Cooolerhead

Pictures

Hey...I don't want you to think I'm just being territorial about certain pictures in the [[Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio) article. Your pictures are GREAT, first off...much better resolution than my camera can get and great color. I did want to ask you if it was OK for me to crop the picture you used for Stanton Middle School so we see less of the driveway in front of it. Even though I don't think the pic it replaced was that bad (true, is is more recent, but honestly, how much has the school changed at all in the last few years? None that I'm aware of). Anyway, here's my thing on the picture of Roosevelt Stadium. The reason I like the last picture is more because it shows a view of the campus and how the stadium fits in more rather than JUST the stadium, which the first picture shows and the second one (plus its relationship with the other stadium). On top of that, the last picture shows the back of the stadium. I think having a fourth picture could work, but it seems a bit much to have just one picture of the actual school and then four of the stadium. Do you have any of the school that could also be used? Any inside the school? I'm all for using as many as can fit in the article, but I want to make sure we don't overdo it at the same time. Just be careful with "more relevant." Just because something is higher resolution doesn't make it more "relevant" it just makes it a sharper picture. Also remember the purpose and subject of the article: Roosevelt High School. Most people reading this won't care if the picture of the football stadium is higher resolution and more detailed or not. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it ironic you say "Yes, it is the campus, but how informative is a picture of an open field with a few blurry buildings in it? This is an encyclopedia, not a personal picture gallery" yet you are the one insisting that your new pics be included despite the fact they really show nothing more than higher resolution. The picture showing the stadium from the rear with Stanton Middle School gives readers a better idea of what the campus looks like than just having three pictures of the home grandstand. And while I will be the first to admit my pics aren't the greatest resolution, they are hardly "blurry" and unrecognizable. Yes, this is an encyclopedic article, but along with that, it does not have to be super detailed, especially about the football stadium which has minimal importance to the article as a whole. If you really want to contribute in the best way, try to submit and place pictures we don't already have rather than replacing ones that really aren't that bad. We can see a few very minor details in your pictures you couldn't see before like more defined bleacher lines. How does that make the article significantly better? --JonRidinger (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent!

Great...glad we could get on the same page. I don't want to quash anyone's desire to help on this page because I've been waiting for more people to get involved. Like I said, your pictures are GREAT and I hate to see them go to waste, but at the same time we could really use more interior shots and some better exterior shots of the school itself and my poor camera just doesn't do that well inside (working on that problem...). In any article, generally, the only time you replace a picture is when the new picture is a significant improvement (maybe better angle, better lighting, better resolution, etc.). The general idea is it presents the subject better, so ask yourself...does the new photo truly improve the presentation of the material better or not? Any interior shots would be great like the gym, auditorium, pool, library, cafeteria...whatever you think would work to give readers a better idea of what Roosevelt is like. Granted, the article isn't long enough to use all of them yet (but we can use a lot more!), but since you are uploading them to the Commons we can categorize them and put a link to the gallery on the article page. When you upload them to the commons, be sure to add them to the "Category: Kent City School District". Good luck and glad to have you editing and contributing! --JonRidinger (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry man...I changed the caption because I realized the purpose of the picture was being missed when you removed it. In other words, I felt a clarification was needed. Perhaps I can move that picture into a different section and we can use one of yours? It really isn't that important to me. The only thing is your picture is a closer view of a similar angle I took showing both Stanton and Roosevelt Stadiums, which is why I hesitate to use both in the same section. My "justification" in having the three pictures of Roosevelt Stadium when I first put them in were three different angles (including a night version), plus two of them show more of the surroundings like the other stadium and track and the middle school. In other words, my purpose wasn't just to highlight the Stadium, but also to help the reader understand where it fit in to the overall campus.

