User talk:LonelyBeacon/archive3

Wikipedia:Rollback feature

Hello, would you like it if I gave this account rollback rights? This will allow you to quickly revert blatantly non-productive edits that you come across. I have reviewed your edits and you are trusted enough to use such a feature appropriately. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should give it a try ... I was going to ask for this some time ago, but I kept running into a number of comments left on people's talk pages where they were using automated reversion, and found out that it wasn't operating properly (leaving level 1 warnings on user talk pages that should be level 2 or higher .... some other problems) ... but maybe the bugs are worked out now. Thank you for the offer. I am bound to make mistakes, but I have learned enough to now the difference between an edit I disagree with and vandalism/editing against consensus and policy. If it isn't blatant vandalism, and I get reverted, I am sure to take it to the talk page. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback only reverts edits, it does not automatically warn users or anything like that, so don't worry. I think you may be thinking of some advanced plugins such as Wikipedia:Twinkle and Wikipedia:Huggle which has there own version of rollback which can automatically warn users. Anyway, you are trustful so will give you the feature now. You may want to read Wikipedia:Rollback feature if you have not already done so before using it. In a nutshell: Don't use in content disputes or for good faith constructive edits. If in doubt, use 'undo', and give a full edit summary instead. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I will not use this until I have read up on it more, though I am glad that I will still have discretion on warnings, when that comes up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LonelyBeacon (talk • contribs)

Excellent, use it well. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Basketball: Too broad a category for a HS championship

Hi there LonelyBeacon. You said: "Greetings Werldwayd! I noticed that you removed. It certainly seems if was removed by an editor who knows what they are doing. could you explain to me why this article does not belong in this category? I ask so that I may avoid doing such things in the future. Any help would be appreciated." But of course, LonelyBeacon. Basketball is such a broad category, we should be very careful not to link a small high school program with a global subject like basketball category. A brief check to the Category:Basketball will convince you. Please check. Would you honestly believe one high school's small basketball program has a place there in that general category? The same goes to basketball players. Out of the tens of thousands of basketball players, inclduing hundreds of high profile professional NBA players, just single-handedly 4-5 players from college had categorized themselves under the category of Category:Basketball and I removed those too, for these 4-5 basketball players were so minimal to basketball they cannot be mentioned either. If Jordan or Bird or Magic Johnson are not categorized there, can a player named Chavis Holmes or Kirk Walters be just a handful of players in main Basketball category to appear there? Naturally I deleted their basketball catgeory by much more appropriate Category:American basketball players which is an acceptable lower level category. For a small championship like Illinois high school boys basketball championship, the closest Categories should be Category:Illinois high school sports conferences and then for example Category:Sports in Illinois, Category:High school sports associations in the United States. You can add all three although the first fits the best. Putting Category:Basketball is not appropraiate at all. But I should have researched far more beofre replacing the catgeory. Anyways, you have been kind enough to ask and I have answered you... It is great policy while inserting a category to visit that specific category and weigh in the odds and cons and ask yourself: does my new category listing fit with the rest of the crowd in that category or not? Then you will discover yours was the only high school conference there which is not proper considering the hundreds of high school basketball conferences that exist in the United States. I will give you adequate time to insert the suitable categories instead of me doing them, werldwayd (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

I noticed you said User:Bullofconfusion hasn't been on wikipedia very long, so I decided to check the user creation logs...and for some reason, User:Bullofconfusion doesn't show up in the user creation log. How is this possible? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 15:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok does it strike you as somewhat odd that several new users have been popping up, two in that AfD and one that created bullofconfusion, all with seeming knowledge of AfD &or policy? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 02:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...sounds like I've been reading too much WP:SPI and too little AfD. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I set up a sockpuppet investigation on the users, it can be found at [1]. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 06:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fenwick

I though the Hall of Fame info was just part of general Fenwick history. but what I fixed now was just two noted alumni and a substantial published book on Fenwick history- that's allCatal uber (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the book may be OK, but the alumni lack notability found at WP:BIO. As they fail to meet those requirements, they really need to not be on that list. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Scholastic Visions

Thanks for the sources, but are you aware you just divulged the link in public for everyone to see? RJaguar3 | u | t 06:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the link was a secret? I would like to think that well thought out, well written articles by people with (at least in my opinion) unquestioned expertise in quizbowl would be a net plus ... not to mention our coaches association shuold like the publicity. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Greg on this one. The links are supposed to be for IHSSBCA members only, since the newsletter is one of the major benefits of membership. The original "How to Write Questions" article (unedited by me) is available from the ACF website, so you'd thus be better off citing that. Greg, I encourage you to post your article to the boards so it can be cited from there, and also because it's a good introductory article for people. By the way, LonelyBeacon, who are you? Jonah (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Content acceptable in school articles

Hey, me again. What content do you think is appropriate in school articles? I've been cleaning up the Category:Articles with a promotional tone and noticed that several schools were listed there. This seems even more inappropriate that articles about companies, as schools are supposed to be objective and unbiased. I came across a few points that I'd like to discuss. Could you express your views on these? I've included my views in parentheses.

• List of courses offered (I don't think this should ever be listed unless there was something special)

• Uncited claims regarding the school being ranked #1 or whatnot (Promotional, uncited, possibly COI. Remove)

• List of sports offered (Not needed. Wikipedia is 'an encyclopedia, this doesn't add to the quality of the article. Maybe include the notable ones, but not every single one)

• List of clubs (Non-notable. Does not belong in encyclopedia)

• List of headmasters/principals in the past (Articles are about the school, not their leaders. Unless leader has done something notable)

• Graduation requirements (Obviously not encyclopedic content)

• Facilities the school has (This doesn't go in encyclopedias unless it's special)

• Notable alumni that are uncited (I'm a bit unsure about this. Removing them all would be extreme, but we really need sources for this kind of stuff)

• Uniform (Not encyclopedic)

• Motto/philosophy (Not encyclopedic)

• School song (Not encyclopedic)

Sorry if this is too long. I just think there is too much gray area in articles about schools. Thanks. Netalarmtalk 05:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'd prefer it if you responded on my talk page =D Netalarmtalk 05:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My only problem with listing every single sport and club a school offers is that the list tends to be extremely long and takes away from the quality of the article because it makes it look like a list. I mainly deal with promotional articles, so such long lists in an article that is already marked promotional seems to make it even more so.I believe it's unrealistic to list every club and sport a school has. (And to be honest, I haven't seen many articles do it.) My main guideline is that if Wikipedia is a print encyclopedia, would that content have made it? Another point is that the consensus reached assumes that the article is non-promotional and is already in a neutral tone. The articles in the category of promotional articles tend to stress on what the school has to offer along with uncited claims of achievements and notable alumni. Difficult situation with this type of article... Netalarmtalk 19:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher /Galtieri

I'll try and re-phrase this edit then. The point is that Thatcher changed her rhetoric toward the galtieri regime as a result of the invasion and the Conservative government was not calling it a cruel military dicatorship before the invasion. On the contrary, Peter Walker and Cecil Parkinson, high-ups, visited BuenosAires in 1981 and were obliging to the argentine junta. The logical place is to put this in the lead up to the war isn't it? My edit is called a 'rant' by bastin, and on his user-page, he say his name is Yahweh, the tetragrammaton, God, and Jesus, his userboxes declare he is a capitalist who wants to exploit proletarians as much as he likes or something, he thinks Reagan is the only person fit to be President, because he loved Thatcher etc.etc.. that sounds all a bit cranky to me.. he's not exactly neutral..I think wikipedia is a pretty scary place for 'leftists' to be honest, call me a crank all you like, I don't care..I don't know what you mean by 'I wouldn't want to see anyone getting into trouble'..why is a 'rant' civil, and ' crank' uncivil. Was it a rant? It just said, she cancelled a programme to aid refugees from chile/ argentina, which she did, they were military dictatorships..Sayerslle (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In general, while "rant" not have been the best choice of words, there is a difference about commenting on the content and on the editor. Assuming (as I do), that the material is properly sourced, I would interpret "rant" to be directed against the sourcing (unless the accusation is that the editor (you) is misinterpreting the content and inventing a rant (I am not accusing you or anyone of that ... I can't see the source, and I will assume good faith in that you are interpreting the article properly. Calling someone a "crank" is hard to interpret any other way than being directed against the editor.

