Taostiger
|
Greg Comlish (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
March 2008 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Taos High School do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
- Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
- The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bexample\.com' .
- Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit you made to Taos High School constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
- Hi there. It looks like you are having a little trouble getting started at Wikipedia. Firstly, you seem to have a conflict of intertest relating to some of the articles you are editing. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun and I hope it can be for you. If you read this it will explain the most important guidelines you need to understand to have an enjoyable experience here. If there is any way I can help out, drop me a line at my talk page. Thanks Beeblbrox (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
April 2008 edit
In regards to this edit summary, please read WP:OWN. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Taos High School. Thank you. Aleta Sing 05:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You have already been asked to not remove the template until the article is sourced, please stop. Also, please stop adding the town profile into the article. This article is about a school, not the town. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Taos High School. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Taos High School, you will be blocked from editing. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop revert warring at Taos High School. Instead, discuss your content dispute on the article talk page. Aleta Sing 03:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This is friendly advice. You have reverted my edits twice and Mears man once. If you revert one more time, you will be blocked for violating WP:3RR. Please listen to what we are saying. Also, this comment was not necessary. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Group? edit
Are you a group of people editing under one username? Aleta Sing 04:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Administrators' noticeboard of incidents thread edit
FYI: I have opened a thread at WP:ANI#Taos High School. Aleta Sing 04:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies edit
Hi,
Listen, I noticed the controversy surrounding the THS article and I just want to apologize for the way people have been acting. Yes, strictly speaking all edits are supposed to be verifiable. But I think its really upsetting that new users who are clearly making content contributions in good faith are being constantly harried with requests for citations about worthlessly obscure facts (eg who precisely was the principle back in 1917?) and zero effort is made to help them make a better article or find good sources. I don't know why your article became such a lightening rod for controversy and I really don't know why so many editors have to be such tight asses and drive away valuable contributors. Basically, there are a lot of aggrieved people in this world who just enjoy pushing people around through whatever pathetic and desperate measures they can and many found that wikipedia was an ideal place to do this.
Anyway, there's a lot on my plate but if you want I can help you properly cite your article, etc.
Yours Truly,
Greg Comlish (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Not Worth It edit
THANK YOU for the apology, it is sincerely appreciated. This was supposed to be a fun an positive experience to allow students to share and introduce Taos High School to the WP world. They certainly are not nor claim to be experts in WP protocol, nor am I. We spent time gathering information to contribute, yes which can definately be cited. BUT were never given the opportunity due to constant deletes with no positive reinforcement or offers of assistance. The "assistance" was to simply scold us for doing something wrong and referring us to canned explanations of our "sins".
The group would provide me with the information (THS history, athletics, community etc) and I'd usually enter the information in the evening to find it simply deleted the next day. This is not their nor my career, in what appears to be the life of many editors in this place. We contribute and participate in the community and don't sit around in front of our computers waiting to delete and dismiss other peoples information and opinions constantly.
We simply modeled our article after schools in our area of New Mexico, like Santa Fe HS and Los Alamos HS. There was never ever any intent to provide made up or inaccurate information. Obviously there was frustration based on the constant targeting of this article in an unproductive manner. And WE were accused of ownership issues???
This is NOT a place of inclusion or appreciation. It is an opportunity for opportunists like some of the editors to validate themselves and impose their "blocking" powers and who have nothing better to do than have their lives revolve around an article about a high school in New Mexico.
