User talk:LonelyBeacon/archive1

|}

Please no need to apologize for deletion by an extremist. I should not have indudged him, but I have history with this perso...thing. Thank you very much. It is very much appreciated. - Jeeny ^Talk 09:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, no problem. I would check out other articles in the school category Category:WikiProject Schools articles by quality, and only use FAs, As, and GAs as good examples of quality work. If you have any questions, let me know I am more than willing to assist however I can. Good luck!--Kranar drogin 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have explained my reasoning on the talk page. Do you concur? Speciate 02:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I dont mean to be disrepsectful or anything but my edits to the article G-string were definately not vandalism, it came straight from a book i have recieved, and i had permission, from the author to post the info i had posted

Hello Ishiho555!

I received your message on my TalkPage, and I do not interpret your message as any sign of disrespect. Thank you for contacting me, and thank you for being kind with your words.

Wikipedia does encourage being bold when reverting vandalism. Unfortunately, this means that from time-to-time, genuine edits are reverted and accused of being vandalism, when there was no intent. This is especially the case when original edits do not include a reference that can be reviewed. From my personal perspective, the inclusion of proper names can sometimes look like an editor is trying to ridicule someone by including their name in an article where it does not belong.

I encourage you to put your edit back, and please include the source from which your information comes. You have my word that I will not revert it. I am also removing the warning that I placed above, since I was mistaken, and feel that I should not only apologize, but attempt to right the wrong that I have created.

Have a peaceful day! LonelyBeacon 23:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, that's all I ask for. It gets tiring getting warnings for vandalism when you don't even vandalize something. I did call Nick Saben a son of a bitch on the Miami Dolphins page, but was it.

I'm not really a brewers fan. I chose that username for other reasons. but I was still rooting for them because they are an appealing young team. And they did, however, improve from previous years. See ya.--Brewcrewer 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it's silly (and wouldn't do it in a baseball encyclopedia, much less Wikipedia) but if it's standard practice, I've got no beef.70.113.213.12 02:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

hiya,

of course i'll add a citation to that list on townsend harris high school. i made the comment i did in the edit log because your labeling of the edit as having been performed by a "vandal" left me to guess as to why you thought it so. i incorrectly assumed that it was because you considered it a vanity edit or similar, not a falsity. i took my cue from the other items you reverted there, for example the members of the baseball team. i would be surprised to find that that information was untrue; rather, the names of the members of the baseball team are simply unencylopedic.

if the reason you objected to ishle yi park's inclusion was the lack of a citation, perhaps a {fact} tag would have been more appropriate. please realize that labeling something as "vandalism" implies that the person who made the edit is a vandal, which is not exactly a glowing term.

i do not mean to suggest that your rv itself was really inappropriate, merely that you may want to more carefully consider what your criteria are for declaring something vandalism. simply stating more clearly why you are making a change ("vanity edit," "no citation" etc) may spare a lot of people's feelings. i've definitely seen work impeded on wikipedia and other open projects due to far lesser name calling. thanks for looking out... Bgruber 03:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

you wrote me:

"If you check the edit logs on that particular article, I never actually reverted your edit"

to the contrary, here's the last time i re-added park, and here's where you deleted it, labeling me a vandal.

yes, not all cases of vandalism are as clear-cut as say, this random example i pulled from my own contrib history. sometimes people add nonfactual information to articles in an act of vandalism. usually, these acts are identifiable only because there is a history of vandalism associated with the edit or the account. if you had taken but half a second to look at my own contribution history, you may have realized that i am not one of those people. you say that "sometimes it is really difficult to tell the difference;" of course i agree. but by your own admission, you seem to be relying on gut instinct to make the distinction: "For some reason, I really believed you were doing good, so I chose not to delete..."

basically, i'm suggesting that in the cases where it is hard to tell what is vandalism and what isn't, the best course of action is probably not to go and label the other editor a vandal. my personal feeling is that the vigilance you show against vandalism on WP is admirable, but it would be great if you would label these more questionable rvs in the edit summary with some real reasoning. a vandal won't care what you write, a well-intentioned if ill-executing editor may learn what they need to do to make a good edit, and someone like me will fail to be insulted. Bgruber 04:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