For the record, I did not call call the other editor "neutral" .... I simply commented that the content you added was not worded neutrally, and that your argument (in essence: he appears to be right wing, therefore is biased and wrong) sounds like it could be hypocritical coming from someone who has the same issue with his own user page (just opposite in political ideology).

I have no reason to disagree with the material in and of itself. If the edit had said "she cancelled a programme to aid refugees from chile/ argentina", then I see no problem. But when words such as "victim" are used, it creates an overtly emotional tone that is in direct violation of WP:NPOV. That's all I'm saying.

Also, what I mean by 'I wouldn't want to see anyone getting into trouble' is that, I don't want to see any editors get in trouble. When you call another editor a name, you open yourself to being hit with warnings that over time could lead to blocks. I don't want to see editors get blocked. That's all I mean. Good editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What about if at the end of the small Falklands War section in brackets this could follow: (" Though critics of Thatcher, like Paul Foot in the Daily Mirror for example, pointed out; 'Every time I hear M.T going on about the cruel military dictatorship in Argentina, I repeat that no govt. in Europe snuggled closer to the junta than hers..' that until the invasion her government had 'set out to make friends with South American tyrranies, especially in Chile and Argentina', William Whitelaw had cut off 'the previous Labour governments assistance for political refugees from Argentina' and in 1981 'the debonair Cecil Parkinson had flown to B.A. to butter up the junta' and called its economic policy 'an example to the British government.' Her critics in Britain resisted the wave of support that military success brought her.) The section would thus balance the impression given in the piece that Thatcher was greeted only by a wave of enthusiasm, it would source the criticism directly to Paul Foot, a 'far-left' journalist. I think at the moment the little section begins totally out of the blue - isn't Thatchers attitude to Galtieri and Argentina before the invasion of interest?..and ends with a wave of enthusiam for Thatcher , and all voices of criticism, and cynicism about her are just excised. Th new edit wouldn't use the words 'wooed' and 'victims' which are in the original articles, and just gives the little section a bit more yin and yan balance. Thatcher is a controversial figure and if traces of controversy are evident on her page, if 'lonely beacons' of criticism burn in the main body of the love letter bastin and happyme, and lachrie etc etc want to pen to Thatcher, well I think that's no bad thing. Maybe the bit in brackets I'd like to add is too long in relation to the bit on the Falklands,I don't know..The depressing thing is there are a load of editors on that page who will seek to remove anything critical, and call it a 'rant'. Thats my POV anyhow.Sayerslle (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an opinion: I think a direct attribution, as you are suggesting, lends greater strength to what you are trying to include. A direct quotation from a journalistic source is harder to rail against. What an editor could call you on is WP:WEIGHT. It is a valid argument to say that all viewpoints should be given, but it is also true that not all view points deserve equal voice or allocation of space within an article. I think if you were to include that statement, and there are no other statements critical of Mrs. Thatcher, I think you are in a strong position to defend its inclusion. If the source is challenged as being biased (you note the writer is a left wing journalist, so it might), then there needs to begin a dialogue on how many journalists were writing supportive pieces, and how many were not. I think given in any Western democracy that there are always going to be at least some journalists arguing against a government move, that it can be argued that there should be at least one statement made in the article noting that there were those who were against Mrs. Thatcher's decisions regarding South America in general, and the Faulklands in particular. If you are challenged on this, I would begin a discussion on the talk page to see what the real issues with other editors are. If that does not work, you might try doing a request for comment which will bring in uninvolved editors to make some suggestions.

However, I think this is a much better approach. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: OPRFHS Theater Edits

You're right, I didn't really have anything sourced. However, its not really available for sourcing, i just know this from personal expereince as an actor at OPRFHS. Let me know if there's anything you can do to help revert that.  :: RatedR ^{Leg of Lamb} 14:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What I have found that helps in situations like this is to stick to facts, and, in essence, lead readers to an opinion. If you could cite awards the theater department has won ... purchases ... if there is somewhere in print a physical description of the theater area (that makes it different than most schools.

To put it another way ... if I were editing Niles North High School, I could say they are the best fine arts program in the nation (that's strictly an opinion that is not referenced and not really defendable). But, I could say that in 200?, the school's fine arts program received the honor of "Best fine arts program in the country" form the Kennedy Center in Washington DC. That is easily referenceable. It certainly lacks emotional punch, but it makes an argument that is very difficult to get away form as a reader. I know that some of what you may want to add is not easily referenceable ... it is not in the Chicago Tribune ... but there are other written sources that may be out there. I wish you the best of luck! LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For taking care of this. I was going to revert, but I didn't want to use rollback on my on talk. You beat me there, and I'm glad of it :) Tiderolls 03:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Never a problem! Anything to keep vandals etal at bay. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding my thanks to you too, LonelyBeacon! I totally understand your explanation of why the source I used met the notability issue, but not tied the player to the high school. Much appreciated, as are the links. I appreciate the warm welcome most of all! JV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Vravos (talk • contribs) 04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Jay,

No problem .... we've all been there .... I wish you the best of luck and happy editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

B.H.S.

Thanks for helping out with the picture for Barrington High School (Lake County, Illinois), LonelyBeacon! I noticed it shifted to the infobox and thought that was a good move. Thanks for explaining the how/why to me.Sueswim03 (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem ... I noted that you are editing some articles about the Barrington area, and certainly encourage any expansion to the article ... the picture is important because it is the one thing that most editors can't easily add, and it will help move the article along through to hopefully one day becoming a good article. Rather than move the picture and have you wondering why, I like to try and explain moves like that to editors to give them a sense of my thinking ... sometimes the editor points out that I have made a mistake, and I want to go ahead and correct that. Best of luck! LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Defenceman redirect

Hi, I see you reverted my defenseman redirects for 3 high school articles. Just letting you know I totally accept this and I won't be making anymore redirect fixes on this topic in future. Even though I am British and use c to spell the word rather than s, my edits had nothing to do with language, I was simply trying to avoid the redirects so that it simply read Defenceman or Defenceman (ice hockey), rather than defenseman, defence (hockey) etc, and it's not something I've haven't done before, from time to time I would work on redirects, example change NJ Devils to read New Jersey Devils, Goalie to read Goaltender, etc. However I think I did go a little overboard and changed every defenseman spelling thanks to the find function on my internet browser, maybe because I thought it would look strange for an article to read both spellings, where common sense would say I should have just left it alone. Apologies for that, I have now be advised not to fix redirects unless they are broken (in other words my wrist was slapped by a ruler), sorry for the humour. Raphie (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Raphie,

I hope you will believe me that I was just jumping back on to send you a message on this ... I generally really try avoiding any kind of overediting or reversion without at least dropping a note to the editor ... so this was really poor form on my part. You have absolutely nothing to apologize for ... Being American, I am one of those who looks at the king's English most times and wish we had that level of sophistication. What I was doing was simply figuring that it would be a matter of time before someone went and changed it, and I thought I might as well. You are right about the redirect, so what I am thinking is that I will go in and fix that a bit by doing something like "Defenceman|defenseman" in the link.