This is why we will no longer participate in this article. It's unfortunate since there were many more things to be included. BUT, we will share our information in other ways and with those in our community where our work has been encouraged and has been treated as a valuable asset. --Taostiger (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's hard to contribute constructively here. Your basic newbie mistake was a simple one - if someone disagrees with one of your edits strongly enough to revert it, don't just put it back. See Wikipedia:Edit war. Also, although it sounds odd, we don't actually want people writing things from personal experience. We want to use sources instead. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Friday (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean if the WP "gods", I mean editors, disagree with you, YOU can't "put it back" but they can. God forgive if you disobey them. tsk tsk tsk But, if your personal information can be "cited" and with sources, it's OK, right? Your knowledge of WP "scripture" is validated.....BRAVO. --Taostiger (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I gave you a plain-English explanation, and linked you to a couple pages that explain more. This is about the best I know how to do. Honestly, your response makes it sound like you're more interested in arguing than learning what we do here. Friday (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, refer to the five paragraphs under "Not Worth It", pay special attention to the last paragraph, there's your answer. You chose to reply and self-validate your knowledge of WP commandments to me. There's no need for that any longer, the witchhunt is over, mission accomplished --Taostiger (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I realize this process has been frustrating for you, and for that I am sorry. Please realize that everyone involved wants the best possible article to be written. The disagreement lies in exactly how to attain that. Please do not abandon the project. Instead, talk to your students and explain the need for references. They got the information from somewhere - get them either to add their sources to the article, or provide them to you. I'll be glad to help you and any of them to format the source information to include in the article. Aleta Sing 23:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll second what Aleta has said, and add this. A new user coming to Wikipedia, especially one editing an article that is personally related to them, can be in for a serious culture shock. The expectations that many new users bring to WP about the policies or purpose of Wikipedia, or about what certain edits/templates/tags mean, are often very much at odds with reality. That is not the fault of the user: Wikipedia's policies and culture, while very defensible, are not necessarily intuitive. That's why experienced users are supposed to "not bite the newcomers." However, it is equally important for new users to try to understand the policies, to accept criticism (not necessarily to agree with it), and enter into discussions on talk pages.
- As a high school teacher myself, I have been encouraged to use Wikipedia with my students in the kind of way that I think the group Taostiger was trying to do. What most people don't realize is how tricky that is. A group of high school students, while enthusiastic and personally knowledgeable about their school, is unlikely to be neutral, and unlikely to immediately understand or buy into the policies of Wikipedia. Considering that, I think this group has done a good job of expanding the article---but work needs to be done, and some contributions were inappropriate, and that was the point of the templates and tags added, and the paragraphs that were deleted.
- Taostiger and User:Greg Comlish write of a perception of being singled out. Others have noted that such a perception comes out of the ad hoc way in which Wikipedia works...it just happens that a bunch of people have come to edit/comment at the same time, and that other articles, such as Santa Fe High School (New Mexico), hadn't gotten the same attention, even if they seriously need it. I know it can feel hostile, but that is not the intent. Also, Taostiger writes about the lack of positive help to make the article better. Positive help is what eventually should happen, and what has been offered by Aleta, for example. But the first step is for some editor to identify that something needs to be fixed---that is the purpose of the {{fact}} tags, for instance. One shouldn't expect a random editor without immediate access to the literature on Taos, New Mexico to be able to immediately fix the perceived problems. The tags are not an attack on the character of the person who added the material, they are just a note saying "let's improve this." -- Spireguy (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
...uh oook edit
You Know what you taoseno keep your damn opinions to your self NOBODY really cares what a little kid like you has to say and a district championship for cheer/spirit does exist idiot! i attended it.. your just upset because taos never wins any district championships...how sad its ok maybe you should come to espanola or los alamos. You are the one who should get your facts RIGHT look at all the complants you have on your talk page learn how to use wikipedia!..gosh what do they teach you up there in taos..get a life stop leaving your worthless crap on my page or you will be BLOCKED!
... ThomasSalazar Chat?! 11:13 MT, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course you did, you're EVERYWHERE, right? I'm positive you were there the nite Taos placed higher than Espanola at the State Cheer championships. I also forgot you were there with grandpa all the times Espanola/Santa Cruz won the State Championships in basketball, you're soooooo lucky....lol I also believe Espanola still holds the title on heroin use too, right? Don't forget to add that to the schools, profile, that's their claim to fame. Get a life cholo--Taostiger (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Guys, please stop arguing. Thomas, please work on improving Española Valley High School and Taostiger will work on improving Taos High School. A high school rivalry doesn't need to spill over onto WP talk pages. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll back up what AgnosticPreachersKid said and add that personal attacks are not allowed. Please do not continue that. Aleta Sing 15:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm a student and athlete at Los Alamos HS and we get along great with Taos HS. We are in the same district as Taos and respect their school, athletes and coaches. I don't agree with the comments made by Thomasalazar in his blank statements towards Taos and making it appear Los Alamos is a part of this. I specifically opened an account to make this known. Thanks again. --ElNorte (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Right on, my friend made me aware of this issue and I'm completely against Tomasalazar's use of Los ALamos HS in his weak argument. I'm also a student/athlete at LAHS and fully support Taos HS for their sportsmanship not only by their athletes but also by their fans, unlike the other school in our district. Tomasalazar maybe represents Espanola, but he does not represent Los Alamos. Go Tigers! and Go 'Toppers! --LAath (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
