User talk:Thivierr/archive-3

schoolzone

Hi Rob thanks for your message and I will edit into the template to describe how I forsee it too be used. I am thinking that it can used instead of sending schools to AFD. If we can stem the flow of articles to AFD we can then seriously discuss the criteria for when it is acceptable to merge a school article compared to when it should be kept as it's own article.

Please feel free to modify the template or suggest improvements i rushed the template and I'm sure it could be better. In retrospect I think it may be too complicated to list all the schools on the WP:SCH site for cleanup, it could be the one step that will deter people from using the tag. Possibly just having a link for the category in WP:SCH is the way to go. i just want to point out many of the schools i tagged are already good articles. At the moment I have tagged a lot of different kinds of school article (quality and type) and I am hoping this will lead to discussion for the criteria of when this, or a similar, tag should be used on a school article.

Currently I have not formely proposed anything for this tag beyond stopping Afd. In the long term i forsee this as a way of highlighting the school articles that could be defined as microstubs. i.e. merge candidates. Since there is a category for the schools with this tag they will be easily identified by school enthusiasts that want to improve a school article. I think there should be a time limit before a merge/redirect can be done in good faith. I am thinking at least one month and no more than six months. In this way the new articles are given a chance to grow from the microstubs as the creators or other interested parties do more research. After the good faith timelimit if there is no significant improvement then any person wanting to redirect and merge can do so. What do you think, any chance this idea can fly? David D. (Talk) 18:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Schools/Archive 5

I've put that mammoth section (around 46k in all) back on the archive, since there had been no activity on it for over a week when I archived it in the first place. If you feel it important, repoint the incoming links, but 41k of inactive discussion just for reference is a little overkill just for incoming links. Chris talk back 11:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There was an ongoing vote, which was pointed to from a couple places. You shouldn't have interupted a vote in progress. I won't waste my time doing a revert war with you. I don't feel like a repeat of last time (with the name calling, personal attacks, insults, and uselessness). So, whatever, do as you wish. --Rob 11:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Which vote in progress was this, and how did I interrupt it? Chris talk back 11:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a reference from Wikipedia:Schools#Current proposal for schools and Template:Cent which both pointed to Wikipedia talk:Schools#Summary, proposal, which is a link that no longer worked. Previously, if one clicked on the link to the "Straw Poll" they would go here where they could see the proposal and vote on it. This wasn't just a discussion, it was a vote. I hoped there would be wider input on the proposal, so its not just the "same old people" (which includes me), but includes the broader community, including those who don't visit AFD every single day (where the link is shown). Some people visit only occasionally, but I want their input too. --Rob 11:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The last contribution to the vote was on November 22. I archived on December 1. It is now December 12. I make that 8 days of inactivity (without any consensus to boot), and 11 days since it was archived. When I did the archive, I took everything without any activity in at least the prior week. Chris talk back 12:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have fixed {{cent}} to refer back to the discussion, and updated Wikipedia:Schools to reflect the fact that the poll and proposal are no longer current. Chris talk back 12:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The vocal minority has its way. As said, whatever. --Rob 12:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you prefer to hand over control to the group of zero users who contributed to the poll since then? Chris talk back 12:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

After you "updated" WP:SCH you failed to update the link to the archived location of the poll (even though you referred to it as "archived"). So, I did that myself. I'll assume you forgot. --Rob 12:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Good catch, I did forget there. Though it's increasingly looking like you're crying over long-spilt milk here. Chris talk back 12:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you just admitted to spilling some more milk moments ago, so I guesse I'm entitled. Anyways, in the future, any new serious straw poll needs to get its own sub-page, where it will sit permanently, such as Wikipedia talk:Schools/StawPoll-1, which will avoid this issue entirely. --Rob 12:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to quit with the sour grapes already? Chris talk back 13:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You can quit with whatever whenever you wish. Bye. --Rob 16:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD Jargon

