User talk:Geofferybard

This user may have left Wikipedia. Geofferybard has not edited Wikipedia since 12 March 2014. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

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

view · edit Frequently asked questions 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.

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

This user is the owner of multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy.

User talk:Geofferybard/ArchiveIMGIssues

User talk:Geofferybard/Archive1NLS

User talk:Geofferybard/ArchiveSBot

http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/SoftSecurity 

http://www.worldcat.org

[SUMMARY - Heads up to move content was sent by ]

Ravendrop 08:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

at

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humanitarian_response_to_the_2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami&action=historysubmit&diff=419203425&oldid=41920274

But eventually we will need more detail. Please weigh in on the Talk page proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Humanitarian_response_to_the_2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami#Proposed_sectional_organization:_Major_Responders.2C_or_Large_entries_intermingled.3F

^{[1] [2] [3]}

Good one here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humanitarian_response_to_the_2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami&action=historysubmit&diff=419203425&oldid=419202744

Very good catch - this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humanitarian_response_to_the_2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami&diff=next&oldid=419203425

reeks POV POV as if...a tip of the hat to WWWG.

Geofferybard (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geofferybard. You have new messages at Flinders Petrie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Geofferybard. You have new messages at Flinders Petrie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

<--- New one

Owner of a TUSC account!

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]

Yeah I agree the server jammed on me I had it taken care of. Geofferybard (talk) 22:59, 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]

Gold Hat. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Flooded?)

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.

Plain fact is an earthquake and a tsunami are two different events.Geofferybard (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - is the collapse of buildings due to an earthquake a separate event?--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humanitarian_response_to_the_2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami&action=historysubmit&diff=418955003&oldid=418926643

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.

Feel free to WP:REFACTOR after you see all that added to mainspace, if I don't get to it first. Cheers.Geofferybard (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Question_on_title You make a good point but it is not clear what you yourself believe .Geofferybard (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Question_on_title Did you consider the full panoply? (Emergency and Disaster)

I created E.ON Kernkraft GmbH. It was deleted. How can one stop such content deletions? NuclearEnergy (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 18 NuclearEnergy (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

The article Young Conservatives of Texas has been nominated for deletion at AfD. Your input as to whether or not this article meets notability standards is invited. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO notability has never been an issue with that site but the relevant tag would be and probably will continue to be {{multiple issues|advert=April 2011}}

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)

BTW, you might want to fix your signature. It should be [[User:Geofferybard|Bard गीता]]. MrKIA11 (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

 
.--Kumioko (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism#John.27s_Point_.283.29:_Is_administrative_action_ever_.22vandalism.22_2

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_open_letter_project/WMF_Board_March_2010

Thank you in advance for your consideration thereof. Please feel free to reply here or at the above link, at your convenience.Bard गीता 22:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 backlog elimination drive update Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Here is your mid-drive newsletter. Participation 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! Your drive coordinators – S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk), Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• 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 have moved the article draft from your talk page to User:Geofferybard/Monastic silence; a talk page primarily serves for communication with other users. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:47, 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 गीता 17:29, 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 गीता 17:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. --JaGa^talk 18:26, 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 गीता 18:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to get an understanding of "primacy". Also, you can drop a line at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation if you want more information about WP:TWODABS. --JaGa^talk 19:01, 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 गीता 19:06, 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. --JaGa^talk 19:22, 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 गीता 20:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that policy. Believe me, if I thought this case qualified, I would not have made the moves. You can always start a discussion at WP:RM to move Dark Circle to Dark Circle (comics) to make way for a dab and see what the community says. --JaGa^talk 20:55, 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 गीता 01:19, 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. --JaGa^talk 06:04, 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.

Remember accusing me of COI when all this started? No hard feelings, though. --JaGa^talk 23:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. --JaGa^talk 23:59, 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. --JaGa^talk 23:59, 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.) --JaGa^talk 19:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 गीता 01:02, 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. --JaGa^talk 19:19, 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 गीता 19:23, 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. --JaGa^talk 19:51, 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 गीता 20:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 गीता 20:07, 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 गीता 03:15, 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 गीता 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 गीता 21:31, 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. – Adrignola talk 23:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Sounds like good advice. Didn't know upload was enabled for users at WP. Bard गीता 00:20, 30 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]

Thanks

I am not terribly fond of afd but yes i was in that case reluctantly thinking along those lines.Bard गीता 23:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This template placed by this user.

Does the BASEPAGENAME populate automatically? Doesn't seem like it works right.Bard गीता 23:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)===[reply]

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)

BINGO! There's my answer.03:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

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 गीता 02:16, 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. Nightw 09:39, 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)

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)

My head hurts right now. I need to rest a day or two, then I'll look at it. After all, I am supposedly in a "wikibreak". --Enric Naval (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and me both. Be at peace, brother.Bard गीता 03:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(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 गीता 04:01, 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]

• 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 गीता 03:26, 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, Jojalozzo 00:20, 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. Jojalozzo 10:52, 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. Jojalozzo 14:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

(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 गीता 21:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 गीता 22:11, 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]

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 गीता 22:04, 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 गीता 23:52, 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 गीता 17:15, 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 गीता 04:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that you think has a pressing need to be written? --Guerillero | My Talk 23:05, 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]

I will look through a few things. The Issue is that the image needs to be representative of houselessness. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took and own (c)

http://homelessinsb.org/wikis_view.cfm?id=170

http://homelessinsb.org/wikis_view.cfm?id=168

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Homelessness#Support_the_Project:_Please_List_Your_Name_Here.21

I think a Portal is a great idea.

I don't know that I quite see the point of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warming_center&action=historysubmit&diff=432082215&oldid=431726321 just wondering if it is better or not...

