User talk:LoverOfArt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Regarding the NCCC article(s)

I just want you to know that administrator Jmlk17 realizes that you were creating that article because of the continued addition of all those irrelevant quotations from the single anonymous IP editor, and reverting wasn't working, so this is a way to get this out of the main article, and see if the community thinks it is appropriate to have that information. I realize you've been dealing with this issue so I just wanted you to know that Jmlk17 understands you were not the one to add all that to the main NCCC article in the first place, and you're just trying to help. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 00:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is What The National Civilian Community Corps Page Looked Like on 7 Sept. 2007

If editors are going to be asked to comment on the material marked for potential deletion, they may want to compare it to the previous version (below). You will notice the absence of any accomplishments and the presence of a Criticisms section. The information is skewed, out of date, there were no footnotes. While it may seem that I added too much, rest assured that I had to select from (leave out) much additional positive information.

If an editor wants to discuss any of the specific topics added, that is fine: Program Accomplishments, NCCC Disaster Mitigation, Emergency Preparedness, Disaster Relief and Recovery, NCCC Fire Fighting and Fire Mitigation, NCCC and Environmental Conservation, NCCC and Education, NCCC Work for People With Disabilities, NCCC and Veterans, The NCCC Experience, NCCC Photographs and Videos. These are not "irrelevant" quotes.

Deleting all of the added content would be a disservice to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Civilian_Community_Corps&oldid=156185378

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.172.143.124 (Talk) at 02:07, 7 September 2007. It may differ significantly from the current revision. (diff) ← Older revision | current version (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Example Of An AmeriCorps*NCCC Team- Aged 18-25 (Source: Team Eagle 2, Perry Point, MD Campus: Service Year 9, 2003)

AmeriCorps*NCCC, or National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC), is an AmeriCorps program in which 18 to 24-year-olds dedicate 10 months to address national and community needs. 1,200 members are trained annually at and operate from one of three regional campuses, located in Sacramento, California, Denver, Colorado, and Perry Point, Maryland. They travel with their team throughout a multi-state region to a series of service projects, each typically lasting six to eight weeks. Projects fall in the areas of the environment, education, public safety, unmet human needs, disaster relief, and homeland security. Teams frequently work with non-profit organizations such as Habitat For Humanity and the American Red Cross, tutor students in public schools, and build trails for various national and state parks. While in the program, members receive room and board, a modest living stipend of approximately $13 a day, health coverage, and, upon successful completion of the program, a taxable education award of $4,725. Members are required to complete a minimum of 1,700 hours of service, including 80 independent service hours. As of 2006, NCCC cost $27,859 per member for each 10 month service year. $4,725 of this is accounted for via the taxable education award, with the balance going toward salaries and operating/living expenses across the four campuses and numerous project sites.

History

The NCCC program was loosely based on the depression era Civilian Conservation Corps, although in practice, the differences between NCCC and CCC projects were quite marked in both practical intent and outcome. The Civilian Conservation Corps focused its efforts on substantial, necessary domestic works projects (Building bridges, paving roads, constructing buildings, etc), whereas the NCCC model trends more heavily towards the "social program" archetype. The program was created in 1993 by Bill Clinton as a demonstration program charged with determining: [1] Whether federally funded residential service programs can significantly increase the support for national and community service Whether such programs can expand the opportunities for young men and women to perform meaningful, direct, and consequential acts of community service in a manner that will enhance their own skills while contributing to their understanding of civic responsibility in the United States Whether retired members of the armed forces can provide guidance and training under such programs that contribute meaningfully to the encouragement of national service Whether domestic national service programs can serve as a substitute for the traditional option of military service. While some of the primary motivations cited in the 1993 inception of AmeriCorps*NCCC changed and evolved over time, the basic focus of the program has remained the same (environment, education, public safety, unmet human needs, disaster relief, and the addition of a "homeland security" heading in 2002/3) In 2005, the Office of Management and Budget issued an assessment citing the NCCC program as being "ineffective", leading to drastic cuts in funding for the program. [2] Much of the Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 funding issued to NCCC was directly specified as being intended for hurricane relief in the Katrina impacted upper-gulf region. In 2006, The Office of Management and Budget announced the campuses in Charleston, SC and Washington, DC would be closed due to cost inefficiencies inherent to those campuses. 50% of the remaining NCCC will be deployed to the Gulf Coast to aid with Hurricane Katrina relief until at least 2010.

