User:Tlesher

Notes to Self

Stanley Turrentine: need Hard Bop refs.

Adam T. Bower Memorial Dam: Firestone owned the Fabridam trademark from 1960--need to get info on origin

Sunbury, Pennsylvania: general cleanup; cut POV form school descriptions.

I think we have a miscommunication with respect to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia has particular guidelines about what is "notable". I understand what you're trying to achieve, but please read the guidelines for web page notability, original research, and especially conflict of interest. Tlesher 01:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia

"DOCUMENTING WHO IS MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE FUTURE OF THE EARTH/NESTED COMMUNITY THEREIN" IS KNOWLEDGE. DOCUMENTING WHERE WE DO IT IS ALSO KNOWLEDGE.

web page notability
"Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples."
WE ARE NOT A SERVICE NOR A WEBSITE; WE ARE A CAUSE. ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS ARE CURRENT EVENTS. INITIATIVES SUCH AS OURS IMPACT HISTORICAL SIGNIFIGANCE WITH THE AMOUNT OF PERSONEL AND MOMENTUM THENAFTER. OUR INITIATIVES INSTIGATE NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND FACTS SUCH AS THOSE LISTED IN THE RECYCLING VISUALS ON THE PAGE. WE'D BE HAPPY TO UPDATE WITH FUTURE SUCCESS RATE.
"This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content.[1]"
WE ARE NOT WEB-SPECIFIC CONTENT. THE TRASH THAT YOU SEE IN IMAGES IS ACTUALLY SUFFICATING OUR BEACHES, OCEANS, AND ANIMALS THAT RESIDE WITHIN IT (IN REAL LIFE). THE ECOMB WIKI PAGE IS DOCUMENTATION OF THE AMOUNT OF TRASH THAT IS OUT THERE AND DOCUMENTATION AS TO WHO IS PICKING IT UP. WE ARE NOT A WEBCOMIC, PODCAST, BLOG, FORUM, MAGAZINE, OR OTHER MEDIA, WEB PORTALS, AND WEB HOSTS. WE ARE A GROUP OF PEOPLE INVOKING SOCIAL/BEHAVIOR CHANGE AMONG RESIDENTS AND VISTORS TO MIAMI BEACH THROUGH LEADING BY EXAMPLE - NOT PERSUASION. THE TYPE OF CONTENT THAT WE DISTRIBUTE ON THE INTERNET CAN NOT BE CONSUMED TRADITIONALLY; THIS CONTENT IS IN THE FORM OF MOTIVATION.
"Wikipedians are averse to the use of Wikipedia for advertising, and Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy of long standing. Advertising is either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted.[2]"
WE ARE NOT USING WIKIPEDIA TO ADVERTISE. WE HAVE NOTHING TANGIBLE NOR SERVICE TO SELL. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR DONATIONS. THERE ISN;T EVEN A SCHEDULE OF EVENTS LISTED ON THE PAGE. FROM WHAT PERSPECTIVE DO YOU NOT SEE OUR INITIATIVE AS A NUETRAL POINT OF VIEW? FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, WE WOULD RATHER WORK TOGETHER WITH OUR "COMPETITION" BECAUSE OF EXCELERATED FRUITION OF BEHAVIORAL CHANGE IN REGARDS TO POLLUTION, LITTERING, RECYCLING, ETC...
"Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents will also be either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted."
WE ARE CONTEXTUALLY HOUSING NOTHING. WE ARE NOT PRESENTING OURSELVES AS A PORTAL OR LINKING TO ANY PORTAL THAT WE ADMINISTER
"Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on the following criteria."
WE SOURCE THE COUNTY WEBSITE ON OUR EXTERNAL LINKS SECTION TO DOCUMENT ALL RECYCLING FACTS OF DADE COUNTY.
"This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following:"
GOVERNMENT SOURCES AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH?

