Talk:General Services Administration

message: "It should be noted that GSA's senior management are political appointees, not professional career civil servants." -- This is typical of most government agencies, so why is this noteworthy, let alone covered in the "controversies"  section? MrHudson (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 06:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's another hey-look-at-me-I'm-uncited-but-I'm-important-because-the-editor-who-put-me-there-says-so statement.  Removed.  --an odd name 08:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Noteworthiness?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on General Services Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110726044115/http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/public/pub-12.cfm to http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/public/pub-12.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: US Centric is a term used to refer to articles referring to organisations or bodies internal to the US without indicating in a prominent position that the body is indeed from the US. This can be interpreted as a form of arrogance on a web that serves a global community.
I would venture that this article would be improved if the title were changed to "US General Services Administration" or "General Services Administration - USA". Please do not introduce internal US concepts, bodies, organisations or people of authority without qualifying that they are from the US. 
We would not expect a lack of qualification when referring to a government body in Brazil or Spain yet articles pertaining to US bodies repeatedly omit the fact that the body is internal to the US and so has limited powers, authority, sanction and indeed meaning or interest outside of the USA.
Bodies with unique and well known names like the FBI are sufficiently well known to the global audience and arguably do not require geo-qualification.
This is an issue of politeness and etiquette as well as potential ambiguity etc  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.89.72.227 (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  US-Centric Title 

message: I am working to improve content on Wikipedia relating to high-performance buildings, which are extremely energy efficient, and examples of which exist all over the world.
A Wikipedia page called "High-Performance Green Buildings" auto-redirects to this page, about the United States General Services Administration. There is a single entry on this page noting that the GSA oversees a green-building program. As high performance buildings are a growing global phenomenon, this redirect is not only U.S. centric, it's just inappropriate.
I'd like to improve or add content to the existing page but I am not sure how to access it when it redirects here. Can someone suggest a resource? Thank you.
Jamesglave (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:EDRED. postdlf (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "High-Performance Green Buildings" point here? 

message: Since Emily Murphy ceased to be Administrator of GSA on and from 15 Jan 2021, shouldn't her photo be replaced by that of the current Acting Administrator until such time as a new Administrator assumes office? Or the space may better be left blank for the time being. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emily Murphy: 

message: I just read a late 1970s newspaper clipping which put the "G.S.A. scandal" in a list with "Watergate" and "Koreagate" as "spectacular disclosures" contributing to "the growing cynicism and distrust of the American people towards government and nearly every other institution". A quick google shows that there was some sort of scandal during the Jimmy Carter administration, but I didn't see details or full explanation.  It seems our article is missing something that was significant in the era in our "Controversies" section.  -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies

message: 100 billion a year funds you operate overseas in domestically as well and yet you're independent? 2600:1700:5892:D280:A451:1863:F530:A910 (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent agency