April 2008 edit
Whoever has been doing this is WRONG! I go to EVHS, and it's hard enough being respected on the playing field by Taos, Los Alamos and Capital, they get along great with each other. U can see the comments above by LA students backing Taos. Statements like the ones above are not who we are but keep that stereotype of us alive and well. The dude Thomsalazar is probably not a student and it doesn't help the perception people have of Espanola with his comments towards the Taos Tiger. --EVjock (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A couple of friends at Taos High on Myspace made me aware of this instigation by Espanola. I use the Wiki on occassion for homework and stuff. I go to Capital and play 3 sports and we dont have any issues at all with Taos and we get along with them real good. That's totally messed up that Espanola has to talk crap about Taos like that but kinda not suprising in my book. That's why alot of us don't like being around them. We'd take Taos over them ANYTIME. --CapJag (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The know-it-all STRIKES AGAIN!! Sister school?? LOL what's that? --Taostiger (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
April 2008= edit
At practice today, I posed the question "Taos or Espanola"?? It was pretty obvious, Taos was the winner. It even looks like Capital has no problems with Taos either. Maybe CapJag should take the same poll. Like the Capital user, it's unfortunate but typical of the way Espanola deals with sportsmanship, especially by the adults. The way Thomasalazar talks and attacks Taos Tiger is the way they act at games. --LAath (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
--Taostiger (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)== Unauthorized removal of content ==
One of my students made me aware of the SAME individual's constant removing and editing MY talk page. Once again it reflects disrespect and disregard for what is not his concern....AGAIN. It's ironic how he's quick to point out my flaws in WP protocal, but I guess it goes with the old saying "Takes one to know one".--Taostiger (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Once AGAIN, the busy-body has nothing of substance to contribute. Once AGAIN, he's the victim of attacks when he took it upon himself to edit and delete comments on someone else's talk page without their permission. I think it's FANTASTIC that students from Los Alamos,Capital and even Espanola see his behavior as deplorable. THANKS!! --Taostiger (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You too loser! FAKE? You'd know...looks like the heroin is kicking in....Now GO AWAY!--Taostiger (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Move on loser, you're pathetic.....--Taostiger (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No personal attacks edit
Taostiger and Thomasalazar: As per WP:NPA, personal attacks are not allowed. You have both violated this rule, and you both need to stop now. You can and will be blocked if you continue. Aleta Sing 00:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks edit
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Thomasalazar, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Civility edit
Thomas and Taos, please stay off each other's talk pages. I suggest you avoid each other on Wikipedia. Any interactions you do have must be civil. Aleta Sing 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Giving references in articles edit
Hello! I noticed that you give detailed comments, including some sources, in your edit summaries, which is good. It is also good to give sources in the article itself (that is, as footnotes). Not everybody is going the read the edit history. I believe your information is from reliable sources, but it is helpful to everybody if you give those sources in the article. You can read more about footnoting at WP:CITE, and about Wikipedia's standards of proof at WP:VERIFY. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you need help with footnoting. Thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia. --Uncia (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of NMAA District 2-AAAA edit
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article NMAA District 2-AAAA, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- no evidence of notability; unsourced; 2-AAAA is one of numerous divisions and alignments of New Mexico Activities Association and does not need its own article; article is primarily the work of User:Thomasalazar, a sockpuppet of User:PoliticianTexas, who was subsequently community-banned from Wikipedia
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Uncia (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Too bad, it's unfortunate that this article is being considered for deletion. It is correct that District 2-AAAA is a division of the New Mexico Activities Association, this article provides additional information specific to schools wihtin this alignment. I personally have been working on verifying the information originally posted by the creator of the article and have changed the information and have listed specific information and the source related to the data. I believe that whoever is believed to be originally responsible and is now community banned for Wikipedia so far has not been editing this particular article. Hopefully this deletion is not an attempt to target or punish those believed to be responsible or associated with the creation of this article.--Taostiger (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, please make your voice heard regarding the NNAA Navigation box issue: [1]. They have already deleted the Nav box for all of 3A and 4A but these decisions can be reversed. However, your support is needed. Greg Comlish (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit
Hello, Taostiger. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message edit
Hello, Taostiger. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message edit
Hello, Taostiger. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)