→Radioactive contamination: fix typos (sigh) |
FormerNukeSubmariner (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
:The subject matter added to this article is generally appropriate (to the extent that it is reliably sourced and written in neutral language) to [[Rocky Flats Plant]], which article the IPs also have edited. That article is not protected. This talk page is available for you to provide a reasoned explanation for why you think that an extensive detailed history of Rocky Flats needs to be in the article about the City of Denver under the judgmental heading "Radioactive contamination." Please note that the half-life of plutonium is not a sufficient basis for adding extensive details about the history of Rocky Flats to the article about the city of Denver, please see [[WP:UNDUE]], and please note that the article text does mention the presence of Rocky Flats in the area, and it contains a link to the article [[Rocky Flats Plant]] (one of many important topics about Denver and environs that are treated in that same fashion). --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC) |
:The subject matter added to this article is generally appropriate (to the extent that it is reliably sourced and written in neutral language) to [[Rocky Flats Plant]], which article the IPs also have edited. That article is not protected. This talk page is available for you to provide a reasoned explanation for why you think that an extensive detailed history of Rocky Flats needs to be in the article about the City of Denver under the judgmental heading "Radioactive contamination." Please note that the half-life of plutonium is not a sufficient basis for adding extensive details about the history of Rocky Flats to the article about the city of Denver, please see [[WP:UNDUE]], and please note that the article text does mention the presence of Rocky Flats in the area, and it contains a link to the article [[Rocky Flats Plant]] (one of many important topics about Denver and environs that are treated in that same fashion). --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
My...how much more quickly you're able to respond once I've complained to Jimmy Wales on administrator abuse. |
|||
While your observation seems to focus solely on the number of edits, I suggest that you hone your skills as an admin by focusing on content...not number of edits. I don't see you questioning the validity of any of the content, which is all very focused on what has happened here in the Denver area over decades regarding Rocky Flats contamination. |
|||
Yes, the IPs were mine, but I'm not engaging in sock puppetry. In fact, I created this ID to help fix the Denver content, which GLARINGLY ignores the plutonium contamination issue, a health risk to all in the Denver metropolitan area. The original IP I used was at my home, and after a recent thunderstorm the IP shifted. So what? How is that relevant to your complete destruction of the subarticle, which given the huge body of evidence for effects on Denver I still see NO excuse for. |
|||
I didn't log in this morning for my edits, I just edited. Again...so what? How is that relevant to the content and goodness or badness of the edits? If it rankles your sensibilities, I'll make the effort to log in before making edits. |
|||
Your deletion of the section in its entirety -- one clearly heavily researched and cited -- was heavy-handed and wrong. |
|||
As regards NPOV, I don't know how to write anything positive about plutonium contamination in an area populated by 2.5 million people. Do you? That's why I stuck to FACTUAL citations of the plutonium mess here, one that is quite well known of in every place one might look, EXCEPT the [[Denver]] article. Pray tell...why is that, and how do you justify it by deleting the entire subsection? |
|||
If you take issue with particular edits, I invite you to participate in the tidying up of the 'Radioactive contamination' subsection, but to completely delete it reveals an agenda on your part that has nothing to do with being a Wikipedia admin, and perhaps a great deal to being from [[Oak Ridge]]. BTW, I'm not assuming bad faith...I'm observing it. |
|||
I invoke you to restore the subsection as-written. Your participation in making it a great article is heavily encouraged. |
|||
--[[User:FormerNukeSubmariner|FormerNukeSubmariner]] ([[User talk:FormerNukeSubmariner|talk]]) 23:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:23, 3 September 2011
Denver has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
Cities GA‑class | |||||||
|
United States: Colorado / U.S. counties GA‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
Please add new sections at the bottom (or click "post a comment").
Too many pictures
I think this page has WAY too many pictures in it, to the point of disrupting the visual quality of the page and even causing pictures to bump into each other. The page is also quite large and we should strongly considering getting rid of many low-quality, out-of-date or superfluous pictures on this site. They can all go to Denver's Wikipedia Commons page (if they are not there already) instead of clogging the main wikipedia site. My suggestions for removal include the out-of-date satellite image, some of the excess monument photos, the downtown buildings in the "neighborhoods" section, at least one of the City and County Building photos in the government section, the religious institutions photos strangely put in the "transportation" section, and the low-quality photo of Santa Fe Drive (that has most of the block in shade). However, I am open to suggestions. Vertigo700 (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. This page is saturated with pictures of statues and up-close, partial shots of buildings that do not necessarily represent the character of the city. A few here and there are okay, but the sections you referenced have too many unnecessary photos. I'm not sure how to properly sign my comments, but I'll try. gtj82 09:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
CRIME ???