We both have reverted vandalisms on eachother's user pages today. I feel I'm a similar member of wikipedia as you, so I'm going to take your phrase about sometimes being a bit hasty at editing. Thanks so much for your help! Alexbrewer^{talk} 03:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can see you've been in, fixing vandalism to the above page, but it's been reverted to a vandalised state. The newspaper there is not as stated, but the Patriot (or something similar - from speaking to a teacher at the school). Similarly the principal is incorrect, the year in which the school was founded, and the reference to a team having STDs. I'm not sufficiently experienced with editing Wikipedia to know to best avoid this in the future, and do not have enough good knowledge about the school to be able to correct the page, so though I'd instead bring it to your attention. Thanks, Tom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.12.65 (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the warning. I went to the school website, and checked another source and was able to revert the damage. Don't be afraid to edit something if you know it is wrong. Just click the edit button, make the change, check the "show preview to make sure your spelling is correct and that it looks right. Before you hit save, leave a brief note as to what you did in the "Edit summary box". Click save, and you're there! I also understand and appreciate not wanting to correct something, if you don't know what to correct it to. Best of luck! LonelyBeacon 21:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

In regards to the safe sex article, the content I removed was content that I had added back in March. According to user TeaDrinker, wikipedia shouldn't be used as an 'instruction manual' and they disagreed with my use of references. As such I just removed the whole passage and will rewrite it later. Thanks and please let me know if this isn't ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superkevbo (talk • contribs) 05:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help on Pope John Paul II High School. I called the school and told them what was happening on their Wikipedia page. I asked if there were someone in their technology dept who was doing this and they were going to investigate and let me know. I have two children at the school and would like to see a nice article in Wikipedia about it. I offered to improve the page if they would provide me with some reference materials that I can use to justify additions to the article and do something to stop whoever is reverting my edits. I hope to make it at least a Good Article. Hopefully, these efforts will head off an edit war and result in a useful Wikipedia article. We'll see. Thanks again for your help in the matter. NancyHeise 14:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem ... I am just intereted in helping to make articles better. From what I have seen, it appears that you have made many positive improvements, but at the same time, if there are legitimate arguments to be heard, they should be heard. I jsut want to give others that chance. Ultimately, if they choose to avoid discussion, then an administrator may need to be called in. I am just hoping to handl things here before that has to happen. LonelyBeacon 20:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Well apparently in order to ensure that a Wikipedia page is not stuffed with pork, you have to register as a user to do that-so I will. First, I have never vandalized the Pope John Paul II wikipedia page, in fact, I myself have made pertinent revisions to it. I repeat, pertinent revisions. Delving into hearsy, unsubstantiated gossip, and irrelevant information should not be allowed. "In 2007, due to declining membership in their religious order, the Carmelites transferred administration of the school to the Diocese of Palm Beach. Fr. Guy is currently president of another Carmelite High School in Chicago."

• Furthermore having an introductory paragraph that is a page long is dreadfully uncouth as well. Verbosity in sentence structure sounds extremely pretentious. "In its admissions process for ninth graders only, the school gives preference to students from Catholic middle schools first, then Catholics in general, then to alumni and finally to non-Catholics. This preference in admissions does not apply to all other grades." Clearly this sounds neither succinct nor objective.

• Wikipedia is not meant to serve as a database for all the aspects of Pope John Paul II high school. Instead it provides a space for relevant and important information. Filler information about technology and clubs should not be referenced. The PJP official site is linked for a reason. If making a clone of the Pope offical site was what was right, I could have done that myself.

• Perhaps what angers me most is how NancyHeise priggishly began editing the site without consulting previous editors yet she expects such consultations on her end. I did not begin, what she called the "edit war". I have only protected the integrity of the site from someone who feels that monopolistic control of the site is conferred on them by divine right.