Hiya. Quick FYI: "Delete and create redirect" is usually written as plain old "redirect". "Delete" means remove the article from Wikipedia; "Redirect" means replace the text of the article with a redirect. Apologies if the latter is not what you meant.

chocolateboy 13:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I meant exactly what I wrote, and not just "redirect". To me "redirect" means you keep the old content in history. In *this* case I'm opposed to that. Normally, I would have no problem with keeping the old article content in history. It's convenient to keep the old history, so that the redirect can be undone in the future, when "Sean" (baby) is suffiently notable for his own article. However, the old history of the other "Sean" article (Sean Federline)has already been kept. I like the idea of there being only one "Sean" article with history. Now, the only other option for me, would be to merge history of the two articles into one spot. However, that seemed like a lot of work for the admin, so I say just delete one's history, keeping the other's history. So, sorry to be long winded, but I really do want a "delete". I fear if history is kept in two spots, its more likely for the redirect to be undone in two spots, creating a problem down the road. But honestly, its no big deal in this case. --Rob 17:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough :-)

chocolateboy 17:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

automated timestamping

Thivierr said:

I'm pretty sure this date/time paramater can be added, without requiring a tagger to actually type it in. Admins would only delete the oldest ones in the category, while everybody else could review the newer additions to the category, to see if something needs "saving". --Rob 01:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. I did some sandboxing after reading your comment and found a way to do this. It would, obviously, require consistant use of subst. But I've programmed it to detect this. Go to a sandbox and try entering the following:

{{User:Freakofnurture/Sandbox4}}

and then compare it to:

{{subst:User:Freakofnurture/Sandbox4}}

(Note that the category brackets are intentionally escaped to avoid page disruption.) This could be applied to the speedy deletion tags so they'd processed in the sequence determined by the date/time sorting key. Cool eh? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:33, Dec. 15, 2005

Hey thanks. I just did a sandbox test, and it works nice (with the "subst" of course). Though I haven't checked yet, I'll assume the datetime stamp uses leading zeroes if a number is less than 10, so the totall digits is always the same, and alpha-sorting works. So, I see no problem using this approach. Thanks. --Rob 16:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent summary

I think which tag used is minor. What would be good, is the approach (you used) of replacing the entire article contents with the notice. Immediately (but reversably) removing the contents deals with the problem of Google cache, makes clear there's something wrong to the author, avoids pollution of the relevant category; avoids us publishing misinformation (as nn-bios are often unverifiable), and avoids generally embarrassment of us publishing sillieness; yet it's still reviewable/fixable by all Wikipedians who wish to do so. --Rob 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for providing an excellent description of the benefits of transparent deletion. I encourage you to check out Wikipedia talk:Experimental Deletion for mote thoughts on this matter. Friday (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm starting to really like the concept. I'm curious if you think experimental deletion could be combined with a category sorted by date-time stamp, as discussed above. --Rob 06:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving articles on afd

When you move an article that's on afd, could you please create a redirect from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OldTitle to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewTitle instead of moving the afd page? My bot can account for redirected afd discussions automatically, but it can't detect moved ones, and there isn't really an easy way to make it do so. —Cryptic (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. When a page is moved, a redirect is automatically put in place. You're going to have to give me an example, and say what I should have done. --Rob 19:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Using the yesterday's example of Highland High School, which you moved to Highland High School (New Jersey):

The bot finds articles tagged afd by reading Category:Pages for deletion. This gives only its current title (Highland High School (New Jersey)). It compares that with a list of afds transcluded on the daily log pages; this gives only the old title ({{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highland High School}}). It knows to read anything at an afd for the current title (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highland High School (New Jersey)), and if that's a redirect, to check where it's going to. Since the afd from the old title was moved to the new title, it doesn't see a redirect, but a full afd that (so far as it knows) isn't listed on a daily page, so I have to stop, check the histories, and figure out what happened. If you had instead created a redirect from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highland High School (New Jersey) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highland High School, this wouldn't require human intervention. —Cryptic (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this argument is that page history does not move to the new article. As an aside, what is the bot trying to do?David D. (Talk) 17:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The page history does move to the new article. The article itself should be moved normally. It's the afd subpage that shouldn't be moved. All that's required is that the article links to the deletion discussion at all times; actually moving the deletion discussion is harder on the server than it has to be, causes some minimal confusion among the participants watching it (since the diff links they've clicked on from the history are no longer marked visited, as the page's title has changed), and causes somewhat less minimal confusion for my bot.

