User talk:Utahredrock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

ɵWelcome!

Hello, Utahredrock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Alai 06:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Comment on God Committee

Jim -- I figured out how to do this! Anyway -- you're right, the God Squad is a colloquial name for the 7- member committee that reviews possible ESA exemptions. I saw the name in 'Environmental Law and Policy' by Salzman and Thompson -- an excellent book by the way. I have also seen the God Squad refered to in law journals, so this colloquialism seems to be at least somewhat widespread. (do a google search of 'God Squad' and 'endangered species act' if you're not convinced) I'm certainly open to debate as to how prominent of a place the name should have in the article -- it might be a good idea to begin a whole new article and look at cases where the Committee has ruled for exemptions -- this will get into spotted owl territory and get quite controversial.

Anway -- what do you say that we continue this on the discussion page of the article? -- that way we may get more folks involved. Just a thought, I'm a newcomer here.

Matt

[edit] My original name

Utahmountainman was my original name on Wikipedia, though I think I made earlier contributions under no name.--Utahredrock 04:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Moves

Hi there, and (once again!) welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed your request for a move to Confederacy of Fools and did so, as this clearly seemed purely like as technical issue, and nothing controversial. Note that you can perform such moves yourself, just click on the "move" tab that should appear when you're logged in, and at the article in question. I've also added a 'cleanup' tag to the article; I hope you don't take this amiss, as it seems to me to be a very nice article -- I've been here for months and haven't written that much new text at a gulp. :) Rather, I just think it suffers a possible 'tone' worry, as it indeed seems somewhat to take the attitude of a review of the book. That's probably straying into original research and point of view warning bell territory. Ideally such an article would confine itself to the purely factual and indisputable (and undisputed), and those opinions on the book that can be attributed to "notable" critics and commentators. I'm sure this can be done without any major overhaul of content, though. Perhaps I can help out if there are any policy or technical issues you'd like input on. Alai 07:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Note This is in reference to one of my first articles in relation to the Enron scandal and Kurt Eichenwald's book Conspiracy of Fools.--Utahredrock 04:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katrina

In reply to [1]. The FEMA disaster declaration information for Alabama (for example) is here. In addition to a "major disaster" declaration, there is now an "emergency" declaration [2], which gives FEMA broader authority and releases more federal funding. Similar declarations were made for all four states most affected (FL, AB, MS, LA).

As for your question about the "size at landfall" of Katrina, a few sources showed a radius of 200 miles from the eye for the hurricane-force winds, meaning an area of some 120,000 miles was potentially enclosed by the hurricane. Fortunately landfall quickly weakens a tropical cyclone. --Dhartung | Talk 08:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment regarding "commercial" links

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia as we drive for print or DVD publication; see the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. Vsmith 14:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Note This user was referring to links I added to my very non-commercial online magazine on the Colorado Plateau. Utahredrock the magazine can be viewed at http://www.utahredrock.com it has not been maintained as I would like but links to important information on the Colorado Plateau region including both news stories and other more permanent web resources. While it is non-commercial at this stage of it's [barely] existence, it could be fairly classified as my private web site and as such I don't dispute the suggestion.--Utahredrock 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good faith errors and charges of vandalism

The following arose from the discussion regarding the request to delete the Gabrielle Giffords page I created, and defended. --Utahredrock 01:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do this. The article was going to be kept anyway. She was or is a state senator and meets WP:BIO. Removing the nom was unnecessary and uncool. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Wine Guy Talk 06:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ouch

Just saw the vandal label. Definitely don't want that.

Are you an administrator? If the Giffords article will be kept, when will the nomination for deletion be removed?--Utahredrock 15:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not an admin, but I sometimes play one on TV. I read your argument at the AfD. It is a hotly debated issue around here and I encourage you to go to Wikipedia talk:Candidates and elections and make your views known. Also, if you wish to retract a statement you made, you normally should strike it out by bracketting it with <s> and </s> rather than just deleting it. Best, JChap (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply I took this advice, however, my comments were deemed unnecessary for that page so I moved them to this page. --Utahredrock 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Initial review of wiki-vandalism

The vandalism page states:

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is usually easy to spot.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding an opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Utahredrock 02:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring links and 3RR

Look mate, I really don't have anything against you or your candidate. But you're going about things the wrong way. Your second modification to the Articles for deletion nomination, while it didn't eliminate the nom, was still immature and reflected poorly on you and your position. Also, you restored the links that I had deleted without providing an edit summary or discussing why they should be included on the talk page, as I had invited you to do. Links to blogs generally fall pretty far outside WP:EL, but if you want to make a case for their inclusion on the talk page, I encourage you to do so. You should also read the page on the three revert rule, which your last change violated. I hope you enjoy your time editing at WP, but you really need to calm down, use edit summaries, and don't climb the Washington Monument dressed as the Green Hornet. JChap (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The controversial Giffords links

Sure I am a novice, but immature and uncool? OK, maybe that too.