Yours Truly, adam12399999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam12399999 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure if this is the main way you send messages to each other. Thanks for the message on the article I was trying to edit. Good point about the commentary, I need to think of a better way to word what I am trying to say. Thanks for pointing that out to me about the source I used. I looked it over when I was trying to wind some sources for what I was saying, but when I went back I noticed that the source wasn't very good and just trying to sell something. I need to look over some things about editing, I found out how to cite sources on the fly, so I'm surprised it worked. On the whole WTC issue I just wish so much of the mainstream research didn't leave out so many important facts. I'll have to get some better sources and spend some more time on editing. Thanks for the advice, and if you have any more feel free to let me know. I believe in the information freedom that wikipedia can offer to the people, so I'd like to help out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preservefreedom (talk • contribs) 04:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

With regret, this editor was blocked after writing this. The comment has been deleted. LonelyBeacon 14:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you handled it quite well. east.718 at 16:18, 11/6/2007

answered on my p., in order to keep things together. But perhaps you'll accept a suggestion from me--You've been doing great vandal fighting and making good small improvements. Maybe you might want to write some articles yourself: since you are obviously very interested in baseball, a surprising number of major league players do not yet have articles either, for example, in the Chicago_White_Sox_all-time_rosterDGG (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there LonelyBeacon - thanks for doing all the work on Sickles High School! I started cleaning it up before I went out, and I come home to find it all done! (I found it on WP:CU). Cricketgirl (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I hope you realise that this is a shared IP address. I didn't vandalize any article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.164.220.47 (talk) 07:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Hello anonymous editor!

Since I'm not sure whom I'm talking to, I'll assume good faith on your part. Of course the warning on an anonymous IP is not directed at everyone, just the individual who is doing the vandalism, which someone (or some people) at that IP is/are doing. Unfortunately, if history is any indication, if it continues, the IP address will be blocked. You shouldn't take that personally, and there is an easy solution. Get yourself an account. Then, you can edit from any IP address, even one that is blocked. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I'm adding this note linking to the discussion on my talk page so LonelyBeacon and anyone reviewing his/her contribution sees that LB dealt with a criticism by asking a question and explaining the AfD edit that caused the issue. LB checked a policy-related guideline that I pointed out, and listened to my explanation. I mentioned what WP:AADD says about sounding like a group of sockpuppets/meatpuppets with "per nom" (and "me too" was also implied by LB's AfD edit) without saying what reason the specific case fails our policies or why the specific case is so exceptional that consensus should support overriding a general guideline, and we've resolved the matter to everyone's satisfaction. Absolutely no gripe now with LonelyBeacon's effort to learn the ways of editing and participating in Wikipedia. Barno (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yo, I'm wondering if you would reconsider your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RRIICCEE following the sources I have uncovered and the claim of notability independent of reliable sources. Skomorokh ^incite 13:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Most definitely. I think a case was made for notability, and at least two of the sources were non-trivial enough to begin expansion of the article. I changed my vote this morning. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nice cleanup, thanks. Mindraker (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Mindraker! LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I made edit 68.159.27.160 a couple of months ago and added a lot of the stuff about technology and construction, etc. I'm curious about why you took it all down. For the record, I'm an actual student at Zachary High. Oh and good edit of the scandals and controversies, there was no actual proof that that happened...just a rumor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.163.108 (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry it took so long to get back to this ..... The exact information you are alluding was reverted accidentally. The reason: It was mixed into a short paragraph with information that did not belong (the name of a non-notable staff member), and something about hte ihump tests, which, uncited, looked like suspicious vandalism. I should have done a better job of selectively editing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know about your revert. I thought Rose being inducted into a large wrestling federation's Hall of Fame was worthy of mentioning in the intro. rather than way down in the article. It shows he is famous outside of baseball. -- Kevin Browning (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good points. I will mention it on his talk page and see if there's a consensus. Thanks for your help. -- Kevin Browning (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I posted an answer to your question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish surnames starting with AJeepday (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

