Brothercanyouspareadime

File:Pdnbtn.png

Kindness is better than biting!

If that is you in the picture of you, please go away and stay off my talk page.   गीता Brother Can You Spare A Dime - Unsparingly correcting prejudicial POV edits  would like you to consider that many people who edit on homeless and begging pages are not using encyclopedic methods they are listing all these personal instances wherein they took offense at homeless individuals. That is just hatred and immaturity on their part and has no role on wikipedia.

Notice of Intent to Comply and Contact Check Users and/or Admin

RE: "Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or member of the arbitration committee (DONE)if they believe editing will attract scrutiny. Editors who heavily edit controversial material, those who maintain single purpose accounts, as well as editors considering becoming an administrator are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so. Note that email is generally not considered a secure way of communication. Concerned editors may wish to log into Wikipedia's secure server then email (YEP) the arbitration committee or any individual with checkuser rights through a secure connection to Wikipedia's computers."

Point of view

You appear to be embarking on a campaign to rewrite the Wikipedia coverage of homelessness. While your intentions may well be correct, your approach appears to lack a neutral point of view and may cause problems. You would do well to address your concerns on various talk pages before launching into a one-man campaign. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's the other way around. Much of the writing on pages related to homeless are full of anecdotal evidence, poor or non-existent citations, and transparently hostile editors.My mission is to bring it all into conformity with Wikipedia policy, especially NPOV. And yes, some of the pages seem like they were written by homeless folks who maybe did not have the luxury of a college education. So yes, my goals are ambitious, but I have great faith in Wikipedia process, and I hope to bring a higher standard of NPOV to pages like "begging" and "homeless." I don't really agree with your reverts, but I will defer to you greater level of experience. I think that my background is closer to the underlying content, and your background is closer to the technology, and as a result we see things differently in a way we should both be able to live with. SO, thanks anyway for going easy with the revert button.  गीता Brother Can You Spare A Dime - Unsparingly correcting prejudicial edits 

But certainly a change of a term from "street people" (which has a Wikipedia article) to "the unhoused" (which sounds rather like a term you made up, and which does not actually imply people living on the streets but rather living any place other than a house) lends an air of campaigning to your edits. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It actually is a term from Housing and Urban Development and its grantee agencies, not I. The only reason I know it is because I am engaged with government advisory committees on this issue. "Street people" is colloquial and has its place, certainly on Wiktionary,but it is not an all purpose synonym for anyone who doesn't live in a house or apartment. Many people live in rural, mountainous, beach of forest environments and are classified as "unsheltered". Personally, I don't care for that word either, I think they have some pretty decent tipis and tents which constitute "shelter". But for encyclopedia purposes, HUD and its grantees are verifiable and citable.   गीता Brother Can You Spare A Dime - Unsparingly correcting prejudicial edits 

Other thoughts

Nope - not a term I made up, not a personal campaign you have it all wrong

You are highly experieced, and i take it as an honor to engage an editor/admin at your high level of competence. However...your expertise is different than mine. I have the equivalent of a masters in real estate/real property law and probably almost as much in the field of homeless issues.

Also, good writing skills.Not so much up to speed on wikipedia etiquette and coding, however, and perhaps you can be of assistance, eventually, to my interests in contributing to the project.

Setting aside the obvious side issue, the terminlogy has evolved. HUD mandates counting the number of homeless every two years now and Common Ground is campaigning nationally on an interagency basis on doing these counts, called Point In Time counts with an added element of what is called a Vulnerability Index. The cohort which they find difficult is people who are not in shelters, and the term of art used is "unsheltered".

I am not sure if I have seen "unhoused" so there is some truth perhaps it is a coinage I actually use the term and if no one else does then I will take it off wiki (and be pleased to take credit, why not?)

The proper term may indeed be "unsheltered"...

I have meetings all day Friday but by Monday the site will be buffed up if not sooner.

I will try to make time to make some changes .

BTW I have contacted Arb about the other issue.

Um, thanks for your concern and for working with me...

New Article Proposed

Warming Centers

Warming centers have evolved as a means of preventing hypothermia deaths in communities where there is not an adequate capacity in existing homeless shelters to handle overload conditions during inclement weather conditions. I intend to create a page but am concerned that the intitial stub would be deleted for lack of sufficient content. Also, it is more important to clean up the other existing pages such as homeless shelters, which is really a mess.

I and other editoris have also noticed many edits which are performed by people with a clear agenda to stigmative vulnerable populations. For instance, begging. In the message boards lately, I have had to police various posts promoting illegal violent and even terroristic action to harass homeless people. Homeless folks have in recent years been shot in multiple homicides, doused with gasoline and set on fire. Need I say more?

(Note this is a special purpose user account and is consistent with policy please contact me directly and privately if you have any questions. My main account is readily traceable to me personally.

I intend also to release this account name to a government advisory board to which I am applying for a position advising on homeless policy issues. Because it is not unlikely that some kind of stalker may become interested in this account, I will separate non related edit activity related to my academic specialty. I should probably contact the appropriate wiki team on that issue, but am including this language for your info as well. )

At any rate, what you could do is advise me on this question: At what point is a stub well enough established to avoid rapid deletion for lack of content? Which templates could best be used to fend that off? How much time can you buy to develope content and how long do you need to make the article before you are safely established?? Brothercanyouspareadime (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the Warming Centers article in its current condition is that it is overly specific. A generalized treatment about warming centres in all cold climates would be appropriate. Details of how one county operates its centres is not really within the scope of the encyclopedia. That's why I've added the {{globalize}} tag.