Again, I am the one who owes an apology for making the change and not so much as dropping a note on it first. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No need, I almost never leave a note to the editor after over-reverting so I'm not concerned about it at all. And you're right it was only a matter of time before someone changed it back, it's happend before and it will happen again. I just thought I'd explain myself before I get accused of "damaging the American language", not you but there will always be one accuser out there somewhere. At some point I will look at all the articles linking to defenceman and change the link but keep the word within the article, likewise Defenceman|defenseman, especially since there are talks to re-add the (ice hockey) dab to the article. Raphie (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean ... sadly there are a lot of Americans who fly into a rage the moment they think someone is trying to "corrupt" "their" language. Best of luck on your editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandals

Hello, LonelyBeacon. You have new messages at 5 albert square's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

School

Thanks to your help, advice and encouragement, Benet is really coming along nicely, I think. We appreciate your time!  :) Student7 (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thans a lot for the kudos S7 ... I can't take too much credit there ... but the sentiment is always appreciated. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sudbury school

Please consider changing your vote at Talk:Sudbury school#Merger Two. If there is no consensus to merge, my interest in Sudbury school (SS) will be at an end. I am interested to merge SS and Sudbury Valley School only because the articles have been neglected for years, and I think the idea of a democratic school could be presented better. As Hrafn notes, the lack of reliable sources makes a good article about SS difficult to write, but I am willing to have a go if other editors want something better. If you will not change your vote, you need not reply. If you will change your vote, please reply at Talk:Sudbury school#Merger Two. PYRRHON  talk   19:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly open to revisting this ... but I must ask, where is there difficulty in finding the sources: for the physical school, or for their rather unique methodology. If it is the methodology, then shouldn't the school article be the priority, with strong coverage of their methids? If it is the other way around, then I would support the merger, provided that the school deletion was without prejudice, permitting it to come back if subsequent sources can be found. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Lemont High School

Ryanmcv (talk · contribs) has basically added everything back again, although with some changes to the text. Thought you might want to talk a look at the current state of the article. + His talk page comment on the article. Netalarmtalk 07:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Stevenson High School (Lincolnshire, Illinois)

Hello again, regarding the article Stevenson High School (Lincolnshire, Illinois), the activities section is huge. Do you have any tips on cleaning up this section? + I left the IP user that's editing Hinsdale Central High School a message about the talk page discussion. Netalarmtalk 03:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Heya Net!

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Sections of the Article has always been my general guideline, as this seems to be the general consensus of the Schools Project. It is still pretty ambiguous as things go, and I think a lot of non-school editors would favor complete elimination of mentioning any activities, unless they are somehow notable.

What I have done is, in the "Activities" section, mention that the school offers "X" number of activities ranging from student government and artistic to academic competition and special interest (or something to this effect). I will note any clubs which are affiliates of nationally notable (as in have wikipedia articles) organizations (like National Honor Society, Amnesty International, etc). If any of the competitive clubs have top state/national place finishes which can be documented, I note those. Aside from that, I try to keep anything unreferenced out.

Thanks for the assist on the HC article ... I know you've put time in on that. The IP was making some good edits, but was also making some edits that were clearly against policy and against consensus. I was able to find the 2009 school report card on the district website, so all of the relevant academic info is now up to date and properly referenced and cited. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: edits on advanced course info for Benet

Hi Lonely Beacon! I'll see if I can find appopriate sources for the info you've commented on. Happy Thanksgiving to you too! Benny the mascot (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You might try and see if there is an on-line version of the course catalog for the school ... that should list all of the courses (that's probably obvious, but it should work). LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Benny the mascot (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added general info about college credit at Benet. Would you like me to be more specific in listing course names? Benny the mascot (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that references should be placed next to the ideas they support to remove any ambiguity as to what source verifies what info. Examples of this are shown in WP:CITE#Inline citations. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh ... looks like I have been duly educated ... thanks for pointing that out .... I was always under the impression that they should go after the sentence. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yay, a barnstar! Thank you so much! Benny the mascot (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

HA!

I was patrolling the Recent Changes and saw your username and I thought it said Lonely Bacon!! HA sorry, I laughed out loud. thought i'd randomly share. Tom A8UDI 21:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a new one on me ... I was going for something lighthouse related ..... never knew it might get confused for that ... though I am glad that it gave someone a laugh :-) LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

Not a problem at all! I just took a look at your edits, and they seem ok to me. I look forward to improving the article even more, especially the athletics section (eventually). Benny the mascot (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

List of largest empires

Sorry if I may appear to be criticising you, it's nothing personal. The IP editor is starting to grate on my nerves, could you help me out please? Thanks. G. R. Allison (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

St. Ignatius College Preparatory School

I don't think we will be getting an explanation for recent edits by EagleFan. I would ask for leniency normally but he has been warned about this previously. I am, at best, not impressed that he is still doing this. It so happens I went back and checked the assessment, if neither you or me had done so the article would have been left with an incorrect assessment indefinitely with the log at WP:WPSCH/A being wrong also. Exactly why he made the edit remains a mystery; I would normally assume it was some kind of mistake, particularly the reverting of changes I made to my own comment, which is more disturbing. However, given that EagleFan has found himself unable to explain his actions, and I won't ask him again, my mind has been left to wonder. I hope these edit don't continue. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have disagreed with edits that he has made in the past, but there was never anything that I found to be so much against policy that it was actionable, not that I was looking for reasons to take actions. I stated my disagreements, and felt that I stated them civilly and reasonably (most of these discussions are still on his talk page), but let his edits stand. I brought a request for comment to the Schools group some time ago regarding his changing all of the ratings on the high school articles (as I recall, he felt that "high importance" was reserved for colleges, and that only a very few high schools deserved "mid", and was told that he essentially had the right to make those changes. That in and of itself is something that is beyond me as an individual editor to change. However, when he decided to alter your comments, I felt that was misrepresentation, and according to policy could have had him blocked immediately. I opted to go with the good faith route, and assume that perhaps he didn't realize that he was altering comments along with the rating (I don't see how, but, as I said, I was trying to take the high road). I gave him the warning as a means to let him know that, based on past behavior (resistance to engaging in discussion and generally going on about his own way when others have tried to engage him in discussion), that it is unacceptable to alter another editor's comments. He has resisted giving more than 1-2 sentence explanations, always civil, but nothing beyond "this is what I want to do". I have no doubt that a great many of his edits are very productive, even if I disagree with all that he does. This does not excuse what he did though. I truly hope he will open up to conversation and collaboration. Short of that, I hope he doesn't do this again. However, should it be necessary, we know that he has been warned accordingly on this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes alteration of others comments is very serious, and is in fact a form of vandalism if done deliberately as defined at WP:VAND. Until this edit he seemed to have stopped mass changing the importance ratings for high school articles, which is good given that his assessment system was outside project norms and flawed as colleges normally fall under WP Universities, not WP Schools. While I recognise as you do that he does make some important and helpful contributions, if he does this again after being warned, further action should be considered. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

unwatching St. Rita

I'm not watching St. Rita anymore- lemme know if a mop is needed. tedder (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help ... I will drop a note if things start getting heated again. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers. tedder (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus vs silence. :)

