text:
User talk:Air.dance

Page Blanking
On 05-Feb, you blanked Jeffrey garten. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If this was the result of a broken edit, you may wish to make the correct edits. If you believe the page should be deleted, please follow redirect section of the deletion procedures. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 02:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Oops! That was a browser malfunction, thought I had went back and    corrected it.  Thanks and sorry about that! -- Air.dance 02:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. -- JLaTondre 03:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Anne-sexton stewart.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Anne-sexton stewart.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Crap, this was from my early days of Wiki. It should have been tagged a press op and not a fair use.  I've fixed it now.  Thanks and sorry! Air.dance 02:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

FF8
Hey! Many thanks for the promotion ^_^ We worked hard on FF8. — Deckill e r 02:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It was my pleasure! It's a great game and you guys did it justice. :) Air.dance 02:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Good article
Template:Good article has been listed for deletion. Please vote to keep this template at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_25. —RJN 09:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, let's hope we can get this solved. Air.dance 10:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

GLBT
I was browsing through your user page and noticed you have several GLBT userboxes. Just wanted to say that I support gay marriage and that I am part of the community as well. —RJN 11:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, awesome. It's always good to have family about, if just to help balance out the crazies. :) Air.dance 01:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

GAnominee
I was doing them as a job lot - it seemed easier to copy paste into all the talk pages in one go, they all have a template now. In terms of references, it is my understanding that articles must have references, this is not the same thing as having a reference section. Sometimes I do create that section and add refs to it with the at least is easier to use than previous methods.
 * A point that's worth making though is that there are quite a few articles in the main GA page that slipped in at setup and probably need fixed up or weeded out. Regards SeanMack 15:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

GA delisting of Vacutainer
I'm confused. Before I nominated Vacutainer, I read each of the URL's that were referenced inline to be sure they comprised the facts listed in the article. They did, except for the mention of OJ Simpson. You delisted with the rationale "No references". Did you mean there were no references for the OJ Simpson reference? I've seen many Good Articles and even Featured Articles that are mostly referenced, but may have a fact here or there unreferenced. I thought such minor transgressions were allowed for GAs. But of course, we could just dig up a reference for the OJ Simpson bit, or delete it entirely. Thanks! --TreyHarris 04:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Aw, crap, I didn't even see those -- I was doing a sweep for actual ref sections (a heading entiled Notes, Sources, Refs, etc.) and totally missed the inline URLs. Feel free to put it back, or I will here in a bit.  Sorry about that and thanks. Air.dance 04:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just did it, and added a references section too. Hopefully I did it right, I haven't listed an article since the new format went in. :-) Thanks. --TreyHarris 05:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks great! I've also replied to you on the talk page of the article so other editors can know we talked.  Thanks and sorry again! Air.dance 05:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship
A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 11:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Done, and thanks. Air.dance 11:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ina Garten
Congratualtions :-) Now comes complete with a little star! TheGrappler 14:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, good sir! Your help is what got it there. :D Air.dance 03:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I did place the Alpha Phi Alpha peer review on the Ina Garten page, however; I thought I had removed the update since it was in error. sorry for any inconvenience. Ccson 02:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hehe, no trouble. I removed it! Air.dance 02:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

German Wiki
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/24._September_2006#Kategorie:Wikipedian_unterst.C3.BCtzt_Lesben-_und_Schwulenbewegung_.28gel.C3.B6scht.29

Some people try to delete category:Wikipedian support gay community: please help GLGerman 14:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies
Hello! I noticed that your userpage mentions that you are interested in LGBT issues. Would you be interested in joining WikiProject LGBT studies? The WikiProject's been a bit inactive recently and some of us are trying to get it going again. We'd love to have you on board! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:InaGarten.jpg
Hey Airdance. There is a lively debate about use of promo photos on wikipedia. My name is Jeff and I Do not support the interpretation of WP:FU as implemented by user's like User:Chowbok. They believe that Wikipedia should be free of all promotional photos that are "replaceable with an equivalent" (i.e. an amateur photo from flickr). Their rationale is being debated in many places, and take it a step further believing that all promo photos should be deleted and let someone else deal with finding and uploading a free alternative.

 * WikiProject Fair use
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use specifically this thread
 * Requests for comment/Chowbok
 * Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Chowbok
 * User:Chowbok/Robth%27s_RFU_Explanation
 * Image_Talk:Jennifer Granholm.jpg

And many other places I've no doubt missed.

I and many others who support use of fair use promotional photos have not been successful in changing the actions of Chowbok and rampant deletion and changing of many hundred's of useful images from Wikipedia articles continues. One good example is the Jennifer Granholm article which had a great promo photo replaced by a terrible photo. I seek to raise the profile of this issue through challenging promotional photos on high profile article's like Ina Garten which is a front page, feature article. I'm sorry, really I am, but fair use policy as implemented by Chowbok has left me with few viable options.