My reversion was done rather hastily in response to a repeat IP vandal, and that particular reversion should have been investigated a little further. I can understand why he would be upset, but you are correct in reporting him for a breach of WP:Civility, and I would also assume WP:PA. Thank you for your assistance. :) --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 14:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'm working on a quizbowl wiki. There used to be a page at Charlie Steinhice that was clearly not suitable for Wikipedia, but contains content that is important for the QBWiki. My efforts to recover the text through internet archives has been futile. Is there any way that you could copy the text of the deleted page and email to me (my email is in my profile)? I'd be very grateful. Stamp paid (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is technically possible to recover deleted material from Wikipedia. Administrators can do this very easily, and in some cases, particularly after a WP:DRV process or a mistaken deletion, administrators restore pages that have been deleted. Ifa non-admin realizes that a deleted article will not get back into Wikipedia but wants material that he did not save on his own computer, he can ask an administrator to send it to him. Administrators are often very cautious with this, however. I hope this helps. Academic Challenger (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did find it. We should continue this discussion over e-mail. You can e-mail me by going to my user page and going into the E-Mail This User option. Academic Challenger (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bonny Jain, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonny Jain (second nomination). Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I know you !voted early, and there have been several changes to the article since you first !voted. Your follow-up comment seems like a retraction of your delete !vote. If this is so, would you be willing to go back and strikethrough your original !vote and replace it with your current !vote? (keep, strong keep, neutral, etc,)? This might make it easier for the closing admin to determine concensus. It would also possibly allow an early close under snowy conditions. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind. It got speedy-closed as keep. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I quoted two sources for my Albert Belle info: [1] [[2]] I think Albert Belle has been treated very unfairly by the media and the baseball writers. Due to their personal biases, he lost the 1995 MVP to Mo Vaughn, and he received virtually no support in the Hall of Fame voting. Unfortunately there is no accountability, and that affects the game in many areas. I'm not sure if Belle is a Hall of Famer, but he seems to be as deserving as Jim Rice and Kirby Puckett. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdpeter (talk • contribs) 02:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I grew up in Cleveland, so I got to see Albert play until he left for Chicago. Albert was one of the fierce hitters I have ever scene. He was definitely the guy I wanted at at with the game on the line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdpeter (talk • contribs) 06:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'm aware of the guideline. I disagree with it, so I ignore it. I realize that's a bit snobby, but there it is. Eventually, since I anticipate getting more queries like yours, I'll probably write my own thoughts about this in an essay to point people to a more clear explanation of my thoughts on the matter. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wikid around a bit and found this. Not a complete essay, but some food for thought and I basically agree with it. Check it out: Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Arguments_against_deleting_articles_for_non-notability --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I looked at the article's history, and found that it had been edited multiple times by the author, so took it that it was its final state :S. I'm not too sure, what do you think? Sydney Know It Alltalk 10:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

It can be a tough call sometimes. The rule of thumb I have come to live by: move for an AfD immediately if I think it is a hoax. Otherwise, I tend to give it a few days to see what develops. If nothing comes of it, and notability is not being asserted, check for sources (and post a note at the article creator's Takl Page). Only after that would I go for AfD. I think if nothing else: if you get labeled as someone who jumps the gun on these things, the community may be a lot less willing to support the AfD debate, even if the article really should be canned.

I don't want you to think I am lecturing .... I am not! These are just tidbits of experience. I once started editing an article that had a bunch of issues, only to learn that I was editing in the middle of the article's creation, and the editor hadn't even had a chance to clean up the mess they had made. I at least should have checked the edit log on so short an article to see that. Peace! LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the comment. (and the sports props). It's just seemed like an odd subject for such a fierce debate. Foolish reality stars get threads of 4-5 comments and an olympian gets a huge heated thread. I can see the arguement on both sides, i've !voted one way but i understand the other. It's just the vehemance that took me a bit. (Not you in particular). Just seems like some people are fighting for more then a single article then the olympian James Barker.--Cube lurker (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The page 'Robert Fletcher' was deleted on January 8th. I would like the content back so to place on a purchased website space. The content of 'Robert Fletcher' had been upkept for over a year and the information is unlisted on any other resource. Please can you cut and paste the page onto my user profile if you have access to it? Many Thanks if you can. Bobbyfletch85 (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would do this, were it in my power, but I am not an administrator. I would recommend, for openers, contacting the admin who closed out the article, User:Hut 8.5. I have heard that in some cases the information is able to be obtained, but I am not sure under what circumstances this is doable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is no reason why the Cincinnati Reds logo, which is a fair use image, and not a free use image, should be used on a page not about it, as per Wikipedia Fair use policies. As such, there is no good reason for keeping it in the Frank Robinson article. If it is placed there again, I will remove it again. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

