I AM SEMI-RETIRED FROM WIKIPEDIA AND WILL NOT NECESSARILY ANSWER PROMPTLY.
Working on breaking news? Please follow these suggestions:
Develop an accurate picture of what's going on, and do not be swayed by conflicting advice and rumors from "experts" with their own agendas.
Don't become a conduit for every rumor and accusation.
And once you have an accurate picture, share it with the public so they can make a decision on what to do.
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/16/134573800/nuclear-information-gap-spreads-doubt-fear
Q: Who do you think you are to have a picture of His Holiness on your talk page?
A: It's a CCL 2.0 image and I don't need anyone's permission; I like the ambience the picture creates. I have been contemplating the teachings of Buddhism since I was a child, as my Mom was a student of Alan Watts' books on Taoism and Zen. Later, I met Chungliang Al Huang, who was Allan Watt's co-author, and although it has nothing to do with HHDL, it was an auspicious meeting which helped to motivate my interest in Asian modes of thought and interaction. Thereafter, I have defended His Holiness both from inappropriate and disrespectful treatment amongst the alienated, unenlightened commercial media establishments, and, indirectly, during the pre-Olympics protests when I interceded between a mob of angry, confused Chinese students and the Tibetan Freedom Riders including His Holiness's nephew. I have had numerous contacts with the Tibetan Buddhist community in which we have discussed Jesus and perhaps certain Old Testament prophets as the equivalent of Boddhisattvas. There is more to this but that is beyond the scope of this justification. His Holiness has graciously promulgated his inspiring visage where it protects and enobles every place where it is displayed, including this talk page.
Q: So what is the point?
A: The point is that you are expected to exercise mindfulness when contacting me, rather than speaking from the narrow perspective of ego. Suggested reading is the first page or so of the Dhammapada.
Q: So does this mean that you claim to be a Buddhist?
A: That is really personal information which is not necessarily anyone's business but my own. Just because study Buddhism does not mean that I deny or disclaim Jesus or Moses! If you are hung up on categorization, please read (1)the Heart Sutra and (2)fuzzy logic.
Q: What is the relevance of this FAQ?
A: Cf Wikipedia:Civility. His Holiness is a great example and it would be wise for us to all follow his example.
Q: Why don't you put a picture of Jesus on your talk page?
A: The one I like best is not CCL, otherwise, not a bad idea.
You are (w)here.(?)
The true secret of giving advice is, after you have honestly given it, to be perfectly indifferent whether it is taken or not, and never persist in trying to set people right. - Hannah Whitall Smith
I can live with your edit of "The combine US-UK operation is slated to work in Miyagi Prefecture." due to mispelling and most readers won't need to know that level of detail, in this article.
Perhaps the "flow" is broken but the GLIDENumber: EQ-2011-000028-JPN is a rich motherlode of important information. Maybe you can relocate the link rather than follow the standard operating bite the newbie/oldie-bite procedure of simply deleting important, valid, cited information for the sake of personal aesthetics?
I will fix it this time but I notice your talk page is filling up rapidly with complaints and I have to concur that it is better to have the "flow" interupted a bit, than to deprive the world community of important information. Geofferybard (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that method in which you inserted it made the page not look very good, and this page is receiving a ton of hits and edits at the moment so I feel like it's extra-important to keep the page looking good; normally, it's not an issue to insert, edit, cleanup, etc, but with the high edit rate it does become problematic. Also, I don't think this is important enough to put in such a raw format into the lede; the general reader will not know or care what a GLIDE number is. I would recommend inserting it elsewhere in the article. Of course, the information you added is useful, and your contributions are certainly appreciated and welcome. Just please try to insert new information so that it works and looks okay on the page. Thank you! –flodded ☃ (gripe)22:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tweaking the Asian Disaster Recovery line if you follow the refs and links you will see that it is quite important. Hey just heard the radioactive plume is headed my way......Geofferybard (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your original concept of an "Earthquake" article and believe that eventually we should split off a "Tsunami" article as well, with a remaining combined overview article/articles which include the Fukushima incident as well.
No but they are distinguishable for purposes of discussion. I mean, yeah, they are different events anyway. May not occur even in the same time frame even location. But it is a matter of organizing the writing thats all. Room for both a comprehensive and a breakout. Just wait this is all going to grow and grow and grow. IMOGeofferybard (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You added some items to the talk page. I'm not sure what exactly it means. As a side issue, the navy section has a small typo and some references are numbered but not included. Could you make that more clear? Thanks. MartinezMD (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who dislikes my contributions to the Humanitarian response page deleted and I need to search out the refs...it was said to be "American propaganda" reporting facts on the ground. Go figure.I am parking that writing, it is my writing, pending completion of the restoration which is a real pain. The problem is that the refs in View history appear as bracket numbers not with the original links which I used.
This is a problem. I am parking the text on Talk because it is laborious to recover even the text due to some weird behavior of the wiki software which breaks the text up and prevents large copy.
I wrote the text myself from the citations but don't want to put it in main until I can recover at least usable general citations. I actually listened to the MP3 of a briefing and without the citation won't know exactly what hour minute & second the relevant remarks were made.
Not enough data for me to comment. Generally you can template work in progress. If you contact the deleting admin you can request userification or restoration. Best bet, create the page in your user space and only put it in namespace when it can pass muster. Also, I notice that you do not use a stub template, which is recommended for this kind of short article. Geofferybard (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to comment on article for deletion debate
When you contacted me I was a member of Wikipedia Project Conservatism, and have since balanced that by joining WProj Liberalism, and I appreciate your presumption of NPOV good faith on my part. Sorry to be too late to weigh in on the Afd but I will keep a hopefully not-overly juandiced NPOV eye on things. In any case, WP is all the richer for an article which brings forth such interesting factoids as Ted Kennedy's reception of the George Bush Award for Excellence!Geofferybard (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be making odd edits that would suggest that you might need some help with something you are unfamiliar with. If you need help doing something, feel free to ask. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting. Issue is resolved. Thanks. Please feel free to weigh in on the merits.User:Geofferybard]]|Bard गीता 03:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. They are closing the building so I will have to fix that next time. Um, how long is my page going to be displaying the awkward categorization which appears now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geofferybard (talk • contribs) 04:03, 30 April 2011
I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about but if you mean the 'unsure' category of the nomination page, I changed it to be under the society category. MrKIA11 (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little trouble shooting the matter is cleared up thanks. User:Geofferybard]]|Bard गीता 01:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Administrative action: does it ever cross the line?
John, I always appreciate a good discussion and policy discussion can be particularly interesting. I appreciate you providing number 1-4 in our discussion on the vandalism talk page but as a more general operating principle and as the topic developes nuances, I would like to avoid commingling issues. It seems that with your latest edit you including as item (3) a discussion of a previous day's work and that is fine. But going forward, for the sake of clarity and minimizing clutter, I suggest that topic be developed at the below link
Thank you in advance for your consideration thereof. Please feel free to reply here or at the above link, at your convenience.Bard गीता22:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Geofferybard/Vandalism_typology
The current policy lists them alphabetically and I propose splitting the section into groups of types based upon how the type was created. Eg., by target, by method, etcetera.
User:Geofferybard/Vandalism_is_a_bad_word
Advocates replacing the term "vandalism" with something which is not perjorative to the tribe and which reflects a scientific understanding of the phenomenon.
GOCE May 2011 backlog elimination drive progress graphs
So far, 54 people have signed up for the drive, and 33 are actively participating. If you signed up for the drive but have not participated yet, it's not too late! Try to copy edit at least a few articles. Remember, if you have rollover words from the last drive, you will lose them if you do not participate in this drive. If you have not signed up for the drive yet, you can sign up now. If you have questions about getting started, feel free to talk to us. Many thanks to those editors who have been helping out at the Requests page. We currently have 17 articles awaiting edit.
Progress report
We are making slow progress on achieving our target of reducing the overall backlog by 15%; in order to accomplish this goal we will need to complete about 400 more articles. However, we are making good progress on the 2009 backlog, as we have eliminated over half of the articles from 2009 that were present at the start of the drive. Let's concentrate our fire power on the remaining months from 2009; leaderboard awards will be handed out for 2009 articles this drive. Thank you for participating in the May 2011 drive. We hope it will be another success!
Ever feel like you're editing in a vacuum, and long for some camaraderie?
Do you want to improve an article and put a Featured Article star on your userpage but don't know how to get started?
Want to be part of a cohesive, committed team working together to improve conservatism one article at a time?
If you're interested in having lots of fun and working with great editors, click here and make history. We're now taking nominations. Lionelt (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
? I am just now back on line it seems that the page is back up and running in mainspace, unperturbed. And that there is an implicit agreeement that we would seek advice from the editorial board rather than wheel. I am on this project to create content for readers rather than spend all my time arguing for the existence of content pages with expert administrators with little interest or background in the topic. It should be self evfident that this topic is demonstrably separate and distingishable from Vows. I also note that there is a merger template inviting discussion so people can discuss.
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and cramming distinct topics into a single rubric is not IMO a sustainable policy. In any case, I think I have been more than patient given that I endured a spod over an In Use template. Please allow me the time to complete the thought of this article before jumping to conclusions. I appreciate that my replies were responded to with some thoughtfulness, but in return please understand that the use of administrative power without notice and discussion can be very put-offish, it can seem arbitrary whether or not you agree that it is, and that there is a widespread public perception that wikipedia is unfriendly to persons with topical expertise. The success of the project hinges on its dispute resolution and establishing collegiality if not friendliness. Administrative deletion is an extreme manuever which should be reserved for obvious hoaxes and vandalism or negative BLP. I let it go and got to work building this page in accordance with my vision of it and sincerely hope that this diversion of time and effort into justifying the page, before it has even taken shape, has concluded. Thank you for your kind consideration of this matter. Bard गीता17:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - take the point that userfied pages should be subpages of User pages not Talk pages. Thanks for the heads up.
Regarding the deprecation of video references, IMO that is utterly obsolete. I intend to write an essay if need be on that topic but don't want yet another side issue sucking up today's limited time. I honestly appreciate being informed of the old policy on video citations and appreciate that the knowledge, offered no doubt in good administrative faith, raises the level of my sophistication as a wikipedian. However, WADR, video testimony is admissible in court and in government decision making process. Many time the only way to cite important facts is by referencing a time point in minutes and seconds of taped testimony. If there is no written transcript, it is essential, and, even if there is a written transcript,the taped video can show up errors and ommissions in the transcription. Thus, IMO, it should not require too much debate to recognize that video references if used with text references, have value. I suspect the old policy was created to limit juvenile reliance on joke Youtubes and so forth. But video testimony of trials, public officials and citizen public comment at various agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are, simply, not chopped liver.Bard गीता17:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dark Circle
Hi, I just wanted to let you know I've restored the comics article to Dark Circle and added a hatnote to point to the documentary. In cases like this, WP:TWODABS applies - if there are only two disambigs, and one is primary over the other, disambiguation should be settled with hatnotes instead of a dab page. --JaGatalk18:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that policy is that it lends itself to wheel warring when a disambig page would work just fine. How could a comic book take "primacy" over a nuclear power plant built on an earthquake fault, two months after the Fukushima Daichii nuclear accident? Surely this does not boil down to a matter of "he was there first"?