I invite you to join the battle for Promotional Photo usage on Wikipedia and the protection of Fair Use concepts. --Jeff 06:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 23:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Good article candidates  will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pauladeen.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Pauladeen.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ejfetters 07:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Pauladeen.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pauladeen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:BClogo.jpg
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:BClogo.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 15:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007
The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:JeffGarten.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JeffGarten.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DAllison.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DAllison.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PartyLineLogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PartyLineLogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:SaraMoulton.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SaraMoulton.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BCCCover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BCCCover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BCP.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BCP.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BCStore.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BCStore.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:InaGarten.jpg
Hello. You uploaded Image:InaGarten.jpg and mentioned that you forwarded correspondence regarding the license to the permissions OTRS, but I had someone with OTRS access check, and there's no record of that image. It's possible that you forgot to send it or that you sent it to the wrong address by mistake. Could you please resend it? Thanks,  W ODU P  21:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MichaelChiarello.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:MichaelChiarello.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ozzmosis.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Ozzmosis.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:InaGarten.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:InaGarten.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  W ODU P  03:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC) --  W ODU P  03:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image from Ina Garten
If you want to use the image if all traces of the previous permission are lost, I'm afraid you'll need to get permission again from the copyright holder to release the image under a free license. In addition to sending the permission to OTRS, you can also post a copy of the permission on the image talk page, but remove any personal and contact information -Nv8200p talk 17:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry my action on what I felt needed to be done has caused you to want to leave Wikipedia. I've lost many disappointing battles on content and images and watched my words get rewritten and images deleted. It's sort of masochistic, I guess, but in the end, I just find something good that I did that stuck and it makes the bickering and losses worthwhile for me. -Regards Nv8200p talk 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter
The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles newsletter
Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

File:BCStore.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:BCStore.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Ejfetters (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:BCP.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:BCP.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Ejfetters (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Air.dance! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Patricia Wells -

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Ari Berk, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Young adult and Gothic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:AriBerkAuthorPic.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:AriBerkAuthorPic.jpg, which you've sourced to Ari Berk. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ina Garten FAR
I have nominated Ina Garten for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Barefoot Contessa Cookbook (cover).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Barefoot Contessa Cookbook (cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Party Line with the Hearty Boys

The article Party Line with the Hearty Boys has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Not notable, no sources"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Party Line with the Hearty Boys for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Party Line with the Hearty Boys 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/Party Line with the Hearty Boys until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished. Donald D23  talk to me  13:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Air.dance


text:
USS Bernadou

USS Bernadou (DD–153) was a Wickes-class destroyer in the United States Navy during World War II. She was named for Commander John Bernadou. Bernadou was launched on 7 November 1918 by William Cramp & Sons Ship and Engine Building Company, Philadelphia. The ship was sponsored by Miss Cora Winslow Bernadou, Commander Bernadou's sister. The destroyer was commissioned on 19 May 1919.

Service history
Following a cruise to Europe in mid-1919, Bernadou joined Division 19, Atlantic Fleet, and cruised along the east coast until placed out of commission at Philadelphia Navy Yard on 1 July 1922. She joined Squadron 7, Scouting Force, after recommissioning on 1 May 1930. Out of service September 1936-October 1939, she then rejoined the fleet for service with Destroyer Division 6, Atlantic Squadron, on Neutrality Patrol.

She helped convoy the Marines to Iceland (1 July 1941 – 7 July 1941) and, except for one crossing to Britain, remained on the Newfoundland-Iceland convoy run until late 1942. On 5 February 1942 Bernadou rescued ten surviving men in an open lifeboat in the North Atlantic, from the ship SS Gandia, after being sunk by U135 14 days previously. Eight men had froze to death in the lifeboat of 18 men.

On 25 October 1942 she departed Norfolk, Virginia to take part in the invasion of North Africa (8–11 November). She won a Presidential Unit Citation for landing assault troops inside the harbor of Safi, French Morocco.

Returning to Boston on 26 November she remained on east coast convoy duty until February 1943. Bernadou made a convoy run to Gibraltar during March and April and on 10 May departed Norfolk for Oran, Algeria. She operated from Oran until December 1943 during which time she screened the Amphibious Battle of Gela during the occupation of Sicily (9–12 July); took part in the Salerno landings (9–10 September and 21–23 September), and escorted Mediterranean convoys.

She returned to the United States in December 1943 and escorted two convoys to North Africa (22 February 1944 – 9 June 1944) before retiring to the less rigorous east coast-Caribbean runs. From October 1944 to May 1945, she served as plane guard and escort vessel during carrier exercises off the east coast. She arrived at Philadelphia Navy Yard on 8 June 1945 and was decommissioned on 17 July. The destroyer was sold for scrap on 30 November 1945.

Awards
In addition to her Presidential Unit Citation, Bernadou received five battle stars for her World War II service.

As of 2004, no other ship in the United States Navy has borne this name.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: USS Bernadou


text:
2159 Kukkamäki

2159 Kukkamäki, provisional designation, is a stony asteroid from the inner region of the asteroid belt, approximately 11 kilometers in diameter. It was discovered on 16 October 1941, by Finnish astronomer Liisi Oterma at Turku Observatory in Southwest Finland. It was later named after Finnish geodesist Tauno Kukkamäki.

Orbit and classification
Kukkamäki is a stony S-type asteroid. It orbits the Sun in the inner main-belt at a distance of 2.4–2.6 AU once every 3 years and 11 months (1,429 days). Its orbit has an eccentricity of 0.04 and an inclination of 3° with respect to the ecliptic. Kukkamäki was first identified as at Lowell Observatory in 1929, extending the body's observation arc by 12 prior to its official discovery observation.

Diameter and albedo
According to the survey carried out by NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer with its subsequent NEOWISE mission, Kukkamäki measures between 9.86 and 12.14 kilometers in diameter, and its surface has an albedo between 0.193 and 0.337, while the Collaborative Asteroid Lightcurve Link assumes a standard albedo for stony asteroids of 0.20 and derives a diameter of 11.30 kilometers based on an absolute magnitude of 12.1.

Lightcurve
During an asteroid survey conducted at McDonald Observatory and CTIO in the 1980s, a rotational lightcurve of Kukkamäki was obtained by astronomer Richard Binzel. The photoelectric observation gave a well-defined rotation period of 4.06 hours with a brightness variation of 0.32 magnitude (U=3), superseding a previous result based on a fragmentary lightcurve.

