Becritical

Talk to BE——Critical

Be critical of the uncritical, of gullibility. Be critical of the imPOV rished critics. Be critical of criticism, of criticism's lack, of selective criticality (used merely to attack). Be critical of everything till criticism comes full circle into knowledge, and into knowledge of fallibility.

• Archive 1

Retired Professor

has no partisan interest in the Jesus article, he was making a good faith offer as a disinterested party. Your response here violated WP:AGF and your insinuation, to someone acting transparently, amounts to a personal attack. Frankly, I think this should be reported at WP:WQA. I would rather you apologize to him/her and be more welcoming. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, AGF is something lacking, but not on my part. See my response on the Jesus talk page. ^BE_Critical__Talk 23:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not AGF, maybe clear reading? Becritical, you are absolutely right that I misinterpreted you and I apologize. In situations like this it often helps to begin with an "@ —" so it is clear whom you are addressing. But this is not meant to excuse my misreading. I am sorry, and thank you for your explanation. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, misreading people is extremely easy in a text-only environment. Cheers (: ^BE_Critical__Talk 00:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not for anything, BC, but I wonder if you notice in the Talk:Jesus#Edit requests to this semi-protected page section that the bottom of the subbed part of your eye-catching sig actually obscures a part of Ret.Prof's response? Is there a way to maintain the eye-catching without blocking out another editor's writing? I see that your sig above does not seem nearly as intrusive, so perhaps you've already worked on this? If so, then thank you very much! and have a good day!
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  13:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
PS. Your sig also blocks some of Someone65's words in the Talk:Jesus#Request section.

Hmmmmmmmm, that's strange, I'm using Firefox, and it doesn't obscure any text... I'll try and work on it and make the black space smaller. Thanks for the heads-up about this (: ^BE_Critical__Talk 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Done (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I checked in Firefox, and the black part does not obscure the writing below it. It only covers the words in IE8, which I usually use to edit. Thank you for your consideration!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  16:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :D BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Becritical. You have new messages at Raeky's talk page.
Message added 16:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc.

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		I've never seen anything like this before. You nominated it for deletion, it was deleted, and you brought it back from the dead and now it's a fully fleshed out article on it's way to GA status. That deserves some recognition. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

WOW, thank you!! That's really nice of you to recognize it like this :D I was able to do it because some new sources became available which we didn't have when it was deleted. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Watch

Watch well. I welcome you...--151.76.106.157 (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at L. Sprague de Camp. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind; I see you did removed that tag. What was going on there? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm in the middle of cleaning up what I personally see as kind of a mess of non-notability surrounding the article Christopher Stasheff. I'm not sure Stasheff himself is notable, but his books surely aren't. And that article got caught up in the net for a minute till I checked it out. Sorry. I guess I thought it would not be notable because it doesn't currently have sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed your unsourced tag on Sprague de Camp's article to refimprove since it already had two citations and therefore unsourced was inaccurate. Shsilver (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, maybe I should have thought of that (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely stumped by the idea that Stasheff is not notable, or that his The Warlock in Spite of Himself series in particular is not notable. The latter is a bestseller, with multiple sequels; far more notable, than, say, the New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc. (which did deserve their own article as well, don't get me wrong). As for Lyon Sprague de Camp not being notable: words fail me! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and if anyone can actually find such a source- let me know. I haven't seen one. I AfD'd the Stasheff article itself, and all anyone could come up with is that it OUGHT to be notable- it was kinda sad [1]. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Source for what? There's a reason that AfD was snowballed with trout on top! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And what reason was that? If there are no RS, the article is ipso facto not notable. There may be RS out there. I just don't see them. Which criteria? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

why

Why did you delete my comment ? Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

???? Which one? I certainly didn't mean to :( BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't... [2] [3] [4], or I can't find where I did. Did something else happen? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

AHA! [5] lol BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, if you didn't do it deliberately or even perhaps not at all that is totally ok, sometimes happens in a busy article. Ah it happened there, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

incidentally...

totally off-topic, but do you realize that the CSS on your signature is a bit like (pardon the HHTTG reference) "having your brain smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick"? I'm just saying... --Ludwigs2 01:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Way cool :D........ thanks..............um.......I guess......LOL......BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about Chiropractic

There's more discussion going on, this time about whether/how to incorporate sources which address the underlying/specific claims made by Ernst. It'd be good to have you check the sourcing and presentation in Talk:Chiropractic#Proposed_edits_to_Safety. Thanks! Ocaasi (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Still watching?

Hallo. I am a registred user, now.

I wonder 1) an user push his own POV 2)I ask him "your evidences, please" 3)he presents nothing 4) I revert him 5) he revert me 6) I revert again.

Well... it seems that in this way i do "edit war". But the results is that, the user push his POV, even if he has no sources at all. So, what shall I do?--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can prove your apparent claim that traditional sources don't make the claim [6], i don't see any way that your viewpoint can stay in the article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation internal format in Bruce Harris

Discuss at Talk:Bruce Harris, please. --Lexein (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

This is a well established article. Please discuss your point(s) on the article talk page Here Mlpearc powwow 04:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic

If you could help us out with the multitude of discussions on talk:chiropractic, specifically this one, it would be greatly appreciated. I noticed you in the archive making some very reasonable comments. Talk:Chiropractic#Controversial_changes_to_safety --Axxaer (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would, but find myself lost on that page. It requires much more knowledge of the subject than I am likely to have time to acquire. Last time it took me hours, and I just don't have the time or courage to attack it right now. It's too bad this is the case, as it leaves the article to the dedicated users, but it seems to be so. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 09:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Jatt hijacked

hi this article has been hijacked over the past weeks by the writers of article jat which is a geographicly religiously different tribe to the punjabi Jatt tribe they have inserted the history of their own region while Jatts are only found in Punjab and speak Punjabi. any help would be appreciated i have attempted to discuss this with the user involved but he refuses to listen. --Qaleechpuri (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

the guys from article Jat who speak a different language and have different music, culture and do not even live in the region of Punjab have pasted all their history into Jatt article. while we have an all together different history different language different culture. its like the brits writing only their own history to speak on australia canada america that is how absurd it is. also in wiki ifyou look at Ethnic groups, social groups and tribes of the Punjab section you will find the tribe in Punjab pronounced and listed as Jatt pronounced with a hard double T while tribe Jat is pronounced Jaat with a soft T yet they have diverted all info on Punjabi Jatts to their own article Jat which is wrong because they have no history in the Punjab where all Jatts live.--Qaleechpuri (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)