[Checked your user page.] Gee. I will ask that as a chemical engineer you please recuse yourself from using your Wikipedia administrative privileges in this matter. The reason is WP: COI. The film Dark Circle is a film about a long-standing American citizen's movement addressing alleged negligence on the part of a consortium of industrial firms engaged in engineering of a class of chemicals known as nucleotides. The is an attack on the industry in which your User page contends you are employed. Presumably you are in good faith and NPOV, but it would seem that the expression of good faith would be to allow arbitration. That said, do you have precedent that "primacy" is the mere fact of "there first"? Is that precedent actually policy? Bard गीता18:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link I'll get around to it. But whatever may have worked right for Wikipedia in the past, surely a comic book should not bump a film dealing with a nuclear power plant on an earthquake fault, or there is something seriously wrong with our culture. Whatever it says at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ( I am going to lunch and will read the link BEFORE sending a TalkBack - i am not "pushing" this reply - it is here if you choose to seek it. ) Bard गीता19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of things go into determining a primary topic, but the most important factor is likelihood of what the user is searching for. The comic is a far more likely search term than the documentary, so we give people that. And note the hatnote now in Dark Circle; the user is one click away from the documentary, just as they were when there was a disambig in place there. If the film had a higher cultural significance, that might be enough to justify the dab. (I'm not saying the topic is unimportant, I'm saying it hasn't garnered much attention.) But as it stands this is a clear case of WP:TWODABS. --JaGatalk19:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the discussion but after reading the policy I regard it as anything but clear cut. Let's at least be aware that there are issues of fact and issues of policy and not confuse the two.
ISSUES OF FACT: Did you have some links from general public search engines indicating search frequencies?
ISSUES OF POLICY It is not so "clear". TWODABS presumes dispo of PRIMARY. That is not at all clear cut. Recall that it says "An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value ... are taken into account, especially if one of these topics is a vital article. In such a case, consensus may determine that the article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users." Bard गीता20:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It contains an education exemption. Wouldn't you like to think about maybe letting this be one of the exemption cases, without necessarily going through WP:RM? You have not expressed an opinion of the merits of this use of the exception. What were you thinking of when you put the exception in? Surely comix vs. Nuclear Plant on Earthquake Fault raises an educational content concern? Surely you would think about it for a while before abandoning your own (?) stated guideline or policy. At what point does non-educational entertainment take a back seat to preventing mass epidemic of cancer and irresponsible use of nuclear power? Do we need to resort to creating stuff like this to get the web surfer hits? As one adult to another, is there something compelling about comix that I am not getting? Help me out on this, maybe I am taking myself, Wikipedia, or collaborative media too seriously.( I mean, you don't want the Orks taking over !!!!)Bard गीता01:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a question of comics vs. nuclear plant. This is comics vs. an unaired documentary about a nuclear plant. If the documentary had enough significance to merit being primary, I would fight for it, just as I fought to get the "educational value" language added to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But it isn't. Remember, here we are Wikipedians first. We can't let our passions get in the way of building an encyclopedia. And by the rules, having the documentary at Dark Circle (film) is the correct course of action. --JaGatalk06:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Esteemed colleague. This has nothing to do with "passions". Frankly, I could care less about the treatment of the principles of Dark Circles. Just because I have background in a topic area does not mean I am :::: POV. Please don't assume so. In fact, I am Joe-NPOV on this issue because (1) am former member of Oil Chemical Workers Union and (2) my Dad was a Ph.D. chemist, for industry. (3) Unlike my Dad, who was an early :::: scientist signatory to the anti-GHG-anthropogenic climate change petition, I am convinced of the Advent of the Era of Anthropogenic Climate Change and as such, am if anything leaning toward the position :::: :::: espoused by Stuart Brand and that scientist from NASA who in fact favor nuclear. That said, DCPP is a special case. So, please, the standardized admonition about not having POV passions drive my work at WP are :::: really not necessary.I am no raging anti-nuclear Luddhite thank you very :::: much.
I have to respectfully take issue with your interpretations, at least the following:
JaGa said: "This is comics vs. an unaired documentary"
Geof says: The counterpoint is that the documentary was in fact scheduled for national broadcast. It was then pulled because it was regarded as too controversial IMHO that sequence of events increases notability. It seems that perhaps you may be overlooking that, because it would be difficult to imagine that, having that point brought to your attention, you would not concur. Please advise.
PS. Note also the controversy over the retraction of the scheduled national broadcast was itself a national debate, and that the article in question quotes an important cultural critic with citations.
Regarding PRIMARYTOPIC, the most important thing, by far, is likelihood of searching. The other factors, educational value, systemic bias, etc., etc. are used to tip the scales in favor of "we are an encyclopedia, not just a Google's Greatest Hits service". But it has to be at least somewhat close. Take, for instance, the Watergate figure Deep Throat. Sadly, the porno gets at least twice as many pageviews. Still, though, we put the porno at Deep Throat (film) and keep the political figure as primary. Why? Encyclopedic dignity, principle of least surprise, educational value, call it what you will. There's no hard and fast rule here; article naming is an editorial decision. In the Deep Throat case, it was decided that a typical editor would reasonably expect a proper encyclopedia to have the political figure at Deep Throat, and that's what was done, pageviews and Google hits be damned. For Dark Circle, I personally doubt the documentary has entered the mainstream consciousness deeply enough to merit such an exception, but since it is an editorial decision, there's nothing wrong with starting an RM discussion and getting the community's thoughts. --JaGatalk23:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second point: Aside from the primacy enrichment due to the censorship debate, there is primacy enrichment due to the underlying issue which is the content of the film. There is huge interest right now in (a) nuclear power plants, in general, worldwide, and (b) the NPP which is the subject of that film,becasue (i) it is built on an earthquake fault (ii) it is in a tsunami zone and (iii) it is in a ground liquifaction zone, all of this of heightened public interest due to the Fukushima nuclear accidents. If that does not make a case for educational primacy-enhancement, what does?
Questions: In what cases has the "education exemption" been utilized?
Avatar was the most significant test case for "educational value" I was involved in. You should check out the discussion here; to be honest, I'm rather proud of that one. I wouldn't be surprised if it's turned over sooner or later though. --JaGatalk23:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing how much debate and discussion over that! Wow. But not clear how anything in that enormous block of text can be read as not supporting the primacy over the profound educated person's concern over the fads of popular culture. You supported primacy of the ancient Hindu term over that of pop culture. Now in this case, I know you are way too smart to be suggesting that somehow the precedent is that movies trump other stuff. It is laughable to think I would make such an insulting presumption. I know you are not saying that.
It seems that the example supports elevating the eternal over the transient fads of the day. Not to suggest Avatar was not a great movie. I was there in town for the Film Festival when James Cameron received his award for that movie! It seems that the parrallel is that the movie Avatar corresponds to the comix character and the Hindu conception of diety corresponds to the Dark Circle of humanity's fate in the Nuclear Age. Comic:Flick::HinduDiety:Cosmicdoom.
As a science minded progressive, no doubt you will recall that upon the successful [???] test Trinity at Almagordo, was it Oppenheimer who quoted the Bhagavid Gita??????? 00:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
. Bard गीता 19:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Article titling is an editorial choice. There is a good chance your position is the correct one; it all depends on the significance of the documentary. If you can prove that the documentary has significant coverage from many independent sources, perhaps you can overturn the claim to WP:TWODABS. (But I would work on building the article first - more sources, point out that it was eventually aired on other networks.) --JaGatalk19:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To whom it may concern: Prejudicial and derogatory speech: side issues on RM debate on Chinese(ethnic slur)
I took the suggestion of JaGa to check out RM and, from simple.wiki noticed i had an old draft essay on how bad i thought it was that WP actually titles articles with derogatory slang. 1+1=2, so, voila! I went ahead and filed an RM on a slur word/article title against Chinese people. Now I am interested in advice on how to proceed in moving the discussion into an "Open" RM. Should I just wait and let them fight it out and when the dust settles let something emerge? Or should I intervene??? Also, what is the technical way to change to open - start over, modify the template-linked text? Perhaps, after Lao Tzu, wu wei is the best strategy. Bard गीता01:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that RM is going to succeed. Wikipedia:Offensive material requires us to include offensive content, as long as it is not gratuitous and is treated in an encyclopedic manner. While ethnic slurs are disgusting, they are a part of our culture and their story (how they came about, usage, etc.) should not be censored. --JaGatalk19:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed that in the thread. I am not calling for deletion. I am calling for article titles which do not endorse language which is for good reason not proper usage in literate company. Otherwise, WP becomes an agent of POV social change to the effect that "ethnic slur words are AOK and perfectly legitimate usage". WP culture would be enobling and dignifying the kind of language which lays the basis for genocide. As such, it would be not only not NPOV, it would be socially pernicious. Bard गीता19:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the title to include (ethnic slur) would violate WP:PRECISION, and is unnecessary; the article certainly doesn't endorse the term as AOK. In the spirit of tolerance, we should treat the article like any other and trust the reader's ability to draw their own conclusions. --JaGatalk19:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JaGa you are a decent guy with a reasonable style of communication but some of the conclusions you reach strike me as inconsistent with what i have always regarded as common sense. maybe i am not adapting to a changing world. look at rap music, for instance. so then we are going back to all those words...what hits my GeorgeOrwellButton is "the spirit of tolerance". Surely the irony is not lost on you. And again, the language, "treat this article like any other". Indeed. Are you familiar with Herbert Marcuse's Critique of Pure Tolerance [?]. Tolerate the intolerant. Once they are in power, they establish dictatorship, but, oh well, the won 51% of the vote. Now: IMHO using the title endorses and legitimizes the word as a fit and proper encyclopedia article title. That is tautological. "Trust the reader" is derelict in the duty to educate the reader. I will check on WP:PRECIS however i don't think it will withstand my scrutiny. Bard गीता20:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct Citation and proper style for Nuclear Policy of the United States article
I appreciate your contribution to the page, but as you might or might have not seen from the talk page there are some improvements needed (i've marked them). You are missing a lot of citations for quotes, using ibid, missing end paragraph cites and the ones you put up are not formatted correctly for a GA class rating. You can cut and paste the citations with our style that we used in this article (there is a tutorial in the ref section, or I can help you as well). It should only take 30 mins-ish, and I'd be happy to do some formatting things, but I just need to make sure the citations are all up there first. We will be submitting it for GA rating quite soon and it'll be shot down with the current state on that section. Regardless, I hope you make the minor clean ups because I've checked your sources that you given, and aside from my aversion of using YouTube for various reasons, it is all solid info and I would hate to have some of it deleted because of improper citations. Cheers mate and keep up the good work. Kayz911 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your willingness to help with these matters. Unfortunately, when a buffed up article goes GA-candidate, there is a tendency to want to lock it in and preserve it, possibly to the detriment of updating or addition of content, which kills comprehensiveness. Just, that's the way that mechanism works. Arguably, there could be a work-around but the reality is that if an article is at the level of GA-candidate, there is a built in tendency to push away content providers who don't have the skill level to conform all of their edits to GA style. Thus, it is good that you are willing to help conform the content rather than simply edit it out. Because the goal needs to be enlightening readers rather than winning awards, and probably there are plenty of editors around who so covet GA status that they would thwart the growth of comprehensiveness. It is a structural problem which is probably intractable, and if every editor was as conscientious as you apparently are the problem would not be as bad as i suspect it may well be. Bard गीता20:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is not a normal article actually, it is part of Graduate Public Administration course that is working with a Wikipedia team, WikiProject United States Public Policy, and Wikipedia Ambassador Program. So I'm being held to a far higher standard here, because this article is going to be featured (along with a few others) for the Project's conference in Boston as a model of a informational page, quality citations, and outstanding research (or so I've been told via email) to the field of public policy on Wikipedia. No pressure right? So I'm keeping it pretty tip top shape as best I can and trying to meet those achievements. As for what you are saying, if the information (especially public opinions/current news) is accurate, regardless of the side it takes and is not blatantly a biased source, then it should be included regardless of rank. But if you can just throw in the citations to the areas I noted in the article for your contributions, I'll take care of the rest (i.e. the editing of the sources), but I need to know when some of the information is from. The information presented should reflect the rank, not the other way around...Kayz911 (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool man i hope you succeed! i had an idea earlier today. in order to (a) keep the site competitive, ie., exqusitely groomed, but also (b) Wikipedia information on eveolving changes to Nuclear Energy Policy of the United States, maybe you would support the concept of a separate article which would focus on emerging developments. It would update so frequently that there would be no way to keep it as well groomed as need be for competition purposes. What are your thoughts? Title ideas? Bard गीता03:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about actual implemented Nuclear Policy? Because there will probably not be "emerging developments" in Nuclear Policy in my opinion as a policy analysis. There has only been 1 passed policy relating to nuclear in almost 20 years. And with the recent events, the most likely action is none at all (like after every other nuclear accident). The Gov cannot really ReNig on their $54.5 Billion in loan guarantees or will have to pay up. Also nuclear energy makes up a 20%-ish market share of our energy production. South Carolina and Gov Sanford have always had issues with nuclear waste...why you ask? Because soon-to-be-decommissioned nuclear warheads have been traveling through the state to the Savannah River Project for years now, I've actually driven past one of these containers a few years back. Now you mention Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, I happen to know 4 people on a first name basis that work with them, and they don't even think nuclear policy will change, hence why they focus on stopping coal. Regardless, these are only people's opinions. Which is the problem of what you suggest doing, in light of nothing actually happening (which if something does happen it gets put in), there is nothing to talk about in my opinion because opinions are everywhere. Speculation is a dangerous topic for Wikipedia, and I honestly want no part of it because it seems like something that will be biased, vandalized, and argued to death over, and honestly not what I think wikipedia is here for...that's what blogs are for!