Naming
This minor planet was named after Finnish geodesist Tauno Kukkamäki (1909–1997), who was the director of the Finnish Geodetic Institute for many years and the president of the International Association of Geodesy. He was also a distinguished disciple of Yrjö Väisälä. The official naming citation was published by the Minor Planet Center on 1 November 1979 (M.P.C. 5014).

title: 2159 Kukkamäki


text:
Talk:Equal opportunity

Illegality
What other countries make affirmative action illegal? For whom do they make it illegal? What is their history of dealing with ethnic and gender differences and the residues of slavery? We need this information, or we just have an unsupported allegation.

Zulitz —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 24 October 2004 (UTC)

Troll Fest
Jeez, this page is terrible as of now. Not sure how to flag it, I'll do so in a couple hours, hopefully I'll be able to work on it some. I think a straight-out revert to a couple of months ago might be in order. --AdamGomaa 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes
Here are the changes I have made. Some overall thoughts: Thats all I can think of. Actually, the caffeine is wearing off. All the same. --AdamGomaa 19:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ton of junk. Removed a lot of it. The article is significantly smaller.
 * I moved USoA stuff to it's own section. It doesn't look nice, but I don't want it to look nice, because it should be out of place on it's own. More countries should be added, or the section just plain removed.
 * Took out loaded language. For example, there was a phrase that said something along the lines of "this could harm all classes (including the protected classes)." That's redundant and thus not explicit and clear in its meaning.
 * Cut a ton of BS added in the last couple of months that broke Godwin's law. Not that WP has to follow Godwin, but tying Equal Opportunity legislation to Fascism is a doozy.
 * Took out a couple of out-of-context links. I think they were added accidentally, although I don't feel like wading through the history to find out when they were added.
 * If you look at the last major paragraph that I changed, it absolutely contains my POV. It's not strictly wrong, or even POV to say that, although the clear line that is pushed is thus that "inheritance breeds inequality," which I believe to be true. But others may not. I'll leave it in anyway. The language could be toned down, but I'll let someone who actually wants to do the toning do so.
 * I like meritocracy and equal opportunity. Someone cross-check it to make sure it's still npov. kplzthx.

We would like to be added as a link on this page
Hi, we are from Catalyst magazine. We think that visitors to this page would benefit from the articles in our free magazine and on our website. We would like to be added as a link if possible. If so, please let us know at intern@catalystmagazine.org

Catalyst is a new magazine from the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), in the UK. Catalyst was launched in January, and content from the first six issues can be seen at www.catalystmagazine.org, along with regular web exclusive articles. Catalyst’s aim is to encourage debates on race and related issues like equality, identity, nationality, belonging and citizenship, engaging with views across the political spectrum to encourage frank and open discussion.

It is international in scope, covering anything from policy and the law, to economics, politics, sport, the arts and so on. It was launched to shed light on particular issues, rather than promote a CRE line. It is a free, bi-monthly publication, written in plain English so that it is accessible to all, and aimed at a broad, general readership. Anyone can subscribe via the website or by calling our distributors, TSO, on (+44) 0870 240 3697.

Thanks!

 * Please read all Wikipedia core content policies, particularly What Wikipedia is not. Specifically, Wikipedia is not a Web directory or link farm!  --Coolcaesar 18:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Equal opportunity X=  affirmative action
equal opportunity is ideally about giving everyone universal and equal access to health care universal and equal access to education, police protection, legal protection and defence, any one who puts in affirmative action is either confused, and uninformed or white middle class and trying to muddy the water, or both.

once you come out of high school with the same education as everyone else you're on you're own if you won't work you'll have to live off $50 a week! tuff cookies

affirmative action is wrong and racist, any liberal supporting it is harmin the cause of the disadvantaged.

any americans who travels to a real democracy and studies that society will learn their master/slave society is a sick excuse for a nation Esmehwp 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Equal opportunity is subject to a wide range of interpretatations. One can be laissez-faire and equal opportunity at the same time if what they mean by equal opportunity is simply equality in freedom. VersaWorka 16:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that "Equal Opportunity" generally refers to a set of employment policies designed to hire a more "diverse" workforce, which is generally about quotas. I would separate the concepts of Equal Opportunity and Equality of Opportunity, which is a philosophical concept stating that people should not be arbitrarily prevented from succeeding based on factors they cannot control. Equality of opportunity is about ceasing to stand in the way of people's success, while equality of outcome is about arbitrarily guaranteeing people's success. --165.173.126.126 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Ooh look, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines this. --165.173.126.126 (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Equal opportunity is not equal outcomes. It is when all are under the same law and are free to pursue their desires, rather succeeding or failing. Free market capitalism is the equal opportunity economic system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Definition of M/F/D/V, please?
Frequently in employment advertisements in the USA, the letters "M/F/D/V" appear at the end of the ad. I suspect they have some relevance to Equal Opportunity, as described in this article, and in fact if one types "M/F/D/V" into Wikipedia's search box, it redirects to this article. However, it is not defined in the article, nor is its significance explained anywhere. My hunch is that it refers to "male/female/disabled/veterans" but I do not know for sure. If someone knowledgeable could please add (or add back?) some explanation, that would be very much appreciated. Thank you. Typofixer76 02:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that besides religion, age, and sex, "M/F/D/V" stands for Male, Female, Disabled, and Veterans in the "Equal Opportunities Employment Act".Pcnubie2 (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

removing link
What relevance does the scouts association have to this? Moreover the link is broken and dosn't lead to anything. I'm removing it. Billsmith453 (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Unfair" vs "Equal" in an earlier edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equal_opportunity&action=historysubmit&diff=361550179&oldid=355442304

