User talk:Bike..friendly

December 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The content which you wish to preserve states the building "features many environmentally friendly design elements." Is the uncited content you are referring to, or is the fact that there is actually no bike rack installed during construction?  I am merely trying to account for the lack of bike racks incorporated into the design, which falls into the category of 'evironmentally friendly features' the article refers to.  How does one reference this?  Perhaps looking the building? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bike..friendly (talk • contribs) 18:07, December 1, 2011‎
 * I have two objections. First, I don't think it's even worth mentioning that the building lacks bike racks.  It's a trivial fact and I don't really care that it lacks a reference but it's trivial that without some larger purpose it shouldn't even be mentioned.  Second, I specifically object to the phrase "without...alternative transportation in mind" in your edit.  That definitely requires a supporting reference as it goes well beyond the simple fact of lacking bike racks to attributing that lack to a deliberate decision on the part of the building's designers and operators.  ElKevbo (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The content you are arbitrarily choosing to keep specifically mentions environmentally friendly features (and is unreferenced). How does the lack of alternative transportation options not merit attention in this category? Just because you think sustainability is unimportant doesn't mean the lack of bike racks shouldn't be mentioned. Its a arbitrary and biased personal opinion. The larger purpose of sustainability should be self-evident. The fact that a new building goes up on campus, without alternative transportation in mind speaks volumes about the Indiana University commitment to sustainability. It's a hugely relevant issue, information on which should be readily accessible, not hidden because you yourself don't cycle to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bike..friendly (talk • contribs) 08:31, December 2, 2011‎
 * WP:V is one of our core principles. What I do or do not do has nothing to do with this discussion.  If you want to add material to Wikipedia, especially controversial material, you must cite reliable sources and write from a neutral point of view. ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed about the design process. The point can be made without it, but as for the actual lack of bike racks installed during construction it's self evident. Go there, look at it. Put down the wikipedia edit page. Use your feet and eyes. If you accept that the building exists you should also be able to accept that it was built with or without bike racks, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bike..friendly (talk • contribs) 12:45, December 2, 2011‎
 * The problem with that is that without any sort of supporting rationale it's such a trivial thing that it doesn't deserve mention at all. I'm sure there are many things the building lacks.  We can only describe the things that are important and interesting i.e. the things mentioned in reliable sources, preferably secondary ones.
 * Incidentally, are we discussing the new(ish) building behind psychology and next to the Jordan parking lot? ElKevbo (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the new building behind psychology next to parking lots. The lack of bike racks in a LEED certified is not trivial, that is an arbitrary judgement on your part based on your values. There is no reason it should be left out, while 'features many environmentally friendly features (uncited)' should be left in. The supporting rationale is that 'features many environmentally friendly features (uncited)' has been arbitrarily decided by yourself as being important enough to be left in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bike..friendly (talk • contribs) 13:50, December 2, 2011‎
 * I have no objection to you (or anyone else) removing that unsourced information, especially since it seems unnecessary if the building is LEED certified.
 * And can you please sign your comments (by typing ~ )? It makes it easier to keep track of discussions, especially when they take place over longer periods of time and among several people.  Thanks!  ElKevbo (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)