Criticisms

The NCCC program has met with sharp criticisms from some fiscal conservatives who accused it of being a "boondoggle". [1] Most notably, Libertarian pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud" [2], in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years"

External links

Official Website This article about an organization in the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Categories: United States organization stubs | AmeriCorps organizations Categories: AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product) | AfD debatesCoterminous 18:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

comments on this: I want to assure you there is nothing personal in the remarks I made at the AfD just now. But though i admire your intentions and your perseverance, this was not the way to do it. The most useful suggestion I can make at this point is that you ask for some other editor to merge the material. (I do not mean myself, though I would offer if i had the time). DGG (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NCCC / Coterminous

I have asked Coterminous specifically on his talk page to be reasonable and to reign in his long-winded posts. I hope he will respond positively.

Also, I appreciate your cooperation. It really is in the best interest of all involved, and you seem to understand this.

Cheers. - Che Nuevara 20:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience regarding this issue. I realize that it is frustrating and that dealing with Coterminous is proving difficult. I believe he is well intentioned. Dbiel and I are working hard to impress upon him the necessary policies and procedures to make this work. Your agreement to be amicable and reasonable has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated.

Peace. - Che 22:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up

You maybe a bit too quick in trying to move the mediation up the chain, though I will agree with you that he still doesn't understand "what Wikipedia is". As far as breaking the replies into multiple topics I actually see that as an improvement. The long winded multi topic single post replies were impossible to work with. Hopefully we are beginning to get through to him. Lets try giving it just a bit more time first. Dbiel (Talk) 20:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

With a statement like "Intellectual dishonestly, lack of competence, or both", I doubt we are getting through to him at all. I think Wikiquette is the place to bring this, to hopefully open his eyes to the fact that we are not a little band of POV-pushers out to push out his ideas. I don't think it would stand an RfC, I certainly know it wouldn't stand an RfAr, and I'm not really a fan MedCom anyway. - Che Nuevara 22:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: with a Wikiquette notice, the article itself isn't opened to the process any further, which I don't think it needs to be yet -- it's simply a behavioral issue. I think that's best, and we can keep working on the article / our discussion on it. - Che Nuevara 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
With the most recent major reverts by User:Coterminous I must withdraw my comment about being too quick in trying to move the mediation up the chain. I have given up hope of making any progress the way things stand at this time. I pray that I am wrong. I just do not know what to try next. I am at a loss. Dbiel (Talk) 02:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request that you (LoverOfArt) stop making major changes to the article at this point in time, say for the next 72 hours. Maybe it will give Coterminous a chance to cool down and decide to cooperate. I would also like to hear what your thoughts are regarding the sub pages I created. They are only a suggestion, and if you know a better way, I would love to hear it. Dbiel (Talk) 02:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you.

Could I ask you to make a special point of doing so when working on archiving. Thank you Dbiel (Talk) 05:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving foward with the NCCC article

Thanks for cleaning up the talk page. Now is the time to start over. Coterminous has made some statements regarding the book,"Feeling Your Pain," and its author, Bovard. The next step would be for you to respond to those comments; but PLEASE try to ignore his comments about you. We are not going to get anywhere unless we stick to the subject of the article. You are now in the position to actually start a discussion, I hope that you will be willing to do so. Then maybe we can actually make some progress. Dbiel (Talk) 13:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply in the talk page. I edited your used of bolding. You had the entire reply marked as bold and then tried to bold certian phrases, unless of course you meant to unbold them, but that is a very poor style. I hope you do not mind that I edited it. I also reordered the reply to follow mine. Thanks again. Dbiel (Talk) 15:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

LoverOfArt, I really do appreciate all your cooperation, as I'm sure Dbiel does as well. Especially in light of how frustrating and stubborn Coterminous is acting. I have to ask you, however, to please try and resist the urge to say things like this. Cheers, and I look forward to working with you more. - Che Nuevara 17:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In light of Coterminous latest posting An Advisory Role, I beg you to please try your best to simply ingore it and not reply at all. Nothing you will say will make the situation any better and it will probably only make it worse, if that is even possible. I know it is not easy to bit your tongue and say nothing; but that is exactly what I am begging you to do. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Dbiel (Talk) 17:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I was too slow in posting this, but I do appreciate that your reply did not address the personal attacks directly, but it would have been better if you could have addressed the need to move it up the ladder in a more neutral, non-combative way. I do realize how hard that is to do, and I would have been probably guility of doing the same thing if I were in your shoes. I notice that you have not yet done anything with the link I posted to your request regarding Wikiquette Tag on Che Nuevara talk page. I think that this is the next place to start.Dbiel (Talk) 17:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