The bot's purpose is to find article that are tagged {{afd}} but not listed on the afd logs, with no false negatives and preferably a minimum of human interaction needed to resolve the false positives. —Cryptic (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand, thanks David D. (Talk) 17:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

About the comments added to the school article discussion

Rob, you are totally right. I thank you for correcting my mindless mistake and for taking the time to edit the discussion in a way that the comments were preserved. It was a serious lack of "wikitteque" from my behalf. Once again sorry for that clumsy edit and thanks for taking the time to correct it --Mecanismo | Talk 19:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You have been nominated

I believe you possess that certain je ne sais quoi that takes to become an exceptional admininistrator, and as a result you have been nominated. Now go do something about it.  :-) Hall Monitor 20:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much, but I'm declining at that this. I won't be ready to be an admin for a while. --Rob 20:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your response to the nomination, I respect and understand your position. As they say on RFA, adminship is no big deal, we regularly promote people with a fraction of your credentials. Should you change your mind, please let me know and we can re-open the nomination. Hall Monitor 21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Fern Ridge High School

Nice work on cleaning up this article. It's much better now. Definitely worth keeping. Cmdrjameson 18:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:Dr. Ronald E. McNair Academic High School

Since that article was so poorly written, I had some suspicions about whether or not a verify tag was enough there, but under WP:BITE, I welcomed the user in, per WP:AGF as you said. As strange as it may seem, I have seen good faith hoaxes before, and with that, AGF is more geared towards users than towards content in my opinion.

Good job on that school, by the way. Nashua, New Hampshire is just a stone's throw away from Featured Status, but the schools are holding it back. I went to Wikiproject:Schools awhile back, but no luck. I'll try to add some more information soon, but I think it's more than a one person job, at least for someone inexperienced with school articles. karmafist 19:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you could clarify what you wish done. Are you wanting articles for all the schools? Instead of listing all the schools (done now) and making articles for each of them (which I infer you wish done?); I think a few paragraphs of the overall system is better; discussing any signficant issues, and maybe just mentioning a few schools. For instance, this particular district[1] seems to be rather hostile to out-of-district students and paying for them (more than most). Maybe there's some ongoing financial problem or legal conflict worth mentioning. Ultimately, it would be nice to have articles for all the schools in the city, but I don't see any tie-in to that and getting Featured Status for city. And I think listing all the schools (even every elementary) detracts from the article a bit. But, this is just my opinion, and others would sharply disagree with me. While articles for all the schools, especially high schools, would be nice, I think that's such a big task, you can put it off, and get a featured status for the city without it. Anyway, maybe I misunderstood what you're trying to do. --Rob 20:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That's about what I wanted to do. I thought that the schools section was a weak spot in the article as only a list as it was. Things like what you just said there would be exactly what i'm looking for, I should also add a bit about the City's new superintendent, there was some rancor about that apparently, but i'm not up on all the details. I might also need another photo or two of one of the schools. In addition to a Geography and a Culture section in order to make it to FA status. karmafist 07:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

St Winifred's School Choir

You said: Wow, the school choir really did have a hit

Yes I remember it well from my childhood. I regret starting the article now though as I had that damn song going through my head constantly for hours afterwards! Apologies for not adding references or categories myself. -- Francs2000 12:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

ok

ok ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism reversion on my user page

Hi there

First of all, thanks for reverting the vandalism attempt that was directed at my user page. It has been under constant attack by some anonimous troll but there is always someone who is watching and reverts it. If there wasn't people like you my user page would be a wreck. So, kudos!