On my talk page, you wrote:

Thanks for the input at this talk page. I am trying my hand at assessment, and as such try and be careful to give a good explanation, and to mark it as "provisional" until I get some more input. I think I may almost be ready to do this more on my own, and it is back up like you provide that helps give me some confidence. Thanks, and happy editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand, so much of the time, our only feedback is that no other editor reacts at all. I think if there were more such comment on assessments, it would be easier to get people to do them. I am sorry to say that I once snarled at a very nice editor who was making a large number of assessments. Happily, the editor was interested enough to say Thank you, drive through, please, or similar. :) All the best. Should you want to reply, please feel free to do so here, I will watch, or of course you are welcome on my talk page.- Sinneed 22:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I not only get some assistance in my maturing as an article evaluator, but I get profound wisdom ... this is indeed a great gift to receive around this time of the year! Many thanks Sineed! LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

ISU alum page

Excellent work with the pictures. Massive improvement, thanks a lot. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the message! Kudos to you for all the cleanup/expansion you've been doing to the schools articles.

Hey, quick question: what's the story with school naming conventions? I thought I saw a page about that once when I was browsing through the Schools Wikiproject, but I can't seem to find it now. Zagalejo^^^ 23:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I had that same question when I was putting together that navbox for the Public League this past week ... I started finding a lot of articles that didn't match the name that the IHSA gives, nor the name on the school website.

I couldn't find the policy, but I have always heard that it was "whatever the official name of the school is" .... unfortunately, that is even hard to figure out in some cases, and some of these names have been changing a lot recently ...

Then .... there are the cases of ambiguity. The school's website and the ISBE report card list it as Corliss High School, but the front of the school has Mr. Corliss' full name on it ... even Roosevelt High School almost never actually includes the "Theodore", but it does depend on the source.

I think this may be something to bring up at the school's project to see what the consensus is. I found it problematic because some schools were listed as under the last name of the person they were named for, but some were only under the person's first name (so "Roosevelt High School" souldn't show up, but if you typed "Theodore Roosevelt High School (Chicago), it showed up (as an example). I suspect that the real answer is "title it with the whole name", but there should be some redirect somewhere for common names (like "Lincoln Park", "Washingotn", "Roosevelt", etc. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I did find this, which was marked as a failed proposal—from what I can tell, mainly because of lack of interest. I'll leave a note at the project talkpage to see if we can jump start the discussion. Zagalejo^^^ 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review of [{The Avery Coonley School]]

I appreciate your comments. If you have specific suggestions on what could be removed and what still feels promotional, I would welcome them as, well.Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed comments. They were all helpful and on target and I've made changes to incorporate them. I appreciate the help.Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln Park High

My fact tagging was not about the location, but the "consistently among the top" claim. Such things call for verification. You already changed that which needed it. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris,

Thanks for the clarification. It should have been more obvious to me that this is what you meant, and of course, and I fully agree that this was not WP:NPOV and certainly would require some form of referencing. I am not sure a lot of the WP:PEACOCK terms could ever be cited, as a lot of it was copied verbatim from the school's website. I went through and found the non-exceptional points that I then cited ... so the section is shorter, but I believe it is neutral. Hopefully, if the rest was true, it will be readded in the future, properly referenced. Best to you! LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

urban prep academies

Thanks for all your help. i have a couple quick questions - do you know if there are any specific guidelines I should follow for how to divide up information for a network of three schools. Unlike almost all other schools pages, we are a network of schools, which operate somewhat independently of one-another. None of the other school networks (i.e. KIPP, Noble Street, The Young Women's Leadership School) seem to provide very good examples of wiki pages. The closest parallel to me seems to be colleges/universities which operate multiple campuses, but i'm not sure if I should follow this either. secondly - do you have an idea of how long it will be until my account is autoconfirmed, so that I can add a fair-use image of our school crest to the page? If this will take long, could you upload an image for me? I can send you a .gif or .jpeg--NUwildcat09 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Heya Wildcat!

These are two really good questions. I am not sure how long it takes for the autoconfirm to go through (I have never had to deal with it before, so I have to plead ignorant).

As far as breaking up the article for three campuses, I know that there is no "in stone" guideline or consensus on this, so you will need to make it up as you go. Personally, I would try to start the article with as much (combined) history as possible, and then create subheading for the individual campuses.

I have the new infobox being used at school articles, and I can get it started on this article in the next couple of days to meet the three schools ... there are some options on that.

I would look at this as an opportunity to be creative in terms of how you break this up. I would check out the schools portal and checkout their guidelines regarding what should/shouldn't be in an article (you can get there by going to the article talk page and clicking on the schoolproject box).

Sorry I couldn't help more, but please let me know if you have anymore questions. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Maine Township High School District 207

Thanks for taking the time to write an impartial entry on the district page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrythiele (talk • contribs) 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for keeping an eye on the Maine West page for vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrythiele (talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

Hi. I just wanted to thank you for your assessment of Melbourne High School (Victoria). It gives a very nice starting point for improvement and I agree with your comments, in particular those regarding the need for more referencing. Sfdasfr (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am glad I could help. I noticed that the article is given top importance, and everything that I read really indicates this to be a subject of true importance, so I hope that your great work will continue. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bombay Scottish School, Mahim

Thanks a lot for the assessment of the article. I have rewritten the article based on the guidelines you had suggested. Further constructive criticism is appreciated! JovianEye (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Alumni List

Hello again. In your assessment of Melbourne High School (Victoria) you mentioned that the alumni list (List of Melbourne High School alumni) needed referencing. A book, Strong Like Its Pillars, about the school, has a list of famous alumni. Is it sufficient to just add that as a reference at the end of the book and to check any additions to this list against the list in the book in future? Or must each one be referenced directly using inline citations?

Also, what's the policy with page numbers? If an article uses a print source, must it provide page numbers for every reference? I wasn't adding them and using the <ref name=""> tage at the moment but then thought about it a bit more and I'm not sure. Sfdasfr (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If the book is not published by the school, then I think it would make a great reference! Even if it is published by the school, while it may not make for the strongest reference, I think it would be sufficient for most editors.