- Has anyone noticed the "crime" section of this article? Is any of that information sourced? Even if this information is accurate, Do we really want give these gangs acknowledgement? There is a reason the news does not name specific gangs when reporting on the crimes they commit. If you decide you want this article on your page, I would at the very least reconsider the articulation. It appears that this section was written by "Gnative". From looking into his past edits it appears that he is attempting to make give Edgewater, CO a reputation as being associated with gangs and crime or give Edgewater "street credit".71.237.117.166 (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know to which "Crime" section you refer, but the one I see has numerous references to mainstream sources. Is there another "Crime" section that I missed? If there are any particular statements that you identify as unsourced, please tag them with [citation needed], and we will deal with them. I don't know why Wikipedia should have an editorial "head-in-the-sand" policy with regard to the crime problem in Denver or anywhere else. As for Edgewater, it is not emphasized in the article; on the contrary, it is only briefly listed, along with a number of other Denver suburbs. Again, you seem to be referring to a very different "Crime" section than the one I'm reading. Plazak (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yesterday I removed the first paragraph of the Crime section, since it seemed fairly opinionated (probably original research, at least in part) and was sourced only to city-data.com, which is not a reliable source. The remaining content did seem to be based on decent sources, as Plazak states (I've not verified that it's based on the sources cited, though). However, I think the content and its placement in the article may represent undue emphasis. The standard outlines for city articles include History, Geography, Demographics, Government, Economy, Media, Transportation, and Education but "Crime" does not normally appear in the outline at the same level as those other topics -- and not sandwiched between Government and Economy. If the content is valid, this might belong in the article as a subtopic of some other topic, or possibly as a separate article on "Crime in Denver". --Orlady (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I checked the Los Angeles and Chicago articles, in both of which Crime is given a subhead under "Law and Government". This would seem to be a good place to put this section in the Denver article. As for the size of the Crime section in the Denver article, I do not believe that two paragraphs is undue emphasis. Unfortunately, by removing the statistics sourced from city-data.com, you deleted the lead that put Denver crime into its context with other US cities. There should be a reliable source that we could cite for Denver crime stats. Plazak (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- To me the biggest problem here is not that the article has a crime section, it's that the crime section is nothing but various gang anecdotes. A better crime section would talk in general about crime in Denver: What are the general crime rates? How has it changed over the years? How does it compare with other cities? Not just a list of various gangs in Denver and their activities. Vertigo700 (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the current content is out of context, but that lack of context doesn't justify insertion of unreliable statistics and original research on how the statistics compare with cities. The level of detail currently in this article, plus the additional detail that you are suggesting, would be more in keeping with a separate article on Crime in Denver. There would then be a very short excerpt in this article and a link off to the other article. And there does need to be a good source for crime statistics and the analysis of those statistics -- city-data is not a good source. --Orlady (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand why city data is not a good source. The article for Los Angeles uses city police data for its crime section. It seems that is the only reliable source of information about city crime. I don't think it's very necessary to have a crime section, but I don't think we can discount city data on this subject. Indeed it would seem to be the most accurate and possibly only information about crime in Denver. To me a good crime section would simply have information about the police generally...how public safety is organized in Denver and maybe just brief mentions of crime statistics in the city. Most of that information can be found here: http://www.denvergov.org/AboutUs/tabid/437567/Default.aspx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertigo700 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- City data is not a reliable source because there's nobody with a reputation for fact-checking who can stand behind the data there. It might be census data, it might be data from some other reliable data provider, or it might be something self-serving that Susie the local realtor contributed to them. You can't tell. I searched the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard for discussions of city-data and found exactly two: this one where I was the only commenter -- ack! (but I do support my own views) and this later discussion with more participants. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- As for the City of Denver crime statistics, the source is reliable, but that site has a blizzard of very detailed statistics, and essentially zero discussion of what they mean. A lot of the data are for small areas of the city and partial years, and even city-wide year-long tables like this one have a lot of very specific statistics that are pretty overwhelming to some unfamiliar with crime data. In accordance with wP:PRIMARY, this is a type of primary source that Wikipedia should not be relying on -- articles need to present data along with explanations that were provided in published form by someone credible. --Orlady (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand why city data is not a good source. The article for Los Angeles uses city police data for its crime section. It seems that is the only reliable source of information about city crime. I don't think it's very necessary to have a crime section, but I don't think we can discount city data on this subject. Indeed it would seem to be the most accurate and possibly only information about crime in Denver. To me a good crime section would simply have information about the police generally...how public safety is organized in Denver and maybe just brief mentions of crime statistics in the city. Most of that information can be found here: http://www.denvergov.org/AboutUs/tabid/437567/Default.aspx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertigo700 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the current content is out of context, but that lack of context doesn't justify insertion of unreliable statistics and original research on how the statistics compare with cities. The level of detail currently in this article, plus the additional detail that you are suggesting, would be more in keeping with a separate article on Crime in Denver. There would then be a very short excerpt in this article and a link off to the other article. And there does need to be a good source for crime statistics and the analysis of those statistics -- city-data is not a good source. --Orlady (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- To me the biggest problem here is not that the article has a crime section, it's that the crime section is nothing but various gang anecdotes. A better crime section would talk in general about crime in Denver: What are the general crime rates? How has it changed over the years? How does it compare with other cities? Not just a list of various gangs in Denver and their activities. Vertigo700 (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I checked the Los Angeles and Chicago articles, in both of which Crime is given a subhead under "Law and Government". This would seem to be a good place to put this section in the Denver article. As for the size of the Crime section in the Denver article, I do not believe that two paragraphs is undue emphasis. Unfortunately, by removing the statistics sourced from city-data.com, you deleted the lead that put Denver crime into its context with other US cities. There should be a reliable source that we could cite for Denver crime stats. Plazak (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yesterday I removed the first paragraph of the Crime section, since it seemed fairly opinionated (probably original research, at least in part) and was sourced only to city-data.com, which is not a reliable source. The remaining content did seem to be based on decent sources, as Plazak states (I've not verified that it's based on the sources cited, though). However, I think the content and its placement in the article may represent undue emphasis. The standard outlines for city articles include History, Geography, Demographics, Government, Economy, Media, Transportation, and Education but "Crime" does not normally appear in the outline at the same level as those other topics -- and not sandwiched between Government and Economy. If the content is valid, this might belong in the article as a subtopic of some other topic, or possibly as a separate article on "Crime in Denver". --Orlady (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know to which "Crime" section you refer, but the one I see has numerous references to mainstream sources. Is there another "Crime" section that I missed? If there are any particular statements that you identify as unsourced, please tag them with [citation needed], and we will deal with them. I don't know why Wikipedia should have an editorial "head-in-the-sand" policy with regard to the crime problem in Denver or anywhere else. As for Edgewater, it is not emphasized in the article; on the contrary, it is only briefly listed, along with a number of other Denver suburbs. Again, you seem to be referring to a very different "Crime" section than the one I'm reading. Plazak (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- From my poking around on the web, it appears to me that Denver disseminates a lot more information about crime than the typical city does -- in near-real time and down to the neighborhood level. The news media eagerly report on the crime rate, and if you look at more than a few of their stories, it rapidly becomes apparent that rates fluctuate from year to year and place to place, so (for example) one year murder is up and the next year it's down. Somebody must be tracking long-term trends and city-to-city comparisons over multi-year periods, but you won't find much long-term perspective in news stories like these (all from the period 2008 to 2010):
- Aurora's crime rate dips, but homicides on the rise - [1]
- Denver's declining murder rate follows national trend - [2]
- Number of crimes up 0.4 percent, driven by big jump in violent crimes [3]
- Denver crime-rate climbs while national urban crime rates mysteriously dip [4]
- Denver crime rate dives [5]
- Most Colorado cities see drop in overall crime rates [6]
- --Orlady (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with what Vertigo700 (talk) and Orlady are expressing. The article may have its place, but naming off random gangs doesn't seem to be necessary. Why any one who would give groups of people (gangs) thrive off of raping killing and sell drugs any type of recognition in article like this, is beyond me. The author of that chapter seems to glorify these predators. There are a lot of different subjects to crime other than gangs. Also the statistics are from 6 years ago in 2004, the statistics from 2009 are quite different. I understand Edgewater is one of a few suburbs, tell me one suburb that isn't affected by gangs or crime...... Why single these suburbs out?......Why not list all the suburbs? or just call it Denver Metro or leave that out and leave it up to each individual city to advertise what gangs they have. The way this chapter is articulated makes me question the intentions of the author.
