Talk:Straw-bale construction/Archive 1

message: Ok, I've just added a bunch of material and reorganized a bit.  There are tons of beautiful straw-bale houses out there... anyone got time to dig some up?  Wordie 15:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded, wikified 

message: I don't have the resource material handy to write about environmental considerations -- both external (resource consumption) and internal (offgassing?  better or worse for people with environmental sensitivities than conventional construction?).  Anyone up for the challenge?
Wordie 16:42, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental considerations 

message: Greetings everyone. I stumbled across this article and was compelled to become a member of Wikipedia, though I have been passively using the site for a while. I have been active in the SB community for the past few years, having worked on various stages of several projects in the US. I was one of a crew of four who built a strawbale residence from the muddy foundation trench, to the roof's ridge cap, to the finish coat of plaster. I am currently living in the UK working on a master's degree in Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies at the Centre for Alternative Technology.
I'd like to contribute to and improve this article, but I'm new to the Wiki process so bear with me while I take it slow.
I made a few edits to the external links and listed them in the edit summary. My reason for changing the text of The Straw Bale House to The Canelo Project (leaving the URL the same) is that the Steens' Book, while beautifully done and very influential, is also seriously outdated. The Canelo Project is still thriving and it seemed better to just call the link what it is. All of the Steens' books are available from that site.
I can recommend some other books but I am not familiar with the etiquette re: linking to Amazon or other commercial sites.
I moved The Last Straw Journal to the top, because for up-to-date information there is no better resource. I added Surfin' StrawBale just below it because it is the longest-lasting (and longest) list of links related to straw bale construction that exists.
I moved the two links to the Paso Robles project description together, since they're related. After browsing through both sites, it seems to me that they are detailing a long, ugly dispute between an owner and his former contractor. While the negative aspects and pitfalls of straw bale construction need to be addressed, are these links appropriate? There is really very little information about straw bale construction there.
The dimensions in the materials section are kinda screwy, especially the bulk bales. I'm going to go in and fix what I can; I know that bulk bales are not 3 inches square :)
Straw blocks are cool, and need to be mentioned, but they are not bales, nor is using straw blocks really straw bale construction. Is there a better place to put them?
That's all for now, cheers.
Jason Perry 15:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Guy 

message: The Wikibooks project is fantastic (though rather optimistic, don't you think?), but there's no reason why we can't have a fair amount of detail on this page. People still want an encyclopaedic summary of information without having to read an entire ebook. El T 18:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely.  I read the article and thought - is that all they've got to say about it.  It seemed lopsided with all those links at the bottom but very limited text.  Can't remember what led me to the talk page, but I certainly didn't see the Wikibook link on the main page - my brain filters that kind of stuff out.--PeterR 11:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree! There is no reason why you should not have a complete article here. If the material overlaps with Wikibooks, so be it. Sunray 03:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: We need to restore some detail to this article

message: I've pruned the list, added a commented-out note with some groundrules, and removed the "clean-up" tag. In accordance with the discussion above, I have added the naturalhomes link and map and also the dmoz link. These are good general resources, IMO. I removed several links that didn't seem to meet WP:EL. The one I wasn't sure about was the California Straw Building Association link. I don't find it very content-rich and the main event listed is now in the past. It does give details on a grant (if you are in California), but other than that it has little that isn't provided by other links. Comments? Sunray 17:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes you made seem well considered. The link to the resources on naturalhomes.org have been removed again. I would like to re-open the debate among those people who know something about the subject and are able to judge the quality and contribution of external resources. naturalhomes 00:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Groundrules for External links

message: Hu12 has removed the following entry under External links:
*Naturalhomes.org [http:// naturalhomes.org/learning-straw.htm Straw] Resources on straw-bale, including a [http:// naturalhomes.org/naturalhomesmap.htm map] of locations worldwide
Hu12's rationale for excluding this link, the following:
::... Specific policy on the  conflict of interest issue is Advertising and conflicts of interest. Unfortunatly, the link s not appropriate as it promotes Building Courses and Workshops, many of which require registration and is not a resource about the subject. Again it does not help to expand the article, rather promotes Building Courses and Workshops. Remember this is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a directory to Building Courses and Workshops, or an advertisement service for conducting business."
:::For clarity, here is the text of the section that Hu12 refers to above:
::::Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. 
:::I have no particular interest in the site. The question to be addressed, then, is whether or not the site is a good resource for encyclopedia readers. Sunray 16:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link initialy was added with a conflict of interest by User:Naturalhomes, and was removed per policy. The External links policy On conflict of interest can be found @ Advertising and conflicts of interest. The issue now is does this link meet Wikipedia policy guidelines for inclusion.--Hu12 17:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I am becomming concerned about Sunray's  persistant refactoring and moving of comments during this active discussion. Please refrain from adding nonsense such as '&ot to topic headders such as this edit, and unnecessary renaming such as this.Talk pages comments are meant to be a record of a discussion; moving or editing comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Comments were purposly replied to in specific locations in response to questions/comments do not remove other peoples comments, such as this edit and this edit as it can significantly can change their meaning. --Hu12 02:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have simply refactored as per guidelines. The request in the "Poll" section is: "If you wish to discuss this matter, please comment in the appropriate section above and then vote below." Several people (including myself) failed to abide by this. Lengthy discussion makes it difficult for people to vote. so I refactored. You have continually reverted my doing that. I have no idea why. I will assume that you are not trying to interfere with the polling process. So why not just settle down and let people vote? BTW the "&ot" was added by the machine. Sorry about that. Now, please, just relax and let's get on with this. Sunray 02:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states In the past it was standard practice to refactor talk pages, although this practice has fallen into disuse it has no policy guidelines and in this situation is uneeded. Refactoring is a form of editing whose goal is to 'improve readability while preserving meaning, Both of which your edits do not achieve. The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. Commenting is widely accepted among editors as common practice ( see WP:RFA, WP:AFD, ect.) as it centralizes discusion. Your are in violation of WP:3RR and avise you to cease these edits per WP:POINT. this behavior has been reported on Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.22Suspect.22_edits_on_Talk:Straw-bale_construction. On a side note, in order to interfere with the polling process one would need make changes to the "context" of the discussion by means of edits such as refactoring and moving comments away from the debate. I'll assume good faith that your edits were not intended for that purpose. --Hu12 02:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of naturalhomes site as a link

message: I've full protected this talk page because of edit warring.  Hu12, although you are still able to edit this page, I ask you to refrain from doing so until protection expires.  Please take this to dispute resolution. DurovaCharge! 15:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full protection 

message: The link to wikibooks doesn't work and I don't know how to fix it. Can anyone help? allthingsgreen 01:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Link