User:Alanscottwalker/sandbox

harry blake civil rights - Google Search

https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/

https://www.artic.edu/artworks/16551/beata-beatrix?is_public_domain=1&page=2

Policy needs to cover the entirety of Wikipedia. Specificity is more often left to guidelines. V policy begins with the relationship needed, Wikipedia content and reliable source (in writing, the relationship of words is the context). The SOURCE section describes 3 things that affect reliability, an interrelationship, (this policy has been critiqued for not defining reliable sources, only giving considerations, but that is its design). Every source (From peer reviewed to Facebook) should be looked at in regard to the 3 interrelationships to see how they affect reliability. The policy then describes a measure to apply, reputation for fact checking and accuracy, yet another relationship. It continues, declaring in two sentences the use of any source in Wikipedia (harking back to the first policy sentence) is dependent on context. If a source is reliable for something else, but not this, it can't be used, there - it is not a reliable source for that. It goes on to describe "more reliable the source" and for certain domains "usually the best sources" and rounds it out with sources that "may" possibly be used as reliable (all still subject to the above discussion) and identifying the guideline for use. It then proceeds to special cases, broadly applying the above discussion, including, "Sources not usually considered reliable" and their may use and exceptions, all sources have may use, some have broader may use and some narrower but they all have to be reliable in relationship to the Wikipedia's original words used, and then it further identifies the guidelines and discussion forum to be employed several times. It ends where is began at the end of the beginning, reiterating that this is a policy to be only employed in context.

It's core area was along the Mississippi River, streaches from Cahokia in modern Illinois to, Mound Bottom in Tennessee to the Winterville site in the state of Mississippi. Temple mounds further extend from Aztalan in Wisconsin to Crystal River in Florida, and to Fort Ancient in Ohio and Sprio in Oklahoma, and cultural influences, as far as modern North Dakota

maritime

[1]

The Chicago is an "aircruiser" that became the lead aircraft in the first flight circumnavigation of the globe. In 1924, the Chicago and three other Douglas Aircraft Company World Cruisers set out to circumavigate the earth, under a sponsorship commissioned by the United States Army Aircorp. In 1923, the United States announced plans to become the fisrt to complete circumanvigation of the earth by airplane. The British had made one unsucessful around-the-world air flight attempt in 1922. The following year a French team had tried. The Italians, Portuguese, and British also announced additional plans.

The Army commissioned five newly designed airplanes from the Douglas Aircraft Company to prepare for the flight. The company gave them the class name of World Cruisers. One of the planes became the test vehicle and the other four, including the Chicago, were slated to make the flight. The planes included 400-horsepower Liberty Engines and had 15 meter (49 feet) wing span, in two-place biplane design. The flight planners also had to find and make elaborate and careful international stopping points for refueling and reprovisioning of the aircraft. Becasue the United States, at the time, had not had diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union since its revolution a few years earlier, an extra 11,000 km (6,875 mi) detour route through southern Asia was devised.

One of the Army's best flyers Luitenant Lowell H. Smith, was named to pilot the Chicago. He was permitted to choose his own co-pilot, who would double as the flight mechanic. The pilots trained in metrrology and navigation at Langley Feild in Virginia, where they also practised in the test plane. The crews then practised on the flight planes in Los Angeles and San Diego.

On April 6, 1924, the Chicago and the other three planes took off from Seattle,the official start of the circunavigation route. Soon, however the lead plane named, Seattle, developed engine problems. It was forced to land to replace its engine. When it took off in poor weather to catch up with the other planes it crashed into an Alaska mountain. The crew survived. Luitenenat Smith, in the Chicago, became flight commander of the remaining planes. Taking off from the Alleutian Islands the planes traveled across the north pacific archeplego to Japan, and then China, Indo-China, Siam (Thailand), Burma, India, Persia (Iran), Turkey, the Balkans, and France. In France, they were escorted by the French Airforce to a celebration of Bastille Day on July 14th in Paris. The planes and crews had survived multiple forced landings, repairs, bad weather and technical problems during the difficult and hazardous trip.. From Paris the planes flew to London and then out over the Atlantic. Here, the mission lost its second plane, when the Boston was forced to ditch into the sea, short of the American mainland. The crew, however, was rescued. In Newfoundland, the test plane, renamed the Boston II, joined the mission. After a triumphal east-west tour of the United States, the Chicago, the New Orleans. and the Boston II returned to Seattle.

At the request of the Smithsonian Institution, the Army transferred ownership of the Chicago to the museum. It made its last flight from 'Dayton, Ohio to Washington, DC on September 25, 1925. It was almost immediately put on display in the Smithsonian's Arts and Industries building. In 1974, the plane was restored and transferred to the new National Air and Space Museum building for display in their Pioneers of Flight exhibition.