- I do not see a single sentence in the Crime section that would "glorify" any gang; perhaps you could point one out. The section sticks to basic factual expressions, heavily referenced. If you object to the wording that would "single these suburbs out" then perhaps you can find a reliable source which explicitly says that every suburb has gang problems - otherwise your assertion is just your opinion; in the meantime, the 5 documented examples effectively get the point across that the gang problem is not confined to the City of Denver. But gangs are a problem in Denver (as well as many other places) and a wiki article should not be afraid to present both the good and the bad aspects of Denver. Do not shirk from the truth. Plazak (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with what Vertigo700 (talk) and Orlady are expressing. The article may have its place, but naming off random gangs doesn't seem to be necessary. Why any one who would give groups of people (gangs) thrive off of raping killing and sell drugs any type of recognition in article like this, is beyond me. The author of that chapter seems to glorify these predators. There are a lot of different subjects to crime other than gangs. Also the statistics are from 6 years ago in 2004, the statistics from 2009 are quite different. I understand Edgewater is one of a few suburbs, tell me one suburb that isn't affected by gangs or crime...... Why single these suburbs out?......Why not list all the suburbs? or just call it Denver Metro or leave that out and leave it up to each individual city to advertise what gangs they have. The way this chapter is articulated makes me question the intentions of the author.
- I understand your concerns and agree with the majority of your concerns. I know for a fact that there is a significant gang presence in Denver and do not object that it is PROPERLY documented in this article. But it is important that this article is sourced and the information can be verified. This requirement that Wikipedia mandates is one of the things that makes it Wikipedia credible and not a run away blog or forum.This section has the appearance of being well sourced, but appearance is all there is.
The sources used in this section have multiple issues:
- A few of them link to Web pages that don't exist or don't work.
- A lot of the material references a MAGTF site as a source. MAGTF stands for Metro Area Graffiti Task Force. The site simply lists different gangs that have been "reported" to be in the Denver Metro Area. There is no indication that MAGTF is credible. The site was created a single Englewood Police Officer and is basically a blog.
- One of the other sources is a forum, the issues with this source are obvious.
- Some of the other sources touch on the subject, but in no way express the information detailed in this article.
71.237.117.166 (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good call on those non-RS sources! I restored a little bit of the deleted material (note that a source is not rendered invalid if the URL goes dead -- and I had no problem finding the FBI webpage) and did a fair amount of revising -- based mostly on my own reading of the cited sources. Although the sources often didn't substantiate the text of the article, some of the sources did have good information. My biggest change, however, was to move the whole section to a new separate article, Gang activity in Denver. Since gang activity is the only "crime" topic in the Denver article, the Crime section was very unbalanced. The new article is currently linked from Denver only as a "see also," since there's no real good place in the article to link to it. --Orlady (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Orlady's solution. It appears that this editor is back. The article is written better, but this editor is still using the invalid sources as described above.I reverted the article to the way it was.71.237.117.166 (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Archiving
The talk page was getting a bit leggy, so I decided to archive anything from 2007 to its own Archive page. I also created pages for future archiving in case the need arises. I only did 2007 because I felt archiving that year provided more that sufficient room on the talk pages. There are of course other ways to archive pages, but I just went with the one we were currently using. Hopefully that works for everyone. Vertigo700 (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Updated Land area statistics
While reading the statistics for Denver it seemed odd that the Metro land area was listed as 8,414.4 sq mi, which is a square 91 miles on each side. The citation URL was dead so I did some digging and found the number "Seven-Country Metro Denver: 4,531 square miles" on http://www.denver.org/metro/media/press-blog?bid=90 I'm new to authoring so I'm not sure if this site is a good source or not. Falconerd (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- The census actually has pretty good definitions of the different metropolitan statistical areas associated with Denver. The main one is the Denver-Aurora-Broomfield Metropolitan Statistical Area which constitutes Denver, Adams, Arapahoe, Douglas, Jefferson and Broomfield counties. (Boulder has its own Metropolitan Statistical Area which constitutes all of Boulder County). There is a larger Denver-Aurora-Boulder Combined Statistical Area, but that actually also includes Greeley and so Weld County. You can find the government document for this information here. So you can certainly do the math and just subtract Boulder county or add Weld to the total. Of course all of this is with the caveat that many of these areas (even Arapahoe and Adams, which border Denver) are not urbanized, so it's not exactly the same as the Web site claims as being almost as large as Connecticut, but that isn't something we'd claim anyway. Hope that helps and welcome to Wikipedia! Vertigo700 (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Population Estimate in Opening Section
'The United States Census Bureau estimated that the population of Denver was 600,158 during the 2010 census. [10] making it the 24th most populous U.S. city according to 2009 Census estimates.'