This edit still persists in the current version: Unfair opportunity practices include measures taken by an organization to ensure fairness in the employment process. Why are measures to "ensure fairness" deemed "unfair"? Someone please edit or explain this. 78.90.134.151 (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Upgrade
Hopefully it's much better than before. The past version, being so small, needed improvement as per tag. I had worked on the other equalities -- equality of outcome and equality of autonomy and thought this one would be easy, but it's kind of the toughest one of the bunch, perhaps. A real challenge will be trying to get a few relevant pictures in so the article doesn't look so texty. I found myself avoiding the issue of how differing political views thought of equality of opportunity (it was somewhat divisive on the outcomes article) and focused more on serious thinkers (Nozick, Friedman, Rawls etc) and a basic split emerged (formal vs substantive), akin to Sowell's stuff about constrained vs unconstrained from his book A Conflict of Visions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Runway model photo?
Is a photo of almost nude runway models necessary for an encyclopedic article of this subject? Seems to push the line on appropriateness without adding anything truly helpful. Soonercary (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, for five reasons: (1) It's directly relevant to the subject of equal opportunity -- the Fashion Week models had been almost exclusively light skinned and it became the subject of an equal opportunity battle over skin color with extensive coverage in the Brazilian press. (2) It's different -- since people expect encyclopedia articles to be boring and texty, it creates visual interest and catches attention and helps build readership (I bet most "readers" of Wikipedia only glance at articles, so that photos are relatively more important than sheer text (3) It's beautiful to look at. (4) it emphasizes a worldwide focus -- not just US and Britain, but an under-covered country like Brazil -- there is a consensus view that Wikipedia should be written for people all over the world. (5) the discrimination is ongoing and even evident in Wikipedia -- if you look through all the photos in the Commons, you will not find any showing dark-skinned or indigenous models at the Sao Paulo Fashion Week (I had wanted to include one of them) -- which is unfortunate and highly unfair to these beautiful women. Overall the idea is to illustrate with photos the idea that equal opportunity is not just about minority groups struggling over jobs but affects all kinds of people in various situations.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your thoughtful response, but I would say the following regarding your points: 1) The photo itself is not directly relevant to the subject of equal opportunity. 2) Encyclopedia articles are not magazine articles that need flash and sex appeal to draw readership. 3) Irrelevant. 4) The "photo" is not important to emphasize the worldwide significance of the equal opportunity subject. A section addressing this would be more substantive. 5) Let that issue be addressed in an article about the Sao Paulo Fashion Week. Soonercary (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * And thank you for your response, but I remain unpersuaded. I continue to think the photo is highly relevant: the subject of the article is equal opportunity; a major point in the article is how equal opportunity is becoming applied increasingly widely (ie not just African-Americans vying for jobs) but for diverse areas including modeling; modeling is one of these areas where people don't normally think of discrimination being practiced (but it is) so the focus on this aspect enhances people's understanding of equal opportunity. Essentially, the photo makes two points rather nicely: (a) the widening sense of the concept of equal opportunity and (b) the substantive problem (that perceptions of what is considered beautiful can persist for generation after generation, so that people get used to equating "beauty" with "white skin", and seeing models with white skin reinforces a fixed idea of "beauty".) Substantive equality of opportunity is all about remedying that and breaking the cycle. Further, while other types of discrimination are no longer being practiced since they're illegal, discrimination in the fashion industry based on skin color is ongoing and still happening. I chose this photo because it prominently featured two of the three things I wanted (i) Brazilian models (ii) on a fashion runway (iii) skin color was dark-skinned. I had wanted to find "dark skinned or indigenous" but I could not find any in Wikipedia -- so, for me, I only got (i) and (ii). That was the best that I could find. I searched. There were other photos of the Sao Paulo fashion week but they didn't focus on the runway or the models or their skin color as nicely (mostly on judges). Last, this may not be much of an issue to you or me or most of us here at Wikipedia (I'm a card-carrying member of the Caucasian persuasion, and most writers at Wikipedia are men) but when I worked on articles such as physical attractiveness and if you see the talk page there, it is evident that skin color and beauty are ongoing issues -- with concerns about which women are included being rather contentious. See, you might think differently about the photo selection if you were a dark-skinned model who was rejected from the Fashion show only because of what you could not control -- your skin color. So, for these reasons, and trying to maintain a spirit of inclusiveness, I see the photo as directly relevant and apropos to furthering the gist of this article. (And I did address the discrimination issue in the Sao Paulo fashion week article.)Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Wondering, what is it about this photo that bothers you so much? You wrote that they're "almost nude" -- by contemporary standards, they're clothed -- this is not pornography by any stretch but a public event. While I agree that encyclopedia articles do not need "flash and sex appeal to draw readership", I think Wikipedia benefits when we can have beauty and yes even sexiness in our articles. I like readership. I want people to read this article. I want this Wikipedia article to be the best one out there on the web. Right now I think it competes favorably with the other sources I came across (most of which have no pictures whatsoever, not even any diagrams like the ones I included). And, when applicable and relevant, which I think describes this situation, I have no problem using the best-looking pictures I can find in Wikimedia Commons to illustrate the text.Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * It's simply a matter of maintaining high community standards. No censorship. The photo is obviously not pornography, but it borders on what many people - the community at large - would consider generally acceptable and appropriate for a quality encyclopedia, especially for an otherwise cerebral subject like equal opportunity. You've made a huge deal here about the issue of the Fashion Week, but the article is about the general subject, not this issue. The photo itself lends no credence to the core issue. It's a scintillating photo of sexy models - which would be appropriate for a page about scintillating sexy models, but not about equal opportunity, as much as you feel the circumstance related to the photo is relevant. It's not a huge issue here, but I think we need to work hard to uphold and respect community standards at large, because they generally exist to draw us back to what is important. You've put a lot of good work into this article; thanks for that. Let's keep that quality high. Soonercary (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. Clearly you feel strongly about this so I'll defer to your judgment here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 * By the way, check out these traffic stats Equal opportunity readership stats. Over 1000 in one day, up from the usual 500. I wonder why this happened.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 * If you're implying that it is because of a photo of scantily clad models, well then you're probably right. But I thought Wikipedia had different purposes. Soonercary (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Actually, I'd like to think that the upsurge in readership was because the article was vastly improved in terms of overall quality and not because of Brazilian models, but who knows? It doubled. Why? I don't know. In past months the shorter unrevamped article got around 700 readers/day, particularly during weekdays, and in summer it dropped off, around 400/day. I wish I understood the readership dynamic better, but that's one of the great things about Wikipedia -- people read it, and I'm a big fan of getting people to read it, and the best overall draw is good, quality information, clearly written, well-referenced, and I think all of us -- collectively -- do an excellent job here, overall, wouldn't you agree?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Hey what do you think about this photo to the right? would it be suitable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