I would think for this situation that individual page numbers might be helpful, but aren't necessary. This is my opinion, but I truly believe you will be OK. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No it's not published by the school, so it looks like it'll be ok. Sfdasfr (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! I really appreciate the gesture. And thank you for your helpful comments along the way. After a lot more work on references and a peer review, The Avery Coonley School article is now in FA review. Take a look. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I did check it out, and it is a great article! I have seen the work that has gone into it both by watching the constant editing that went on, and looking t the article as it now stands. I don't give out many barnstars, but when I give 'em, I think it goes for truly great work. Marvelous job, and best of luck at FA review. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

re: repalcement of warning at User talk:24.15.188.251

The warning was automatically included with my reversion of that edit. It seems that you must have added the warning after Huggle opened the page for editing but before it was actually saved. Reach Out to the Truth 05:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits on Benet article

Hi LonelyBeacon. Could you please take a look at the recent activity on the Benet article? I'm not that experienced when it comes to dealing with potentially problematic edits. Benny the mascot (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Benny the mascot (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, I've nominated the Benet article for GA as you suggested. I hope all goes well! Benny the mascot (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I've asked for a peer review as well. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi LonelyBeacon, could you please point me towards our policy on self-published sources? I don't remember where I've seen it before. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUBLISH is a good place to start. You can also see parts of this at WP:RS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Benny the mascot (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Valentine's/Presidents Day greeting

Benny the mascot has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Have a good weekend!!! Benny the mascot (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting re-assessment

Hi, recently you assessed Melbourne High School (Victoria) as C-class, saying that the major issue was the lack of inline referencing. I have spent some time trying to get that in order, and I was hoping you could take a look again to judge whether an upgrade in class is in order or to suggest what could be done to further improve the article. Thanks. Sfdasfr (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have done so over at the article talk page. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Richwoods

Do you see what Im Saying, and I am not trying to Vandalize anything so can you take that off my record. Richwoods (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

GBS

Why did you erase the addition of "Kevin Kaiser" on the Glenbrook South High School Wiki page? It is accurate, he attended and graduated in the year identified. He owns and is CEO of the company identified. The company is one of the fastest growing in its industry, sells products at many major retailers throughout the U.S., and has many reviews in industry publications. Its sales are in the multi-million dollar range. I think your deletion was unnecssary and you are possibly uninformed about the industry in question. I respect the work you do to keep Wiki accurate, but I think you went too far here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.196.191.1 (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you disagree with the edit, but I will try and explain.

The Schools wikiproject establishes the consensus for content on the school articles at Wikipedia. WP:WPSCHOOLS/AL and WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#WNTI state that for alumni to be included they either must be the subject of a wikipedia article, or eligible for a wikipedia article. Given that the first criteria was not met, I attempted to search for the company. Given that the company was not the subject of an article, it appears that the person is also not meeting the notability requirements for inclusion. Everything you say may very well be true regarding the company, but that does not make the company, or its founder notable enough for inclusion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand. I will make a wiki page for the company, and try again. Thanks for the explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.196.191.1 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to mention

Hi LonelyBeacon. Just to mention that The Avery Coonley School is currently a Featured Article Candidate. Since you have commented on this article in the past, you may wish to comment on this review as well.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Benet Academy PR

Hi LonelyBeacon! I just wanted to let you know that I've opened a peer review for the Benet article here. Feel free to provide any comments. Benny the mascot (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Starting comments with Politely Oppose

I really like how you started your comment with this on the people notability discussion. I think I'm going to use the same strategy when I oppose things. Its a great way to make the tone kind, and foster discussion, as opposed to creating a passionate argument where people get riled up. Great job. I love it!MATThematical (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Matt!

I have been trying to find ways to insert myself into discussions more politely ... RFCs & AfDs can be notoriously ill tempered events, and I am just doing my best to keep things a little cooler (especially for myself). LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

York High School

Thanks for the welcome and the advice! I will add Mr. Stratton back but with citations to support the fact he attended the school. (On that point, wonder why no one's deleted the Konopka and Goldsborough references, which seem to suffer from the same flaw: no citation tying them definitively to the school?) The other two names I tried to put back in, you are correct, do not pass muster under the notability criteria. It's good you take this seriously because someone should.--Labrigadier (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SpringfieldHS(IL)logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SpringfieldHS(IL)logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments?

Hi LonelyBeacon,

This is an informal request, but if you have time, I'd like your thoughts. I'm thinking about taking School for Creative and Performing Arts for a run at FAC. I've been waiting on some new sources, and I know it needs a good rewrite for prose quality. I'd like to make some changes before I put it up for peer review again, but I wonder if you could take a look at it and let me know where you think it needs the most work. Your comments on Avery Coonley were really helpful, so I thought I'd ask you first. There is a lot less history to work with on this one, but I think it could be a good story. Please feel free to be frank. You won't hurt my feelings. I'm kind of stuck on where to take it and I'd like some suggestions on where to go with it. If there are other folks on the project you think could help, let me know and I'll ask them, too. Thanks. -- Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks a lot for assessing Bombay Scottish School, Mahim and giving me a barnstar!! --JovianEye (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help, and great job in improving that article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

School sports placement

Hi LonelyBeacon! Is it common practice to list school athletic acheivements only if the team wins 4th place or better? Is there a guideline I can refer to in the future? Benny the mascot (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no "in writing" guideline. Throughout my editing, I saw every editor throwing out any individual achievements unless they were really, really unique, and showed significant coverage. As far as team events, anything under the state level was always thrown out. I struck a compromise (especially given how the IHSA has a system which all but guarantees the best two teams in state will not be in a championship), and listed top 4 finishes. This corresponds to "teams that win trophies".

The fact is, as I continue editing, that may even have been too much. I think eventually this will become an RFC thing with schools, and it will lead to only the state championships being listed. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok...I'll just keep the Benet sports stats as is, then. I'm actually more concerned about academic teams—how do you think we should handle team placement in Science Olympiad and the state math contest? Should we informally use a "top 4" rule for that as well? Benny the mascot (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I really am not sure .... if it was an IHSA activity (Scholastic Bowl, Speech, Drama, etc), I used the top 4 rule. I don't know if I ever found sourcing on other activities to include anything beyond a state title (the IHSA is really good about providing sourcing for their activities, but other activities are not so good about that). I would not go beyond top 4, but make sure it is sourced (especially with Benet being GA).LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:TPS here. I don't even like anything below first place in state. YMMV, since it isn't a guideline, and it seems like a state such as California would probably have lower standards than.. Wyoming, given all of Wyoming is smaller than a half-dozen cities in California. tedder (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to more agree with Tedder now .... I think the best thing would be for me to get off my butt and start an RFC over at Schools and add this to policy. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Meh...I personally would stop at fourth place, since there are many schools in Illinois that compete anyway. Benny the mascot (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

GSHS Marching Titans

This program is hardly "non-notable"; it is an acknowledged perennial powerhouse in the Indiana high school competitive marching band scene since the mid-90's, the name is recognized nationally, and is programmed by some of the best-known names in the activity. In the future, please do not nominate articles for deletion if you are not familiar with the subject area. Lack of coverage in the mainstream press is not an argument for deletion of an article within a niche subject area that receives little coverage by the mainstream press anyway. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 19:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

First, your demand to avoid making AfD on subjects which you or any other editor feels I don't have background in is politely denied. That is not a demand that any editor around here has the right to make.

Second, The issue over the article's deletion is over the claim being made vs. the reality of coverage in reliable sources. If the band is truly notable, as the article claims (and you support) then there should be independent, third party sources which make this band its subject. Given the coverage of marching and field band competitions (which I am somewhat familiar with), there should be easy to find reliable sources on this group, which is not being found.