This makes no sense. For one thing it appears that 'during the 2010 census.' has just replaced 'in 2009'. I'm thinking this for a few reasons. The Census Bureau would have no need to estimate when they has Census data, the first part has been changed into a finished sentence with a full stop, but then it continues mid-sentence. Actually, I'm getting myself confused. You can see what's wrong and it'd be great if someone who had some sense could fix it. Also, when will the 2010 Census data for individual cities and counties be available? So far I can only find data for states. VanillaBear23 (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- The reason being is because the census data is not available yet for every state to make a national comparsion. While the 2010 census figures are released for Colorado (see citation in article), it's not yet available for other states. The latest full data is from the 2009 U.S. Census estimates. Hope this answers your question. --Moreau36--Discuss 21:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, my question essentially is could someone change the wording of this sentence because it makes no sense, please? Actually, screw it, I'll do it myself, the sentence should read: 'The United States Census Bureau estimated that the population of Denver was 600,158 in 2009, making it the 24th most populous U.S. city.' As far as I know, this was basically what it said before some chucklehead added the 2010 bit. There is no data for 2010 yet, so why make a strained attempt to crowbar it in? VanillaBear23 (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh crap, I can't do it myself, because the fool who slapped that stupid 'during the 2010 census' bull in there has moronically cited it, which means I probably can't delete it without it being reversed and getting myself a warning. I do wonder sometimes about Wikipedia. There are some of us who know when a sentence doesn't make sense, but because others make poor revisions, and for some reason put some pointless reference in, we can't change them without being warned. VanillaBear23 (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know why you feel you need to personally attack other editors on a talk thread. Also, the sentence you proposed, "'The United States Census Bureau estimated that the population of Denver was 600,158 in 2009, making it the 24th most populous U.S. city," does not make sense because the 600,158 figure is from the 2010 census not the 2009 census estimates. The reason I wrote it as I did originally was exactly because of the reasons Moreau36 said. And you actually could have changed it as long as the citation is still correct; IE you use the 2010 figures that were used in the citation. I changed the wording. Hopefully that satisfies you. Vertigo700 (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I apologize for any perceived attack, but it did not make sense before. Your change does indeed satisfy me, though I'm a little confused still. The reason I thought the 600,158 figure was a 2009 estimate, which was the main source of my confusion, was that in the sidebar that population it mentions being 24th in 2009 which I got mixed up. Well done, sorry again. VanillaBear23 (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know why you feel you need to personally attack other editors on a talk thread. Also, the sentence you proposed, "'The United States Census Bureau estimated that the population of Denver was 600,158 in 2009, making it the 24th most populous U.S. city," does not make sense because the 600,158 figure is from the 2010 census not the 2009 census estimates. The reason I wrote it as I did originally was exactly because of the reasons Moreau36 said. And you actually could have changed it as long as the citation is still correct; IE you use the 2010 figures that were used in the citation. I changed the wording. Hopefully that satisfies you. Vertigo700 (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh crap, I can't do it myself, because the fool who slapped that stupid 'during the 2010 census' bull in there has moronically cited it, which means I probably can't delete it without it being reversed and getting myself a warning. I do wonder sometimes about Wikipedia. There are some of us who know when a sentence doesn't make sense, but because others make poor revisions, and for some reason put some pointless reference in, we can't change them without being warned. VanillaBear23 (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
# of neighborhoods discrepancy
The article says there are 80 neighborhoods, and the map says there are 79...which is it? Error9900 (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Denver culture
very sad to have'nt found any information about Denver as third capital of Beat Movement, like New York and San Francisco. more, any notice about John Fante. cultural connections whit the city of Denver that may be better underlined. Clemente Tecchia, 07-01-11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.44.9.231 (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Climate stats
I wanted to change the climate stats on the weather box to reflect updated numbers from NOAA, but can't figure out how to access the box to change the numbers. Anyone able to help with that? Vertigo700 (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Radioactive contamination
After what has clearly been a great deal of research and appropriate citation, administrator Orlady has deleted this section in its entirety.