But about the trolls, it seems that there are a few users out there who amuse themselves by vandalizing my user page. I've reported a few but it seems that it doesn't achieve much. So, do you have any suggestions of what action can I take about those vandals and the vandalism attempts?

Once again, thanks for the revertion. Kudos! --Mecanismo | Talk 22:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't think of anything you haven't done. I guess just keeping reporting it every time, also be sure that you leave the appropriate warning message on their talk page every single time (if an admin sees multiple warnings, they're more likely to block them). But, it sounds like you've done this already. Personally, I'm for tougher restrictions on anons (e.g. no more anons), but that's another story. --Rob 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

school redirect tag

Hi Rob i have been messing around with school tags, I'd like to hear what you think.

At Wikipedia:Redirect I added the new tag ({{R from school}}) and I tried to keep it in the same format that has been used other examples in wikipedia. The table below will help you compare the school redirect to the abbreviations redirect. See the Wikipedia:Redirect page for more examples.

Reason	Usage notes, and text that will be shown	Tag	Category to find articles so tagged
Abbreviations	This is a redirect from a title with an abbreviation. For more information, follow the category link. DSM-IV redirects to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders	{{R from abbreviation}}	Category:Redirects from abbreviation
From school microstub to merge location	{{R from school}} Culler Middle School redirects to Lincoln Public Schools	{{R from school}}	Category: Redirects from school articles

Note that I created a specific redirect category for the merged schools, Category: Redirects from school articles. This category will complement the category Category:School articles actively undergoing construction, that contains the schools using the {{schoolzone}} template. This later category should be viewed as a short term holding area to encourage immediate improvement. I envisage this category could replace school Afd's and the Category: Redirects from school articles will be the long term home for schools that become redirects. One obvious problem is that the redirect category will become huge. Your thoughts? David D. (Talk) 00:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Some semi-related points:

• So far I like this. I have to think more about this, as I haven't seen these tags/categories used before (surprisingly). I think there's no problem with the redirect category becoming huge, as such a category will be used exclusively by editors, not readers. Also, I'm curious as to what policy's Wikipedia has regarding redirects in categories (as normally, redirects aren't in categories).
• On redirects, hopefully we use redirects to "cleanup" substubs, and don't just make large numbers of "virgin" redirects. That is its ok to put a redirect over a substub, but usually one shouldn't, IMO, automatically make a redirect for every school in a district, if no article was present previously. Let's say there's ten school articles (all substubs) for a 100 school district. I'm hoping we only set 10 redirects, not 100.
• Going to another topic on schools, I thought I would mention one thing I felt might make some progress: is for all of us who regularly edit/improve school related articles, is to always start with a talk message to the article's creator if they're a newbie before we "clean up". Point them to WP:PJSCH and give them some advice on what's needed for a complete school article (generally and specific to their article), avoiding any need for cleanup and/or merging. Now that anons can't create articles any more, leaving such a message is more practical.
• Interestingly, I've noticed since the recent block of anon article creations, there's been a substantial drop in elementary substubs created. Schools substubs are still being made, but are often for high schools, that can more easily be expanded. So, its ironic, that a change unrelated to schools, has done more to "clean up" schools then anything else. I'm thinking much of the problem of school articles, will be fixed with broader solutions to creation of substubs, and unsourced articles (not specific to schools).

Just some thoughts, but again, what you've done seems good. --Rob 01:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll try and write up this up as a proposal that can then be discussed at the schools talk page.

