Talk:United States Secretary of Energy

message: A bot  has added class=FA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a featured lists.  If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automatic addition of "class=FA"

message: Featured Articles and Featured Lists are changed all the time. To exclude an infobox on this basis is silly. First of all, if the feature status were to be reviewed, and the infobox was the thing reviewers pointed to as making it no longer a featured list, it could be removed rather quickly. Second, you cannot stop change to a featured article or list just because it has featured status. That would be antithetical to the way Wikipedia works. 
Also, protecting your work with such thin reasoning smacks of WP:OWN. We all have the right to make improvements to the articles within the project.
Finally, there is no reason this article should be just a list; if it were just that, it would be called List of United States Secretaries of Energy. Many of the other United States Secretary of _______ articles are more than glorified lists, and it would be wrong to preclude any kind of expansion of this article in line with those because it is currently a featured list. -Rrius (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: please. It is much better without the infobox. That isn't necessary. It adds nothing to the article. The biggest problem with what you are doing is that you are removing the images with information. This is not helpful. This is trashing featured material and whether or not you consider it a list or not it is a featured "list" --William Saturn (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, nothing in the image captions is not in the introduction, the chart, or infobox. Second, the images are each also included in the list. Third, adding an infobox is not "trashing" an article, featured or not. Fourth, I never said whether I consider this to be a list, but stated that I am not convinced that it should be locked in as such. If you think its FL status should be sacrosanct, you are out of luck, because articles (and lists) are subject to change. Fifth, if you are convinced that the article should remain a list so as not to subject it to edits that treat it as an article, consider proposing a move to List of United States Secretaries of Energy. Finally, while the infobox, like all other proper infoboxes, does not provide new information, it is still "helpful" and adds something. Among other common benefits of an infobox, it provides a summary of items relevant to the subject, navigation links to related topics, and touch of consistency among related subjects (such as US Cabinet department heads). Since this is not exactly a high-traffic article and we are not coming close to convincing each other, I am going to post a neutral request for comment at some relevant wikiprojects. -Rrius (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Notwithstanding my comments, after making various other (I think) minor changes, I am reintroducing the infobox, but retaining all images but that of the current secretary, which is in the infobox. My main goal in doing so is to offer a compromise, so feel free to revert this as well. I will hold off on seeking comment until you have a chance to respond. -Rrius (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: It seems fine. I don't want an edit war.--William Saturn (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of an infobox

message: How are the political parties useless? Not every time have they been the same as the president's. As politicians, parties are relevant. Why do we need both pictures in the table and redudant pictures next to it? William, you don't own the article, and the fact that it passed FL 2 1/2 years ago does not make it perfect and immutable. By the way, I HAVE tried to discuss the article with you, but you reverted me saying you "couldn't care less." So what makes these contributions "disruptive" and "useless", as you've said? Reywas92Talk 20:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, this list needs WP:ALT text per the current FL criteria for every image and the Portrait col shouldn't be sortable.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. What a bunch of raccoons. The oval images were used for NPOV reasons and to conform with the DOE. The images (different than the ovals) were to bring more attention to notable feats, as well as for aesthetic reasons. Bullshit like this is the reason the FL process is in the state it is. There really needs to be some kind of age limit on editing. Also, if you like big pieces of garbage (as I assume since you are all raccoons), then you have succeeded. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides your extremely rude personal attacks, which I have reported, your arguments make little sense. How is exclusively using the oval images NPOV? Heck, many FLs only have any images for half the people on the list. Nothing says we should copy the DOE site all the way down to the style of portraits. The other images, other than some being the redundant full versions of the ovals, are, in my aesthetic opinion, completely unnecessary. Why have duplicate images both in the table and next to it? And most of the notable feats are redundant to the lead or the table. Reywas92Talk 04:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently raccoons have no humor. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that image by the way.  I think we all need a cup of tea.  William, making personal attacks won't really support your position in the slightest.  Perhaps you should re-read our updated criteria to understand that our standards have changed quite a lot since this list made it to FL.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: The editors restoring content that I added and chose to remove, are editing in a legally acceptable manner, however, it is morally unacceptable, and runs afoul of the moral guidelines we expect other editors to follow. Wikipedia is built upon mutual respect and understanding, these principles have been egregiously violated in this article. Shame on the morally bankrupt raccoons who have destroyed the integrity of this page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And removing sourced material to make a point is not morally unacceptable?  Quit calling other editors raccoons, you are becoming extremely disruptive.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no moral highground to say what is right or wrong. I added the sourced material so morally I should be able to decide if it is also removed. The only ones that are disruptive are the editors who constantly revert my decision to remove content I added. How hard is it to simply rewrite the content? --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: you are aware that your contributions are made under GFDL so constantly reverting to make a point is disruptive. And nobody is obliged to rewrite your prose, although I see someone has generously done so. Hopefully this is the end of the matter and we can move on to improve the wikipedia.  And finally, calling editors raccoons and morally bankrupt classifies as a breach of NPA whch I'm sure you aware of. Continuing to do so will result in your account being prevented from participating further in this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Improve the wikipedia." No comment on your comments since that is already explained in the first thread of this post. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You consider the removal of sourced material, albeit your own words is seeking to improve things?  I don't and it is clear the community do not either.  Nothing more to discuss.  But do heed my warning over your personal attacks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, this has already been explained in the first thread. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morally bankrupt 

message: Why is one not listed for him?  He was born in Missouri, but a reading of his biographic entry suggests the state listed should probably be California.
CaptainCanada (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chu's state. 

message: Color can be used to complement data in the table and enhance the display, but color alone cannot indicate the data. That's why Reywas and I have reverted the table: there is no accessible display of the party in those versions of the table. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note about color in the table 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States Secretary of Energy. 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/20081219185247/http://www.straitstimes.com:80/Breaking+News/World/Story/STIStory_313431.html to http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/World/Story/STIStory_313431.html
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 05:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States Secretary of Energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929102826/http://www.osti.gov/news/releases97/marpr/pr97015.html to http://www.osti.gov/news/releases97/marpr/pr97015.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States Secretary of Energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712133033/http://energy.gov/about/origins.htm to https://www.energy.gov/about/origins.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I thought he signed around October 18th 2019 Pbmaise (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signed?