DanielALord

|

Welcome!

Hello, DanielALord, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at St. Louis University High School. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not see the point of referring to this as a war. I added three items; all three were removed, because the citations were drawn from the school's homepage. So I re-edited, and added independent citations. These were then eliminated too, now the rationale being that they refer to individual, not group achievements. Whether or not a total of 36 students achieving something counts as an individual or a group achievement, I'll put aside. Indeed, I left that out with this edit. But I reinstated the Niche ranking, which is neither reliant upon the school website, nor by any measure an "individual" achievement. So why I am being threatened in this way by someone with a chip on his shoulder is a mystery.DanielALord (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to St. Louis University High School. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Encyclopedia articles are composed of a summary of information written about a subject by reliable independent sources. Continued insertion of self sourced material to the above article may lead to suspension of your editing privileges. John from Idegon (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You are correct that two of the items are distributed by the institution itself; you are incorrect about one of the three items. Editing requires use of a scalpel not an axe. I am confident that Wikipedia policy would side with me on this. I here reinstate the one with an independent source. Moreover, if you check most of my edits, I use independent sources. I get it that institution homepage information is not allowed, but you are using an arbitrary standard by disallowing Niche. You also adopt the language of a threat and stand in violation of civility codes.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on St. Louis University High School. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. John from Idegon (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Deny me my privileges, if you so choose, but please consider the facts of the matter: First, John from Idegon rejects information because he claims citations should be independent of the school website. Fair enough. So I make the changes. Then, he follows with the contentious charge that individual successes should not be included. This is illogical because all such websites allow for outstanding achievements of alumni and 36 perfect scores on an important exam can, at least arguably, be treated as group success. But, still, I have compromised on this, and omitted that information. Now, the claim is that Newsweek and US News and World Report rankings are superior to Niche, because he claims, without any basis in fact, that Niche relies solely on popularity measures. This is a canard. Check their website. Just as with Newsweek and US News and World Report, they employ analytic techniques. At best your claim is that Niche's analytic techniques are inferior to those of the other two, but this has no basis in fact.DanielALord (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You have no privileges. Neither do I. It's very simple. When another editor rejects you addition, you start a discussion on the article's talk page and try to form a consensus on what if anything to include. You repeatedly over the course of years have refused to do that. There are guidelines for school articles. That's where the no individual achievement comes from. Niche is a poor source, that has been the consensus for years on school articles. You are a WP:SPA whose only purpose on Wikipedia is to make this particular school sound as good as possible. Have you ever added any negative material to this article? The purpose of Wikipedia is not promotion. Not that it gives me any privilege, but I'm the coordinator of WikiProject Schools. I watch at least half of all the school articles on US schools. You have exhibited no interest in improving the encyclopedia in general, but rather only interest in promoting one single school. I think I am in a far better position than you to know what the best sources are for school articles than you. Especially since you've shown no interest at all in any other area of this vast encyclopedia. I'm done here. Get a consensus for your rejected changes or leave them out. Next time you fail to take a rejected edit to the talk page and simply replace it, I'll seek sanctions against you. I'm not wasting my time on this any more. John from Idegon (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep it simple--you're trigger happy. I responded to your initial erasures, and allowed that the rationale was fair. So I revised. I also decided not to quibble over the difference between collective or individual. So I let it go. Now you refer to a consensus that Niche is inferior to Newsweek or US News and World Report. Well, a consensus is not a meta-analysis. And you provide nothing of the sort, so your decision is arbitrary. Then, in your capacity as "coordinator of WikiProject Schools", you inform me that life is full of arbitrary decisions. Wow, real-world editors can never get away with that. You also began the exchange about ranking agencies by resort to a canard, and I am disinclined to discuss seriously with people who start discussions with lies. And, to your questions, do I care about the project, in general, or have I added anything negative, "no" to both. What I care about is the influence, wholly incommensurate with the design or the capability, exercised by wikipedia. So, yes, I put my two cents in here and there about something I care about, and here come the caps, BUT NEVER IN AN ARBITRARY WAY. It comes down to too many people with limitless time on their hands who are content to says things like, yeah, "the world is full of arbitrary decisions." If the rules of wiki-world allow you this, go ahead. Arbitrary your way through life.DanielALord (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)