve Scully

I've moved over the article, and copied the talk page discussion. I'd like for you to explain the exact nature of your COI there, or, if it's already declared somewhere here in your userspace, a link to that explanation will do. Great work on that article, btw! Qwyrxian (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'm working on a comment for the Scully Talk page, and will post it shortly. By the way, I notice one result of your move is that my version is no longer in userspace—should I replace that version, for future reference? Let me know how you think is best to handle. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
No, there's no need for the one in your userspace. It, along with the sequence of edits use to build it, all exist in the article itself. You could conceivably keep a redirect there, if its convenient for you, but a copy of the article shouldn't be necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Steve Scully, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nazareth College (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) 11:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel Draft (again)

The one big thing that we had yet to do with the draft was to expand the lede as a summary of the article. I've thrown up a rough draft lede in the draft article. Feel free to tweak it for wording and such. The second paragraph could certainly use another sentence of summary if you can figure out one to add in. SilverserenC 04:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's right, I'd overlooked the matter of the expanded lede. I've actually gone ahead and rewritten it substantially. Perhaps this discussion should move to Peer review, but for the sake of continuity I'll post it here (feel free to copy this over). For ease of comparison between versions:
Both versions address the category of restaurant, cuisine, decoration, awards and popularity, 1990s discrimination cases, resolution thereof, community involvement, and charitable activities. My version omits entirely the Tom DeLay information; although it remains in the article, I've also expanded on my reasons for why it doesn't belong at Peer review. Otherwise it's about the same, only more concise; I think details such as scholarship support for African American students and 2002 shareholder vote to add sexual orientation to the companies non-discrimination policy are better left to the article sections. One thing I have added is Cracker Barrel's association with country musicians, which of course speaks to the chain's strong identification with culture of the American South. Thoughts? WWB Too (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I copied this discussion over to the peer review and responded there. SilverserenC 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Alright, i've added all of the URLs that I could find. Now i'm going to go through and add any missing access dates. What date should I give for the ones that you got from Lexis Nexus (the ones I couldn't find URLs for, at least)? November 1, maybe? SilverserenC 22:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you think accessdates are necessary for offline sources? Template:Cite news says they should be used to identify the Date when the news item was accessed, if it was found online. The Nexis database is of course online, but not in the way I think accessdates are meant to address. Meanwhile, I've also two articles pass GA review without accessdates for Nexis-found sources. All that said: November 1, 2011 is certainly accurate to when I was working on the article. In short, I don't think you need to bother, but I'm fine with your suggestion. WWB Too (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was thinking of eventually going to FA with it and, having read a number of FACs, the reviewers there are sure to complain about the lack of them, they always do. And it doesn't hurt anything to include them anyways. It just states that, at this date, they did exist online in some form. SilverserenC 23:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Gotcha. Well, absolutely they existed in the Lexis-Nexis database then, as they do now. I'll follow your lead on this. WWB Too (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, WWB Too. You have new messages at Silver seren's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Replied. SilverserenC 23:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review over and merge done

I've closed the peer review for Cracker Barrel and Qwyrxian helped me do a merge with attribution (we couldn't do a histmerge because of concurrent edits on both the draft and main article). Because of this type of merge, your draft article has to stick around, it can't be deleted, because its history acts as attribution for the changes made by merging the draft into the mainspace article.

Anyways, i've still got a few reference formatting things I want to fix up on it and then i'll get the GA candidate review going. Okay? SilverserenC 23:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That is awesome—it looks great to me, and I'm very glad we could get this article to a better place. I never had any plans to remove the draft, unless it was histmerged beyond my control, so I'll definitely keep it where it is. And I'm looking forward to GA review. WWB Too (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I've added Cracker Barrel to the Food and Drink section of the GA reviews. Now we just have to wait. SilverserenC 21:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

New articles you might be interested in

Hi - A few articles on C-SPAN programs that I've been working on that you might be interested in: The Lincoln-Douglas Debates (1994 reenactments), American Presidents: Life Portraits, American Writers: A Journey Through History. I think Tocqueville might be next (or, maybe not next, but certainly on the drawing board). Hope you enjoy them. (Posted same thing on talk for User talk:Rjensen.) KConWiki (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Nice work on expanding Cracker Barrel Old Country Store! I still remember going to the one in my hometown. :) Keep up the good work! Ruby 2010/2013 00:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review started!

I'm very surprised it happened so fast, but User:MathewTownsend has started up the GA review for Cracker Barrel. He also has a few things he wants us to fix (and will probably have a few more besides). I'm going through the subscription needed tags, but can you look into the Corner Market stuff he asked about? If it's something that's already in a reference, then I would suggest just adding a comma and a phrase next to the first instance of Corner Market, explaining what it is, and that should be good. If it's not in a reference, I guess we should find another one and then do the same as I just said. Anyhow, yay, we're ahead of my perceived schedule on this. :3 SilverserenC 17:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he's asking questions that I don't know. You're the best bet for those. SilverserenC 21:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, wow. I was just about to reply about the Corner Markets issue—it received more discussion in my original draft, most but not all of which was snipped out by another editor. Anyway, we could still address it. Meanwhile, I am impressed, and thanks for pushing this forward. Now to FA?
By the way, it's been a couple days, and no response from Qwyrxian about PEGCC. Not sure what to do. Thoughts? WWB Too (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, we probably still want to deal with the Corner Markets thing. It doesn't need to be long though, a sentence or less the first instance the term appears. The readers just need to know what it is.
I'm going to go start another peer review now, focusing specifically on meeting the FA criteria. Then FA once the peer review is done.
And I think Qwyrxian didn't do anything because he saw that it was already done. SilverserenC 17:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm...looks like you have to have a 14 day period in between any two peer reviews. That kinda puts a kink in the plan. Let me see if there's an alternative. SilverserenC 17:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow, you're right—happy to see Urbanrenewal took care of it. Missed that one overnight. And I can understand the 14-day period between reviews. Plus, in that time I can look through any outstanding issues like Corner Markets, and offer my thoughts on the Talk page. WWB Too (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
What I might do instead is personally contact some peer reviewers on their talk page and have them put comments on the article's talk page. Because we don't need a peer review, per se, we just some eyes to look over the article and make comments on improvement. SilverserenC 18:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Mark, thanks for helping make this possible! WWB Too (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WWB_Too/Archive_1&oldid=1186972349"