User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 56

=July 2011=

Speedy deletion nomination of Crystalate
A tag has been placed on Crystalate requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). 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 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Cind. amuse  09:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You should probably review the speedy deletion criteria before nominating any more articles for speedy deletion. This one clearly didn't qualify. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 18:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just happened to be talk page stalking and saw this one; it was quite fun to dig up some info on this company. Why I Hate Speedy Deleters springs to mind :) Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it! I'm still trying to figure out from reliable sources what exactly Crystalate is at the chemical level and how it was manufactured, how it relates to other early plastics, and who had a trademark on it when and where (cf. Bakelite and Celluloid for the kind of article I'd like to work toward). The recording industry sources don't seem to agree with the billiards ones.
 * I'm a big fan of SD when it comes to stuff like WikiProject Cue sports/Wanted cue sports games, but that nomination just made no sense at all. The user in question has a long history of rejected SD drive-bys, and an equally long history of denial of any misuse of the tools (every criticism is met with a "Thanks for contacting me. [Longwinded rationalization that ignores all facts and opinions that don't support user's own self-image of correct action.]" But oh well. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Comics Guaranty
Hi Stanton,

When you're not busy, please take a look at Comics Guaranty. I attempted to clarify the paragraph you found unclear. Thanks for pushing for the improvement of the article.

GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That helped, as far as it went, but the main problem to me still seems to be that the piece appears to be written to lend CGC an imprimatur of acceptance and authoritativeness that it doesn't really have. There are a large number of criticisms from a large number of critics.  I've been collecting for over 30 years and I can't even begin to estimate the number of collectors who feel that CGC and its few imitators are a terrible idea, rip offs, a grievous insult to everyone but the cover artists, easy to fool, a cynical way to make a quick buck off of collectors who don't know better, and so on, and so forth.  While the "Criticisms" section hasn't been deleted again lately, and I think it's important that the lead itself note that the company and the idea are controversial, the Overstreet quote in the lead isn't reliable, as he is not an independent source, but takes lots and lots of advertising money from them.  Actually, I'll just raise all of this at the talk page. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 18:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking an interest in the CGC article! I addressed some of your points on the talk page. Hopefully, I don't come across as too argumentative. In reality, I'm actually glad someone else is working on it. It used to be (in my opinion) a truly egregious slam piece. I tried to edit it into an NPOV article. But I am human, and I have blind spots. So I appreciate another pair of eyes looking at it. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. I've actually had some interesting F2F discussions about the issues, at Albuquerque Comic Expo, etc.  I've come to be convinced that CGC can actually be a good thing for two (and only two) cases: 1) Alleged very high quality, valuable and very old comics, which have been reprinted and thus remain available to anyone who wants to actually read them, and which, for the originals at issue, may be forgeries or extensively restored, and which thus arguably need expert eyes to determine the extent to which they are legitimate. And 2) on the lower end, any especially-limited variant covers (1:35, or ltd. ed. of 200, etc.) at a probable 9.8 or higher, in a popular/known enough series to be worth the grading cost, and which exist in abundance in a more common cover variant.  A whole lot of the criticisms remain, though, such as no one really having any reason at all to believe that CGC graders know any more about comics than the average several-decades-in-business comic store owner or decades-experienced collector; artificial gross inflation of alleged value; creation of a spurious "CGC fetishism" market; farcical mistakes in grading and demonstrated ease of fooling CGC; capriciously assigned grades; lowering of the general quality guidelines for Golden Age material (probably to increase the value of CGC founders'/employees' own collections and those of their friends and partners); highly subjective statements as to what flaws are and are not generally acceptable (e.g. essentially ignoring date scribbles and other dealer markings that in actuality 99% of collectors would find objectionable, not some kind of bonus); pretending that no one but CGC can possibly be trusted to issue a certificate of authenticity with regard to an autograph; and many, many, others.
 * SO, the point being, I still lean heavily toward having serious issues with CGC and their practices, methodology, unintended (and probably intended, interest-conflicting) effects. But I also have actually been convinced that CGC grading can serve legitimate functions in a few cases.  Same goes for PGX (comics), GMA (cards) and other CGCish grading (they probably have more than just those two competitors/imitators by now - the urge to skim essentially free money off of gullible collectors is hard to resist.) I don't want to see the article be an attack piece, either - I don't want the articles on U.S. foreign policy or other issues I have a strong opinion about to be anything but balanced and factual.  But it can't be a puff piece, likewise.  The criticisms are numerous, frequent, reasoned and significant, and thus an important part of the story. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The trouble I've had is finding any reliable sources. They have received a little "mainstream press" coverage, but not a whole lot. Certainly, nothing I've read has tackled these controversies head on. Perhaps The Comics Journal has covered them? It bears further research. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Online sources are likely to be more relevant. While e-forums are not usually reliable sources for many things, especially facts external to the forum (e.g. the date of a Roman general's birth, or the county seat of Jefferson Co., Missouri), they can be reliable for things like controversies, where they are in fact live records of the controversies in action (and other things - see, e.g., Godwin's Law where a Usenet newsgroup discussion has been properly used as a reliable source).  I think I already said this over at the article talk page. I thought about digging up a bunch of such stuff, but despite my new-found "okayness" with a handful of uses of CGC grading, I'm mostly pretty negative about it, and I think I have, therefore, a bit of a reverse conflict of interest and shouldn't edit the article much. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 06:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking of Godwin's Law, I am now a "wikinazi", according to the CGC talk page. Where's the barnstar for that? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it would need a goofy little mustache. For my part, I put my money where my mouth is, and actually ordered a CGC comic, an uncommon variant cover of something otherwise common, since I feel that CGC grading isn't necessarily a bad idea in such a case.  But it just lead me to further criticisms.  The "slab" plastic is too brittle (i.e., has poor tensile strength combined with high hardness, in materials science terms), as it cracked terribly, in more than one place, from shipping stress inside bubble mailer and wrapped in addl. bubblewrap.  A box would have been better shipping of course, but the case is hosed, and the fractures probably damaged the comic too. Can't tell, since the case isn't openable.  But, worse yet, it's not sealed either.  It's sealed in a tamper-evident way, but most of the edges are open at least in part, and the comic has no protection, not even a Mylite, inside the slab.  So, while it's unlikely to get stress creases, it's exposed to full-scale oxidization, etc.  A comic like this is much better put in a Mylite sans board, double bagged and now boarded inside a Silver bag, and tripled B&B'd in Golden size. None of this is relevant to the article. Just commenting...  — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Very interesting! You get points for doing the research! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd check to see if Newsarama had ever taken on the topic of CGC. It turns on that Rich Koslowski (3 Geeks) had a storyline centered around them. He's friends with CGC, though, so it probably won't help the article balance. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I've met Koslowski at one event or another. It's a conspiracy!  ;-)  — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 04:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