With regard to categories of redirects it seems to be very much the norm. Did you see Category:redirects? I like the idea of virgin redirects being limited. I had no realised the rule about creating articles that had gone into place. That is a step in the right direction and it is definitely a good idea to mentor newbies to create good quality articles. Another thing to consider is whether to denote the redirects in a school district so people can distinguish between schools that have their own page and those that are a redirect. this is important for two reasons. First people will get fed up of clicking on schools only to be redirected to the top of the page each time. Second it will help users identify the schools that need to be expanded into their own article. I have not thought of an easy way of doing this. Any ideas? David D. (Talk) 22:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism removal

Hi Thivierr. Thank you for your assistance in removing vandalism from my talk page. I hope you and your family have a safe and happy holidays. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

ditto for you and yours! --Rob 19:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Horace Mann School

You don't know anything about Horace Mann School. You've been messing up with the school's page. Are you going to stay out of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theblacklarl (talk • contribs)

Why do you never sign your posts? This would indicate that you are not familiar with wikipedia. You need to realise that these articles are supposed to be impartial AND contain verifyable information. None of the edits by Thivierr removed a verifiable or NPOV sentence. In all cases he improved the page. I can understand your frustration but if you cannot find a source to back your claims then it is sensible for the community here to remove the information. David D. (Talk) 23:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks David, I've noticed you've done more than your share of fixes on it. Theblacklarl, you have some things mixed up here. Personal knowledge of a school isn't needed, and in fact, it's unacceptable to put unverified personal knowledge in an article. I've lost my patience with this article, and from now on, any and all facts added without sources will be promptly removed on site (I'm not even going to search for verification, if somebody adds the fact, its up to them to add the source, or its gone). To answer your question: no, I will not "stay out of it". --Rob 23:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I have it on my watchlist now so I guess I will not be "staying out of it" either. To answer your question what is a sizable percentage? I suppose it is anything between 1-100%, or do you have any better estimate? David D. (Talk) 23:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Per WP:NPA a comment by Theblacklarl left here was removed. --Rob 00:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.horacemann.org/home/content.asp?id=1142

STOP LYING ON THE HM PAGE STOP MAKIng UP LIES THE FACTS ARE ABOVE. YOU ARE CLEARLY OF THE WORKING CLASS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theblacklarl (talk • contribs)

Oh Please, this comedy is hilarious. I'll die laughing before you're finished. :-) David D. (Talk) 00:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I do enjoy the extra humor of students/alum from "elite" schools behaving this way, to prove how "smart" they are. --Rob 00:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Peasant! WarriorScribe 18:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

He's Canadian, eh?

Hi Thivierr. About a month you ago added some biographical info about a Canadian football player named Tyrone Williams. I just discovered that the article prior to that point was about a different player by the same name (who's around 3 years younger and also played for the Dallas Cowboys). Anyway, I split the article into Tyrone Williams and Tyrone Williams (wide receiver). If you could give the two a quick glance to make sure I got the right info with the right player, that'd be great. ×Meegs 05:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my confusion (sorry for the mix-up). I looked at what you did, and what you did was correct. Also, apparently the American was born with the name "Upton", but doesn't actually use it. So, I put it in the article, but left the article name as-is. Do you know who is more famous (I assume the American)? --Rob 07:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've had a chance to think about this more, and I would like to propose a) We make Tyrone Williams a disambig page and b) the qualify the article titles based on geography. Maybe Tyrone Williams (Nova Scotia) and Tyrone Williams (Florida), but I'm not sure (is there precident/standards?). I'm not a sports fan, so you might know this better than me. I just thought, if somebody, like me, gets the names mixed up, its better it links to disambig page, then a specific player. I was able to correct this (from my earlier error), but I honestly don't know if these backlinks are correct or not. --Rob 07:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I can't believe I forgot to check the incoming links! I'll take a look at all of them in a minute. I thought about a disambig page, I've never heard of either of these guys, but the volume of info on the internet is staggeringly slanted towards the US-born one who had a long career in the NFL. I know there are other athletes with the same name in the same sport. I'll try to see how they're set up. ×Meegs 07:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