UPDATE: Just wanted to place the explanation. Just remember that fair use images usually only get used in one article,

and rarely get used in more than one...as indicated in that image's rationale. (It was also removed from a third article too.) --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would love to request your assistance again with the article on the Dominican Day Parade. A user by the name of "UnclePaco" and I are arguing about the inclusion of information that I classified as lacking significance to the article. He has made snide remarks that can be labeled as an attack. You were very helpful with the opinion you provided on the article in the past and I thought I would request your help again. Please see the articles TALK page for more information. Many thanks!--XLR8TION (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please take a look at this [3] and this [4] UnclePaco (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• • • • • LonelyBeacon, thank you. I simply was telling the truth last week when I was blocked. I am a great contributor who will like to see this site reach its' mission as a reliable encyclopedia, but unfortunately trouble comes walking my way and I have to spend time trying to protect an article's integrity by undoing unconstructive edits. UnclePaco (and his many sockpuppet aliases) simply refuses to listen to reason, logic and guidelines. His rogue editing only causes more problems than it helps. I will update you of any troubles that might arise from the Dominican Day Parade article. Many thanks to you and other admins who believed in me. I truly appreciate it! --XLR8TION (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate what you've written on my user talk page. Gnixon has a long history of utilizing wiki-lawyering to attack pro-science editors. Most of the more experienced editors in the science arena basically ignore him. I should, but he attacks me personally so aggressively that I'm not sure how to handle it. I wish someone would block him, because he's trying to drive me off the project sadly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would like to requets your assistance with the article List of Cuban Americans. A user has reverted my edits repeatedly using sock puppets (InMySpecialPlace24 is his main screen name). I have discussed my changes with reason and logic on the Talk page and he refuses to co-operate. I am heading to another edit war if this keeps on (which is something I prefer to avoid). Please see Talk page and look at edits history to get a better view of what is going on here.--XLR8TION (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't vandalism what I did. The "debate" on the website page is of policy debate so I looked at all the policy debate titles and saw that Glenbrook North had more policy debate titles than those other schools and edited appropriately. If this is the wrong forum for me to respond I am sorry I am not well versed on wiki etiquette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.19.135 (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, responding here or on the Article Talk Page is fine. My source on the Debate finalists is the IHSA home page. Do you have a source that shows 12? It is possible the IHSA source is somehow incorrect. If you know where I can look, let;s take a look at it, and see if we can both figure out what is going on. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I removed the Biblical verse as the source for that image caption because it was original research. An appropriate source would be one that says something along the lines of "The symbol of the Vatican is based on XXX from the Bible". The Bible verse does not say that this is what that particular symbol represents, so it is not a valid citation for that claim. Karanacs (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Response at my talk Jeepday (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding to the edits at this article. I don't have a problem with you removing the names of the specific coaches and players. you seem to be under the impression, however, that I was the one who put them there. Not being personally familiar with the school I couldn't vouch for the accuracy of any of the information presented. My edits to the article were largely in punctuation, format, grammar and, especially, clarity. (It would seem the students who had been writing/editing the article still have some to learn when it comes to basic English and composition skills.) I didn't add or remove any info. Sean Martin (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

LonelyBeacon, I appreciate the advice, and thanks for the concern. I just get frustrated when the project I've worked on since there were about 40 editors is now being invaded by guys like the multiple anonymous IP addresses, and there's nothing really I can do about it. I'll try to tone it down, but I'm getting to the point that I don't care if I get banned anymore. I spend a lot of time and money trying to get good baseball pictures for Wikipedia - I just don't understand why I have to defend them so much from people who simply don't care. Thanks again, Googie man (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the update LonelyBeacon - sounds like another typical vandal, who from my guess, is an overzealous Blue Jays fans. Googie man (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I thuaght that was a harmless page blanking. I'm sorry. That was a good faith edit. Cheers.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 07:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Me too. Well, I hope you like it here at wikipedia. If you do have any questions, just ask on my talk page.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 07:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

(Responding to your note on my talk page.) Many thanks for the quick action on this one. Macspaunday (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again for the tip about AIV. Have made a few warnings on the user's talk page, and will add more if there's any need for them. (Edit: he's now been blocked.) Best wishes from Macspaunday (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

