Talk:Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act is very important to DVRPC, but this article needs more than a bare statement about this Act. --DThomsen8 (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV/Verifiable dispute [Regional Citizens Committee]

This section gives undue weight to a singular event and uses loaded words to describe one persons view of this event. This section needs to focus on the 30+ years of the group with an impartial view. Jfazekas (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

These statements incorrectly create a relationship that does not exist by using the phrase "The reformation of the RCC was in response to..." There are no sources verifying this claim and it is incorrect to conclude that committee actions in March 2011 where the direct result of specific items (reportedly) in the minutes of May and July 2010. The statements do not imply the conclusion.

In addition, in the December 2010 minutes, the only statement pertaining the to the Action Task Force is "The Action Task Force did not meet, as there were no Board action items to review." This does not verify the statement that membership of the Action Force has been revoked.

The burden of proof is on the original author; however, text has been tagged instead of deleted in order to discuss here first. Js1568 (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

STOP. Your continued reverting of edits is now considered WP:VAN. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that the group on this page has issues that are being properly documented. You are also accused of WP:SOCK sock puppetry as you recently joined Wikipedia on July 6, 2011 at the near same time Jfazekas (who works for said organization, a clear Conflict of interest WP:COI) ceased making edits to this article on the same section. In addition, your username Js1568 is quite similar to your previous username (Jfazekas), making you a candidate for WP:DOPPELGANGER. You have also failed the duck test WP:DUCK, WP:GIANTDUCK in every possible way.Bnlboyardee89 (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Bnlboyardee89--I am not jfazekas, please don't be quick to assume. I am a concerned editor (re-registered: WP:CLEANSTART) noticing these prolonged edit wars; in addition, COI is only a concern if there is no neutrality WP:COI. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism is considered harmful WP:VAN. I argue that I have maintained neutrality in all edits, and I have defended the tags and edits I have made. You have made no response and continue to revert edits with no reasoning. Making the same edits THREE times is much more suspicious than my open pleas for debate and is bordering on tendentious. I have proven that your statements are factually wrong and your sources do not support the statements. As such, I have improved them (not reverted them as you continue to do). If you read the discussion page for DVRPC, you will see my justifications. You have a clear bias AGAINST this organization and this committee in particular. In addition, the RCC is only a very small part of the overall organization and should not be subjected to so much of the article. My effort is merely to maintain neutrality and facts and eliminate opinion, aggressive statements, and fallacies. Also--please be more judicious in your use of minor for your edits. WP:MINOR. Most importantly, please see: WP:GOODFAITH, this is an article I remind myself of often in my dealings with you. Js1568 (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I am making every effort to follow WP:CYCLE but I am not receiving any constructive feedback. The burden lies with the author and I have a few small, but serious, challenges to the article. I welcome the improvements recently made by User:Johacker as both constructive and integrating; however, I do not think that all of the points established are verifiable. I have tagged the sentences in question, but will leave the text. Previously, I had commented out the reference to Nazis as it could have been construed as libelous and without being found in source, it definitely should NOT be in this article. I welcome defense and criticism of the article but please refrain from personal attacks. What is most important for me is upholding WP:V, which I will continue to do with help from the rest of Wikipedia. Thanks. Js1568 (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Specific issues with content...

• How do you know "unknown employees" selected members of this subcommittee? That is not verifiable and should be edited.
• What is TIP? That is not explained in the section.
• Where are you getting the information about voting rights? Please provide good sources.
• Where is the source for diversity and Nazi concentration camps? Is this notable content to include (hence the recentism tag)? Please be very careful making connections between a living person and Naziism, it just does not seem necessary for understanding this organization.

Thanks. Js1568 (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, comments about the Nazi era were made by Aissia Richardson in her opening statements. The citation listed for this had the year as 2010 instead of the correct 2011. The correct url is

http://www.dvrpc.org/ASP/committee/committees/RCC/2011-05.pdf. To say that the chairwoman read a statement about nazi concentration camps is somewhat misleading. What she read was about a Nazi

supporting pastor who became anti-nazi. Sounds to me like she was whining about criticism but in any case, I didn't see anything in those opening statements that deserves mention in this wiki page.

If the DVRPC is a government agency, most of this is easly cleared up with Freedom of Information Act (or the PA equivalent) requests.

For me, it raises a flag when a user is active on a page and that page is their only contribution to Wiki. It leads to questions of neutrality. Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account

My suggestion is that any future edits to this page be discussed here to avoid any edit wars, which are of no benefit. Thanks, Chris W4chris (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Edits

I support your suggestion for discussion before editing. As such, I would like to remove the paragraph regarding Aissia Richardson's statement at the May 2011 meeting because it is largely irrelevant to the article and is an insignificant event. Also, the last sentence is unsourced. The ref links to the definition of a Public Participation Plan but does not address DVRPC's specific plan. In addition, I have a few minor edits to the preceding paragraphs to decrease redundancy and passive voice, and fix a few typos. I propose to replace the first text block with the second:

On March 8, 2011, members of the RCC were notified by Committee Chairwoman Aissia Richardson that voting rights for general members were being revoked on the Action Task Force subcommittee, which votes and comments on transportation projects (Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)Action Items), and had been redistributed to selected members chosen by the RCC executive committee and unknown DVRPC employees. The reorganization occurred after several months of RCC deliberations over SEPTA parking garage projects, commuter rail expansion, and prioritization of scarce public transportation funding. Despite several attempts, including a formal right-to-know request , DVRPC did not produce any records regarding the diversification of the RCC or alterations to the Federally mandated Public Participation Plan.

In March 2011, the RCC transitioned from general members to selected members chosen by DVRPC and the RCC executive committee only voting on Action Task Force subcommittee matters (Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Action Items). The reorganization occurred after several months of deliberations over SEPTA parking garage projects, commuter rail expansion, and prioritization of scarce public transportation funding. In July 2011, a formal right-to-know request required DVRPC to produce any records regarding alterations to the federally mandated Public Participation Plan.

I will hold off on any changes for a few days to discuss first. Thanks for your cooperation. Js1568 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Constant Changes part of DVRPC Coverup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johacker (talk • contribs) 17:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Js1568 has been verified as a DVRPC employee and is removing documented and verifiable entries on Wikipedia regarding a coverup scandle at the agency. This is being documented and will be used as evidence in any possible future action by government authorities against the unindicted co-conspirators at DVRPC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johacker (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please try to focus on the content of the edits rather than personal attacks. This is not the appropriate location for your accusations. If you have legitimate objections with the CONTENT I have edited or with the defenses I have given above, please feel free to share and work together to reach a consensus. Your reverts are working to destroy rather than facilitate. Thank you. Js1568 (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Nussbaum, Paul (November 17, 2011). "DVRPC disbands Regional Citizens Committee". The Philadelphia Inquirer.. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)