All the links were going to the right person (though List of current National Football League players appears to be two years out of date... I'm going to look in to that). I think you're right too, I'm going to make a disambiguation page for them. There's a third famous Tyrone Williams coming, I have no doubt. ×Meegs 08:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, now I realize why he got so little press attention in the US. Apparently, he didn't actually go on the field during the Dallas Super Bowl wins he's credited with. I updated the article, but I'm hoping others can review what I did. Also, I would like to confirm that Super Bowl rings are awarded to benched players. Two sources make clear he did in fact win the Super Bowl, but sources can always be wrong. --Rob 08:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, they definitely are given to all 53 players on the roster for the game, even though usually only thirty-something of them step onto the field during the game. They usually give rings to players who were on the roster earlier in the season too. Hell, even Vladamir Putin got one last year. [2] The winning team is awarded an official trophy by the league; the rings are just unofficial tokens issued by the the team to whoever they want. ×Meegs 09:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you check 92nd Grey Cup? I assume the redlink to Tyrone Williams (CFL player) should be Tyrone Williams (wide receiver), but I've learned to be cautious. --Rob 09:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You were right to be cautious, that's a third one [3]. Unlike the other two who play the two positions for the speediest players, this guy weighs 300 lbs. I'm making a stub for him at Tyrone Williams (defensive lineman). ×Meegs 09:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

As you and Meegs discussed above, I've made the disambig page formal by renaming Tyrone Williams to Tyrone Williams (disambiguation). There's a fourth TW on it, a fellow who is not a football player. I've tried to fix the pages that link here also. -- Lisasmall 00:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Centreville, Lennox and Addington County, Ontario

Hi, I think that speedy keep is jumping the gun a little. I'd like to see more verification as the position looks unclear to me. Dlyons493 Talk 21:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. The AFD should have stayed open. Even though everybody who voted, said keep, I think, discussion of verifiability was ongoing, and I think the keep vote of people was based on the premise of verifiability. Closing admins should look at what people said, not just their votes. But, I don't think there's much I can do. I can't find any verification for this article, and now that the AFD is closed, nobody else is going to try. It will probably sit around in this state for a long time. I've seen a number of other place article's, who have even less verifiable information (e.g. even mere existence isn't certain), but nobody can challenge them, as the AFD's are all speedy keeps. --Rob 22:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy holidays

We've overcome some great hurdles on Wikipedia this year, and things are finally looking up. You've made a positive difference here, and I want to wish you and your family happy holidays and all the best in the new year. Bahn Mi 23:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and right back at you. --Rob 23:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Churchill Heights Address

Is it the Churchill Heights Public School article better now? It's the first article I've started. Duinemerwen 00:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for removing the message at the top of the page. Happy politically correct, multicultural, holidays. Does anyone even care about the change from "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays"? Duinemerwen 15:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasor Elementary School

I left a response to your comment on my talk page. Thanks and happy holidays! -Rebelguys2 20:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize and have left an additional note on my talk page. -Rebelguys2 21:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

CanEd

This article is part of WikiProject Education in Canada, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Education in Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

can be placed in any school article. Battlefield 17:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• There was already a link to the project in the article, telling people about the project. Why have two tags, that say similiar things, and point to the same project? --Rob 17:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point, but I think this tag is prettier :) Battlefield 17:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Howcheng's RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. Thanks again. howcheng {chat} 07:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Schools Closed

The school is closed, don't be anal Battlefield 15:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop posting crap on my Talk Page, the school is closed. The article is brief now and people can expand it later, hence the stub. Go to the library, check out some books and write some articles instead of acting like a dweeb. Battlefield 15:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I will stop posting on your talk page, as requested. I hope you stop contributing articles in violation of basic Wikipedia policy. I notice you posted a link in the article, so clearly my approach worked. I and other editors, are more than happy to improve basic stub articles, but but the original creator of the article has an obligation to at least provide something of value (and there is incidently plenty available to add). It's these kind of second-rate one-line substubs that cause so many other people to want to delete school articles in general, and makes all school editors look bad. If I see such articles again expect a {{db-empty}} tag on them. --Rob 16:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Your still a dweeb ! Battlefield 16:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA --Rob 16:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidently, before removing a tag (like a speedy tag), read the description. Some tags, like {{db-empty}} can not be removed by the article's creator. Since this was a border-line case, so I'll leave it be (and just slapped a cleanup tag on it). But in future, don't remove it yourself. Find somebody else. IF the tag is improper, the admin won't delete it anyhow. Of course, a great way of avoiding {{db-empty}} is to write more than one sentence, but maybe I expect to high a standard. --Rob 16:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