More revamping
I'm adding new references, expanding some sections, hopefully getting this article to rival the others out there.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Great job, but the description of equal opportunity as a useful standard strikes me as utterly wrong. It is a political concept with many implications.  If you look at many encyclopeidas, this is what they generally say, so I will make the change. Imersion (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the "great job" comment. About the concept of equal opportunity being primarily a political concept -- I did look at many encyclopedias. And when I looked into this, there were of course political aspects, but the concept itself I think is much bigger than merely politics, because it reaches into diverse areas and means many things to many people. So I would say it is not merely a political concept, but moral (in terms of fairness), economic, legal (the concept is highly embedded in law.) And in each of these areas, the concept of equal opportunity is like a standard (the etymology of standard is derived partially from the Roman sense -- a sort of military marker -- which has come to be used as a way to think about measurements) -- and the standard applies to many areas -- economic, legal, moral, and yes political too. If you'd like to argue that equal opportunity is primarily a political concept, please provide references attesting to this way of looking at things.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Equality of Opportunity of Henry George
This subject dealing with equality of opportunity is fundamental to the creation of social justice in the community. Yet when it comes to the contribution made by Henry George to it, nothing has yet been written here. Equality of opportunity means the right to work and earn a decent living, but this basic need, which somewhat obtusely appears in the Charter for the United Nations, is not properly explained, and the philosophy of creating a natural kind of macroeconomics is avoided.

What George was saying (130 years ago), is that whenever a site of useful land is owned and held unused or when it is occupied whatever use is made of it, these actions place the rest of the surrounding community at a number of disadvantages. There being a limited amount of useful land and its value being a function of its distance from the center of the community, this occupancy has the effect of reducing the productivity of the rest of the working community who must travel further or work harder to make the same amount of goods as could be made on the original site. The cost of the goods made further away rises too, which is likely to reduce consumption and limit the number of workers that are worthwhile to employ. Thus the best land is always used first, but subsequently becomes the most advantageous to its owner for the monopolization of its opportuntites.

Thus land ownership and speculation in its value, when it is partly used or withheld from use, damages the equality of opportunity that would otherwise occur. George went on to claim that the continuous advantage that the land owner gets when the land is in use, in terms of money is known as the ground rent. By collecting this economic rent a government can "level the playing field", causing the advantage of land ownership to become equal for all useful sites. George proposed to tax the value of the land in this way and to use this national income instead of income tax, purchase tax and property tax of buildings, machinery, etc. as the means for relieving the un-natural situation presently affecting the whole macroeconomy. Thus the ideal for social justice through the equality of opportunity to work is seen as a more natural and greater freedom creation kind of society than what our present system of land tenure has to offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.25.27 (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Macrocompassion (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree the thinking of the socialist Henry George as it applied to his sense of the term equality of opportunity might merit a line or two, but not much more, and provided that we can find a good reference or two for it. To put any more emphasis on George's thinking risks turning this article into a WP:SOAPBOX. Also, Equality of opportunity does not necessarily imply a right to work -- rather, it is about, well, equal opportunities, fair treatment, and so forth.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Disabilities? Accessibility, ADA
The article covers a lot of ground on race/ethnic and gender discrimination and employment equity for those groups. Where's the info on people with disabilities and employment equity, mainstreaming (education), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and so on? That's a big oversight. OttawaAC (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Noted. Consider expanding the article to cover this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

 * What is employment equity?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Two topics/ split the article
To me, this article is covering two seperate things in contemporary discourse:

1) Anti-discrimination, eg not excluding people based on race etc

2) The idea that your upbringing does not determine your life chances. Linked to social mobility. (To me this is what most people mean when they talk about equality of opportunity).

The article here, especially the intro, mainly stresses point 1. But a lot of articles link to this page referring to the second point.