How does a financial conflict of interest policy prevent scientists writing about science or lawyers writing about law? Physics does not pay people to write about itself. Estoppel does not pay people to write about itself. Financial conflict of interest cannot apply to concepts -- the concept itself does not pay to be written about. It is limited to existing entities (including living people), when they write about themselves or pay others to do so, and to things like products and organizations from which those entities currently benefit financially. See eg. Protecting our Neutrality. Moreover, the idea that we are not perfect, so we cannot adopt a well-known, standard financial conflict of interest rule really means we should all just give up on the project. If we cannot address a simple financial conflict of interest, we cannot address anything. Advocacy maybe advocacy, but if you cannot address a simple well known in the real world ethics issue, then there is no hope for addressing any other such issue. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

On their User page, on subject article talk pages, and on any conflict of interest related policy/guideline discussion page:

• Users must disclose the fact that they have recieved or will receive anything that could be construed as a payment to the User for favorable coverage or for avoiding unfavorable coverage of article subjects the User is working on. This includes money, gifts, tickets, discounts, reimbursements or other benefits from individuals or organizations covered (or likely to be covered) by the User in a Wikipedia article.

• Users must disclose the fact of payment or compensation (not the amount) of any sort from individuals or organizations who are the subject of coverage the User is to provide, edit, prepare or supervise on Wikipedia.

[2]

John Jones

[3]

[4]

Proposals by Alanscottwalker

Proposed principles

Bureaucrats

1) WP:Administrators are granted advanced permission only according to the policy and process of Wikipedia. WP:Bureaucrats are bound by Wikipedia's policy and process when granting and revoking permissions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[====Procedure for revocation of adminship (borrowed from Uninvited Company==== 2) The established procedure for revocation of adminship is contained in Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal of permissions and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Removal of permissions. By design, these procedures require the involvement of multiple Wikipedians, and incorporate time for deliberation.

This is proposed by Uninvited Company above and discussion should occur there]

3) The established procedure for revocation of adminship is contained in Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal of permissions and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Removal of permissions. By design, these procedures require the involvement of multiple Wikipedians, and incorporate time for deliberation.

Role of "Ignore All Rules" when performing rules bound advanced permission functions

4) Both WP:Administrators in self-unblocking and WP:Bureaucrats in removing permissions, are bound by policy and procedure in the use of those permissions. For a single Bureaucrat to take out-of-process action to remove advanced permissions, when a single Administrator performed out-of-process administrative actions in self-unblocking is contradictory.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

new

National Cambodian Heritage Museum

Established	2004
Location	2831 W. Lawrence Ave. Chicago, IL 60625 P: (773) 878-7090
Type	Private nonprofit cultural organization
Owner	Cambodian Association of Illinois
Website	www.cambodianmuseum.org

The National Cambodian Heritage Museum & Killing Fields Memorial seeks to commemorate and interpret the experiences of the Cambodian people and immigrants to the United States. Located in the Albany Park neighborhood of Chicago, it is overseen by the Cambodian Association of Illinois, an immigrant social services and heritage agency. The museum opened in 2004 in the agency headquarters. Its exhibits have included: ". The museum is a private, non-profit organization, open to the public. It is a member organization of the Chicago Cultural Alliance.

new

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/chicagoans-preserve-their-cambodian-heritage/

http://newamericamedia.org/2017/03/these-seniors-are-survivors----serving-cambodian-elders-in-chicago.php

https://www.presstelegram.com/2016/05/04/long-beach-will-soon-be-home-to-one-of-nations-only-memorials-to-victims-of-killing-fields/

CRU Building

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

new

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

Historymakers: [15] Black Histories find their voice aided by group, Rhodes Sec 1:4 April 8, 2016 [16]

[desplains river] [17]

Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race, authored by Ashley Montague.

[18][19][20][21] [22][23][24][25][26][27][28]

[29]

[30]1896 "inspired notion to use x-rays to treat cancer" 21 years old "flamboyant, adventurous, and fiercely inventive" 75 electron tube Rose Lee factory electron tube Halsted tinfoil cover body (18 days) it shrank relapse metastasized March 29, 1896 - "first documented local response to x-rays" 76, died at 85 operations in by mid 40s to remove fingers face growths (limits cause injury/cancer and only local) 9781439107599 scribner 2010

NANM [31]

After

Watercolors by Winslow Homer: The Color of Light - Martha Tedeschi, Kristi Dahm - Google Books [32]

Zapata [33][34][35][36][37]

Lark [38] [39]

The senior King was inspired by a trip to Germany for that years' Baptist World Alliance (BWA) meeting. While visiting sites associated with reformation leader, Martin Luther, attendees also witnessed the rise of Nazism. The BWA conference issued a resolution condemning anti-Semitism, and the senior King gained a new appreciation for the power of the Luthur's protest.