Please note that a Wikiquette alert has been request regarding editor behavior related to article National Civilian Community Corps. Dbiel (Talk) 19:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They're too bound up in the confines of their own mind to produce anything of value to anyone but themselves.
I realize you're frustrated. However, two wrongs don't make a right. Please try to curb the disparaging rhetoric. It only fuels the flames.
Thanks. - Che Nuevara 18:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Civilian Community Corps/Article structure

Could I ask you to take a look at Talk:National Civilian Community Corps/Structure and revise it as you see fit. With the current protection in place, the only way we are going to be able to work on the article is in sub pages, and I still think the best place to start is the basic structure. It has been requested by User:Philippe that the discussion take place on the main article talk page; I personally disagree, but where the discussion takes place is not as important as that it does take place, so reply where ever you feel best. Thank you Dbiel (Talk) 17:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Good Faith versus Lack of Basic Respect

"This most recent 'fantasy oriented' post is emblematic of a large part of the reason why I requested this user be blocked. In addition to generally incorrect and inappropriate edits to the NCCC article all around, it's pretty apparent that we are dealing with a fairly severe personality disorder.

WP:NPA is not negotiable. Under no circumstances, period, are you allowed to attack other users. Show me the policy Wikipedia:Two wrongs make a right. You need to stop attacking him. I've asked you several times to do so and you have paid lip service to civility while refusing to relent in your attacks. You are rapidly losing your moral high ground in this dispute.

Armchair diagnoses of serious mental disorders are disgustingly offensive. Yes, Coterminous is acting out of line, and everybody involved knows it. But now everyone involved knows that you, too, are acting inappropriately. If you have a complaint against another user, you bring it to the proper person's attention and let their actions stand for them. Offensively base personal attacks are not okay. Ever. - Che Nuevara 16:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Something was just called to my attention that I missed in my skimming of this conversation. LoverOfArt, your description of someone as a "borderline personality disorder" is inappropriate and will not be tolerated. I will not allow personal attacks (or a professional judgment that you may or may not be professionally qualified to give, but it would be unethical to give under any circumstances) in an attempt to warn people away from personal attacks! Consider this an official warning, please. - Philippe | Talk 16:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I have "brought this to the persons attention". So far, their inappropriate actions have been 'standing' and 'standing' and 'standing' and 'standing' for themselves and no one is doing anything about it. Ya know, the point of 'good faith' isn't being indecisive. There does come a time when drawing a definite conclusion about someone based on their own actions is appropriate. No, two wrongs don't make a right, however, one wrong continually perpetrated by one person without action by anyone else is quite likely to receive a "response". In your efforts to be "balanced" in the criticism, you've misapplied your efforts all together. I'm not the problem here. You know it (even though you know better than to say it out loud), I know it, everyone else knows it. It's about high time someone did something about it. We've "started over", again. Lets see how long this one holds out before the "Coterminous" reply occurs and we have to start over again, for the billionth time (what with good faith, ya know) You can't move forward if you're continually forced to "start over". You can't stop the need to "start over" unless you directly address the person who is the retrograding force. --LoverOfArt 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not a conversation that needs to be had, and your attempts to straw-man my condemnation of a clearly unacceptable incident do not change the fact that it was clearly unacceptable. What you said was clearly inappropriate, offensive, and undeniably against Wikipedia policy. You would do well to remember that the rules apply to everyone. - Che Nuevara 18:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
And adding my 2 cents, so far, since the protetion lock, the only thing Coterminous has done is blow off steam, there is simply no need to reply to it. The next time it happens he is going to be block, but the same thing holds true for you. Don't get suckered into an arugement with Coterminous where the result is that you get block as well. Dbiel (Talk) 18:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