I think this page should be exclusively about point 2, and a second article should be created for point 1. Entitled something like 'Movements against discrimination'

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 * If you wish to create a new article entitled Movements against discrimination, that might be a helpful addition to Wikipedia, and one could use perhaps some of the source material here in this article in the new one; however, I am not all that happy with the title Movements against discrimination since it sounds a bit POV-ish. And the term anti-discrimination -- well it can mean different things; in one sense, discrimination has already happened, and there are efforts of some sort to undo it or fight it or roll it back; in another sense, it means preventive efforts to discourage it from happening; so it would be important to be clear about what is meant here. About your suggestion to split this article into separate articles -- I was the contributor who revamped this article a while back, and my sense is that it is almost impossible to disentangle the notions of anti-discrimination and the concept of life chances & social mobility -- for me, these are all wrapped together, and one can not really talk about one thing without talking about the other. The current article as it is, is essentially what the sources say equality of opportunity and equal opportunity mean, essentially. When I researched the topic, I pretty much stuck with those two exact phrases in every search string, and the resulting secondary source material emerged from strictly adhering to those terms. So the article is solid, as I see it. Splitting it up might add elements of original research possibly. I guess what I am saying is that a split is possible, but only if carefully done, and it might risk causing a whole host of problems down the road, so I am mostly opposed to the idea unless I get a sense that whoever is doing the splitting has really researched this subject and done the homework. This whole subject is somewhat prone (but not as much as pure religion or philosophy or politics) to wikibattling, and too many changes might open up a Pandora's Box of new problems.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

How about this...
...I moved the sentence down a bit in the lede paragraph since I'm assuming that people who are reading this article don't yet know what equal opportunity is, so it doesn't make sense to say what the concept includes until more of the definition is outlined. But what I think is important to say, which I think is what you're trying to say, is that two key areas of equal opportunity are employment and education, so I tried (rather awkwardly) to convey this idea in the last sentence of the lede. Please see if you like the whole lede paragraph first before reverting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Looks good. Thanks for the effort. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

These MS Paint images and various other misrepresentations have got to go

This is a divisive topic no matter which way you look at it, but political posturing has left the article incoherent and quite frankly, terrible.

For instance, this image pair is incomprehensible. Not only is the production value low, but there is no indication as to how are intended to parse the difference between vague (and seemingly identical) categories like birth, genetics, and "choosing the right parents". Shouldn't being born to a wealthy family that values genetics imply that an infant has "chosen the correct parents"? Similarly, how is one supposed to understand the child of a lottery winner ("rich kid") who does not have quality genetics, or parents who value education? For that matter, second and third generations of extremely wealthy families who become degenerate? I suggest that these images be removed. Similarly, this quote exists in the article as of 09/19/2016:

.
 * ""The formal approach is seen as a somewhat basic "no frills" or "narrow" approach to equality of opportunity, a minimal standard of sorts", with a citation to encyclopedia.com"

Here is the full text from that source, with respects to formal equality:

 * ""The notion of formal equality of opportunity requires that positions, offices, and admissions in society are open to all applicants and that formal procedures are used to select candidates based on qualifications deemed relevant to successful performance in a position or program. Individual abilities and ambition are valued as criteria while factors derived from group identities assigned by birth or social class, such as race, family, caste, religion, are excluded. Equality of opportunity carries with it the promise of upward social and economic mobility due to the removal of legally protected rights and privileges for particular classes or groups. Equality of opportunity emphasizes procedural and legal means of providing equal access to social goods, in contrast to alternative approaches to equality; for example, equality of outcomes, equality of resources, and democratic equality. Equality of opportunity assumes that it is unfair if factors beyond the control of an individual significantly shape a person’s chances in life. Formal equality of opportunity can be justified as an enhancement of individual life chances as well as a means for maximizing the well-being of society. Proponents of equality of opportunity associate it with a meritocratic system in which the most talented and ambitious are the most rewarded regardless of socioeconomic background.""

Nowhere do I see quotable text indicating that formal equality is somehow "no frills", or "narrow". Clearly, my perspective is different than the editor who added the images (and presumably the snippets as well), but I think that this article is in dire need of clean-up, and that an effort needs to be made by people of all perspectives not to misrepresent the views of experts on the subject.--2602:30A:2CFC:C6A0:24EF:9329:A0E8:97F9 (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Articles such as these are always in need of improvement. Regarding the "political posturing", what particular areas do you feel are over-represented or under-represented. Much of this article is based on the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Equality of Opportunity, which (in my view) treats the subject impartially from a political point of view (and our wiki version tries to do similarly). About the diagrams -- yes, they could be improved but I think they are better than nothing, as a way to illustrate the differences between formal and substantive equalities. Basic problem is copyrights -- if you can find images which are free for us to use, which illustrate the concept better, please swap them in, or else make better images yourself if you are talented in the graphics design dept.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Speaking bluntly, I think that the article would be improved by the absence of the disputed diagrams, for all of the reasons listed above. The quality of the images is less important to me than the content. If you want the images to be kept on the article in their current state, you need to respond to the critiques on substance.

 * ""...there is no indication as to how are intended to parse the difference between vague (and seemingly identical) categories like birth, genetics, and "choosing the right parents". Shouldn't being born to a wealthy family that values genetics imply that an infant has "chosen the correct parents"? Similarly, how is one supposed to understand the child of a lottery winner ("rich kid") who does not have quality genetics, or parents who value education?""