Now back to the article at hand and what I need from you on top of the citations. The "Renewed international importance of US nuclear policy" section you added, either needs to be greatly expanded or removed my friend. Because at this point it's just not relevant or tied into it enough. Aside from only having 1 source which I've now read (and another source missing), it barely cuts it because commentary on a forum, even from a law school just is not a great reliable source (and the author is quite biased, but that is to be expected). Journals, news papers, etc are way better because they are far more open to peer-reviewing. Also, there is nothing about what should be important about US nuclear policy and what other countries are modeling after the US in that section? The first thing I think of is if countries liked the US Nuclear Policy so much, then they why are we still one of the few, if not only, country to privatized their nuclear power? It's just not at the standard of this article and needs to be expanded or something. I'll give you a little time on that as well if you want, and not delete it off the bat like many would.Kayz911 (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is just that if the article is involved with someone's academic success and is GA competitor, that it would be helpful to all concerned if a separate article could be developed which would allow for WP to remain up to date without the level of stringency required to keep that article competitive for GA and academic awards. Otherwise, the article will be content- starved, interminable arguments would develope, and ego would become intertwined to a counter-productive extent. There is also an incentive for people with a vested interest in the article to view the underlying topic as glacially static fixed in stone and thus not in need of updating, and to nit-pick any new contributions to death. Don't you think that there is an evolving policy with regard to (1) Yucca Mountain (2) onsite waste storage (3) spent fuel (4) dry cask (5) the role of seismic studies (6) relicensing? At any rate, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be in town tommorow and I will be speaking and I will mention this to some of the staff. Frankly, the length and the intensity of your remarks suggest to me all the more need for a completely separate article which does not step on your turf. Can you help think up a topic and perhaps help get that article set up, or at least support the concept. Some ideas might be "Post-Fukushima effect on xxxx". At any rate, it seems a no-brainer that we should be pulling from the same side of the rope on this as it is everyone's interest to allow content development to proceed without complicating your ambitions. Bard गीता21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hazel Dickens (Question for Adrignola)
Adrignola,
It seems that you have expertise in this area. In making recent edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_Dickens, it became apparent that there is no photo. She was a musician and there are many promotional photos of her all over the web but it seems that they are all on pages bearing a copyright notice or maybe also pages with no copyright information. Is it permissible to utilize a photo which is in wide use on the web or which is on a professional musician's webpage or other classes of use without a consent email or is it necessary to wait until a consent email form has been sent before utilizing any of those images? If so, hopefully the consent form turns up on searching "Help: photo consent" Also, are all images linked from wikicommons or are there image repositories on this or other WMF project pages which are permissible to use? Bard गीता21:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have found no images at Commons for use in this article. For an image to be hosted at Commons long-terms, OTRS permission would be needed. You can upload ahead of time, but if permission is not received it will be deleted anyway. Checking out the article's page, it seems that this person is no longer alive. Wikipedia permits fair use of copyrighted images without permission for non-living persons, since there will no longer be any way to photograph a free replacement yourself. You'll have to upload such a file locally and not to Commons since Commons doesn't permit fair use. It will also have to not be too high of a resolution so as to not infringe on the copyright holder's ability to profit commercially from the image. – Adrignolatalk23:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I notice that you added the {{nfd}} template to this article, which looks like you were trying to nominate it for deletion. Is that correct? If so, you were doing it wrong - the correct template to use it {{afd}}, as that's an article. The procedure to follow to nominate an article for deletion can be found at WP:AFDHOWTO. I can help you with it if you're having difficulties - please let me know on my talk page. On the other hand, if you weren't trying to nominate this article for deletion, then you shouldn't have used that template. I hope that's clear. Robofish (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TESTING testing ONE TWO THREE This template is placed here for observation purposes only
I put it here myself!
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.
Template question
This template placed by this user.
Does the BASEPAGENAME populate automatically? Doesn't seem like it works right. Bard गीता23:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)===
23:41, 30 May 2011 AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) m (41,466 bytes) (Substing templates: Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. . See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.) (undo)[reply]
BINGO! There's my answer.03:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Reframing proposals - Palestine/ international policy etc
I feel your pain. I too proposed a RENAME, which most people call a MOVE, and found myself subject to disparagement for accepting criticism and feedback. It really got out of hand. Someone who isn't probably usually so worked up about things seems to have taken a special interest in finding fault with anything now that i propose. They established a disagreement with me on an entirely unrelated thread, which it doesn't seem they had any prior interest in. Etcetera. it's like being stalked. sooo don't feel so bad that Jg took a swipe at you . all's fair in love and war right? this stuff does sharpen the intellect IMHP. in the long run dealings like that hone you for RealWorld and you look back on such interactions rather like interactions with college professors who were not at the time your favorite professor but whom in the long run maybe teach you more. Meanwhile, it helps me to not respond to WP:BAITING . :)
Substantively then: Is there any legitimate basis to a custom that proposals should be absolutely perfect and defined or else they are subject to summary dismissal or is that a made-up-from-thin-air hardball negotiating tactic with no credible basis in WP history? Bard गीता02:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this made me laugh! Yes, it seems that is customary on Wikipedia, but I don't really get too worked up over it. I do appreciate the suggestions and time you've provided to the discussion. I feel that it's sound reasoning to fork the content eventually, a rename would merely be an interim solution. Nightw09:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can advise how to proceed at this where they are still back in the 50's...00:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Radiation, ionizing and non-ionizing
I just wanted to say thank you for honoring my in use template earlier. IMHO the world will not end if we don't achieve accurate naming of every WP article in one day, but judging by the ferocity of the commenting, one would think otherwise. For the sake of clarity i am asking that people post at the bottom of the thread whenever possible so we can see who posted when. The original proposal was flawed, but the two underlying issues appear to be outstanding. Thus, the modified move request lists two alternative targets either one of which would be a distinct improvement.Thank you for helping to maintain a civil tone while we sort out this somewhat confused move discussion. Bard गीता
So much text, and you moved everything around, and now I have to restate what I already said? Please, we are all unpaid volunteers here using our free time.
Please take a look at Talk:List_of_people_with_surname_Weeks#Requested_move, where I try to gently nudge the discussion towards a compromise I can live with. I don't create a new section, and I don't require that everyone restate their opinions there. (one hint: all arguments will be taken into account by the closing admin, even if they weren't made under the new section)
(edit conflict, I was still writing more text :-) ) I mean: thanks for the message and all. But in those "requested move" discussions you are writing too much, and you are trying too much to control the flow of the discussion. This can backfire on you. Wait until you have more experience in discussions.
And, looking at the discussions, don't be surprised if they are closed against your opinion. Sometimes people prefer a simpler but slightly less accurate title. Editors usually prefer titles that normal people can understand over perfectly accurate titles that people won't recognize. And many will dislike accurate titles that are too long and complicated to type. The best thing is to shrug your shoulders and move to other matters. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not if racism gets a pass. Also, IMHO, the Chinese are rising and will bite back if they are not treated fairly. But your points are well taken. It seems also that my work is placed under heightened and hostile scrutiny by someone from that threat, who seems intent on making me out as a rank idiot in the eyes of WP folk. So it goes. Bard गीता04:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments: 1. Re "It seems also that my work is placed under heightened and hostile scrutiny by someone from that threat, who seems intent on making me out as a rank idiot in the eyes of WP folk." Bard, please do not make any assumptions about the motivations of other editors and write about them. Even if you feel that way, relax, take a deep breath, and get over it. Not easy to do for anyone, myself included I admit, but not voicing such thoughts helps to mark you as a mature and sensible editor who is above the petty fray (which I am sure describes you well), and contributes to a higher standard of discourse on WP. So we are clear, by making this suggestion, I am not taking a side on the issue about which you commented. 2. The comments you have made at Talk:Electromagnetic radiation and health are challenging to follow. You have added so much text, with varying formats or organization. Consistent formatting and short, brief comments, waiting for others' replies where possible, would help to keep things more understandable in my view. 3. The use of nomenclature like "Oppose" when responding to proposals is standard in WP. It does not mean a commenter thinks a voting process is taking place, merely indicates clearly the commenter's stance to the proposal. 4. I have taken the liberty of consolidating your latest two proposals at Talk:Electromagnetic radiation and health for clarity in this edit. I trust you will not think this too forward, and apologize if you feel I have changed your intended meaning in any way. End numbered list I hope you take these comments in the friendly spirit with which they are intended. --papageno (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That poor student was probably taken aback by the revert
I noticed you talked to a guy about this content, which i thought was kind of cool.
"The Grameen Foundation was created to accelerate the impact of microfinance on the world’s poorest people, especially women. In 1976, Professor Muhammad Yunus founded the Grameen Bank with a mere $27 and now it serves more than 7 million poor families with loans, savings, insurance and other services. The bank is fully owned by its clients and has been a model for microfinance institutions around the world. In 2006, Professor Yunus and Grameen Bank jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize. President Barack Obama awarded Professor Yunus the 2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom."