Is this topic not already covered in another article? —C.Fred (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I answered my own question, looking at emergency shelter. No, the topic is not covered, other than a single paragraph there. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Brothercanyouspareadime. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 03:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

wip templates

{{in use}} {{under construction}}

hth - Sitush (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Homelessness Project?

If you ever want to start a wiki project homelessness let me know. Please look look over my formatting on Warming center and see if they are correct; also, the article is new enough and large enough to be included on the main page as a WP:DYK. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 03:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Brothercanyouspareadime. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 05:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Homeless shelter has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 07:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No I was just re-ordering the sections as per the template.Brothercanyouspareadime (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Go ahead. TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 08:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Kindly give explanative edit summaries, so that editors don't get confused. Have a good day. TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 08:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

All's well that ends well.Natch...pressed for time I am at a big university and we are closed sorry about the protocol on user page posts...Brothercanyouspareadime (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vulnerability index

The article Vulnerability index has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Original research, failing WP:OR and probably WP:SYNTH

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andy (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Re Proposed Deletion

Um...there is an under construction plate already there. If you think there is OR in there please explain it. Just plating it tells us nothing because all of that stuff is from published sources. As I think I already noted,and in fact invited there will probably be separate pages for these and this will become a disambiguation page. If you think that process should be expedited please let me know.

Each of those three items are bodies of published material. I did not make up or research them with a shred of originality. It is all what is going on in the field of disaster management and community resilience. It may LOOK like OR because it is still somewhat cutting edge. But this is what they talk about at the international level. Most people don't hear this nomenclature until years later when it trickles down to community and national level discussions...but then that is exactly why so much on Wikipedia lacks a global orientation and is too specific to USA-NZ-UK-Australia.

Therein is my 3:30 PM on a Friday afternoon quick shot from the hip. I would appreciate an opportunity to experience a life away from this computer and not have to go through a tiresome undelete. Please reply to this page so the discussion can remain focused thanks.Brothercanyouspareadime (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• The article fails to explain that there is a general concept of a vulnerability index that encompasses the various examples you've given. It's just a list of examples. And the article is Original Research because at the moment it appears to be 'your idea to put all these things together as if they are somehow connected. If they are connected through a general concept then the article should state this clearly and should attribute it to someone. I'll leave it a couple of days for you to do this. andy (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I concur that proposing a general concept might be OR. The question I have for you is this: do you think it might be reasonable WP:xx to word the text on a Soft Redirect so that it is clear that this is a disambiguation with short summaries, or would you be inclined to require a bare-bones wiktionary-style disambiguation page? Is there precedent for SR - I would think so, but maybe I am way off - do SR's always have less detailing. No question that there may be some tweaking to be done but I noticed that before if I said nothing I was given a seven day window. Why shorten the window because I am responding? Please advise.

• What I meant was that since you have opposed the proposed deletion I can either choose to agree with you (which I don't) or take it to a full AFD debate for permanent deletion. Since you're still working on it I'll wait a couple of days before doing that. andy (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, on same Talkback, re SYNTH:

I actually thought that was a stronger claim. However, the key point which makes it inapposite is that there is no conclusion derived from the separate line entities. I think that you have a keen eye and I would do well to state explicitly that there is not generally accepted or proposed generalized concept and I will edit accordingly. However, I don't think that I actually did make the assertion, and maybe it would be better if the templates were more suggestive rather than hard deadlines.Brothercanyouspareadime (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• How about userfying the article until it's ready? No time pressure at all and plenty of opportunities for comment. andy (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to give up a piece of my userspace to host this. I see potential in it. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No I give up. I just went ahead and got rid of it as a "general concept of vulnerability index" I don't recall that I didn't take the point. What is there now is all cited verified and needing expansion. Brothercanyouspareadime (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Warming center

Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

WPIPNA

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas has been created but it's brand new and open to suggestions. There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mesoamerica. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Wikiproject Turtles

Hello fellow editor, I noticed your recent edit here and I just wanted to let you know that the project has been created! Feel free to join anytime! Thank you for your interest.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Homelssness

I don't think it needs a bigger scope look at all of this

Homelessness

Homelessness by country

Homeless people

Homelessness activists

Begging

Deinstitutionalisation

Discrimination against the homeless

Homeless sport

Homelessness and law

LGBTQ and homelessness

Homelessness organizations

Homelessness in popular culture

Public policies addressing homelessness

Runaway (dependent)

Homeless shelters

Homelessness solutions

Squatting

Vagrancy

Homelessness stubs

cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 19:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes I see the point however the issue is in a social matrix of housing shortage and often that is overlooked. We could remedy that. Perhaps there is a housing project and we should be a task force. But the down side is then we are locked in. We do need an interdisciplinary approach!

Thus, by having a broader perspective to include alternative housing modalities, for instance, and the plight of the squatter communities in a broader context to include food supply and impact of global warming. I dunno. Brothercanyouspareadime (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Belts and suspenders

BRO...DIME establishes a friendly and humane tone to edits on the topics dealing with vulnerable persons classified as homeless, houseless, etcetera. The user handle connects with an American song of the same name.

The level of stigmatization some editors placed upon these vulnerable populations is really quite reprehensible.

This even applies to people who should know better. For starters...well - I am late for lunch. I appeal to all admins and editors to help take the POV out of WP. Thanks. 19:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)