As for political slants, without spending the time to dig any deeper, I'm not sure how one can read Richardt and Shanks 2008 piece (hosted on Encyclopedia.com) and come away with the conclusion that it is "narrow" or "no frills" without injecting their own values (I would object to the language in any case, as I'm weary of allowing colloquial language in quotes in a piece that should be formal writing). This isn't a slight against you; everyone is biased and it is very difficult to detect one's own bias, but I think that the outcome has worsened the article. In any case, thanks for fixing my formatting. --2602:30A:2CFC:C6A0:947D:50EF:A227:C75C (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes I think terms like "narrow" and "no frills" are pejorative and dubious and could get the ax. Still, I think it is important to try to get at the distinction which Stanford as well as Britannica are making, that is, between formal equality of opportunity (FEO) and substantive equality of opportunity (SEO). If we think in terms of a time-line, with time going from left to right, then the FEO model has the competition starting when the applicant competes for a position, and assesses the competition as fair if all applicants are treated similarly within the competition itself. The SEO model, in contrast, if I understand it correctly, begins before that -- such that actions are taken to ameliorate the pre-existing unfairness at the competition's start -- that is, actions are taken before the start of the competition, to help each applicant get up to speed (perhaps with special help or training, funding, tutoring etc) so that they have a 'fair' chance in the level-playing field competition. I think this distinction is important in that it does somewhat correlate with political orientations (ie, FEO with a conservative sense of equal opportunity, and SEO with a progressive/liberal sense of equal opportunity). Is it possible to somehow diagram this in a way that reflects what Stanford and Britannica are trying to say? I think so, but I agree, the current images are mediocre. And an image, if done right, could communicate the idea so much better than paragraph after paragraph of dry text, so I think it is something to strive for.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Just for purposes of discussion, I've been hunting around the web for ideas for images on this subject -- there aren't many -- but here are a few links...
 * here
 * Possibly relevant image (on equal opportunity in general)
 * showing related concepts (?)
 * another one
 * I have not really found a diagram that illustrates the difference between FEO and SEO.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Equal opportunity versus Equality of Opportunity
Regarding this proposed change (which I reverted). What do we call this article? I pondered this for a long time when I revamped this article many years ago, and while the intellectual side of me likes the construct Equality of opportunity, what I found is that there are many more references to the term Equal opportunity being used in the media. The two terms are close to being interchangeable (I tried to mention the nuances in meaning in the article). So it's kind of a tossup, although I think the Wikipedia guidelines tell us to stick with the more-often-used term. Plus the style manual will suggest that we stick with the article title in the lede paragraph, to avoid confusing readers. Also, Equality of opportunity redirects to Equal opportunity. If a contributor can make a case that the two terms are separate and distinct, and each term deserves its own article, please make a case for that, and we can discuss it, although my sense is it would probably be a duplication of effort.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Issues with wording
Terms like "attitudinal" and "physical" and "systemic" such as in this change are vague -- what exactly do they mean? What, for example, is an "attitudinal barrier"? What are examples of it? This is the second sentence in the lede paragraph of a highly read article, and it really needs to be clear and concrete, and it is best to avoid academic-y sounding jargon from fields such as psychology or sociology. It would be helpful if not only the terms were either (1) clarified or better yet (2) switched to terms that are better understood, and if references can be found explicitly describing the concept of equal opportunity using such terms.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Those words could be seen in https://books.google.com/books?id=a9zfAvTABDoC&pg=PA191, UN Reports and other related sources. Attitudinal barrier: prejudices or preferences(lede intro), everything else is self-explanatory. The words provide a condensed clarity and appropriate with "ref name=twsL18." However, the sentence and the content that starts with "the intent is that important jobs in an organization should go to those persons who are the "most qualified"..... is antithetical to the article and it is mentioned no where in those referred sources. The second paragraph of the lede section expect the last sentence starting with "The concept..." does not hold validity for being in the intro, and it could be refactored further below by confirming the sources. Regards.174.4.26.61 (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So an attitudinal barrier is an attitude held by decision maker(s) that prevents/blocks them from making a choice based on real qualifications (ie skill/qualifications for doing the job) so that they make their decision based on arbitrary/irrelevant factors such as sex or race? That is, the attitude (a thought in the mind) acts like a concrete wall blocking them from thinking correctly -- is that what you're trying to get at here? About jobs going to the person most qualified -- my sense is that this is at the heart of the concept of equal opportunity, and there are many examples in the article as well as references which reinforce the idea that in a hiring situation, the applicant with the best qualifications -- relevant to the position -- should get the position, and not an applicant with irrelevant characteristics like being the 'correct' race etc. I do think there is something to what you're trying to get at -- that the ultimate problem is faulty thinking within the minds of the hiring committee -- just wondering how we could clarify that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

RefSPAM?
Tomwsulcer, please explain your removal, on 3 April 2019, of two citations per WP:REFSPAM. I haven't seen that one before, and those two citations seemed to me to be legit. What gives? Paulmlieberman (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * HRBLR is a private firm. Aegis law firm is a private firm. Please see WP:RS for more information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Update?
The entry in the Stanford Encyclopeedia of Philosophy was revised in 2015. Not sure how much it will affect this page, but it might be a good idea to double-check it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Equal opportunity


text:
Saturn I4 engine

The powerplant used in Saturn S-Series automobiles was a straight-4 aluminum piston engine produced by Saturn, a subsidiary of General Motors. The engine was only used in the Saturn S-series line of vehicles (SL, SC, SW) from 1991 through 2002. It was available in chain-driven SOHC or DOHC variants.

This was an innovative engine for the time using the lost foam casting process for the engine block and cylinder head. Saturn was one of the first to use this casting process in a full-scale high-production environment. Both engine types used the same engine block.

Engine block
The engine utilized a water-cooled aluminum block. The main bearing caps were made of ductile iron and held in place with two bolts each. The cylinder block bores had interference fit cast iron liners for the piston rings to sit against. The engine block was made from 319.1 aluminum alloy and the liners were made from grey iron.

