User talk:Blueelectricstorm

Just wondering . ..
I'm wondering why my edits to Globalization didn't make the cut. I specifically edited the definition portion of the page. Not only is the existing page too much "pro-globalization", it uses incorrect grammar and is just poorly worded. Also, my edits were referenced to a scholarly definition, which the existing definition is not.

RE: removing tags
Hello Blueelectricstorm. I think that you may have slightly mis-interpreted the intructions on the help page & missed out the step before removing the tag - that is, that the issue flagged in the tag should be fixed first! Clicking on the wikilinks within the tag will lead you to a standard explanation but specifically with this article the issue is the style and tone of the article which is not encyclopaedic and reads more like a term paper or essay, it also appears to reflect a very particular viewpoint and sections of it read like original research. Particularly troublesome is the second half of the second paragraph. Encyclopaedic articles cannot talk about "time immemorial" or "the great irony of globalisation" and statements such as "these economic arrangements should be seen not as..." need to be counterbalanced with the opposing view, not presented as objective fact. The problems continue right down to the External links section where you describe one of the links as an eloquent critique, again this is not appropriate language for an encyclopaedia calling it a  critique is fine but the word eloquent is your own subjective opinion. These are by no means the only problems I have just picked out a few examples to try an help you see what needs changing. On the plus side you have done a great job with the references so I have every confidence that you will reference the other side of the argument equally well. There is a really good help page on improving articles which you might find worth a visit - I certainly found it jolly useful when I was starting out. Good luck! kind regards, nancy (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have waited a day or so before I replied to see how your revision of the article progressed as when I initially looked you seemed only to have changed the specific examples I highlighted. I just looked back again and whilst you have added some more content there seems to be little progress on the original text so I am afraid that, in my opinion, the issues have not yet been properly addressed and I would argue that the maintenance tags should remain.
 * I have sympathy with your comments about the cultural bias in e.g. Globalisation but I think that the place to address this is within the Globalisation article itself rather than adding a counter-balancing article elsewhere. In addition  your comments on WP:RFF add to rather than quell my concerns as you quite openly signpost the bias of Transformation of culture stating that that the article encompasses the work of Prof. Robert Hershey because I felt that this body of work deserved its own page.  Whilst it is right that you should point out the lack of neutrality in other articles the answer is not to create a slanted article of your own - two wrongs don't make a right. Kind regards,  nancy  (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Globalization
Hi. I have started a discussion on just such issues on the talk page of the Globalization article. Please reply there. The article is a mess and need a general clean-up.Ultramarine (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Librarians
So what's your source for the Naknek, Alaska librarians being "friendly and knowledgable"? Can you cite a verifiable authority, or is it just a personal opinion? What if I go back to Naknek and find one of the librarians to be rude and ignorant, should I change the article to say that too? Let's just stick to working from authoritative sources. Stan (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My Response: My source for the librarians being "friendly and knowledgable" are my personal experience, and the personal experiences of my family and friends who have used the library for many years. And, yes, if you go to Naknek (and I hope you do!) and find that the staff is ignorant and rude, please feel free to update the page. That is the theory behind user-edited content, is it not?

Thank you for your comments. --Blueelectricstorm (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was appealing to logic, but there is a core policy of WP behind my remark; please review WP:V. We simply can't include any material that is solely based on personal experience. There is a lot of stuff that I personally know that I haven't been able to put into WP because I don't have a source. On the plus side, we do give ourselves some easy outs; for instance, you can quote from a newspaper article. Stan (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFF
Hey, sorry you never got a response to your request for feedback. Did you still have any questions about it? If so you can always ask me on my talk page (about that article or any other), I'm always glad to try and help out. I'm going to go ahead and tag the section resolved, but definitely let me know if you need anything, or feel free to file another request. Peace,

Environmental Background on Palin...
I'm fairly certain your recent edit on Sarah_Palin will be removed unless it's accompanied by citations to support all of the statements. In addition, it needs to be worded in a more neutral fashion using WP:NPOV guidelines. Just a suggestion. Fcreid (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

New Industrial Revolution
Hi, I think the article about it is not bad at all, but they are going to delete it, how about changing it to "Movement towards a new Industrial Revolution" or something. I know most Bio-Engineers say it is a mus, and it probably will be the new industrial revolution, but since here they still don't think so, better to have an article than losing it because of a title.Reptilex (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Jclemens deleted this article, based on the claim that it was an "exhortation" and not based on something that was actually happening. I believe that this was an arbitrary decision, and was made without following the proper protocal for deletion of an article. He waited only two days prior to deletion of the page, contrary to the deletion policy. This article withstood scrutiny and had meaningful contributions for over a year. I think that his deletion was arbitrary and borders on censorship of ideas.


 * Although the movement is right now in its infancy, one need only do a simple google search for "new industrial revolution" to find hundreds are hits relating to news, books, and other media on the subject. I think that the article was aptly named, as that is what the commentators and writers are calling it. I had several redirect pages for other names, such as Green economic revolution, Next Industrial Revolution, etc.


 * Any help you can provide would be much appreciated.


 * Thank you, ~ * ~ Blue Lunar Storm ~ * ~ (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a couple of quick fact corrections here. The article was proposed for deletion on November 11, 2009 at 10:51 by, who was the one who called it an exhortation. deleted it on November 18, 2009 at 18:02, just over 7 days later, fully in line with policy. The deletion reason you see after Jclemens is automatically picked up by the deletion, and was not written by Jclemens. (Also, WP:CIVIL might be an educational read.)


 * I've restored the article as a contested prod. However, it can still be taken to AfD; I'd strongly suggest posting a request for feedback at WP:FEED to get some ideas on ways to improve the sourcing. HTH. -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  22:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I didn't know all of the background, as that information wasn't available to me on the WP:PROD.  I think I may be able to enlist some help on this article.  I really do appreciate you reinstating the article, as just last night I heard mention of the "New Industrial Revolution" on a tv news broadcast.  So, this is not an exhortation and it is something that is currently happening.  Thank you for having an open mind.  I sincerely appreciate your willingness to allow a movement to be written about.  ~ * ~ Blue Lunar Storm ~ * ~ (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Fabrictramp |  talk to me  22:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of New Industrial Revolution
I have nominated New Industrial Revolution, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/New Industrial Revolution. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ukexpat (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alaska bar exam
A tag has been placed on Alaska bar exam requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 12:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Agriculture in Alaska for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Agriculture in Alaska is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Agriculture in Alaska until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KSF T C 16:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Transformation of culture for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Transformation of culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Transformation of culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheDracologist (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Transformation of culture for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Transformation of culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Transformation of culture& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheDracologist (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)