C. S. Lewis
We have an ongoing problem with this article, it is stated that he is "Irish born British", where in reality he was Irish, even though the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland existed back then, it is not a reason. Could you help resolve the issue one way or another?Sheodred (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've long had the impression that he thought of himself as British, and he was certainly immersed in British more than Irish culture. I think we'll need sources on how he styled himself before trying to ascribe a nationality to him.  I don't have a strong opinion either way, so I'm going to decline to get involved in this case, but thanks for mentioning it.  PS: You should be much more neutral with messages like this, or you'll be accused of canvassing.  E.g., "We have an ongoing debate on this article's talk page about the fact that he was born in Ireland when it was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.  Some editors are classifying him as "Irish-born British", others as simply "Irish".  Since you have edited this article, and have also commented on similar British/Irish issues in other articles and guidelines, you might find this debate of interest and your input could be helpful." Value-free statements about any side in the debate. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination
Category:Soft redirects/Permanent (interwiki), which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ex-td
Template:Ex-td has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I'll comment (in favor of deletion) at the TfD page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Userspace draft "Comparison of cue sports"
Hello, SMcCandlish, I saw that you made a draft for a new article at User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Comparison of cue sports. Accoring to WP:STALEDRAFT, "Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template userspace draft can be added to the top of the page to identify these)." But in this case, you haven't edited your draft for a long time. If you are done, please donate it by moving User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Comparison of cue sports to a WikiProject Abandoned Drafts subpage (a participant may help). If you are not done, please finish it and move it. If you abandoned it, you may request it for deletion by putting "db-u1" or donating it. Thank you. EBE123 talkContribs 16:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The guideline section you cite doesn't seem particularly applicable. The page in question is obviously an article draft, not something personal that I'm web-hosting. While it's a rough draft of an article, it's clearly tagged as a non-article (doesn't "look like an article"), and it isn't an old, deleted or disputed copy of anything. Nor is it "private"; indeed, it's tagged in a way that publicly categorizes it as a userspace draft. "Short term hosting" is not defined. A few years is "short term" by my article development defintions. See William A. Spinks for an example of the kind of article I produce, over years of detailed research with reliable sources.  About 95% of that article's my work.  Articles on "trending" topics need to be developed quickly; this isn't one. It's not an abandoned draft, so your suggested WikiProject wouldn't be appropriate.  If I move it before it's ready for prime time, I'd move it to WP:CUE, obviously. Moving it to a non-topic project would not likely attract additional editorial attention, since cue sports articles have a project, that lists many needed and need-impromovement articles, but editors are not lining up to work on them. It's a narrow topic, an article development on it is necessarily slow as a result. All of the drafts I have around are intended to still be around, and have even been filed under a /Incubator/ sub-path to organize them and clearly label them as in-progress. The abandoned ones have long since beend speedily deleted as such by me.
 * Sorry, but I think your time would be better spent on new pages patrol or something else with some urgency to it and comparatively clear, hard rules (WP:N, WP:CSD, etc.). You've picked something, "user sub-pages patrol", of zero urgency and near-zero importance except where userspace  being blatantly abused, e.g. for blogging or file distribution. It's also something very subjective, in which you are pretty much guaranteed to step on people's toes (and not just for using what amounts to a user warning template on the talk page of a non-noob).  why a draft may be sitting for a while. For example, maybe the editor working on it is caring for a dying relative in her final months, and thus has somewhat more important things to think about than whether a draft article hasn't been edited in a while. PS: If an article draft sits there for 12 years but then eventually does become an article, then it was worth keeping it around. We're here to build an encyclopedia, period. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)