That revert seems a bit harsh. Would that content survive if he had stated in the text what the source was? Bard गीता03:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC) What recommendations would you make in that case? How could i avoid a similar fate myself, going forward, as i thought a mix of properly cited primary and secondary sources could be tolerable if not OR? And is OR your main concern? Or POV? If you are POV clean can we accept some OR? Isn't there OR or at least SYNTH in almost every WP page??04:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than cool, I saw that Grameen Bank material as inappropriate advertising by someone who did not understand the project. That editor was sourcing from the organization's publications and the founder's book. Press release language and puffery don't belong here. Here is what I wrote on the editor's talk page:
I reverted the changes you made recently to the Grameen Foundation article. The only support offered for these changes are primary sources which are inappropriate for an encyclopedia and go against Wikpedia policy. Please see this article about appropriate sources for articles. Also, if there is any chance you have a conflict of interest due to a personal or business relationship with the Grameen Bank or Grameen Foundation, then please be aware that your participation in editing articles related to the Grameen programs must be undertaken with great self control and effort to eliminate bias. Thanks, Jojalozzo00:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your email to me:"I still don't really understand why it is that you deleted all of the information I added...". I reverted your changes to the Grameen Foundation article because the only support offered for them were primary sources which are inappropriate for an encyclopedia and go against Wikpedia policy. Please see this article about appropriate sources for articles. Also critical to good editing is neutrality. The article should not read like an advertisement or press release. Once you understand the limited uses for primary sources such as the Grameen Bank web site and the founder's publications and the need for secondary sources and neutrality, please consider contributing again. If you think I was incorrect in reverting your contributions please bring it up on the article talk page. Thanks. Jojalozzo10:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC):I understood that reverting the edits was going to come as a surprise to the editor and I tried to explain what I did by immediately posting to their talk page. I apparently did not communicate well enough but at least it was personalized a bit.[reply]
To avoid the mistakes of that editor, I suggest that if you have a conflict of interest, declare it on your talk page and on relevant article talk pages and be really careful about what you post. If you have a POV, work hard to tone it down. Try writing about the issue from the other perspective and let others write from yours. Use reliable secondary sources. Jojalozzo14:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename is not removal,deletion or censorship
Disagree with move proposals. "Chink" has a long and ugly enough history to be deserving of its own article. Per WP:CENSOR, ""being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." You cite WP:NOTFREESPEECH above, but I don't read that as a license to censor based on content, but rather to make it clear Wikipedia is here to create an encyclopedia, not a ground for soapboxing: "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia". I don't see "Chink" as meeting that criterion. Khazar (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Reply to the above [comment] Disagree with move proposals' WHICH STATES "Chink" has a long and ugly enough history to be deserving of its own article. Per WP:CENSOR, ""being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."
WHICH REPLY IS AS FOLLOWS: This is not a proposal for "removal of content". The reply, while presumptively made in good faith (acknowledging the "ugly history"), errs in that it disputes a different proposal than this RM. Certainly there are those who might propose deletion of the content, and there may be a good case for deletion of the content. But that is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is whether the unqualified and facile promotion of a disreputable racial and ethnic slur, into the status of an encyclopedia title, is in fact the appropriate manner in which to handle that content. It would be interesting to see if the above commentator would revise their position in view of the common interests which clearly we do share, which is to promote and preserve the quality of this collaborative English-language encyclopedia. Bard गीता 00:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
Hello, Geofferybard. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Ancient Apparition: Your formatting and interim remarks on C***k (Slang)
(Nice user page, particularly the fonts.} I appreciate that you blocked the discussion for archiving as one of the commentators was posting high on the page on another thread in an effort to influence "voting".
Presumably your remarks indicate that you don't anticipate an authorized rename of that article to be occuring anytime soon. We had that much figured out, but it was good to freeze the discussion insofar as some people reply higher up the talk page in such a manner that their remarks tend to get overlooked. One user who commented here more or less followed me around for a while and deliberately, it seems, posted higher up the talk page to advance a POV. With regard to your remarks, it seems that you are trying to assist the discussion along and that is appreciated.
I am not going to share my thoughts on your summary but please be open to considering that I may do so at a later time. But don't worry, nobody was expecting a rapid turnaround on the policy. For one thing, the discussion has helped focus the issue and any new concept for how to deal with the issues expressed will benefit enormously particularly from some of the comments of the most vociferous opponents of any change. Unfortunately, many commentators were mired in a robotic reiteration of NOTCENSORED without grasping the point that editorial guidelines, of which WP has many, are not "censorship" in any sense, and certainly not in the Orwellian sense with which it is often associated. Albeit, editorial guidelines can be abused to create a form of censorship' at any rate, collaborative discussion is a good thing not a bad thing and it is nice to know that there were so many people at least interested in considering the matter. Bard गीता21:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Continued debate
Hi Geoffrey, I saw you were re-opening the discussion at Chink. It's fine with me, and I'll stay out of it this time, having already said my piece. And I'm sorry to hear you feel yourself censored; I know how frustrating it can be to have a consensus of editors on the other side of what you feel to be correct, as it's happened to me too. FWIW, the best advice I've gotten from another editor on WP is that when you start to feel heated in one area, it's often best to edit another for a while; there's always more work to be done almost anywhere you look. I hope you won't find this a particularly discouraging experience. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is discouraging but in the long long run i will prevail. For one thing, there are one billion Chinese and more of them studying English and computer science than in New Zealand and Australia put together. In the short run, people who hold administrative credentials, or hope to apply for them, have an understandable natural tendency to defend the status quo - IMO. That may be an insurmountable barrier. But outside of Wikipedia, people find the policy very annoying. And most persons of color who are not Wikipedia geeks find it very, very offensive. I don't even know how to begin to approach the administrator who took the thread on because in my experience if you don't go along with them they block you, that goes on your record, and you are screwed with regard to that project. Maybe he won't be that type, but it is not encouraging that he closed the thread by writing "a spade is a spade". I am old enough to remember when that remark was considered prima facie to be racist - not that I am taking a side one way or another. But it seems that perhaps some of the younger editors have a very set view of what is and what is not the correct way to classify and categorize and with the self-assuredness of youth more or less shut down the voice of historic experience. What may be achieved is a consensus down the line that the articles can remain as Free standing ≠ mere subsections, which is unfortunate, but perhaps at least of the form TERM (Word; derogatory). That way, WP does not put the imprimatur of respectability on hate speech. Bard गीता22:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I can't speak for others, but I can assure you that I'm neither an admin nor interested in becoming one, and it's certainly not motivating me in this case. I think you'll find Wikipedia both easier and more pleasant if you'd be willing to assume a bit of good faith on other editors. None of this is to dismiss the obvious offensiveness of the term "Chink"; I wholeheartedly agree it's a racist term in 99.3% of its uses. But all I can say is that some of us honestly believe the best way to deal with a slur is to discuss it straight on, hence the lack of an exception to the standard naming conventions. Hopefully we can agree to disagree on that, but in either case, happy future editing. Khazar (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and btw, I just belatedly understand your meaning above in saying "that remark was considered prima facie to be racist". (I misread you initially as referring to Chink by "that remark"). I agree that it was an unlucky choice of words, but again, want to strongly encourage you to avoid the implications you're making here and assume good faith on James' part. As I'm sure you're aware, that metaphor predates the slur and in many areas continues to have a separate life, though I'm sorry to hear in your experience it's only been used racially. Khazar (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hadal
Your recent rename was 100% on point and correct and it was long overdue. This post confirms that you and i have had no prior contact. Don't be surprised if you encounter opposition. IMHO it is important to defend that move it is not only logical it is essential. Also please be aware of this disambiguation page which I will back up here in case somebody messes with it. Interestingly, although you state on your Userpage that you are left of center, it is often left folks who confuse and conflate nuclear energy policy and nuclear weapons policy. So that helps your NPOV credentials because you are transcending your personal background. The real problem in general is that people really do confuse the two. The local Wikipdeia problem is that the article is involved with a Good Article nomination and with the academic work of one of its earlier editors and unfortunately there is a certain understandable touchiness with regard to the article which we need to work with. Also, IMHO there is no way there will be peace on that article without a separate article due to the inevitably turf battle. Bard गीता22:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize it was closed by moderator. I expected a wheel war and then being overwhelmed by status quo loyalists. Nevertheless, there will be constant criticisms of important information being added if it in anyway interferes with the role the article plays in the class project and the GA nomination. That would hamper the ability of the page to stay up to date. Already I am under a deletion threat of content because I think they want MORE citations, or DIFFERENT citations or ONLY PEER REVIEWED. But tons of articles cite journals. This extra special high standard is because of someone's use of the page as a class project so they should not be permitted to choke off updates, IMO. As a compromise, I suggest a different article which is NOT in the GA contest and the class project so we don't have to walk on eggshells. Bard गीता23:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think it should be formally stated that I performed the move in my capacity as a disinterested, neutral party. The Wikipedia:Requested moves page seems to be in a perpetual state of backlog and I was simply doing my part as an admin. I did read the discussion prior to moving the article. It seemed as though everyone agreed that a move was necessary, as the ambiguity of "nuclear policy" was not really in dispute. I do admit to a certain ignorance with respect to this 'turf war' you speak of, beyond the fact that the article seems to be a pet project (and I use term with no prejudice intended) for certain editor(s). I can understand the desire for a 'higher standard' of edits to the article, as I've been in that position before. However, I'm concerned by your statements above. When you say, "there is no way there will be peace on that article without a separate article," are you in fact proposing, in essence, a duplicated entry? If you feel good faith edits are being suppressed, creating a fork of the article is certainly not the solution. Might this be a case best handled via Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? If the problem really is this dire, it is better to confront the issue head-on rather than try to circumvent it. --Hadal (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When that was written it was not known that you were, in fact, an administrator, and if you werre not it would have been probable that the move would have been reverted, apparently, because of the possessiveness expressed to me here. For instance, my understanding of that letter is that if entries to that page are not absolutely perfect, they will be reverted even if they contain important content. I understand your concern that content forks not occur as a result of personal issues such as territorialism. Agreed. However, in the interest of avoiding yet another incessant argument over the obvious, the proposal, designed to accomodate others, not myself, was to exercise discretion and explore the possibilities of discretionary fork. Ultimately there is no absolutist warrant for fork or not-fork in all cases; in some instances, a fork is reasonable as is a non-fork. The opportunities to split ( the term fork is not necessarily the best word for dividing content) which are most reasonable are when the article's scope exceeds its topic, which does occur, but also, it would seem not unreasonable to consider a separate article on "Post Fukushima effect on NRC policy". There is nothing duplicative nor is it an intention to "circumvent" anything, it is an attempt to forge a workable solution. As it stands, I feel inhibited from contributing anything to the article because it might mess up somebody's academic work, or somebody's shot at GA, and it seems the article will fall into Outdated status unless something is created. A very specific corrollary issue is that Kay has taken on a viewpoint which seems to be a direct result of all of this stress and tension around GA and academics, which is the view that US nuclear (energy) policy is some kind of stable phenomenon which does not change and therefore the article will not need much updating. Rather than resist that observation, my suggestion was to accomodate it. One way would be to distinguish between the more stable fundamental policy and the actual regulation as practiced on a per-reactor basis. Nuclear anything is a vast vast topic which can accomodate a multiplicity of articles but unfortunately on Wikipedia if you create new articles they can be deleted onsight and you may not even have a copy of your work. There is a bias toward merging and in a complex topic such as this one merging is seldom a good idea. I try to work on other collaborative projects because after more than five years I still am patrolled by people with no interest in the topics who seem to enjoy deleting other people's work for technicalities and it becomes a waste of time trying to request they at least userfy. So perhaps you can support a rational new article series such as the two mentioned above: US regulatory response to Fukushima; Nuclear energy regulation in the US and another needed article, if anyone cares to write it, and if it is not spot deleted by an administrator with no interest in nor background in the field, Public opinion on nuclear energy, Public opinion on nuclear energy in the US. Kay is making demands for perfection in the last paragraph of the article with regard to these topics, but IMHO Public opinion is a separate matter altogether than Public policy and the best solution would be to recognize that and pre-approve a split. Whaddaya say? (As for ominous, it is the prospect I may burn out from the constant attack of sock puppets and heavy handed admins - why delete monastic silence of all things - and go the route of User:Neutralhomer and so many others? Bard गीता17:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy. I don't know if I'd feel comfortable (or qualified for that matter) to "pre-approve" anything. I read your exchange with Kayz911 and, unfortunately, I think you've simply chosen to edit in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm not sure who approved a co-mingling of someone's graduate school project with the decidedly non-personal prime directive of the Wikipedia project, and while I don't think it's the most stellar of ideas, I'm also reluctant to get involved in the mess. I was honestly just trying to move things along for the betterment of the project: the article I moved was one of dozens stuck in WP:RM limbo, probably because admins are trying to avoid sticky situations like this one. For what it's worth I do think there's plenty of content that could be written under your proposed headings, so you're right in that they wouldn't necessarily be forks. Having your work summarily deleted by trigger-happy page patrollers is and always will be a risk inherent in participating here: however, you always have recourse. Articles can be undeleted; and even if they don't survive a Wikipedia:Request for undeletion, you can still get a copy of your work retrieved from the deletion archive. Also, as I'm sure you're aware, you can always work on an article in your own user space to 'incubate' it unmolested, until such time you believe it can 'stand on its own' against possible challenges. If you feel like you might be headed for a burnout, you probably are: and this is coming from someone who stopped editing regularly for nearly five years. --Hadal (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I took a few days off and read a few books. Did me a lot of good and lo and behold - all of the threads had nothing but nice collegial remarks for me :))) And thanks for your "second set of eyes on my thoughts". "For what it's worth I do think there's plenty of content that could be written under your proposed headings, so you're right in that they wouldn't necessarily be forks..." confirms my thinking. And yes, while the grad school class is not a lawful WP concern, just as a courtesy IMHO it is not a bad thing to work around it! Thanks for the feedback. Bard गीता04:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guerrillo