Understand that most of this article, the pictures, the paragraphs, etc, were written and compiled by me; I started this article. I have had virtually no help from many others not because I wished it but because not many others had much interest. That said, I do not own this article; it is not my territory, though I do watch it and want it to improve and obviously have a great deal of interest in it. I also recognize its current shortcomings and where it needs to be better. You would feel much the same if you had started and put a lot into an article. If I truly did treat it as "my territory", I would've removed your pictures (I also started the Stanton Middle School article), yet I haven't. Instead I changed the article so we could both have our works used. Please also understand I have been editing Wikipedia for a number of years and I know the policies and procedures and have had to deal with picture issues before (and not just the usage of my own pictures either). --JonRidinger (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Regarding this edit summary — please read and follow our no personal attacks policies. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Just a heads up on editing to make sure to always use sources when making edits. I'm guessing you are either a student at or are closely affiliated with Roosevelt (such as a teacher or staff member) to even know TWE is getting a name change and has moved back to the main building. That's great, but always keep in mind for any edits to be prepared with a source to backup your claims, even minor ones. I'm certainly not challenging the veracity of your claims out of trust, but they still need a way for those who aren't as close to the subject to verify them, otherwise you have a case of conflict of interest. Without reliable sources (which in minor cases like this could be a newsletter or the school's website, but in most other cases should be third-party), the article is little more than heresay. The more sources, the better! Happy editing --JonRidinger (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. Thanks for the reply. The only other thing is even things you learn just from conversations can't be placed or changed in an article since that falls under original research and they cannot be verified by other editors. Basically, Wikipedia articles are a collection of other published information (just like a standard encyclopedia); they cannot be an original source. As long as a particular fact is sourced in some sort of publication (online or print), it's OK to add along with a citation to the source (see WP:VERIFY). I'm guessing the change will eventually be made on the Roosevelt website or the Six District website that can be cited if needed. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was cited, as found here. Inline citations need not appear after every sentence, but can appear at the end of an idea or paragraph. It's always a good idea to check the citation listed to make sure it indeed does support the sentence or paragraph it follows as many times they don't fully support what they are attached to. In this case it is such a minor fact it's not worth reverting. However, had it been more important, your removal of the fact citing simply your own personal conversations and connections would've constituted both conflict of interest and even more so original research since it hasn't been published yet. My point in messaging you is to caution you to avoid citing those as reasons for updating any article no matter how close you are to a subject. Yes, this is a wiki page that anyone can edit, but if anyone ever hopes to give a wiki page any shred of credibility, again, it must have reliable and published sources. Even if something is true and you know it, wait for it to be published before updating it on any Wikipedia article. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, only someone inside the organization would know that. For 99.9% of anyone else who reads the page I cited, they would assume the TWE program is one of the programs located at Central, otherwise, why list it there and not on the Roosevelt page? Anyway, I really don't care if TWE is listed or not (otherwise I would've put it back). I originally included it in the Roosevelt article to add to the paragraph on the Central Annex. Its presence does not make or break the section, but mentioning it I don't believe is trivial, but at the same time not mentioning it is hardly major.

To answer your question, no I do not believe everything I read on the Internet, hence my mention of verifiability and reliable sources. The school's website is generally a trustworthy source for basic information about the school (like who works there and what programs they have to offer) but not for anything like an outstanding claim since school websites also tend to be designed to not only inform, but promote. Even then, being an "insider" like yourself, you still need to cite something that other editors can verify (not necessarily online). Just going by someone's word is what will damage (and has hurt) the credibility and integrity of Wikipedia because how does anyone know that what you say is actually true? How can anyone verify you are the insider you say you are? See my point? There are differences in the quality of sources, but remember, an editor's "word" is in no way considered a reliable or valid source here. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we're both missing each other's points. The fact that it's listed with the Central page is confusing at best. Again, no one outside the school would guess that listing a program under the directory for a specific building is just referring to the phone system as nowhere does the page mention "not located in Central." You'll note the organization of the page includes the school's address at the top and no disclaimer that items listed below may or may not be physically located at the building, so it implies everthing listed under there is housed at that address. I'm confused as to why it's even listed there since it's not at the building; phone system or not. One does not need to call Central to reach the contact listed for TWE. So again, only an "insider" would know the technicality that the TWE program was housed at the high school building and not the annex, but there is nothing online that states such. The only mention of TWE on the Roosevelt page is the list of co-curriculars and after-school clubs ("TWE Club").

I do review all edits made to every page I watch, which includes hundreds beyond this specific article. I have also been clear on why I have made my own edits and why I have reverted specific edits. There is no way to know that the source I cited contained incorrect information since I only have its word against another editor's (yours). YOU are the only one who has mentioned it. It sounds like someone needs to get the school's website updated so that it's current and has CLEAR information. Once that is done, I don't think it would be a bad idea to include the new name of the TWE program in the article as an aspect of the academic and vocational programs offered at the school. The only "integrity" you seem to be "holding up" is that of Kent City Schools since according to you it contains misleading and incorrect information. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the basic principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith, so I believe Coolerhead knows what s/he is talking about. That said, anyone can claim anything based on personal knowledge, which is why Wikipedia also requires that anything added be verifiable to published reliable sources. I once was working on an article where we were trying to establish some dates for a ski area at a state park. We found a source, but it was not reliable. Later we found a reliable source and that showed that the first source was just wrong. I was hoping to just use the unreliable source, but needed to find a better source and it was all for the best. I guess the bottom line is that if your friend knows this, there should be reliable independent sources (newspaper articles or the like) to back it up. Hope this helps clarify things, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)