These users are vandals and insist to make copyright violations here [URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3716/gruposraciaisd7oy1.gif[/IMG][/URL] and here http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6541/shishinnokendg6.jpg. plus they vandalize this article information with unsourced personal opinions like this one reference number 30 ^ "Biographies Tien" (2001). Retrieved on 2008-03-14.-fanboy page here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenshinhan they vandalized the page more than 3 times 1-18:36, 15 March 2008 Sesshomaru (Talk | contribs)2-23:05, 16 March 2008 Prede (Talk | contribs)3-# ur) (last) 20:17, 4 April 2008 Prede (Talk | contribs) (11,143 bytes) (→Appearance: adding small enlightened part and ref) (undo)

1. (cur) (last) 20:13, 4 April 2008 Prede (Talk | contribs) (10,875 bytes) (→Summary) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 20:02, 4 April 2008 Prede (Talk | contribs) (10,653 bytes) (adding new ref) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 19:49, 4 April 2008 Prede (Talk | contribs) (10,430 bytes) (→Reception) (undo)
4. (cur) (last) 19:48, 4 April 2008 Prede (Talk | contribs) (10,423 bytes) (→Reception: adding source) (undo)
5. (cur) (last) 19:45, 4 April 2008 Prede (Talk | contribs)in this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tenshinhan&action=history-please help me i'm new but these guys are vandals thanks

• prede (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)— Violation of Copyright and more than 3 times vandalism with unsourced editionsthe-one ^Talk♂
• Lord Sesshomaru (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)— Violation of Copyright and more than 3 times vandalism with unsourced editions the-one ^Talk♂

It was difficult to follow this, but as best I can tell, there is no violation here. I would caution you about calling other editors "hypocrites", as there are some administrators who would consider that a violation of WP:CIVIL. I wish you the bst of luck in your edits. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you had taken 30 seconds to look at the Illinois State report card for 2007 which was cited in the academics section you would have seen that I had edited the page to replace the incorrect information with the latest data from Illinois regarding composite ACT scores at Maine South High School. As you have now twice reverted my edits so that the article contains incorrect information I can only assume you want the article to continue to contain said incorrect information although I believe that is considered vandalism. I'll refrain from trying to contribute anything constructive to the community from here on out since so far my attempts to improve Wikipedia have been met with threats of banning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.192.224 (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC) I never changed the graduation rate to 73%. My original edit was to change the stated composite ACT score of 14 to 20.3 which is the Illinois state average that I misread as the Maine South High School average. JaGa then entered further incorrect data at which point I realized my initial mistake and corrected the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.192.224 (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

With all due respect, how is that pushing a POV? I will start a new thread on the topic in hopes that we can reach a consensus. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

True, there is already a topic aout it. But in my experience, it is sometimes better to start a new thread rather than continue with one near the top, where almost no one will see your comment. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 04:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, again! I just thought I'd stop by and say hi. When I saw your userpage, I noticed you had several templates pretyped but missing right braces. Well, I thought you might be interested in not having to manually add the right brace. By putting those template codes between <nowiki> and </nowiki> tags, you can prevent the text from rendering as wiki syntax, like this: {{subst:uw-v1|Article name}}

Glad to talk to you again, and I hope this helps. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the message you left on my talk page [5]. Give me a few minutes to review the situation and I will get back to you. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the contribution history of Markyodoul (talk · contribs), here is what I have found: the editor's last edit was at 14:45 for which MBK004 issued a {{uw-vandalism3}} warning at 14:47. Nearly six hours later you issued a {{uw-vandalism4}} warning at 20:35 then reported the editor to AIV at 20:38.

This is actually rather troubling as AIV criteria #2 states "the vandal must be active now, and have vandalized after sufficient recent warnings to stop." Yet not only had this editor not vandalized after receiving their final warning (despite your AIV report claiming otherwise), but Markyodoul had never even seen the level four warning because he stopped vandalizing after his level-three warning. Was this all just a mix-up on your part with the timestamps? I hope so, as otherwise it looks like you issued an escalated warning in bad faith, then followed it up with a wildly inaccurate AIV report.