Oh, it is most definitely a conversation that needs to be had and there wasn't anything 'straw man' about my reply. Whether we have this conversation now, or fifteen "start overs" from now resulting from Coterminous replies, it's a conversation that not only must be had, but it's a conversation that will be had whether we want to or not. Thankfully, we seem to have an administrator who is at the point of not putting up with much from anyone anymore, so I can continue to work on the article as I have all along and in time, the inevitable will occur with Conterminous based on his/her own actions. When this is all done and over with and the article strikes its appropriate, natural balance, take from the experience this one lifes lesson... There comes a point when enough is enough. There are people who refuse to follow the rules yet similarly refuse to be reasoned with to make them contributory and productive. Prisons are full of such people and Wikipedia ban logs are full of them too. Your desire to engage them with a seemingly endless stream toothless chastisements doesn't bespeak "good faith" ... It bespeaks of indecision and unwillingness to take necessary action. --LoverOfArt 18:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
There was plenty of straw-manning in your argument. First of all, you completely sidestepped the point that you said something incredibly offensive. Second, I didn't tell you to alert "the person" who was causing the problem, I told you to alert "the proper person". Third, I have in no way been "balancing" my criticism -- I have been condemning personal attacks and incivility wherever they arise. I can't help it if you continue to be uncivil and to attack Coterminous, both of which are against Wikipedia policy without equivocation, qualification, or exception. I'm not asking you to assume good faith -- I realize that AGF comes with conditions. So your good faith argument is indeed a straw argument. I'm telling you that NPA comes with no conditions. Read it if you don't believe me.
I'm surprised you're so critical of my apparent "indecision and unwillingness to take necessary action". Your repeated personal attacks have been easily blockworthy. An RfC at this point would certainly open Coterminous to harsh community criticism, but it would be none too pretty for you either. You dismounted from your moral high horse long ago. You've been warned about it several times, and now not just by me, but also by the very administrator whose help you enlisted in this matter. I think that ought to tell you something -- something I've been trying to tell you for days. My so-called "toothless chastisements" (what else would you have me do? I'm not an admin) were intended as a part of the mediation process. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But personal attacks are not the answer.
I know you're frustrated with Coterminous. So am I. And yes, his actions are a problem, and we (Dbiel and I) have been trying to deal with them. There is, however, only so much we can do. And in the words of Jon Stewart ... "You're not helping." Lashing out at him and degrading him on a personal level only makes things worse. You're right, though: enough is enough. So stop making personal attacks. Seriously. I'm not kidding. Your dedication to the NCCC article is obvious. Your dedication to the rules of Wikipedia is much more open to question. I ask you to please see to that before casting stones at others.
What you said was deeply offensive. There is no getting around that. You crossed the line. This isn't about assuming good faith. It's about basic respect and civility not only regarding other editors, but also regarding an entire community of persons whose plight -- which opens them to a world of discrimination when they most desperately need help and compassion -- you wielded as a casual insult. Please take the time to reflect on why this is both inappropriate and wrong.
Peace. - Che 19:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Faith

Noted to Philippe: You (and your colleagues) consistently argue that the only way forward is in dialogue or mediation with LoverofArt, a "good faith" editor, so you say. (In your words: "I will not ask good faith editors to retire from discussions because you simply disagree with them.") You are mistaken: Neither LoverofArt's vicious attacks on me nor his malicious editing show "good faith."

For all of the speculation about my supposed detriments, I have nonetheless managed to write for and be published by the Investigative Reporters and Editors Journal - more than once - a journal that is published by the respected School of Journalism at the University of Missouri in Columbia. My detailed reporting was checked personally by the IRE Executive Editor (and staff) -- some of the most competent professionals in the entire business. They not only welcomed lengthy documentation of work submitted, they required it.

At this site, detailed information simply invites scorn and diatribes (mostly from LoverofArt). My contempt for the combination of editorial garbage and under-the-belt attacks spewing from LoverofArt is absolute. He/she is a hack and a punk - I hope some day he/she gets what is coming to him/her, with interest. A fine representative of Wikipedia. ... I won't be missing a thing by leaving this site, except the dirty feeling that comes from reading those ugly vituperations from that paragon of Good Faith, LoverofArt. I appreciate the common decency expressed by those who have asked you to cease and desist, but you obviously have no intention of doing so. Your bullying behavior is disgusting. Any comments?? Coterminous 04:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC

"Any comments??"
Yeah. Buh bye. --LoverOfArt 05:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me second that. Conterminous, this dialogue is well beyond the bounds of civility. You have been blocked for 48 hours. Take the time to consider how to contribute positively, even with those with whom you strongly disagree. Once the block has expired, positive contributions will be welcomed. I assure you, at this point, the blocking policy kicks in faster and faster - it's time to shape up, you'll find that your second chance is much less lengthy than the first one was. - Philippe | Talk 14:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamilton Watch ad

Thanks for removing the ad copy from Hamilton Watch. I nearly did that myself but chickened out and just put up an ad alert. Rees11 (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New policy proposal that may be of interest

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:2354y764ergr.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:2354y764ergr.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bannarn original work.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Bannarn original work.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)