I like the Green Hornet on the Washington Monument image.

My intention is to provide additional sources of information on Giffords. Adding the entry on Giffords was/is merely an attempt to provide a source of information on this candidate. If I had time and knowledge of other candidates I'd be writing mini-bios on people from all sides of the political spectrum including links to sites that discuss and or endorse those candidates as that is important additional info.

Cheers.--Utahredrock 15:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Note that the descriptions of your actions does not refer to the links, but rather to your vandalism of the AfD page. JChap (talk • contribs) 12:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The big lie (RE the charge of vandalism) When something is said often and loudly enough that people start to think it must be true. For God's sake, it was a mistake . . . a mistake . . . . just a flippin mistake. --Utahredrock 16:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: How was that vandalism?

The vandalism which I reverted (see here) regarded you editing signed comments by other users, which is covered in WP:VANDAL, an official policy on the English Wikipedia (which BTW I strongly suggest you read). Another bit of suggested reading would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, in particular How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette; following these guidelines will help in getting your point across to other users. Alternativly, not following these guidelines a.) is rude b.) will annoy other editors c.) may cause the admin who closes the discussion to discount or ignore your comments.

Regarding your question as to how long the discussion will continue, AfD discussions typically go on for about five days. Unless an admin decides that there is an obvious consensus, or a clear policy issue, the discussion will likely be closed on Thursday.

I hope you will have a look at the policies and guidelines which I have suggested (as well as others) so that you'll be able to contribute more constructivly to the encyclopedia. --Wine Guy Talk 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Reply Thanks for the feedback. I want it to be clear that when I added the brackets I did so in a way that was meant to not edit what anyone had contributed, but to clarify that Giffords is simply not a current senator--and I signed them so it would be clear that I'd added a comment to someone elses comment. This was done with no intent of vandalism though it is clear that it was done improperly. Regards, --Utahredrock 02:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I have responded on my talk page. --Wine Guy Talk 10:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wine guy's comments were not vandalism

I am re-adding Wine Guy's comments, which were not a personal attack. Don't you find it a little odd that you scream "censorship" when someone deletes links to blogs from an article per established policy, yet you serially remove other people's comments from discussions when you don't like them? I have restored Wine Guy's mild remonstrance to you here:

When you participate in a discussion and wish to clarify something, you are welcome to add your own, new comment in reply to what someone else has said. You are not welcome to change the wording of other user's comments, that is vandalism. Since you apparently have not read it yet, below is the section of WP:VANDAL to which I am refering; it is under the heading Types of vandalism-

- - :::Changing people's comments - ::::Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. e.g. (unsigned comment from user) - - ::While you did not change my vote, you did add a word to comment which changed the meaning. Please be aware that Wikipedia editors tend to be very protective of their own comments in discussions; some get upset if someone else does something as simple as correct a spelling error in a talk comment. Because of this, the following template exists- - - :::I noticed that you edited someone else's comment at [[at [[{{{1}}}]]]] for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks, - - ::Please note, this is an example of sentiment regarding etiquette; your edits crossed the line into vandalism. That is not my opinion, that is a fact based on policy. On another issue of policy, user's are generally prohibited from removing vandalism warnings from their own talk pages, as you have done here. Since you had already been warned about vandalism, you could be blocked, but I assume good faith and understand that perhaps you were not aware of this policy. Now, you are aware. So, I will replace the warning originally placed by User:JChap2007 [3], and add a formal warning not to remove it. Once again, I hope you will look through the WP policies and guidelines so that you don't have difficulties in the future. --Wine Guy Talk 06:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think that quoting policy is a personal attack, you need to develop a thicker skin. You also deleted the warning template picture. That's sort of a futile attempt at ... something. You were still warned about vandalism and the history of the page will reflect that. To sum up, don't delete content, you've made some mistakes, learn from them and move on. JChap (talk • contribs) 12:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Reply Quoting from policy is indeed quite constructive. I Have no problem with that, or any of this really. I got what I did was wrong. I repeat, I got it--I just think you guys are going a little overboard here. I insist that though it was misguided it wasn't meant to be vandalism and that I am not a vandal. --Utahredrock 19:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism or not? Civil or not?

Civil behavior in life and on Wikipedia are critical. Engaging in name calling is uncivil.

One final quote drawn from the vandal policy--again: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. --Utahredrock 01:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your addition to Wikipedia talk:Candidates and elections

I've moved your new section to the bottom of the talk/discussion page. It's the wikipedia norm that new sections to talk/discussion pages be at the bottom, not the top.