Third, these claims can be extended to any competitive high school venture (football, chess, marching band, quizbowl). Coverage about these teams competing/finishing, is considered trivial (otherwise every high school sports team in the United States would meet substantial coverage). Coverage about the group itself beyond routine coverage of competition is not. Those are the sources that I (and others) are not finding. Marching bands (state powers, national powers, etc) are not expempt from this coverage.

The absence of these independent sources, but some sourcing supporting that the band has had some success makes them an excellent candidate to be covered substntially on the school's article, and the band's article an unnecessary content fork. For these reasons which are hardly grey areas, I have recommended that the article be deleted,and the appropriate content merged to the school article.

I understand that you are under interdiction from certain editing. I strongly agree that the coverage need not be mainstream. If you have any sources of non-trivial coverage that you feel would meet the requirements of establishing the band's notability under the GNG, please pass them on to me. I will be happy to present them at the AfD. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You and I both know that mere existence is sufficient for inclusion, and that the so-called "notability criteria" are wrong and irrelevant. Media-coverage is absolutely not the be-all-end-all of worthiness. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 13:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sum, ergo an article? I think you need to reread WP:N and WP:V, because you may think that mere existence guarantees an article, but that is not the case. While editing boldly is great, the threshold for inclusion is that a subject must be covered extensively in some form of media (it need not be mainstream media, and media itself need not even be electronic, but there must be some third party independent source which verifies the subjects notability, otherwise Wikipedia policy AND the community consensus is that there should not be an article). By your reasoning, I am eligible for an article ... and that is hardly the case.LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of what those pages say. They're wrong, irrelevant, and null and void. Mere existence is indeed the only valid criterion for inclusion. And yes, you are indeed eligible for an article. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 13:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I get it .... this is something like Wikipedia's version of candid camera, right? LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to know what's wrong with Wikipedia? It's that people like me, who dare to try to fix Wikipedia and make it better, get mocked instead of listened to. Heaven forbid someone might have a serious idea that conflicts with yours, and communicate it to others. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 13:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And your post on Camaron's talk page was absolutely beyond the pale. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 13:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is hardly a perfect enterprise ... but there are mechanisms for change (request comments if you don't like policy ... participate in discussions for change ... etc. However, if you feel that this website's policies (the so-called "notability criteria" are wrong and irrelevant) or a majority of its editors/administrators don't share your vision of how things should be, then may I suggest finding something else to do, or consider having a cup of tea and contemplating how you can be productive within the framework of the website. I have no doubt that you can make many productive contributions, and hope that you will do so ... but jumping on people for daring to offer an article up for deletion because it very much appears to be in violation of the site's core policies. It would seem to me the only alternative is to walk away and find a new project to work on ... but I think Wikipedia would be worse off for it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestions, I'm afraid, are rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. On Wikipedia, our so-called "policies" and "criteria" are not "rules" that are created and must be followed, but rather mere descriptions of existing practice, and so if one wishes to change "policies" and "criteria," one does not start a discussion to try to change the content of the "policy" or "criteria" page but instead talks to people individually to change existing practice; and when existing practice changes, the so-called "policies" and "criteria" are updated to reflect this new existing practice. What you are suggesting, then, is completely at odds with how Wikipedia works. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 14:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That article has been warped beyond the point of referring to it as My Article. Although this was one of my earliest articles, what the article really needs is someone willing to rewrite it into a decent article. There is also the issue of the lack of electronic resources concerning the Marching Titans. I just now checked the status of the article, and there have been three attempts to delete it all resulting in a "keep" consensus. Eventually I plan to get to it but since I had thought it had already been deleted I didn't give it any thought, but right now, I don't have the time to deal with it as I am more concentrated on other things and I am also working a great deal of overtime at work until mid-May at the earliest. If its still around in June or sometime later, I will then have time to re-write the article. Rhatsa26X (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You note that the article has been up for AfD twice before, but for the life of me I could not find any record of this ... usually this is noted on the article talk page, but nothing is noted there.

While not exhaustive, I just checked the history and saw that this article was prodded for deletion, was then deprodded, but there is no record of further action. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding: Talk:Campbell County High School (Alexandria, Kentucky)/ Assessment request

First, thanks for the advice. I am greatful that someone finally paid attention to my request. I know that this article isn't worthy of being upgraded from its statuses of "stub" and "low" but I felt that I should get some advice for the article's future improvement.

Thanks again, Dockofusa (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I was glad I could help. If the article undergoes significant change, consider having the article re-listed for assessment. Best of luck! LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, alas, I think I am the lone editor for improving this article. Thanks for the well wishes! Dockofusa (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up message

Hello,

You left a message on my talk page while I was away. Please note that I have now replied to your comments underneath where you left them. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Archiving of assessment requests

Hello again,

I've noticed you've being archiving some assessment requests in the assessment archive. This archive was intended to be used to archive assessment summaries, not requests, and since the assessment summaries section is no longer in use this archive was not intended to be used any more. There has not been much discussion on the issue though the precedent up until now has just been to delete old assessment requests as they are rarely of much use, see for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Assessment/Archive 1#Clearing Assessment Requests. I don't have any personal objection to archiving assessment requests, though they should be perhaps separated somehow from the old assessment summaries. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to plead ignorance .... I had no idea that was the case. If the normal procedure is to delete, I can start doing that, and can go in and delete those which I added to the archives ... I jumped to an assumption, and will slap myself with the next trout that comes swimming by.

Don't slap yourself too much, you haven't locked the servers or anything like that! :) I will leave it to you to deal with the archived assessment requests; I agree that reverting back to deleting them is the best way forward for now. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Famous Alumni

Hi LB....Thanks for restoring the edits I made last year. I am a total novice here and am probably writing this in the wrong place...I hope you find it. Wikipedia has become THE PLACE TO GO for information and the fact that anyone....ANYONE... can change or alter that info. makes it kind of useless. It's fun,... but my input was erased by someone who thought it shouldn't be there. On that page of alumni, there are people that I feel have no reason to be included. Should I erase someone who WAS a writer, who WAS a sportscaster, who acts in some stupid sit-com? Who draws the line? How about if I think Laurie Anderson is a hack? I don't , but what if I did? Just erase her, right? NOT ELIGIBLE!!! I'm just sayin', ya know what I mean? ZaksDad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigicir (talk • contribs) 04:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is some helpful guidelines for anyone (and if you have problems in the future, you can point them to these:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Alumni; this link conatins the general guidelines for including any alumni. That is: alumni either have to have an article about them (blue linked), or have to be eligible for an article through WP:BIO. Some editors erroneously believe that only blue linked individual should be mentioned. I think the alum in question meets the criteria of WP:BIO for artsists, in that he has won a BAFTA award, and was Oscar nominated ... so even in the absence of an article, he is OK to be listed, provided a reliable source confirms his alumniship and accomplishment.