All I can say is thankfully you are a dweeb. Obviously wikipedia needs a lot more dweebs since the article that Battlefield created was very unimaginative. I suppose i must be a dweeb too since I thought his article was pretty hollow and there are obviously a lot of resources on the web to write a good article about this old school. Their alumni association is very active. One can only wonder why Battlefield would bother to create such an article and then not use the resources to write something useful? David D. (Talk) 16:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing!

I got a message saying that I vandalized a lot of pages and that I would be kicked if I didn't stop. Well I haven't vandalized any pages and never have before. In fact, I rarely ever use wikipedia. I just use it for my research projects and what not. Please do not block me, I did not do anything. I think maybe someone else is using my IP Address if that is possible. Please send me a message, I didn't do anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.10 (talk • contribs)

The problem is you're using a shared IP. That means you might be getting blamed for what somebody else does. You should create a user account, and log-in instead. Don't worry, when creating the account you don't have to give your name, and you don't even have to give an e-mail address. You just need a user-name, and password. Then, you won't have any problems. --Rob 03:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcoming new editors

This edit is a great idea. I'm sure it will help a lot as well as teaching newbies th ropes of woikipedia so they can then go on and contribute in other areas . David D. (Talk) 22:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I'm using "{{subst:User:Thivierr/new school editor|Example High School}} --~~~~" which is making it pretty effecient. I'm hoping others will follow, as I don't want to be seen as spamming people. --Rob 22:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Lindsay Lohan Remixes

An article on one of Lohan's songs is good enough. An individual article documenting the remixes of her songs is completely pointless. Remove it. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

*merge/redirect to Lindsay Lohan and don't waste our time with another needless AFD. --Rob 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The nomination is not needless. Your attitude is uncivilized. I'd advise you to read Wikipedia:Civility. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll advise you to read Wikipedia:Deletion policy as it explicitly states that "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" (which a remix list is) is one of many "Problems that don't require deletion". Instead it tells you to simply do a merge/redirect. Perhaps you consider policy to be uncivil as well. AFDs are being overwhelmed by those who don't follow deletion policy, and items needing deletion aren't receiving the attention they need --Rob 20:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Rob, for your helpful suggestions. I will try to expand on my school article and then adopt many of your suggestions, even add a photo. Wishing you the best for the coming year! Theos143 11:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Uh... with all respect, I like to think I do know what I'm doing. Even counting those who voted for multiple possibilities, the "final" vote (based on inactivity) was 6 to delete, 3 to merge, and 2 to redirect, as I state. RadioKirk talk to me 20:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My comment was based on this edit which seems like an obvious error on your part, as your putting in a redundant section header for no apparent reason. As for the vote count, I don't much care. An admin can worry about it, when the five days are up, and they can do a *proper* close. --Rob 20:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I researched and followed what I believed to be the correct course of action. Did I jump the gun; did I step in where an admin should have trod? Apparently. Was I attempting to "disrupt" something? Absolutely not. Has the assumption of good faith gone out the window? You tell me. Your edit summary—"what are you doing?"—might just as well have included the untyped "the hell" for the tone it took. This was not a pleasant experience... RadioKirk talk to me 23:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:donabate

oops thought it was US, and thought id reverted that change when i put it up for afd. perhaps itf it had said where it was id have made it the euro-struct-stub it should still be. the fact that it didnt give any clue as to where it was was one of the reasons i afdd it. BL kiss the lizard 07:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I get sick of articles that don't say where they are from. I'm not sure why people make them like that. The original version of the article probably deserved speedy deletion for lack of context. I just left the message with you, in case you knew something I didn't. --Rob 07:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Rob, thanks for pointing concern re this article out to me. It definetely needs more work. Have made that point on the discussion page. - Bolak77 12:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar of Photography

Barnstar of Photography

For your tireless efforts and improvements to Wikipedia by way of your photographic contributions and otherwise, I hereby present to you the Barnstar of Photography. Bahn Mi 23:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Tawhid Boys School (London)

Hi, you have changed the content of this entry while the discussion about its deletion was going on, WP policy states that you should have waited untill this issue is settled. --Khalid hassani 18:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion:

You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones).