References

Background

During the American Revolutionary era (1765-1783), thirteen colonies of the first British empire developed a number of disputes against British colonial government. To address these issues, colonial representatives cooperated in the Continental Congress. On July 2, 1776, the second congress resolved that each of these colonies is a free and independent state, and soon after adopted the Declaration of Independence of the "united States of America". In 1777, the congress proposed to the states ratification of a weak compact in the Articles of Confederation; after an extended process in the states, this confederation eventually came into effect. Also during this period, the newly independent states developed their individual written constitutions. Later, from 1787 to 1790, each of the states ratified a new federal frame of government in the Constitution of the United States.

References

C

As a research institution, UChicago has attracted an internationally recognized faculty from its beginning, and is one of the most highly regarded universities.

References

re

Jackie Taylor (actress) Carlos Tortolero Cyrus Colter [40] Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 153

" 'The picture of Dorian Gray' (the film that featured the first painting ever on-screen in color, and still the most horrifying. Dorian in the last stages of decay painted by Chicago artist Ivan Albright, who, it almost seemed to me, had existed for that very purpose." (Between Lives: An Artist and Her World Dorothea Tanning - 2011)

[41] [42]

[43] Haefeli, Evan (2006). "Du Sable, Jean Baptiste Pointe". Encyclopedia of African American History, 1619–1895: From the Colonial Period to the Age of Frederick Douglass. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 431–432. ISBN 0195167775. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

"seems . . . applied for social relief"

Salgado [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]

• The above is an odd statement, because, of course to have an infobox, you have to have someone doing the work of selecting and populating an infobox - so a priori it's not defaulted, but in general this is my read of our editing consensus with respect to the current wide usage of infoboxes, and the spirit of WP:SUMMARY STYLE: any topic that is amenable to standardized fact based statements (eg. persons, places, and many things, but not many concepts) should be open to an infobox, and a non-consensus should default in it being added in coding for consistent reader experience and lay-out. Infoboxes, it should be noted, in many cases take the place of just another "box", the 'thumb-view-and-image-caption-box' for the "primary-top-left" image. Infobox code should generally be seen in terms of standard article structure, like lead, and sections, and references, etc. (which we don't dispense with willy-nilly), but in all cases then, the information in the infobox (from the caption if there is an image to the end) can then be subject to ordinary editor consensus. (the stub discussion is odd because, we already see very short articles with infoboxes, too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Lincoln [54]

Your first about "dudes only" does not seem to be the problem, at least the way you state it. Rather the problem of referring to everyone as "mankind" is the language perception problem itself (ie. the perceived implication that everyone is a kind of man). And while traditionally its been a 'man's world', and 'man is been the measure of all things', and even, yes, all of us are, 'Man', we simultaneously have the tradition of a man is a dude, so women, etc. are then dudekind (eg., a woman is a kind of man). And while sure, you can say to a woman 'yes, you are a kind of man, you just don't understand the linguistics of "man" ', it may raise problems.<s/ So, that's the perception issue. Turning to "gender neutral", it would seem one is generally on a continuum where basically everyone can say 'don't generally refer to her as a man' but then you go to quibbles of 'don't generally refer to her as a man but generally refer to her and other women as mankind because they really truly they are mankind'. So the 'neutrality process' would be can't you think of an alternative that doesn't get into the quibble? And as you note, there are a multiplicity of alternatives for mankind. Finally, as for anyone doing bot edits, the cart seems to be before the horse, as you note, because even if you have a generalized deprecation (like many published style guide do), it would not address the exceptions.

Because when an editor does the alert, the Admin has a built in systematic prompt to investigate and think about, 'why?'. Editor interaction is key, and keyed. There is no why with a bot, the bot just did what it was programmed to do -- leading to, as others note, unthinking programmatic alert litter, and alert litter that is likely to raise alarm and turn-off, no matter how worded, except perhaps in the most experienced, and for them, they will be turned-off by, and resent the littering, itself. In short, if you have a message for me, come tell me what your message is, and we can discuss it, don't tell me I have to take meaning from a bot. The bots telling me, 'beep, boop', and I should not be forced to take meaning from that. Either you are serious about alerting me about something you think I am unaware of, or you are not, and a bot can only suggest you're never serious, and that it has no capacity to think about what I need to know. --

You are wrong: a 'should' may have exceptions, but 'should' means unless the one who wishes to claim an exception convinces they are within the exception, they follow the 'should'. It makes no sense to construe the guideline, as 'I get to do whatever, when I don't get my way'. As for the rest, it just further demonstrates you want to bring up irrelevant wikilawing, which would tend to disruption -- you want sanctions against others, open an AN/I on them. (See also, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) --

ORES INFO: [55]

Ishakawa

[Ishikawa]

[56] Mildred carter

{{Namespace detect| |main=

|other={{#ifeq:|yes||