Example of many points of data that were deleted, clearly showing impact on Denver:
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/rf/charta.htm
As plutonium has a 24,000 year half-life, and the continuing impact of Rocky Flats on Denver is without question, it is for Orlady to explain his/her unitlateral action, which was done without any discussion whatsoever. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- There were dozens of edits to the article over the past few days. You (a newly registered user) and several anonymous IPs -- all behaving "remarkably" alike -- have repeatedly created and expanded a "Radioactive contamination" section to this article. The section comprised roughly 10% of the article (that's a lot of "Wikipedia real estate") and was written in the style of an exposé placing Denver in a negative light. Another user removed the section at least twice, pointing out that the Rocky Flats Plant is not in, nor particularly near, the city of Denver, which happens to be the subject of the article. Those removals were reverted by one or more of the various participants in creating the section. Additionally, a bot removed some external links that had been added because they violated Wikipedia's guidelines on external links; those removals also were reverted. That's edit warring, apparently with the purpose of pushing some point of view (about radioactivity, the U.S. government, Denver, or some related topic). Edit warring and POV-pushing are disruptive -- all the more so in a widely read article such as Denver, which also is a Good article. I semi-protected the article to stop the disruption. On my talk page, you say that my action was "not what I'm used to seeing from a Wikipedia administrator," so I have a hunch that you are also aware of policies on matters like edit-warring.
- The subject matter added to this article is generally appropriate (to the extent that it is reliably sourced and written in neutral language) to Rocky Flats Plant, which article the IPs also have edited. That article is not protected. This talk page is available for you to provide a reasoned explanation for why you think that an extensive detailed history of Rocky Flats needs to be in the article about the City of Denver under the judgmental heading "Radioactive contamination." Please note that the half-life of plutonium is not a sufficient basis for adding extensive details about the history of Rocky Flats to the article about the city of Denver, please see WP:UNDUE, and please note that the article text does mention the presence of Rocky Flats in the area, and it contains a link to the article Rocky Flats Plant (one of many important topics about Denver and environs that are treated in that same fashion). --Orlady (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
My...how much more quickly you're able to respond once I've complained to Jimmy Wales on administrator abuse.
While your observation seems to focus solely on the number of edits, I suggest that you hone your skills as an admin by focusing on content...not number of edits. I don't see you questioning the validity of any of the content, which is all very focused on what has happened here in the Denver area over decades regarding Rocky Flats contamination.
Yes, the IPs were mine, but I'm not engaging in sock puppetry. In fact, I created this ID to help fix the Denver content, which GLARINGLY ignores the plutonium contamination issue, a health risk to all in the Denver metropolitan area. The original IP I used was at my home, and after a recent thunderstorm the IP shifted. So what? How is that relevant to your complete destruction of the subarticle, which given the huge body of evidence for effects on Denver I still see NO excuse for.
I didn't log in this morning for my edits, I just edited. Again...so what? How is that relevant to the content and goodness or badness of the edits? If it rankles your sensibilities, I'll make the effort to log in before making edits.
Your deletion of the section in its entirety -- one clearly heavily researched and cited -- was heavy-handed and wrong.
As regards NPOV, I don't know how to write anything positive about plutonium contamination in an area populated by 2.5 million people. Do you? That's why I stuck to FACTUAL citations of the plutonium mess here, one that is quite well known of in every place one might look, EXCEPT the Denver article. Pray tell...why is that, and how do you justify it by deleting the entire subsection?
If you take issue with particular edits, I invite you to participate in the tidying up of the 'Radioactive contamination' subsection, but to completely delete it reveals an agenda on your part that has nothing to do with being a Wikipedia admin, and perhaps a great deal to being from Oak Ridge. BTW, I'm not assuming bad faith...I'm observing it.
I invoke you to restore the subsection as-written. Your participation in making it a great article is heavily encouraged.
--FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)