Also, note, I removed copyrighted text. Putting that text back would actually be prohibited. --Rob 18:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, still I believe that this school and other schools in the same category, belongs to a Yellow page directory rather than in WP, this kind of entries dilutes WP content and doesn't bring any Encylopedic content in my opinion. Also if we began to include this kind of information every private school with its own agenda, be it islamic, catholic or whatever is entitled to be listed here--Khalid hassani 19:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walker Boone

You are correct that and AfD can be closed as speedy keep if the nominator withdraws the nomination, and there were no non-keep votes. However, those who participate in an AfD don't normally close that AfD; that's why I didn't close it myself when I withdrew the nom. Still, I doubt anyone will object.  :) Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I probably shouldn't have closed, as I was an involved party. I just get frustrated when I see some of these withdrwan AFDs turn into a umpteen-vote pile-on, with everybody saying the same thing, arguing against straw men. --Rob 11:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. I sometimes put the "close" tags on discussions where an admin has speedied the article but forgot to close the AfD... even if I was involved in the discussion. With something that's very clear-cut nobody is going to object. Unless of course you choose to be RFA'ed someday, and have all your edits go under the microscope.  :) Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that this is a case that calls for common sense. Sure, people shouldn't close Afds they participated in, if it could be reasonably seen as a conflict of interest. I've seen no reason to distrust your judgement and this was a clear case. You can go against the letter of the rules when you feel it's appropriate, as far as I'm concerned. Friday (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

Did you create the templates? I honestly didn't look at who created them - so there was no personalness to the comment. Phil Sandifer 18:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

After you've been told not to make personal attacks, you appear to have repeated yourself, with another attack at the TFD. I'll try avoid future requests on your talk page, as you do not seem to wish a civil conversation apparently. It won't hurt me in the least if the template is deleted, and there will obviously be no great harm to the project either way. However, personal attacks, are very harmful to people and to the project, and the damage is not easily repaired. --Rob 21:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sharon Tendler

Hi, I'm sorry to be a spoil sport, but I nominated this for deletion. Sorry. --Rob 03:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Think nothing of it. I wondered if the subject was notable enough and decided that there's only one way to find out. --Kizor 09:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My personal attack on you

Yeah you---I am personally attacking you---regarding the fact that you are ruining Wikipedia with nonsense! 18:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)~~TheBlackLarl

re: Genius home collegiate school

Yes, I noticed those conditionals. However, the final version of the article (written by you...) is verified in what it says, even though it says next to nothing. We can be fairly sure it actually exists, or at least sure as we ever can be looking at a webpage of such things, and the trivial facts in the article are verified by the site. I decided it was too much for me to retroactively apply those conditions to earlier versions of the article given the changes that had been made. I do not generally think that AfDs should be held open indefinitely just in case someone remembers about it when it has long since dropped off the bottom of their watchlist, but in this case, it was open for about 7 days anyway. I generally do my best to understand the status of conditionals both ways and, where I can't, I note that in the closure but I don't automatically view them as abstentions. If you want to, you can relist it though. You'll have to make a strong case for a second listing so soon, but the nature of the article and the failure of the previous AfD to propely take that into account (relying as it did on "is school, must keep, even if we can't believe a word they say") might help your case. If you'd like a more formal review of my closure, I don't mind if you take it to WP:DRV. -Splash^talk 00:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In a more agressive editor...

This would be spilling the WP:BEANS! ^_^ brenneman^(t)(c) 08:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)