You are correct that, being an open project, Wikipedia does have its share of problems. Better education of editors is one part of making the place better. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cary Grove High School

I don't understand why the ICCA would not be something that should be noted on the page. I reread your comment and although the IHSA runs the chess for the state you are most likely correct in that instead it was the ICCA title. I am sorry for the inconvenience and ignorance on my part. Please continue to keep up the good work on monitoring the site though, I am appreciative of that as I am sure the rest of the community is for your efforts. 64.131.99.243 (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no real problem here ... I was very briefly a chess coach, and I know that in the community there is some thinking that the IHSA does not do enough to separate out schools of different sizes to get some recognition. I know that the ICCA does, after hte IHSA awards ceremony go through a lot of time to honor different teams and players, which is not a bad thing to do given the single class structure of the state competition. There's hardly any shame in finishing in the top ten or 20 a this event.

I am just trying to up hold the need on Wikipedia to verify through reliable sources. At first, I thought this was a slam dunk vandalism issue, but I now see this was an innocent error. Thanks for the props, and best of luck on your editing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Naperville Central

Why was this edit removed?

"Science

The NCHS Science Olympiad Team, founded in 2004, ranked third in the state in 2005 and 2006 and second in state in 2007 and 2008(thus advancing to the national tournament).[15] The Worldwide Youth in Science and Engineering Team won the State Championship in 2006, ending rival Naperville North's multiple-year winning streak.[16] In 2009, Central's WYSE team captured first place at the regional competition held at Naperville North. In 2010, Central's WYSE team swept rival Naperville North at the Regional, Sectional (where they earned a perfect score of 500), and State level. The Varsity Junior Engineering Technical Society (JETS) TEAMS's team placed first in the nation in 2006;[17] the JV JETS team placed second. In 2009, the Varsity JETS team took 1st place at the regional competition held at IIT (Wheaton Campus), while the JV team took 2nd.[18] In 2010, the Varsity JETS team again took first place at the National level."

http://www.engr.uiuc.edu/wyse/AC/results/pdf/unl_div_2010.pdf The Regional/Sectional results are not available anymore, however at the very least the state record should remain. http://jets.org/teams/bestoverall.cfm Scroll down to D9.

There were only two sentences removed from the above: In 2010, Central's WYSE team swept rival Naperville North at the Regional, Sectional (where they earned a perfect score of 500), and State level. and In 2010, the Varsity JETS team again took first place at the National level.

The second sentence was removed because it was an extraordinary claim that was not supported by a citation. The first sentence was removed because it was unencyclopedic, and was in violation of WP:PEACOCK; that it is the emphasis was on defeating the neighborhood rival, which is not what Wikipedia is about. You note a state record, but I see no mention of a state record. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Here, let me give you the preceding link. http://www.engr.uiuc.edu/wyse/AC/results/index.html I'm not entirely sure how to show you that they are the State level results, barring emailing WYSE and asking for confirmation that their "Results" page is indeed the results for the final competition. Oh, but here are the Sectional Results http://www.engr.uiuc.edu/wyse/AC/sectional/northcentral.pdf http://www.engr.uiuc.edu/wyse/AC/2010sectadvancers.html Additionally, why was the claim that NCHS took first an extraordinary claim? I would've thought that one such as yourself would have taken the time to look up whether or not such a claim was true, based on the previous results in the same competition described in the same paragraph. I indeed did neglect to include a citation - an oversight stemming from my rare use of this site's edit feature.

As long as this was a state title, and it can be reliably sourced, go ahead and note this in the article .... just be sure to not be mentioning other schools that were beaten. Regional/Sectional results have historically not been considered encyclopedic around here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:38.100.105.133

as per your request. I dont normally warn vandals, so pls check I did it right. dm (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If I may request, use: {{subst:uw-vandalism3|Field Museum of Natural History}} LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed the template as requested. It also appears that the vandalism continues if you wanted to escalate. dm (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BenetAcademylogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BenetAcademylogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Help

Thanks for the suggestion on Bronx High School of Science I created a new page for the alumni, it is referenced in the article. Anything else that you can see that needs help with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

re:re:Bronx Science

Thanks for the help, also if there any more work that you can see that the article needs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you had the article peer reviewed yet? Usually, as the article approaches GA status, the scrutiny is more on a community-wide level, vs that of a single project. If you haven't gotten it peer reviewed yet, then do that. Otherwise, my next suggestion is that the referencing needs to be improved. There still appear to be sections of the article lacking support from reliable sources. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou --Iankap99 (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello - you made a "suggestion" to editors, which I believe is well-meaning but the application was misguided. Please wait for discussion and consensus to be formed before implementing - a suggestion is a suggestion, not a requirement, and there are objections by regular editors of this article that have not been addressed. Also, this one falls well within the size guidelines for articles based on readable prose, and if any cutting were to be done it would not include cutting out a crucial section of prize-winning alumni who are integral to understanding the school and its history. I do agree that in general references could use improvement. Thanks for your interest in the article. Tvoz/talk 06:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tvoz,

Thanks for the kind words, but I am a little confused.

True, this was a suggestion, not a requirement ... there are few actual requirements on articles beyond actual policies.

As far as cutting crucial sections ... there is no doubt that the alumni section is a crucial part of the article ... having 7 Nobelists makes the school not only eminent, but wholly unique in the world ... the rest by themselves would make for a truly grand list of alumni for any school on Earth. It is because that list is so long that it really is deserving of its own place, with a proper link and summary in the article.

Without expansion, as is, the article is at the 60k cutoff for splitting. While a vast majority of the article is prosaic, the list of alumni sticks out a bit, as it does seem to dominate the last part of the article.

Given the vast importance of the school, I am not sure why there would be opposition to splitting out the alumni .... many top schools with developed articles and long lists of alumni (some not even as long as BHSS) have had their alumni list split off (see Boston Latin School). LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If I am missing something, please

The short answer is that, unfortunately, people don't read forks, and by removing one of the main things that distinguishes this school from most others, we lose something that is too central to understanding it. I might agree to a longer article about the distinguished alumni - with longer descriptions of the truly notable among them as you suggested - but then there would have to be a true summary section in the main article, that includes all of the current info about the prize winners and perhaps a shortened prose-style list of the more striking of the other notable alums with expanded descriptions in the fork. But to understand Science, you have to understand the scope of its alumni, which range from the physics Nobels to people who are quite far from the sciences like Stokely Carmichael, Richard Price, Dominic Chianese, and Bobby Darin, among others - all of whom are not what people expect when they think of this school, so should be included in the main article. In my opinion if all of this is removed from the main article, we are short-changing our readers and doing a disservice to the subject.

Also, please take another look at that "cutoff" for splitting - WP:SIZE seems to me to be crystal-clear that the 60K size guideline for splitting is for 60K of readable prose: as I have said repeatedly, and no one has responded to, this article has only 21K of readable prose, and therefore is well within the guidelines without removing anything. So honestly I think this whole issue is moot and the suggestion really not necessary. I think I'll post this over on the Talk page too as part of the RfC. Cheers Tvoz/talk 23:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I am BrooklynBen, a Bronx Science alumnus and I think there is a reasonable compromise between the positions of Tvoz and lankap99.

I agree that the article is becoming too long and that the notable alumni are notable enough to hold up as a separate article by themselves. I think this was done nicely for Stuyvesant High School, a comparable school to Bronx Science (though Stuy alumni are less impressive and largely known for their short spindly legs and awkward mannerisms).

I also concur with Tvoz that it would not suffice to simply name the seven Nobelists and the Pulitzer winners and then fork to an external list for further information. Certainly one unique quality of Bronx Science is the diversity of the student body and the variety of careers in which its graduates have excelled.