No original research
"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation.""
FACT: WE DO CLEAN UP THE BEACH ROUTINELY, FACT: THOSE ACTUALLY ARE OUR ENVIRONMENTAL INITITIVES DOCUMENTED ON THE ECOMB PAGE, FACT: THOSE ARE THE RECYCLING RATES WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY AND ITS SURROUNDING AREAS, FACT: THAT IS THE BIO OF OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
"Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."
HOW CAN I BETTER REPRESENT THE GOVERNMENT SOURCES FOR WHICH I DOCUMENTED THE FACTS LISTED ON THE ECOMB PAGE?
"The original motivation for the "No original research" policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas.[1] Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. See this example for more details."
NOWHERE ON THE PAGE DOES IT ASK FOR PARTICIPATION NOT ATTEMPT ANY TYPE OF PERSUASION. WE LEAD BY EXAMPLE AND THIS PAGE IS DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT WE DO. NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION OF ANYTHING ANYONE HAS DONE IN THE HISTORY OF MAN.
"Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C."
WHICH PART OF THE PUBLISHED MATERIAL TO YOU CONSIDER TO BE C?
Original images
ALL IMAGES ON THE PAGE ARE EITHER GOVERNMENT SOURCED GRAPHICS OR OWNED BY ECOMB - YOUR INTERFACE IS NOT USERFRIENDLY TO EDIT THIS INFORMATION ASOCIATED WITH THE IMAGES - PLEASE SEND ME INFORMATION ON HOW TO DO SO.
"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, he stands in a conflict of interest."
WE ARE DOCUMENTING KOWLEDGE ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY, DOCUMENTING KOWLEDGE ON WHO IS MOTIVATED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, AND DOCUMENTING KNOWLEDGE ON INITIVES WE ARE USING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. HOW DO YOU GRASP THE CONCEPT OF NUETRALITY IN CONTEXT WITH CIGERETTE BUTTS LEFT ON THE BEACH, WASTE DUMPS PILING OVER, DESCTROYED CORAL REEF? ARE YOU INFERRING THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY SOMEONE OUT THERE WHO IS FOR THESE OCCURANCES? BECAUSE IF YOU ARE I COULD UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF COI OR NUETRALITY. WIKIPEDIA STATES THAT IT IS INTERESTED IN GAINING MORE KNOWLDGE, AND WE ARE DELIVERING SPECIFIC TO MIAMI BEACH.
"1. you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or, 2. you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing;"
ZERO APPLICATION OF $$
"1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links). 2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. 3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article."
ZERO COMERCIAL LINKS. IS IT THE BIO OF OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR? DID YOU READ HIS ENTIRE BIO OR DID YOU JUST READ THE WORD BIO AND COME TO A CONCLUSION?
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should contain only material that complies with its content policies. Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising, nor a vanity press. We earn the trust of our peers, and the public, by placing the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest."
WIKIPEDIA IS FULL OF VANITY PRESS. JUST ONE EXAMPLE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_congdon ALL ABOUT ABC, OWNERSHIP IN ROCKETBOOM; SHE USES THIS PAGE IN HER PORTFOLIO TO FURTHER HER AGENDA. ON A SIDE NOTE, WE'D LIKE TO INVITE JIMMY WALES TO PARTICIPATE IN ONE OF OUR BEACH CLEANUPS. LOOK, I CAN UNDERSTAND YOU TAKING THE PAGE DOWN IF SOMEONE IS TRYING TO SELL CIGERRETTES TO KIDS ON WIKIPEDIA BUT WE ARE NOT; WE ARE A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE MOTIVATED TO CLEAN UP AFTER OTHER PEOPLE WHO CONTINUE TO CYCLE INTO TOWN AND DUMP TRASH IN OUR BACKYARD. WE DESERVE DOCUMENTATION ON A REPUTABLE SOURCE SUCH AS WIKIPEDIA AND WIKIPEDIA DESERVES QUALITY DOCUMENTATION OF THE FACT AS RECORDED.