User talk:H lina k

Re: news item on Sandy Springs page under History - I think if we include that item under history, based on the rationale that Sandy Springs received national attention, then we also need to include the 20+ other times the city received national attention. If we do that, then the history section will be cluttered and hide what I would consider to be actual historical information. What are your thoughts on this?

I think that is important given the focus that the history section has towards the privatization of its city services. Had this not been such a focus of the history I would be inclined to agree with you, but this is an result of the history in the article. I can rewrite it though to fit it in with that outline better.h_lina_k (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandy Springs municipal court is operated the same way as any other municipal court in the U.S. City's rarely employ full time prosecutors or judges. So I'm still struggling to see how this has anything to do with Sandy Spring's privatization model of government? I think you may be confused as to how the court operates. There is no third-party company running the court. It is operated by the city and falls under the operating authority of a city employee, the same as any other municipal court in America. The only privatization is that the administrative staff are provided by a contractor, rather than being directly hired and paid by the city. If you are suggesting that the Judge’s decision in this news story is somehow indicative of privatization of City services, then that seems like a projection of your personal opinion of privatization. So if the story has nothing to do with privatization, I challenge your decision to include this story based on the rationale that it is somehow the result of privatization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbongreen (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have anything to due with the court system. In a typical municipality the hours of work would be set by the city itself because it would run the trash system. However, in a privatized scheme the city loses that control, and in order to retain that control is using the court system as a way to manage their private contractors hours of work performing city functions.

Using private waste haulers is not anything unique to Sandy Springs or its model of government. In the South, it is fairly typical for cities to use private wastes haulers. I can't think of a city in the Atlanta metro area that maintains a fleet of trucks and employees to handle waste hauling. All cities regulate noise through noise ordinances, whether it's construction work or trash collection. Again, I really don't see how it relates to Sandy Spring's history or model of government mentioned in the history. The key thing here is that you are classifying waste hauling as a "city function". I'm British, so I understand if you live in a region where that is a function that cities (or in the case of Britain, counties) provide, this could be confusing to you. But waste removal is the considered responsibility of homeowner in Georgia. Here's a list of residential waste haulers operating in the North-Metro area: http://www.sandyspringsga.gov/residents/resident-guide/your-home/garbage-recycling/residential-service-providers. So you see, the Sandy Springs hasn't "lost control" of anything. But I understand why you would be confused in this area. Based on this conversation, I'm going to go ahead and remove the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbongreen (talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A. you haven't cited a wikipedia policy that clarifies that this does not come to a level that does not constitute history and B. the issue at hand is that the city has criminalized functions of their private contractors which relates to the whole proud to be privatizing history espoused in the article. h_lina_k (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy_Springs%2C_Georgia#History

Peripitus. I find it problematic that relevant text would be removed because it is a negative story related to the history of privatization of city services because a city employee and an public relations firm for Atlanta want it removed. Someone researching the effects of privatization in their city would find this particular story of note, and given how much of the history page is devoted to that it seems very important to include and not triival.h_lina_k (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

H lina, I don't live in the United States and am not shilling for the city. It's a city of almost 100,000 that has a history going back > 150 years. The article is supposed to be an encyclopedic article covering this extensive city and it's long history, it simply cannot list every little thing that goes on. Google news shows me 70,000 news mentions of sandy springs, 25,000 of which relate to someone's death. This shows lots of things happening in the city ALL of which are important to someone. The article simply cannot and should not cover these. Wikipedia articles are not lists of recent happenings that attracted news attention - why then the article would have to cover the recent crash through the window of "Mikael’s Car Wash" that killed one person. Surely the death of a person and the irrevocable changing of the driver's life are important to people. We don't cover these matters in generalist articles as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news paper - Peripitus (Talk) 19:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you've reverted the same edit 4 times and think it's appropriate I draw your attention to the (Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule) page that clearly states "don't do that". If you continue reverting rather than taking on the article's talk page you are likely to get blocked from editing for a while. - Peripitus (Talk) 19:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:AutoCarelogo.png

Thanks for uploading File:AutoCarelogo.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 20:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard J. Leon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Purple Line. 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) 09:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ozone Transport Commission, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clean Air Act (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]