Stokely Carmichael, Bobby Darin, E.L. Doctorow, Jon Favreau, and Robert Moog are among the many examples of Science graduates making a mark in politics, the arts, and beyond.

I would propose moving the list of notable alumni to a new article, but leaving a statement that the school has notable alumni, including more Nobel Laureates than any other high school in the world [list them out], a large number of Pulitzer winners [list them out], as well as those who have excelled in other fields such as politics, the arts, and literature [then name as examples Stokely Carmichael, Bobby Darin, E.L. Doctorow, Jon Favreau, and Robert Moog, or a comparable list].

I would also note in both sections that the seven Nobelists emerging from Bronx Science (all in Physics) resulted in the American Physical Society taking the unique step of designating Bronx Science a "Historic Physics Site."

Bronx Science is the only secondary school to hold such an honor. You can use this reference < http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/at-bronx-science-a-nobel-laureate-homecoming/?emc=eta1 > --24.193.45.26 (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

What constitutes consensus? Ex, the article we are currently focusing on. --Iankap99 (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Click on WP:WHATISCONSENSUS for a clear explanation of what it is and what it is not. Tvoz/talk 05:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

School Assessment

Hey LonelyBeacon, just wanted to say thanks a lot for your assessment of Abbey Park High School, and your valuable advice on the talk page. I hope to bring the article up a few notches on the quality scale before long. Thanks again! ~SpK 14:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Please consider relisting the article for assessment after you have made changes. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Bronx Science Alumni List

Not sure if you are watching the inactive discussion page. Anyway, I remember you changed the title from distinguished alumni. If this article is to include all of the alumni, it would be in the thousands, should it be List of Notable Alumni? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I see your point .... I had retitled it based on how other school alumni lists are titled. By general guidelines, it is implied that only notable alumni would be included, though this could be more explicitly stated in the lead in to the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Shenandoah Valley Academy

When you reassessed this page, you made some significant changes, most of which were for the better. One of those changes was removing an awards section with the edit summary "removing section; awards are generally not listed except for state/national level; conference titles are not generally considered notable" User:WikiManOne restored the awards section shortly afterward without an edit summary. I asked why that was restored when I had a POV question. WikiManOne replied "On the awards I have significant question as to whether listing of conference awards are not notable. [Previous] editors have never made this point, and other schools also have mention of conference awards." I am not a member of WP Schools and would just ask for your input and reason for this removal. Thanks in advance! --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

SVA article

I've been meaning to thank you for your asssessment of the Shenandoah Valley Academy article as well as ask the question that USER:Fiftytwo_thirty already asked about the Conference Awards listing. I undid the delete on that section since I found multiple instances of private high school articles listing these, and could find no discussion on it. It seems rather arbitrary to say no conference awards, but state/district awards are notable, since many private schools only compete in conferences and do not get state awards as public schools do. Thoughts? WikiManOne (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Whenever conference titles have become an issue through requests for comment, the overwhelming opinion of the community is that conference titles are simply not notable. They undoubtedly still exist in many articles, but probably shouldn't based on community consensus.

But ...

You do bring up a good point about some states excluding private schools from state level competition; meaning that a conference title is the highest level of play open for these teams to compete in. I will need to do some hunting around on that ... presenting this in such a way makes this more of a grey area (IMO). LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the case in virginia. Private schools are only able to participate in Conference atletics, as the wikipedia article on Virginia High School League clearly states they are not eligible to play in the state league. I guess in that case it makes it more a area for editorial preference, or should it be something to do a request for comment for? It seems somewhat unfair to say that sports awards for some schools simply cannot be listed because of eligibility...WikiManOne (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

I left three articles to be assessed on the WP:Schools assessment page, and would be honored if you were to do them. I appreciate the detail you put into assessments, you will notice that I have included the SVA article for assessment after a large amount of changes have been made. Of course, a large amount is also on the way.WikiManOne (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:YorkCommHScrest.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:YorkCommHScrest.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted edits to Glenbard South High School

In reference to your recent good faith reverts of my edits to the Notable alumni list section of Glenbard South High School: Embedded lists of people should not be presented in pros form or complete sentences. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists). For a great example of a notable alumni list nominated to Featured lists, see: List of Brigham Young University alumni. Note that "is a" and "is currently" are really used, and "former" is used only when rank order is absent (e.g., 15th governor of Utah v. former governor of Utah). The conjunction "and" is not used between multiple reasons for notability but is for conjunction within a single notability reference (e.g., pitcher and firstbaseman for the White Sox, MLB team owner). Statements like "who is" or "who did" should also be avoided. Listings should not contain too many links. The goal with notable people lists is to communicate in as few words as possible, because they can quickly become cumbersome if not kept simple. I hope this helps clarify the rational for my edits and we can agree to revert some of them back. Dkriegls (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I hate to sound contrarian, but I'm not sure I am seeing what you are.

From WP:MOS (EL): Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links. Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, while a list of links does not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Therefore, lists of links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries ... This seems to imply that lists of links should not be written in prose style, but that this does not apply to all lists. As a matter of fact, a little later: If you find an inappropriate or badly written list, insert a cleanup tag at the top of the article. For example, use the tag for an embedded list that would be better written as prose ... So some embedded lists can be written in prose style. This is what I was corrected on about a year or so ago when I used to write it in more phrased form (as you are suggesting).

Generally, in lists of alumni, I have been instructed by other editors that "was" refers to a deceased alum, "former" refers to a living alum who no longer engages in whatever it is that makes them notable. I'll admit that I cannot point to anything in guidelines or policy that supports that, but articles like Oak Park River Forest High School, Wheaton Warrenville South High School, and Maine South High School all received "B" ratings by independent editors after editing to their alumni lists into prosaic style.

I may be missing your point, and if I am, please correct me. I could not find anything the specifically precludes what I have been doing. That isn't to say that "my way is the right way" ... far from it ... I don't particularly care which way it goes, though I would like to see that it goes one way or the other. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there isn't a good reference for consensus on Notable People lists. The general list style guide is it too broad to cover all the different types of lists. I've been taking my guidance from the Notable People lists that have been nominated to Featured lists. These are considered the best lists on Wikipedia. You can find several Featured school alumni lists here under the heading "College/university alumni, faculty and related people". The pages you listed are tricky to reference for guidance to consensus because the embedded lists were likely not reviewed in isolation by editors with knowledge of list style consensus. I have talked with a few administrators who've informed me that the consensus on Notable People lists is that they are reference/link lists and thus not biography/pros lists. I have been meaning to get around to writing a style page for Notable People lists so a clear consensus can be established. Dkriegls (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I see you are taking a long wikibreak; good luck and I look forward to seeing you back on Wikipedia in the future. CT Cooper (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see you back. CT Cooper · talk 21:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Bowen High School

I have a problem. I am a writing an article on Bowen High School: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowen_High_School. I want to insert some images, a logo and two pictures. One of them, the logo is public domain, so I upload the information. The other one, I have permission with the photographer on file, so I fill the information (Description, Source, etc.) and a copy to Wikipedia. But then, both of them, an upload warning: File extension does not match MIME type. Exactly what is it mean and how do I fix the problem? Thank you in advance. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.121.152 (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at WikiManOne's talk page.