Is there anything that you think has a pressing need to be written? --Guerillero | My Talk23:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes lots. But for starters, G., could we possibly pick a better graphic for the stub? The one you picked is brilliant photojournalistically but unfortunately is neither typical nor helpful for people in that predicament. I am sure you understand - severe obesity, schizophreniform dishevelment, lack of hygiene does occur amongst a sub population but most folks in that position are not quite as bad off as the poor bloke in that Parisian slum!!! I have some shots I took which I was going to add to wikicommons maybe you would like to pick one out? If you email me I will send you some (c) photos to peruse, there are some good ones or if I find links...I don't want to let my good photos go to CCL because I am afraid if I lose control they will be subject to abusive use but one would be OK. Also I asked and received permission to use the photos, which is more than most photographers do. Oh - we could use an article on Continuum of Care. Discrimination and Prejudice. Disaster Planning and Emergency Planning, no that would be OR. Give me a day to think on this![reply]
The guy in blue gave specific permission for the widespread use. The other guy also knew he would be "famous". Use either and I will certify but I want the tightest licensing available on Wiki Commons so the picture is not used for harming human dignity. The drummer one is no problem he looks so happy. I would recommend using that one. Yeah put them in the stub for Homeless please if you have technical or legal concerns Adrignola knows a lot about this stuff he is very cool about helping with answers to questions. Also, we might decide on either a Project or a Task Force or a Book or exactly what. There is a lot of reallyshclocking writing on the topic at WP. BCYSAD
THANK YOU!It would be nice if an administrator might close the non-existent discussoin of a forced merger of Monastic silence which has 35 references into Vows of silence, which no one is interested in. The merger template is a nuisance and it discourages work on the article. The only person who has commented on the merger is myself, in opposition. The vows article is underdeveloped and no more relevant to the practice of monastic silence than the oath of office of cops, or the President are to the performance of their obligations. It is the tail wagging the dog to suggest that the vow to do something should become the superordinate topic and monastic silence is practiced by non-vowed laity and un-vowed monastic guests. Vowed silence occurs outside monasteries. The topics are not at all connected, they merely have some overlap. This is kind of a bummer because the admin who placed the merge header had deleted the page with no discussion, while it had both UNDERCONSTRUCTION and INUSE templates on it. I had to contact and plead for restoration and the MERGER proposal went on immediately, with no thoughtfulness whatsoever. The deletion was not a lack-of-content it was because supposedly the very poorly written Vows article already, in his opinion, covered the topic. As i pointed out it seemed there was a certain POV bias against articles about religion and spirituality. Anyway, it is a stressor and it would be nice if the fact of the article's existence were respected rather than be under this apparently permanent dangling sword... Bard गीता17:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't figure out whether or not you are requesting speedy deletion of this page. If so, the speedy delete tag should indicate the reason for speedy deletion. If not, please just remove the speedy delete tag, because you were the one who placed it in the first place, and restore the content. Right now you have the page blanked and a speedy delete tag that says the page shouldn't be deleted. Thanks. --Metropolitan90(talk)04:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the time I had a chance to comment it was deleted, but here's my opinion... The article was probably not a candidate for speedy deletion, as it didn't fit any of the categories used for that purpose... have a read through of WP:CSD. It was, however, about a subject that was extremely unlikely to pass any Wikipedia notability guideline. I would either have proposed it for deletion via WP:PROD or probably nominated it at WP:AFD.
I can't tell if you meant me by the 'senior admin' thing, but I'm about as junior as they come... :) CatfishJim (ex-soapdish)11:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually get involved with deleting anyone's good faith edits, but that article was clearly headed for deletion and I stepped in because it seemed that WP was at risk of permanently alienating potential future contributors. As per discussions at Wiki Meta, Strategy, etc. The article was well intended however it was self-promotional content which did not meet WP:Notability. To avoid hurt feelings on the part of well intended writers unfamiliar with WP, the content is userfied, which was the point. Thanks, and, BTW, Jim, you are a pretty damn good administrator IMO. Bard गीता04:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your frank discussion of baiting. A lot of it goes on here. Keep your chin up, mate. There are plenty of good people here. 08:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Nuuijin technical question
Do you know of javascript or something that will enable me to de-wikify. What I do now is copy paste into text editors and replace square brackets with blank space. This ruins image file:imae.jpg so i need to manually add the [[ back in or do the job in sections. I am working on a massive book series and would appreciate anything that will whittle the job down. Also, is there something that will color code citations when working on wikipedia pages I can hardly read some of these pages.08:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think you're standing at the edge of regular expressions. I don't have much experience with how javascript is used here, but a regular expression can be tailored to replace 'all instances of square brackets except "File:*"'. See this for some further reading. In terms of the colors, something similar where you'd use a regex to find citation instances and then manipulate the style of them to change the colors. That might be harder given the variability of how people cite things around here. Folks at the help desk might be able to shred more light on these issues, however. --Nuujinn (talk)10:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SONGS
Doesn't the section on popular culture trivialize the whole matter?08:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
MaterialScientist: Thanks for the antivandalism. Is Mothers for Peace now vandalizing Wikpedia?
Based on the message from the anonymous user who blanked the page, they claim to be acting for San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. After writing up several articles on Diablo, I thought someone would claim that SLOMFP was being unfairly left out of wikipedia coverage. Looks like no good deed goes unpunished. Anyway, it would not be surprising if more of that unethical conduct emerges. Maybe there should be a contact with Charter Communications, or a block from the Wikpedia side?
Would it be helpful to address a cease and desist letter to Mothers for Peace?
Geolocate:
UNITED STATES CALIFORNIA ATASCADERO 35.489417
-120.670725 93422 -08:00
Net Speed ISP Domain
DSL CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS CHARTER.NET
23:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Boud
Don't forget. WP:DTRThe problem with that template is that there probably is not yet an intternational equivalent. The concept "Prison to Pipleine" is a USA political concept. There is not necessarily a development of the concept on an international basis. It will be necessary to research the matter. If there is in fact international development of the concept, that could be reported here. If there is no international development, it would seem the options are (1) write it up on another site, as OR, and then report that in this article or (2) remove the template. There is no prohibition on WP of articles pertaining to events intellectual and otherwise which are occuring in the US, or in the UK, or elsewhere. Do you have information to the effect that Prison to School Pipeline is a developed concept outside the USA? If so, the template is appropriate. If not, the template is not appropriate.GeoBardRap02:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you were upset by the tag - i certainly am assuming good faith by the editors of the article. :) WP:BIAS certainly does not claim that any editors are deliberately biased. Since you pointed to WP:DTR, i'd like to suggest that you look at WP:BIAS if you haven't read it before. It documents and discusses (statistical) demographic biases that are natural, for obvious reasons. It also makes some suggestions. i won't discuss the article itself here - that makes more sense on the article talk page. Boud (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, :Water pollution control. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Regional Water Quality Control Board. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Regional Water Quality Control Board - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) 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 [Water resource policy|Talk:Water pollution control|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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually created both pages rather than a move I pasted. Looks funny, but is legit.
==Removing Speedy at Water pollution control==
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Water pollution control, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: the article is extant at Water resource policy. GeoBardRap02:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation?
Please explain what you are doing duplicating the same page over and over to different titles and redirecting mainspace articles to user pages. I don't know what you are trying to accomplish. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the above please. I userfied. Just trying to rename. Hence, userfied. Only one net article. Look at my user page. I am settling on one and only one title. See?GeoBardRap03:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that is all well and good, but would it not be best to decide on a name BEFORE making a bunch of different pages and then simply redirecting the rest? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. But I did not realize there was duplicative content. Water is very messy needs reorganize. University library security are closing the library, gotta go. Glad we could work it out. If you are an admin please just delete the first two sorry about the confusion, it is understandable. My bad, But you see the intention, thanks., GeoBardRap03:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts.
There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is generally considered rude to mess with other people's user pages and talk pages so if necessary there are means to address the matter. On the other hand, anyone who edits in their real name should be presumptively in good faith. There are people who are viscerally opposed to anything that uses some of that terminology due to POV issues of their own but WP has means to address that. If you don't want to use a Talk page on your page please email me so we will have a line of communication.
I looked at things and it seems that Art is a tough cookie but well intended. Why not create a regular non-IO accuont for yourself with Talk, ask him not to mess around with your Talk page if you think he might, and if he steps over WP etiquette lines ask him to stop or take it to RFC or arbitration. He is very sharp but strangely subscribes to the simplistic reductionism of the libertarian party, which is his right, but raises POV questions; he also advocates that there be one and only link from scientific blah blah about climate change, which would be solely to Anthropocene global warming, which I disagree with. He does seem to be interested in suppression of linking which he considers to be "overlinking" but he acknowledges his requirement to comply with consensus and process so rather than get all Spy/Counterspy about it maybe both of you guys can collaborate.
Now if Art's issue is that he is a climate change sceptic, I am an old hand in that arena because my father, who has twice as many doctoral degrees as Art, was an early signatory to the global warming sceptic petition and I frequently engage my libertarian and conservative aquaintances with lively debate on the topic. But maybe Art just has a certain precise vision of how collaborative media should work. I think there are a lot of POV warriors on WP who kind of take a lot of the fun out of it, but I don't think he is one of them. I think by engaging him we might learn...but then you seem to have a good vision of what your concept of WP and maybe in time I too will become inclined to hold Art at arms' length, too. But I am not there yet, so I am not opposed to taking a dispassionate and basically nuetral POV to any disputes between ya's. I am not volunteering, but if yo guys need arbitration, I am probably still sufficiently nuetral to consider taking that job on. But if you need arbitrarion, don't wait too long because if yo and I communicate a whole lot and I don't communicate with Arther then perhaps he would not recognize me as nuetral. In any case don't hesitate to seek Arb Com intervention if need be.Usually, when people throw their WP weight around too much, and I am not saying he does, they step on lots of other people's toes, and you would be surprised how much sympathy you may obtain. In particular, I don't think anyone will support any user hiding or blanking other people's talk pages, so if need be, bring the issue to the light of day. On the other hand, it is not helpful that yo are not registering a username. I suggest you do so and keep an open mind. Even if you are engaging Arthur as an opponent, it is an intellectual opposition and IMO it is good to have intelligent, principled opponents because we learn from them, and he does seem to be intellectually formidable, even if he is into all that Ayn Rand stuff (which I would not know).GeoBardRap20:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I hope some level-headed, reasonable comments such as yours are sustainable within wp-land.