May I suggest that it might be desirable for you to remove the entire posting? The talk/discussion page of an article/policy is intended to be about ways to improve that article/policy, including resolving disputed points. What you posted was a long version of your first sentence: It is critical we have more articles on politicians running for office. I agree, and I doubt anyone else disagrees, so ... the posting really isn't about improving the policy, yes? Or maybe you were being very subtle about the point you were making? Did you mean to say, for example, that stubs about relatively nonnotable candidates should be kept, as a sort of exception to wikipedia policy? If indeed you were arguing in support of certain wording in the policy as it now reads, or for certain changes in the wording, I recommend that you be more direct (by replacing much or most of what you wrote with something else). John Broughton 17:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If there is something you think I might be able to help with, please give me a holler via my talk/discussion page. John Broughton 22:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply: No problem. It's been removed, reprinting here . . .

An Inclusionist's Manifesto

It is critical we have more articles on politicians running for office, be it a municipal race, a national legislature, or an executive position. One of the great strengths of Wikipedia is the fact that it contains current and up to date information as well as obscure information that is hard to find in other places. But the key is: information. I’ve been updating myself on some Wiki-controversies. In the world of Wikia I am a devout inclusionist!

In the case of candidates it is important to note that elections are the lifeblood of the political process of a republic or democracy. One political challenger pointed out the obvious and painful truth of how the decks are stacked against challengers in democracies. Wiki doesn’t need to be an additional barrier for entry to aspiring politicians when it can be a source of information on such people.

In a democracy citizens need as many sources of information as possible on their candidates. It's a crime how much politicians have to spend to get their messages out. Candidates from all parties and levels of government are important to our political process. Suppressing information about them makes no sense. Wikipedia exists not to promote a candidate or cause but to serve as a source of information.

One of the worst Supreme Court decisions of the past fifty years was 1976’s Buckley case which limits the amount people can give to candidates. The net effect is that wealthy people can self-fund their elections leaving the average challenger begging for contributions maxed out at $4,200 per person per candidate in U.S. federal elections (primary plus general).

People need to write more articles on candidates to provide a good source of free information.

PS—Don’t knock Homestead City! I spent a few weeks there as a volunteer in the Hurricane Andrew cleanup. Those people are plenty important! (See: Wikipedia talk:Candidates and elections for the Homestead City reference.)

; )

--Utahredrock 04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabrielle Giffords Survives

My Giffords entry survived the request for deletion made by the high school student from Australia.

Also, I survived the mini-mini-controversy (see above) as well.

I learned to NEVER alter in any way (even correcting spelling!) someone else's comments.

I'd never really engaged on discussion pages before this and got a bit of a baptism.

That addition of the word former was especially pernicious! (Trying in my very dry way to be humorous.) Learned something. --Utahredrock 05:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, somewhere along the way you learned how to create and edit what is IMO a pretty good article! This woman is very notable. She was already arguably notable IMO as a former state representative and then became unquestionably notable when she became a major-party nominee for Congress. (If you care to, you can check out my comments at the candidates and elections discussion, which probably don't exactly mirror yours but would come closer to being "inclusionist" than "deletionist" IMO, which I feel is pretty consistent with my overall view of Wikipedia, which, after all, is not paper. (Note: No trees were destroyed in the creation of this comment :) Rlquall 14:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PS

As of last night 90 of the 131 articles that were nominated for deletion last Saturday, July 15, were closed. Of those ninety, 77% were deleted, only 23% survived. Of the 41 that were still open last night I am guessing a much high percentage will survive since they were harder to resolve. Won't be going back to check that theory out though! This Wiki-editing can become an obsession. --Utahredrock 16:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Another note: It appears, based on today's new articles, that over 2,000 articles per day are created. --Utahredrock 22:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A final thought on that vandal thing . . .

I was very thin-skinned with regard to being called a vandal. It would have been much better for me if I'd been engaged, even with the same verbiage as above, without the vandal warning which came across as agressively accusatory. It was a name I didn't feel was warranted and because of the graphic and the warning it made it harder for me to see the perspective of the gentleman who put it there.

I'd suggest that people talk to other's on their talk pages first, before slapping warnings on. I saw where Wiki policy recommends the use of that graphic, but the use of the warning made me see red. I don't think many of us like being labeled. Clearly true vandals are a problem. Neophytes engaging for the first time in discussions making mistakes . . . . ?