Please note that I totally agree with you about how frustrating it is to deal with vandalism on Wikipedia, and I find it especially irritating when people revert vandalism but fail to issue a warning. However blocks are not punitive and our community standards state that editors may only be blocked after being sufficiently warned, which Markyodoul clearly has not been. That said, if this user should choose to ignore a properly issued final warning, I would not hesitate to block him in order to protect the project. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

As I noted above, I hope this issue was just a mix-up or misreading of the timestamps involved. I am sorry if you feel that my message was unnecessarily harsh, but blocking is a very serious business and improperly issued warnings and/or AIV reports only serve to damage Wikipedia's reputation by making the rules look arbitrary and randomly enforced. When I have had to write these sorts of messages in the past, I am always delighted if the editor in question says "sorry, looks like I screwed up" and moves on after learning from their mistake. However sometimes they feel unfairly rebuked and quit vandal fighting altogether. I am sorry if you have chosen the later and hope you will reconsider. Regardless I bear you no ill will and wish to thank you for your efforts to date in helping clean up vandalism. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note about you not admin-shopping; I appreciate your forthrightness. After a quick discussion regarding this out-of-process block, the blocking admin Kinu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) agreed to an unblock of Markyodoul. Currently Kinu and I have this editor on our watchlists, so if he choses to ignore my unambiguous warning, I am sure he will be blocked in short order. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Vandals can be blocked in as little as four edits, but that only works if they are properly warned every time. It frustrates me intensely when editors revert vandalism but fail to issue warnings. How will the vandal ever learn that their behavior will not be tolerated if we do not tell them? Cases like this -where the editor only got three warnings for ten edits- only serve to encourage people and make them think they might just get away with it. In an ideal world where a vandal gets immediate feedback after each vandalizing edit, I think most vandals would just give up and decide it was not worth their time.

While I am not sure if you have been following any of the brouhaha at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, the Wikipedia community in general and its admins in specific have been taking a lot of flak lately because people (and more than just the disgruntled folks at Wikipedia Review) do not feel that the rules are being consistently and fairly applied to everyone. I am a big believer in the importance of process and I always endeavor to give everyone a fair chance. Does this mean that I never block anyone unless they have received four warnings? Absolutely not, as egregious cases clearly need immediate action in order to protect the project. As an example, despite only having received one warning, yesterday I levied a block against Ambi saba (talk · contribs) when this editor added 30-odd spam links to various articles.

When it comes to the Markyodoul (talk · contribs) issue, the fact of the matter is that this editor stopped vandalizing after receiving a third level warning. As blocks are not punitive, I cannot in good conscience block an editor who seems to have learned their lesson after warning #3. In my opinion we should have hit this stage after Markyodoul`s third edit on May 15th, but that is not this editor's fault, it is the fault of our fellow vandal fighters who reverted his edits and failed to issue any warnings. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, not sure if I remember vandalizing the Maine South High School page. Can you link me to the edit I made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.9.200 (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would be happy to, though I am not certain what you are referring to. Did you use a different IP address? Where did you see the warning? The IP address you just posted from never edited the article, and there were no warnings posted there. Let me know so that I can answer your question as much as I can. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you deleted the updates to the John Birch Society wiki page written by Publiusohio. The parts you deleted had correct citations and factual data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitacore (talk • contribs) 01:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Greetings Vitacore!

While I did not check to verify the citations, I did not make the reversion for purposes of making a correction. The concern is over POV. It is very important when editing articles (especially those that may be controversial) that a good consensus be arrived at. This is almost always done by discussing changes on the Talk Page. There was no explanation given either before or after the edit. It was clear that there was no a great deal of consensus.

While I have zero doubt that some of the edits are good, there needs to be special attention paid to maintaining neutrality. Accuracy and verifiability are certainly cornerstone policies of wikipedia. There is no doubt to that. However, there is also a need to make sure that mainstream points of view are also represented, and (in the case, for example) of organizations, that the only viewpoint being expressed is from that organization (should alternative views exist).

You are right to ask about this, and I hope that this explains the relevant policies that all editors need to be concerned with.