My experience with Art and occasional associates, have left me no desire to become closer to Wikipedia. His behavior, and the lack of Wikipedia stopping him, has been self-destructive to wp community building from my view. Why well intended? Not just rude (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). Art, who will at least lurk this page, is an open climate change denialer, as he has stated as such. I don't know that Arthur Rubin is his real-life name, if you do. He seems to know little-to-nothing about the Sciences, except some tangential mathematics, and has not shown a history of viewing new information as an opportunity to learn. If you look further back in time (start with Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin) you will find the opposite of Wikipedia:Etiquette is his Modus Operandi: extremism, either-or, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing consistently (particularly refusal to undertand), insulting, Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion, etc ... a petty tyrant bully ... particularly against IP Users. We disagree on Art, as small fleeting improvement(s) have statistically shown to be overwhelmed by backsteps.
It's like this. I have no opinion one way or the other I have nothing to do with the individual but I would presume that it would be easy enough to justify the veracity just look up the county elections and see if there was in fact such a candidacy. But if the situation is as dire as you suggest then WP rules are in your favor. The key in these situations is to not let your patience be exhausted and to keep your cool. I have seen people burn out and walk away from WP or from certain topics. There are topics I avoid because of lititigious POV warriors. But others keep them in check on those pages. My areas of interest are apparent Now, no one can delete away properly cited NPOV information on the GHG debate. If so, that person would LOSE on commuity review or arbitartion and would be BLOCKED. Probably, your antagonist is too smart to transgress that overtly. But you can't lose if you have truth on your side. Why not set up an account with a talk page of your own for centralization of your concenrns? If you conduct yourself well you will win credibility and could even stand for arbitrator. Anyway keep a stiff upper lip. Facts are facts. Climate "deniers" come in all shapes and sizes. SOme actually admit the data and that there is a warming trend. They just argue about what the cause is. I wonder which he is. Any how if you believe there have been violation prepare a request for an intervention. Block request can be for a day or a week or longer and can be topic restricted. If it is the case that the man has incorrectly or arbitrarily made such deletions then the procedures are clear cut warn first, politely, then prepare a litigation process at WP. Cut and dried. The real issue is what issues matter the most to whom. Some people aree very ocncerned, eg., with middle east politics, so they play the dershowitz-finklestein intellectual marathon. Personally, that's not my bag so i tend to stay out of that topic. But when it comes to the issues that concern me such as Diablo Canyon Power Plant, I am all about NPOV and I have weathered arbitrary deletionism, theft of documents, attacks on my personal funding/backers the whole nine yards. It's all about committment to the truth. Don't give up.GeoBardRap23:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mothers for Peace: Throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
Question #1:
I understand that taking the four contentions from the plaintiff website is not in your view a "reliable" source so I will find the citation to the ASLB where I have read the complaint and know that in point of fact that the SLOMFP website is not misrepresenting the nature of the "four contentions" they are bringing before the ASLB. However, you also deleted remarks from a prominent professor at Stanford. I am wondering if that was perhaps inadvertant. Please advise.
Deleted:
According to Professor Burton Richter, director emeritus of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, most of the security measures with regard to spent fuel reactor pools are classified.
- [4]
Question # 2: Why is Mothers for Peace deemed "unreliable"? Isn't that up to the reader to decide if it is properly cited? I will as stated find the ASLB link which is a superior citation but I don't know that it is quite exact to characterize the plaintiff as "unreliable" if they are a 501(c)3 which has been around for decades. I understand that people who are principals of corporations often lift copy from their websites to self-promote, but that is not what is the case here. And I did verify the information at ASLB which is a difficult link to find due to some weird configuration at the NRC. It seems that a citation improvement request template would be superior to outright reversion, IMHO.
Question #3: Deleting the trace information on the Mothers for Peace TalkPage, which pertained to the vandalization seems to be covering the tracks of an event which occured publicly on WP. I am wondering where would be the proper repository for that data, if not the talk page. Is there a vandalism record elsewhere? Is there a specific policy on this matter? As it went, that user was blocked for a week then one day at another WP project, but I contacted that individual offline and the vandalism will not recur. But it seems that hiding or deleting might raise an appearance of covering up for misconduct and perhaps in the long run it raises an appearance of covering up for the vandalism, despite the apparent bias in the other direction at item #2.
GeoBardRap17:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1 and #2 My concern here was that the entire section was sourced to a youtube video which the community has decided is not an appropriate reference. If you can find those same points mentioned in a qualifying source, you're welcome to put any/all of it back in. I didn't say anything about the subject being unreliable - the source you provided to verify the information is not considered "reliable" (i.e. not appropriate on Wikipedia); please see WP:RS for the Wikipedia policy on sources.
#3 The article talk page is for discussing the article; removing the information from that talk page hasn't blanked any of the usual Wikipedia/Wikisource logs - all edits remain in page histories and accounts also have block logs.
There are actually two distinct issues here and they are not at all related.
Issue #1: Video references
My contention: This has been discussed before, I think with admins, and relates to a stale policy which actually has been modified to reflect those discussions. Thus, if those mods have not been reverted, the technical position of the "community" has changed. The point is this: in this rapidly changing world, video of government meetings and high level conferences are appearing all over the place and very few institutions are willing to pay transcribers.
Therefore I proposed that if there is not transcription available that if the information is important and pertinent it not be subject to summary deletion but rather readers can decide whether or not to check the video. However, as I recall this discussion, it was advised to put the minutes and seconds on the citation.
Thus, since this was a university level conference on a very important topic, I included Dr. Barton's remarks and as I recall with minutes and seconds information. I am sorry I am not able to provide the link to the modified citation policy at this moment because I am close to running late for a lunch engagement. If requested I will provide that link and of course be happy to submit to an RFC which is probably a good idea on this issue.
Issue #2: The Barton conference statement was only the citation for the last sentence or two which refuted the position of the Mothers for Peace "Four Contentions" at the ASLB. I had thought that the contentions were cited to the SLO-MFP website. I will check after lunch and fix this problem which should not be controversial. If there is a good hard link I will revert the statement of the contentions, preferably with the actual NRC complaint citation.
Okay, if you can point to where the community discussed youtube videos and indicated they were appropriate for sources, then I'd have no problem with that going back in. I looked around a bit myself and I didn't see it offhand, but I certainly don't follow all of the policy discussions that go on (or I wouldn't have time to do anything else) so just let me know if you happen to find it. Enjoy your lunch! Shellbabelfish18:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shell I simply overlooked citing the four contentions. The videotaped conference at Stanford was added later. I will patch things up let me know if you need any changes. GeoBardRap22:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian fiddle?
Actually I did some research and there is hard copy material about Canadian fiddle music in Boston so I will add per your suggestion. But an independent article is due also on Quebecois fiddle I don't think I am necessarily the mot qualified author however.
GeoBardRap21:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will also find Scandinavian fiddling in and around Boston, along with Scottish and Irish, but I don't have a source to back that up. Mostly tunebooks and fakebooks in this house, with occasional skimpy commentary on fiddling styles. In real life, I need to learn that foot-jigging thing that Québecers and Cape Breton Islanders do in their chairs while fiddling. In Wikipedia, I will keep my eyes open, and pitch in when I can. Be well, __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bill you know that is what I am doing is just typing in the content and citation from fiddle tune collection books I have. That is the way to do this thing. It would be awesome if you could type in on one of the fiddle pages the references and any factoids from the books. I am using Reiner and Ferrell as you may have noticed. Which what kind of books do you have? Any Down East? I can't find any written evidence of Scandinavians in Boston they seem to be in the Midwest. Hey why don't we start a WikiProject on Fiddling it is actually pretty easy and would help to get all of these pages organized.GeoBardRap23:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bits in Brody's Fiddler's Fakebook fall in the category of "skimpy commentary" in my opinion, as accurate as hasty generalities can be. Dave Reiner is a pretty accomplished fiddler, and can stir up a nice swinging sound at the drop of a hat. Down East, I don't know. Mid-coast and China Lakes area is about as far as I've ever gotten to Maine. Ya, sure, Scandinavians have settled in the midwest, but when I last looked (more than a few) years ago there was a thriving set of Scandinavian-style American fiddlers in Boston, gammaldans kind of stuff. Probably still there.
I would be willing to be a casual contributor to a Fiddling WikiProject, but my attendance can sometimes be spotty. As you may know, organizing fiddlers can be like herding cats. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I thought I checked for it maybe it did not populate where I looked. I suppose the Epidemiology-stub proposal is in better shape anyway.GeoBardRap01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
WW: I have created related pages and a book on DCPP and am so burned out now that I need to take a break and work on music related topics. I greatly appreciate you buffing that page up the topic greatly deserves expansion. I would be honored if you would collaborate on any of the other nuclear power WMF entities I have created here and at WB so please do edit boldly! Thanks again. GeoBardRap23:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting.
This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated.
We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words".
This is a Wikipedia:Don't take the bait moment. That user has been harshly admonished long ago for deleting images without warning or explanation. The points you make are generally good but in this matter those items you listed are not visible to the naked eye in that picture. Please don't feed this guy he is WP:Wikilawyering and this new development plays right into that vicious cycle. Seriously, can you look at that bridge and tell it is curved? And you yourself pointed out that ....(to be continued.)GeoBardRap02:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a picture of a plain vanilla violin. I think it is excess baggage in the Old-Time fiddle article, and I don't care about the history of the fellow who removed it. I myself pointed out that "we can do better," and now I will point out that there is no deadline. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
YES, EXACTLY, WP:DEADLINE, and it was not proper to delete that as it is a photo of a fiddle and there is no better photo of a fiddle at Commons. I am not going so far as to say it was tantamount to vandalism, but it was not an edit which was helpful. I would have expected you would see that stirring up contentiousness rather than comradely deliberation was the predictable outcome of that edit series. ( I am not speculating as to motive and I assume good faith, but it was something that needed to be brought up at Old time fiddle's talk page not made as a fait accompli brute force edit. Yes I get your point that if one squints and looks real hard on a full screen blowup of that JPG on an expensive monitor, they can probably make an educated guess that the curvature of that bridge is straight off the bench for sale as a violin to the general market. But the edit I objected to was on the basis that the photo was of a photo of a "modern violin", as though a modern violin is not, in fact, a fiddle. Rather than support me on that point, you changed the dialogue to what is really a red herring, which is the issue of the bridge.
Regarding the bridge, that photo is not taken at the proper angle to show the bridge curvature. Someone who already knows what to look for might surmise the bridge has not been flattened, especially if they go to full screen with the original resolution. It is barely detectable. The photo is the forest, not the tree. Please upload photographs of your bridges, I am sure you, like myself, have several lying around in a drawer somewhere, with varying degrees of curvature. Fiddle is supposed to be about fun and community. "Let them that have ears listen". Let's not take ourselves too damn seriously. This is not a debate on the Israel-Palestine disupute, the nature of the Trinity or the homoousios. We're talkin' fiddles here.GeoBardRap02:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think about how the hair approaches the string, it is exactly a proper angle for gauging bridge top curve. When someone comes to me complaining that they have a hard time hitting the A string by itself, the first thing I do is look from the side, to see how much air there is under the string and above the D and E (assuming standard Italian tuning.) I know workers who would reach for their bridge template instead, but on a bridge from an unknown source, I would usually rather work with what's in front of me, with what the player has gotten used to, and what the player likes, than try to impose some notion of what is "correct."