In retrospect it seems blindingly obvious that you shouldn't edit people's comments on a talk or discussion page. Yet I was so used to editing things on Wikipedia and so inexperienced with Wiki discussions/talk that I acted rashly. --Utahredrock 07:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Hey there! The best place to look for userboxes is Category:User_templates. From there, you can browse Education and other types of boxes. I see that they have several for Utah and Ohio schools. Good luck! --Aguerriero (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:User_templates

[edit] for-profit college cat

Since you're also into the for-profit college articles, I thought you'd also be interested in using the cat I created (I learned how to make it after I had already created the list): place [[Category: For-profit colleges and universities]] at the bottom (I already did it for the Argosy University article). All the best. --Bobak 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Jewish-American politicians

Please use WP:CFD to delete categories.

WP:CFD 70.51.10.10

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Giffords horse2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Giffords horse2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and Politicians

Regarding your most recent edit, on her own website it states that she's a member of "Congregation Chaverim", a Jewish synagogue. I've also found this congress.org website, this Washington Post website, and this Jewish periodical website all referring to her religion. Should I cite these sources in the article? I just thought it would be a bit messy for a template like that. johnpseudo 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, nevermind. The new "Congressman" infobox doesn't have a religion box. johnpseudo 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
As per the discussion on some of the other template pages, it is a piece of information kept by the Records office of the congress. Stating a person's beliefs does not make anyone or any article a part of the Nazi legacy. Also, I feel that to remove it would only cater to WP:POINT. Stealthound 23:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts

Not that my thoughts matter one way of the other here, however, I strongly think people's religion is a private matter whether or not they are in public life. If they choose to discuss it, that's their business, but it is nobody else's business unless someone is a religious figure or chooses to make it other people's business (beyond mere disclosure). This is especially true of those in public life. The founders of this nation wisely chose to separate church and state creating what many now would term as a secular government. The intermingling of religion and politics has a long, sad, sordid history.--Utahredrock 06:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giffords: A new controversy on the Gabrielle Giffords page

What's with your obsession of reverting this page? The infobox does nothing more than provide a brief biographical summary, so that readers do not have to search the whole page. It does NOT assert that she is already in Congress, at least not the box that I had displayed. It says that she will not take office until 2006. Instead of trying to scare me by tagging me, you should stop removing important information.VitaleBaby 06:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I appreciate you engaging in conversation rather than ignoring my commments. It may seem funny but I was wondering the same thing, what is your obsession with adding the info box? The box specifically calls her a "Member of the U.S. House of Representatives"

This is not true. Giffords is a Congresswoman-elect or a U.S. Representative-elect. We need to wait until she is sworn in before we call her a member. That's just a fact.--Utahredrock 06:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further note

I noticed you just deleted all of my comments to your user page again as well as re-adding the incorrect info box to Giffords page. Not sure what to say at this point.--Utahredrock 06:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

You act life I don't read my talk page. I check it frequently, and I delete every irrelevant comment. I'm free to change that as I wish.

The infobox is there to be orderly. The problem with the Congressman infobox is there is no way to remove the phrase "member of" from coming up in the "district" line. In contrast, the senator's box's don't include such garbage, and it's been very easy to place senator-elect within those. I'm going to put the box back, I feel it needs to be there, and, if it makes you feel better, I'll place the words representative-elect specifically in it. However, I feel that stating 'term begins 2007' was already quite sufficient.VitaleBaby 06:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise Box

I changed the infobox to a different one and clearly marked within it are the words representative-elect. Now is everybody happy? I get order, you get what you see as correctness (even though everything was clear before). (note added by user:VitaleBaby)

[edit] Works for me

This works for me. I removed the month and day of her birthday. There are many of us who on Wikipedia who feel it is inappropriate for privacy reasons to provide exact birthdates for living people. Thanks for engaging in discussion on this. It does get frustrating when users simply delete comments without replying, and of course edit wars are silly as well. I'd go so far as saying we were both a little obsessed about this . . . . though in truth I can only speak for myself. --Utahredrock 06:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One More Thing

I'm glad the compromise worked, but the birthday really needs to go back. You see, she's an elected official, not a private citizen, so it's not really a privacy issue here. Once she official enters Congress, they're going to place up a biography page with her birthdate, place of birth, education, etc. anyway. So I feel it's better for this to be on wikipedia, instead of forcing someone to scower the web for it.VitaleBaby 18:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

      • No, it doesn't. It may or may not be listed in the future. In an electronic age, personal information of this sort is considered private by some people for basic security reasons. If she has Congress list it like most members, then that is her choice. There is no good reason for people to be scouring the web for it, it just doesn't belong on Wikipedia for a living person, unless they explicitly agree to it.

Even if the information is available elsewhere, that is no justifcation for putting it here. That's the "everyone else is doing it" approach. --Utahredrock 21:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/t/a/User_talk%7EUtahredrock_6084.html"