Bard गीता 23:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

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 गीता 17:37, 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... :) Catfish Jim (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 गीता 04:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geofferybard. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 16:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[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)

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]

Doesn't the section on popular culture trivialize the whole matter?08:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

hQIMA+DblIy497DOARAAk8c7K8X40tEViofczVlZv69cNz0assG5i6hvrEAwiz/w vSCO7e64k+DPNfUctS/G7V1kbEQZhi0+NsZ/MnIfdT58gsnIf/KDNZfsCFUi0qky 19dINq/AzQDYKmSOkEcdgi2p6tTuymFHEPbKPTtaUK8hJbh9iolPf3LHWGkyS3QQ EbNGgKstUXG0e50pTv+VY+9u4DUDhRFKw8HW5EZT7TADRqnD+XACH4j1tchVoQtH oKXEzf1m5/PtMGXNI76/YG5Vfoq5UbkpKYCpTswnWPyVXJT01aG8CYwkEWc8Dd0Q KVLuDl1PqwiDCoNV34RJjFqJUpzr2r1L//V49RSh4EkK0s9JDZFlsthcmO5b7dw4 wv8HaRV/oXyJCKU9A2ZUVX54vAcrW/CxRPc+NoYgc1pEMiqpM54uaSiumPphMSbW 4b7oH0sQFWCg4umV0yhxartXj3OFlfb7N5jXTCxidCAC6WozJNwxLLT1GFMBYiWx iDWaMaSLBgT5w/0JoT/jTvy2CB9dOC8XiF8oRex1RQQjt2Y7hAlmCy96pXLhovDp ivtcKrZvy8h/4yEfIQG+lK6VQne9I/EXWmrWP5lljOYUsFnEsb+90Muo/Xi1cAUD LEEcPdHE36Jwja063OAySLfPkgrW+Jr4jPBLPtKDL9TZcbL7OIotyWbLOJHOC//S 6gEEXW50s1nPZN7CsqNSlZirFlWmztMqIhbBXfjV5jsXAbEBEe2Z5bdZ1heNCaYI c2xP7l0DqCD/7gNZAAVwrtQj8a/HF0bWB1caWmgSfwdDFPvDkFvSwVyUX/Wn85UE nQxIqipcDLey9Uyhk1eEtNq+2ealMJx3rm8CL21UXbHh152HHsVN3ABA8IPmDOg7 JYc9CVvcUta1ymm/0Vtb0Gs9BTwGNPKPVhcF7D4MBahMDDfE1sY54xcrPlOm1cYP eDGIQAedzW9+/Np8T07HgrcmRfCsBCM+Kj0lL+dvjBDXJl1ah/gZ/muUOxKjXHyJ k5CIyVqyW85EZGcOLzd2jJlZRoCMEU6S6VQU79Ds351lpOTqYWw8B+Uz0etJVhZR ovYVbKnCjxOjr9jReRZe+RU5XllY9tkKo+hk+Od9zR4fb0ITB0lwfMm866IT3B3/ fDKg4S13By4I2yNWVjezWu8/AvYpwaxtkYGZSZ/wXPuQug7rbPsE1nJoj/3AYfjr kaqtWcsBV4f8YSp7LBzOfvW0DvykrlxuO5zAaiW2QoCaBF5SXTO2vyqfhF4CXJAs 07a3j8GAig+TiuhExW54aNMtLPvoSusjTwiNhXgLpBFjuhpsLqS+nTOe38+tEHaq /PKvZQnFvzxFkSgNcsz2NThGaYDBcUYFBifm5PIfgAJqwwfS8KyYx1tnPK3ljRNI vve/KuDpNDCbpJz5k/qPM876yZYJGLNTkM/ng385/P1WMpQEhx6DqkKRDdUHsAQ2 UiP5gDuk3mzD+qVOYqKlzWS0oNy9vN/duscV5Fj+eAJpWXIjflonY+eYI3ZAtzlL xAjrBPuxI/ZcnBRhDl1/KtNjX3/nZ8ND7UlPXTiplcyS3ph91agjT177qSnwO91A dDmGJ4NgWjd/orXQV6I1Xr+/5iftHaXCV5FtQKs8mDDqaO/hnH4OgDgsb4HZmuD9 i3vMIOzefAVcViLQPc47OY6jpigGEfF6JRNA0LVU26MuT1ZOlmkJ65FCym+jo1Dz ytrkA7GODQ0igTDwBcXyGsQHQNp7/8C6UHwMqeNcZ4wh9PbUs7iyPMPw8U8utBJb A4hF2Hz+n3gYaK4y73v7uDspqXN41rRufoB9vZxq/9fayYOTsZbP0Q3yYibFmIJM XxJMiIATD4kRTubBslyCwKn10x1VAtfaYVzp/XwOXvTc56qvj/5eSCeMuNtKBUcu H3fMUgOHCyR5Ow2yKjA27f7fihCOeNacUBGbJKChTZKP0jitkgQ0mAN2Pyb9dwW+ g8gGQRXwxcqzHQuYxTAE+M6wPXHR4uR6JwMz9OsImaKQVDsEsmXZT+56Jg+7Ze9a X5gAVTlebbB+HRkx9iXSLkmzoAIvqul+6YKlTUwv+AfjBBd3z7kfa5QF7nUfysWr Q0Ay1+NkZmYbM2uCLGKVpQGCFyBVKGGBcFUbZS1cNKg1IsbhWoDDMRLzQVA5ybo4 +9dPK/pvO7iR/UPqwzzF0bdmOg25Pf8CNVPyajMhcvwIJEWNv2Dhd3mPKNxvwbTY 3Yh+9RMCqKJG7g7DHXFXNSzEjHQLuDpvaKHnLFC6S5U/CjR+MXuSsGySxUo7wC2d OVdK5V8= =WHl8