Even at the resolution of that picture, it is plain to see that the bridge wasn't cut using the edge of a CD to gauge the curve, to take it to one commonly-seen extreme. The real issue with that picture, in my view, is that it overwhelms the "instrumentation" section, and hangs down into the "See also" and "References" like a random unexplained afterthought.
I see a picture of HHDL at the top of this page. You might consider examining what it is here that you are holding on to so tightly. I don't take Wikipedia edits personally (for the most part; once every two or three years it can get under my skin more than I like) but choose to focus on putting up and maintaining encyclopedia articles of acceptable quality. __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dave
I never said you were not in good faith, I just have an issue with deletionism in general. I am offline in thirty seconds and will not be available online until tommorow. I am sure any major edits can wait until we have an opportunity to discuss them at that time thanks. GeoBardRap03:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you think the person on the receiving end of comments such as "unhelpful", "don't feed this guy", "he is WP:Wikilawyering", "tantamount to vandalism", "stirring up contentiousness", is supposed to feel? I note that you yourself write "Separate the people from the problem" and "Focus on Interests, Not Positions" at the top of your talk page, so I hope you can manage to focus on the subject matter and wording at issue rather than editors' personalities in future. You might also want to read WP:OWN, as whether or not you agree with my opinions, I am also working to ensure that this and other Wikipedia articles become cohesive encyclopedia entries. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, as always, it is the actions, and the particular action at issue, which is the concern, and nowhere were there any remarks posted about anyone's "personalities". But yes perhaps my remarks seemed a bit caustic. Not is not entirely directed toward the deletion of a perfectly servicable photo, without discussion, it is to some degree a result of frustration with what is characterized as "deletionism" at WP in general. But you are not responsible for the over zealous deletions performed by others, nor do I assert that there is a "Deletionist Conspiracy". But there is a widely recognized problem at WP of parties with specific content expertise feeling overwhelmed by litigious edits which burn up work based upon legalistic, literal application of broad WP guidelines. To the extent you are perhaps caught in some cross fire here, I apologize if you felt inhibited in your good faith intention of weeding out photographs which you feel do not pass muster. But the photo of the fiddle is the best one avaliable at this time and remember that the deletion followed hot on the heels of the prior deletion, which could have been avoided with at 200px parameter. So at the end of the day, we were both somewhat aggressively asserting our respective viewepoints. But look how nicely HHDL's visual presence is cooling this out. I don'[t think there is any lingering animosity and I don'[t think we will have any problem collaborating in a constructive manner. Someone somewhere said that your opponents and critcs are your best friends because they challenge you to rise to the occasion and respond to what substance there is to their points of critique. So we now have consensus that the photo in question needs replacement with a more authentically Old Time set up...so it is a net win for all concerned. So thanks for keeping a courteous tone, and I take your point, and I again apologize if my admittedly sharp remarks subjected you to a momentary annoyance. I am sure I would have felt annoyed at such articulate criticism, and I try to remember always that it is easier to criticize than to take criticism, just as it is easier to delete than to find and create good content. So, going forward, I hope we can agree to keep the channels of communication open; BTW, I did look at a few random portions of your talk, not any kind of major lurk, but out of that random sample, yes, as you noticed, I picked up a contested photo deletion, and I don't mean to escalate the importance of it by any means, it is water under the bridge and for all I know you were in the right on that issue. But I want to share that I noticed you actually had done a rather courageous edit, reverting what looked like an attempt by an interested party to cover up some sort of, tantamount to some sort of corporate crime. Whether or not that is an accurate characterization, i do appreciate that you were willing to stand up,albeit anonymously, to a pretty brazen attempt to white wash a publicly known event. For that, alone, I am more than happy to extent complete benefit of the doubt and confidence in your good faith. So, we are on to options for mutual gain...
Please, take a look
Hello, I really appreciated your edits in Eido Tai Shimano page, which have been in place for more than two months. However today I noticed that the editor Tao2911 has done some major changes there again, which make this page bias. Even top of page was changed. I reverted the page to your version adding only recent new info and reference which he also used. Now I see that he reverted this again. Many editors in the past have argued with Tao291. He is connected to the group of people who were damaged Shimano in blogs and and adding over period of months not accepted sources and with his own interpretations. I do not want to engage in discussion with him anymore, but we cannot allow this page to be owned by him and as it is now I do not think it reflects truth. Is there any chance, that you as senior editor can help this to stop. Should he be allowed to edit this page after his history of actions in Wikipedia? Please, help. Thank you.Spt51 (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These things take time and they take patience. If there is a factual, verifiable series of events which detract from the reputation of the subject of a BLP, WP policy on the issue has a very substantial set of precedents. You will need to budget the time to study them and become aware of
(5) procedures for other third party interventions which are technically not arbitrations. Among the options at disposal of wikipedians are
((5.a) administrative lock on the page to prevent edits
(5.b) temporary disciplinary blocks against individual persons who commit inappropriate edits
(5.c) permanent blocks against individual persons (user ID and IP number) pertaining to particular topics or articles
(5,d) stay away orders, which are the same as 5.c except that they pertain to edits on userpages and talkpages.
Please note that with BLP's there are separate rules which allow for rapid intervention since BLP's may bvecome actionable libel. This is a separate avenue of
(6) civil actions. These include some states which are false light defamation states however I don't think this is at issue here. In pursuing this issue, one thing you might look at is the extent to which the statement with regard to the incident is balanced in terms of (a) number of words.line or sentences dedicated to the incident compared to other topics, such as the teachings, other elements of the biography, etc. (b) you have the right to demand exactness and (c) that reliable secondary sources are used for assertions. Note that with regard to BLP's, you have the right to immediately delete unsourced possibly slanderous statements, and that everyone is subject tot he 3RR.
I glanced at Tao's user page and it doesn't seem that he is some kind of mean spirited and reckless vandal which means that, insofar as he or she presents the objected-to perspectives in a gentlemanly manner in accord with WP policies and guidelines, you will have to summon your best mindfulness in presenting a counterveiling approach to the article. If this case ends up before ArbComm, every little bit of sarcasm or annoyed tone of voice in your edits will come back to haunt you and if your opponent is cool calm and collected, you are sunk. So observe detachment - reread the Bhagavid Gita chapters 1-2 if you must - and remember to breath. Samsara is nirvana, right? So hang onto your bodhichitta, it and only it will never fail you. (Clinging to a heroic rescue phantasy well, we dealt with that in the Four Noble Truths, did we not?)Breathe. Be self aware; can you identify edits which were contrary to policy? If so, present them with the "diff" view, like this.
You undoubtedly have figured out that if the events are uncontroverted and expressed in valid secondaries, it is not likely that there is any way that the bare facts of the historical record will be kept off of WP. But what can be done is that
those facts can be kept in perspective rather than be presented with an unfair emphasis.
Rather than try to change what is in the article or lobby for removal of content, think about positive things you can add to the topic. For instance, Eido Shimano Roshi has publication credits. Consider writing a review of those books, which would be secondary, and posting it somewhere that WP editors can use to write up a WP article on that book. Or, if you are a good enough researcher to find secondary sources which discuss ESR's writings, you can start an article on those books in which you present, in encyclopedic form, a presentation of what the secondary literature has to say about Eido's books.
You can find themes in Eido's affirmative teachings and develope WP articles, WikiSource content, or a Wikiversity course based upon those themes
Take solace in that there are many otherwise productive individuals in various fields of endeavor who have succumbed to temptation and have an incident which has occured which they regret or would have handled differently. These things are as they are. ESR once said that his favorite line in the Lord's Prayer was "as it is". And so, the article, the historical record are "as they are". But Dharma continues...GeoBardRap20:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Militant atheism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
No comment. I don't have a dog in that fight and I don't advise anyone to bet on the outcome. 22:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Your sense of humor is not unappreciated.
At first I chuckled, now I laughing out loud. Yes, this is not the place for "hagiographic dissertations[s]" Nor for "burnishing the image"...of and here I am again audibly laughing ..."dearest gurus". Witty. I don't have a problem with the suggestion that my irenic remarks were taken as bias, and if you seem a bit combative to other editors, that might be because you are boldly correcting slacker mishaps. Make them do their homework. But do you really want to write me off as a potential "neutral" [?] mediator? WP is not the place for original research, but it is a place for collaboration and a tone of collegiality is generally more productive than adversarial argumentation. It might be better not to burn any bridges.
FYI I am a fan of Aitken's translations of Basho and also of Taoism, in general, which I have been drifting steadily towards as various Buddhist sects disappoint in practice despite theories of compassion and Right Conduct. In the Tao Te Ching, I particularly appreciate the advice that often the best action is non-action.
Cheers. 23:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Valfontis
Thanks for the start on Foghorn Stringband. Yes, a bit unconventional.
I was wondering what would be the quick and dirty method of getting a good photo in there?
We also need a photo at Benny Williams. Somebody told me it was legal to take a promo shot at lo res if the artist was deceased, because you dont have an opportunity to take one anymore.
I know Sammy and Caleb and the boys would not mind so if we get to using the band logo can an email to me suffice for permission or does the email have to go to admins at wiki commons or what?
Maybe you have a photo you took??
I have a flyer for Foghorn Leghorn on my hard drive. I wonder if that is legal to use?
Meanwhile, would you mind marking [{Benny Williams]] as patrolled? It is still yellow-blocked and that makes me nervous...it would suit me to be auto-patrolled. Wonch take a look at this backlog.
00:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Below text copied from GeoBard's user page for my convenience
Thanks for the start on Foghorn Stringband.
I was wondering what would be the quick and dirty method of getting a good photo in there?
Go see them. Take a photo. Upload it Commons. ::grin::
See if there are any free use images on Flickr
Write the band, get permission to use a photo, deal with the WP:OTRS stuff
We also need a photo at Benny Williams. Somebody told me it was legal to take a promo shot at lo res if the artist was deceased, because you dont have an opportunity to take one anymore.
I'm not good at image copyright stuff, so you'll have to ask someone else.
I know Sammy and Caleb and the boys would not mind so if we get to using the band logo can an email to me suffice for permission or does the email have to go to admins at wiki commons or what?
Again, I'm not good at that stuff, but generally you don't need permission to use a logo on an article about the company (band) whose logo you are using.
Maybe you have a photo you took??
Nope, haven't seen 'em for a while.
I have a flyer for Foghorn Leghorn on my hard drive. I wonder if that is legal to use?
Again, I don't know. See WP:COPYRIGHT for a start.
Meanwhile, would you mind marking Benny Williams as patrolled? It is still yellow-blocked and that makes me nervous...it would suit me to be auto-patrolled. Wonch take a look at this backlog.
I don't mark things patrolled unless I have time to clean them up also, and this article, as you noted, needs some copy editing. And I'm not a subject matter expert on music genres, so I don't feel qualified to clean up your backlog. Sorry!
I appreciate your detailed response, but they make me feel grumpy.