Crankshaft
The crankshaft was supported by five main bearings with thrust taken at the middle bearing. 1991 and 1992 engines had a different crankshaft from 1993 and later engines, whose crankshafts had reluctor ring slots advanced ten degrees for easier starting. 1991 to 1998 crankshafts incorporated four counterweights, while those from 1999 to 2002 incorporated eight.

Connecting rods and pistons
From 1991 to 1998 the connecting rods were forged steel with standard type crank pin bearings. SOHC engines during that period used a dished piston design whereas the twin cam engines used a flat top piston with 2 recesses for the intake valves. Twin cam pistons received several re-designs throughout the production run aimed at reducing oil consumption issues. These included reducing the clearance between the top of the piston and the first compression ring, redesigning the skirts on the pistons and the oiling ports on the bottom of the pistons. For the 1999 model year all pistons were totally redesigned. Both engines used the flat top pistons with 2 valve recesses and featured a new hypereutectic design with coated skirts. Also for 1999 all connecting rods switched to a slightly longer powder forged design and cracked bearing caps. The piston pins floated in the connecting rod bushings. The pistons were cast aluminum alloy with the piston pins being retained with snap rings.

Timing chain
The timing chain was hydraulic tensioned and had a ratchet mechanism to keep the chain tight. The timing chain rode on one pivoting chain guide resting on the ratchet tensioner and one fixed guide attached to the engine block and cylinder head. The 1991 to 1998 DOHC engine had an upper timing chain guide in between the camshaft sprockets. The timing chain was lubricated via cast-off from the top of the cylinder head and one 'squirter' on the oil pump housing. The SOHC, 1991-1998 DOHC, and 1999-2002 DOHC engines all used different timing chain sets.

SOHC LK0/L24
The SOHC (LK0/L24) cylinder head had 8 valves and was made of lost foam cast aluminum. The camshaft was located in the center of the cylinder head and driven by a chain off the front crankshaft sprocket. Motion from the camshaft was transmitted to the eight valves by the hydraulic lifters and rocker arms.

The SOHC engine was used in the base model S-series vehicles (SC1, SL, SL1, SW1)

The LK0 engine first used TBI (Throttle Body Injection) for fuel delivery and was rated at 85 hp at 5000 rpm and 107 lbft at 2400 rpm from 1991 to 1994.

The L24 engine received MPFI (Multi-Port Fuel Injection) in 1995 which increased power output to 100 hp at 5000 rpm and 115 lbft at 2400 rpm. In 1999, these engines switched from the recessed top pistons of the previous models to all new flat top pistons that were also used in the twin cam models. The cylinder head was also redesigned to keep the compression ratio at 8.8:1 even with the flat top pistons and now featured provisions for an air injection reaction system. This engine was used from 1995 to 2002.

Some 1992 through 1998 L24 cylinder heads developed cracks in the fifth camshaft journal, located closest to #4 cylinder. The hairline crack would form between the oil feed port of that journal and the coolant passages in the cylinder head. Symptoms would range from overheating to low coolant, however, most cars affected by this issue exhibited oil migration into the cooling system. The resulting mixture of the two fluids would result in a thick brown "milkshake"-like mixture, visible in the coolant overflow tank.

Saturn released unadvertised policy which would cover this issue, extending the warranty on the cylinder head to 6 years or 100000 mi. Repair required the replacement of the cylinder head. and flushing of the coolant system. Badly affected cars would see coolant in the oil, as well as oil in the coolant, and would require the replacement of the complete engine assembly. Until the cylinder head casting was redesigned some time in 1998, some vehicles would require this repair more than once, and replacement cylinder heads could develop the same crack.

It was estimated that between 2% and 5% of SOHC Saturn S-Series vehicles were affected by this defect. DOHC engines had a different cylinder head, and did not suffer the same issue.

DOHC LL0
The 1991-1998 DOHC cylinder head had 16 valves and was made of lost foam cast aluminium. The camshafts were held in the cylinder head with bearing caps and driven by a chain off the front crankshaft sprocket. Motion from the camshafts was transmitted to the 16 valves by direct-acting hydraulic lifters.

LL0 cylinder heads were changed slightly in 1995, when Saturn adopted electronic, linear EGR mechanisms, over the previous vacuum actuated design. The head casting was changed to accommodate different mounting surface of the new valve. (1994 CA emissions engines used an adapter to mount the LEGR valve.)

A new LL0 cylinder head appeared in 1999 using a roller camshaft with hydraulic lifters and rocker arms, but power was unchanged. Also for 1999 provisions for a new air injection reaction system was introduced aimed at improving engine emissions.

All LL0 engines used MPFI and were rated at 124 hp at 6000 rpm and 122 lbft at 4800 rpm. The DOHC engine was used in the upper-level model S-series vehicles (SC, SC2, SL2, SW2).

title: Saturn I4 engine


text:
User:Cyrloc

Me
Not too much you need to know about me. Just that I'm a constant wikipedia user, and I like to read articles and help when I can.

title: User:Cyrloc


text:
Moovendar Munnetra Kazhagam

Moovendar Munnetra Kazhagam is a Tamil political party in India, based amongst the Thevar caste. The party was founded by G.M. Premkumar Vandaiyar and the present president is G.M. Sreedhar Vandaiyar.

Performance
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam fielded Sreedhar Vandaiyar in the Thiruverumbur Loksabha Constituency during 2006 and he lost by a small margin to K.N. Sekaran. .

2009 and 2011
Presently in 2011 MMK is in alliance with All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. In 2009 parliamentary election G.M. Sreedhar Vandaiyar made an alliance with DMK.

title: Moovendar Munnetra Kazhagam