Talk:Pink Bridge

Expansion
Will expand soon at work...  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done!  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Nomination to keep the article

 * Keep Wikipedia is not paper. If this article is not deemed encyclopedic material for Wikipedia, then this is not too nor is any other local landmark that gets national attention.  It does not conform to one's point of view and the article is backed by a couple of news sources either from television or newspaper.  However, I do like someone to go and take a picture of the bridge.  Spongefan, 17:38 November 20 2006 (UTC)


 * This page should stay because this article gives great encyclopedic info of a current event going on in the tri-state area. The Punk 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Updated
I think the word incident accurately describes what happened. There were threats, fights, posted policemen, as well as several incidents of theft of supplies when teh bridge was originally painted pink. I was new to the area and to this day find it amusing how bent out of shape some of the city residents got. Also it depends on what difinition you use - dictionary.com has incident defined as –noun 1. an individual occurrence or event. 2. a distinct piece of action, or an episode, as in a story or play........ the defenition you have is there as well. 6. an embarrassing occurrence, esp. of a social nature. - so under 1 or 6 it would be an incident.... As for the time stamp - not sure how that happened, thought I came direct to discussion and posted... ah well. Brian2000 (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a "where are they now" section as there have been a few recent articles in the local paper asking that question...--Brian2000 (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (The preceeding comment has an incorrect, manually entered timestamp that differs significantly from the actual edit. The actual edit took place 10:48, 11 May 2009 UTC)--Bodybagger (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I made the following updates. First, I changed the statement "The pink bridge incident is currently..." because that statement has been out of date for almost 2 years. I removed the word "incident" from the introduction because it so greatly exaggerates the seriousness of the event that its very use makes article sound absurd. M-W.com gives the definition of an incident as: an action likely to lead to grave consequences especially in diplomatic matters. This wasn't exactly the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. But it was a controversial event, so I noted exactly that.

Further, I removed a statement declaring that "the Herald Dispatch reported that..." because simply throwing out the name of a newspaper does not qualify as a source citation. I also removed the statement declaring that certain environmental actions would have to be done because the original article cited (source 3) indicated that the engineer simply asked during the course of a meeting if those things were going to be done. The source contradicted the statement.

Finally, I removed the article categorization of "Graffiti and Unauthorized Signage." It appears that this category was added by a person because they did not personally agree with the project. A disagreeable color does not make something graffiti, no matter how disagreeable it is (please see "graffiti" at M-W.com). The category is therefore, not relevant to the article.

I hope that further editing of this article is in the spirit of Wikipedia utilizing reliable sources, proper citation, and a neutral point of view despite the differences in opinion among those in the community.--Bodybagger (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Information on living persons
Information on living persons must comply with Wikipedia policies. It must be of a neutral point of view, verifiable through well documented, reliable sources, cannot be "original research" (aka "gossip"), and absolutely cannot be libelous. That said, this article is about the bridge, it is not a biography about the people involved.--Bodybagger (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.examiner.com/a-384224~W_Va__Residents_See_Red_Over_Pink_Bridge.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 03:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)