From booking agent yes but quoting a secondary. I thought we were long past notability. They are one of the most influential bands in the State of Oregon. Gee whiz. I am glad at least you didn't template it. I think I will stay away from starting articles on bands for a while. Copied from Valfontis (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really play OT much, but thanks for asking. In recent memory I've tried a little bit of ADAE (Boatmen Row, IIRC) and some GDAD (Bonaparte's Retreat) but 99.9% of the time I'm in good old GDAE. Prims, either medium or heavy gauge are well-spoken of, and have a name for tolerating a lot of cross-tuning. I played a set of those for a while, and they were acceptable. YMMV. So much depends on the individual fiddle and the player's style. Lately I've been sticking with Tonica or Zyex on the violin, and Zyex or Helicore on the viola. Some love Helicores, and others can't abide them.
My own bridge has a standard curve to it. Some people really do use a CD for a template, for a 60 mm radius. That is awfully flat. My "fiddle" bridge template has about a 53 mm radius, but it really comes down to what the player likes. There is a whole lot going on with a fiddle bridge; making a change to the top curve means a lot of other changes need to happen, especially around the thickness profile near the top.
Fellow showed me a trick one time, where you lay a small flat card across the outer strings and under the middle two just in front the bridge, and another card on top of the middle two. The cards should be parallel. If they aren't, you can file a notch down or build another one up until they are. The real trick is knowing when to stop. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about Prims or Helicores. I did in the past and they broke but...Dominants??? Good for sweet Irish airs but not necc. Hoedowns? Nah. But I got by with Tonicas, ironically! As a hybrid. They needed the break in but after that they sounded nice for fiddle and that Bach stuff too. Nuthin like cat gut, tho. Hope you can look at Benny Williams and Foghorn Stringband they need help and I am going offline.GeoBardRap03:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you should specify what specifics you disagree with rather than do a blanket delete. I actually agree with you regarding the suggestion of writing off-WP to create secondaries; it is IMO a good idea but one that should be expressed in a separate space and subject to RFC. That was too bold on my part and actually I thought so after I logged off. Thank you for catching that so quickly.
But there is no need to nuke the entire edit. There is a glaring ommission of trad music and by glancing at your very nicely laid out user page I can see that you are into an entirely different kind of music so you probably won't have the kind of sensitivity to the topic that trad music specialists might. The bottom line is that WikiProject Songs is really oriented to contemporary mainstream and "modern" genres and is not oriented to bluegrass, even, much less trad and folk songs which are better understood at other projects such as RootsMusic, etc. But since the Songs project proports to have in its purview the broad full topic of songs it is incumbent upon the project to do justice, as far as it is capable, to trad. I am happy to help fill in the gaps.
My primary objective is to save everybody time from edit wars from so-called "deletionists" who apparently derive gratificatio from deleting perfectly decent articles on topics they know absolutely nothing about; my motive is not to shake things up at the Songs Project.
So I will ask that you going forward don't do summary blanking of entries unless you feel that each and every item in the entry is so dubious as to need prior clearance, and if so, please state what the specific beef is rather than using a brute force erasure. In this cas, I can understand your motivation because the surplusage about writing secondary material is potentially controversial so, no hard feelings. But please don't intermingle that separate issue if, going forward, you wish to discuss some edits. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this request.GeoBardRap23:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool. But then I don't know that it helps establish notability. I am trying to keep Foghorn Stringband secure. I know they are a prominent, perhaps the most prominent exemplar of the style in the Pacific Northwest.GeoBardRap23:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you follow the criteria at WP:BAND Allmusic can be one of the "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". Although several of your sources e.g. The Times, are "reliable sources", the coverage is only "trivial", so does not prove notability; whilst several others are "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves ... including manufacturers' advertising" which includes record company catalogues etc. The article would also benefit from an info-box - the previous one was deleted because it was for a musical genre not a band. I often struggle with "Transcluded templates", so I just copy one from a similar article and edit the entries. Arjayay (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think one could view deleted articles. Perhaps as an admin, one can do that. I am surprised anyone tried to constitute Foghorn Stringband as a genre, that seems a bit odd. Well, I am not going to sweat it. There is a strange story behind the article because, to avoid deletion, I started out building the talkpage with notability proofs using (c) material which we can't use in mainspace. Just so happens that a sort of Oregon regional specialist was online and noticed the new talk page, so he jumped in and started the article proper. I thought we were destined to be best buddies, but it seems that we are not getting on so famously as I had expected, so I will be glad if we can stay out of each other's ways. Foghorn Stringband is bombproof against a notability attack; my only concern now is that the high standard they set will be used to bully less well known bands off of WP. I suppose I have two choices: devote a good chunk of this beautiful summer indoors engaging edit wars to defend band articles, or blow it off and let WP coverage of bands go to the dogs, and let interesting musical experiments and established, lesser-known bands do without (WP coverage). Apparently some people will get their underwear in a knot if solid, talented bands get WP articles without having a long list of credits...God forbid! We wouldn't want any "garage band" types polluting the pristine purity of Wikipedia. GeoBardRap20:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I obviously wasn't clear. The previous info-box was deleted because it was about a musical genre not a band - not the previous article. The addition of the genre info-box was made in this diff:- [2] by an editor called - oh - er - um - Geofferybard. I agree WP has too many deletionists - but is happy to have articles on every Simpsons episode, almost anyone who has ever played baseball (even in their backyard), or has a walk on part in a C movie. Oh well, back to work. Arjayay (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering if there is a rule that precludes utilizing an infobox for general background related to an article or if the deletion is based on your personal viewpoint?GeoBardRap18:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is no legal basis as far as I know, in WP policies. Background infoboxes are actually better than mere links because (1) they print and (2) they can be viewed on line without clicking through, allowing, for instance, compare and contrast. Many projects have info boxes and as far as I know no one cited any policy to the contrary. See for instance how [[3]] uses a background infobox...GeoBardRap16:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This week, our first multilingual featured article contest was announced. We are aiming to improve the articles on the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights to featured or good status in English and other languages. Prizes for winners will be a gift package from the National Archives including a book of your choice or a tote bag, and other swag, plus, of course, a special barnstar.
August 6 backstage pass
Plans are in the works for a meetup and backstage pass event at the National Archives II facility in College Park, MD. There will be a regular social meetup, a discussion with Dominic about WP:NARA, a tour of the building by NARA staff, and then time for a scanathon and editathon in the research rooms and library until the building closes at 5 pm. Keep your schedules open!
The National Archives' Archival Recovery Team (ART) is a team of law enforcement agents and archivists who investigate NARA's lost and stolen documents. They have received media attention ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) and would like to request an article be written for the team, if Wikipedians deem it notable. It is hoped that making more information about the group available on Wikipedia will increase public awareness of the documents they are seeking to recover.
Ongoing
Today's Document challenge
The Today's Document challenge is an opportunity for Wikipedians to get their work related to National Archives holdings spotlighted on Archives.gov and the National Archives' tumblr. Each day the National Archives selects a document related to the day's date to showcase. The goal is to get articles related to the selected documents on the main page in ""Did You Know...?" the same day that the National Archives features the document. Alternatively, other appropriate articles related to National Archives holdings not already selected will be used for new documents of the day by NARA staff and posted to their tumblr.
Wikisource
WP:NARA has a sister WikiProject on Wikisource, WS:NARA. On Wikisource, editors transcribe, proofread, and arrange documents. This helps to make little-known documents more discoverable, or well-known documents more searchable, and improves accessibility. See the files being worked on. If you are new to Wikisource and would like to participate, there are experienced Wikisourcerors willing to be mentors.
New contributions
A list of some recent contributions to the project:
The National Archives has hundreds of thousands of digitized documents in its holdings. We are working on a bulk upload to Commons of one particular cache of about 123,000 TIFF master files in the next few days! Once uploaded, these will require a massive community effort to help categorize the files on Commons and add them to articles on Wikipedia or transcribe them on Wikisource.
Inclusion in the online catalog
We are currently working on a system for including links to pages on Wikimedia projects in the National Archives online catalog. The Wikimedia projects are hosting an increasing number of transcriptions of National Archives documents and high-quality image and video files that are not available through NARA's own site. Links to these Wikimedia pages in the documents' actual catalog records will benefit the end user by providing them access to further resources about the documents, and they will also demonstrate the National Archives commitment to supporting Wikimedians' efforts.
To stop receiving this newsletter, please remove your name from the list.
I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities:
more... There is also a tool to find all our sub pages here — only for the truly curious
No merge.
This page is about geology. The other is about a plant. Talk about it more if you want but the template is an eyesore and is not helpful. Yo hablo espanol y estudiando historia de Chile mucho. Pero, en E.U. el topica es muy controversial. Por favor, hablas conmogo primero, pero no mas template. Muchas gracias amigo. GeoBardRap
Yes, but I found that the nuclear plant earthquake thingy was redundant to have a stand-alone article; I have no strong opinion on this however, so you may be right :) ¿Estudias historia de Chile? ¿Quién fué el primer presidente conservador de Chile? ;P -- Diego talk00:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yo no se, exactamente. Diego Portales, en actualidad, pero Prieto, por technicalidad. Mi Espanol es muy terrible, lo siento. Pero you quiero en.wikipedia tiene mas articulos y detailles do Nueva Cancione, Violetta Parra y [[Gracias ala Vida]. Actualamente, mi especial topica es la musica y cultura de Chile, tambien, Victor Jara y Pablo Neruda.GeoBardRap19:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consult Black's Law Dictionary and limit your deletion proposals to pages which actually proffer what is considered to be advice. This deletion proposal has driven me to place "SEMI-RETIRED" on my user page because it is a complete waste of time to have to argue this kind of point. I have been drilled by legal, medical and professional trainers to not proffer advice where advice is not proper and I think I know enough of what I am doing that I can say that a list of emergencies does not constitute "advice". Please don't pursue the deletion idea it is a bad idea and will sour your prospects for administratorship if you appear to be over-zealously prosecuting what you think are policy viols. Thanks for being chill about this, consider it to be a trout slap. Yours is not the only edit activity which is responsible for this, but I am semi-retired from WP because I just don't have time for these arguments. GeoBardRap23:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-Retired
I know that there are plenty of people who have all the time in the world to WikiLawyer, so I am curtailing my contributions at WP. I am no longer particularly interested in providing new contributions of the sort which I have provided in the past, at least, not at this time. Cheers, my friends.GeoBardSemi-retired00:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I pray this was a quick semi-retirement and that you hang around and put up with the many trials which are part and parcel of contributing to an anarchistic system which has grand ideals but sometimes is indistinguishable from The Wild West. I havent closely looked at everything, but you're content work is nice and in a neglected topical area. When you copy from another source, please always show that is copied text and provide a reference for it. I like the {{cquote}} template as it is very obvious that the text is copied. e.g. [12]
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backstage projects until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Buff up any up my pages I really appreciate your style - no wreckage, just subtle improvements. Much appreciated, and a cut above the typical juandiced, hyper critical WP editor.GeoBardSemi-retired00:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop by anytime. Coffee's brewin'....01:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.
The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as 'no ownership of articles', and particularly 'no original research', will not necessarily apply."
WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"
A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here.
I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.
On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.
^ Burton Richter, Director Emeritus of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and Matthew Wald, reporter with the Washington Bureau of The New York Times |Videoconference discuss the unfolding of events in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSvwwfqyguc%7CApril 11, 2011| 0:36
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.
this made me laugh! Yes, it seems that is customary on Wikipedia, but I don't really get too worked up over it. I do appreciate the suggestions and time you've provided to the discussion. I feel that it's sound reasoning to fork the content eventually, a rename would merely be an interim solution. Nightw 09:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
to High 
September 2011FROM THE EDITORAn Historic Milestone
3,000th Article Tagged
_At_Launch_Approaching_End_of_Ways_-_NARA_-_5900076_-_1915_edit.jpg)