Happy editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

About the change in subject heading -- sorry, I was under the impression that talk page etiquette and WP:Civil warranted the change as it looks like an attack on other editors. Doug Weller (talk) 07:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely no need to apologize ..... Certainly if it is a breach of civililty, I would change it. However, in this case, I think it actually makes the original editor look worse than actually being any attack. If it had something like "liberals (or conservataives) suck" .... I totally agree that this is an attack. When he says "smear/bias", he is espousing a belief that his views are under attack from others ... I don't think that this is so much an attack as much as it is just .... a little weird. Happy day to you! LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I loved your brilliant refutation of the keep arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Joseph Didier (2nd nomination). Simply classic. ;D Debate 木 05:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks mate! I really did see it as a grey area .... I mean it really shouldn't be there, but I was having a hard time looking for the policy to find it .... and at first I really couldn't. I forget, but whoever brought up the "not news" point got it pretty close to the mark.

I've had debates (polite ones, thanks goodness) with one of the editors in this debate at another wholly unrelated article. I know that he means well, and I respect his convictions, but, just like when I first got here: it may be a site where everyone can participate, but not without following some basic rules. It just takes time to learn your way around them.

Have a great day! LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the barnstar...It's nice when someone notices your work on WP (well, someone other than the vandals, they always seem to find time to stop by talk pages ;). LegoTech·(t)·(c) 06:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for reverting that vandalism on my talk page. I appreciate it very much. :) All the best. Greg Jones II 20:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! Glad I could help! Happy editing! ;-) Lradrama 20:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the barnstar and the reverts =) Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

its not vandalism. the barnstar he gave to himself and i was also removing broken code from his page,. try looking next time instead of giving me stupid warnings —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I will continue to warn you anytime you vandalize or breach civility. Whether this editor gave this barnstar to himself or not is not relevant. You do not have the right to go to another person's talk page and start removing something for any reason that you see fit. While you and I may disagree with it, there is no policy against self awarding barnstars. Please do not continue taking things off this or any other users talk page. If something offends you, I would suggest that you start by politely asking the editor to self refactor. If that is not helpful, take it to WP:Wikiquette. Good editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking the time to make some points on my talkpage. It is difficult, I am sure, to see the full extent of the impropriety which has led me to tell another editor off.

How do I archive old posts?

67.81.155.106 (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The way I archive is to first create a brand new page. In your case, I would call the page something like: User talk:67.81.155.106/archive1

Save the page, and create a link on your original talk page. You can then cut and paste from your talk page and transfer to the archive.

If you would like a nice looking "archive box" to display on the talk page, feel free to copy the one on my talk page. Just replace my archive page with yours.

As the archive pages get long, you can create others. Just don't forget to link them to the Talk Page. Best of luck. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

How do I make a new page? 67.81.155.106 (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

ty my buddy 24.184.206.83 (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, you make me change my recommendation on this AfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cool. The moment I saw it, I really thought "I know the Star Wars fans can be a little obsessive at times with creating articles, but this is ridiculous!" I didn't even know it was about the president until I read the article. The one definitive "keep" vote was a little over the top. These three words had nothing to do with going to war. Going to war occurred in a back room somewhere with a lot of people deciding to do so. Have a great day! LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added some references to this article. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timpanogas Regional Hospital (2nd nomination). --Eastmain (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Great job on the Marian Catholic article. I've been meaning to do some work on it but I have always gotten sidetracked. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the profs .... I've been making the "ESCC" tour, just trying to make improvements here and there. Evenetually I hope to write an ESCC article.

My big worry about the Marian Catholic article is the part I very intentionally did not touch: the band. I know they are really good, but the problem is there needs to be references to support that stuff, and it needs to be framed properly (the school website claims they are Illinois High School Association champions, but the IHSA website has nothing listed for them also, they won a national tournament several times, but is that the only national tournament? if it is, they can claim "national champions" but if not the article needs to be altered a bit ... It will get fixed in time.

Again, thanks for the props, and please jump in (it sounds like you've got a lot more knowledge on this than I do). Have a great day! LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's always a pleasure to rescue a library. It's amazing that someone who is devoted to a library could be capable of creating an article so in need of rescue, and so incapable of finding references. That's what made me think it was not a librarian who created the article. Edison (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

And thanks from me too. I can't take the credit for the sources, they were Edison's hard work. I do however take some satisfaction in beating the language of an article into shape! – ukexpat (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Thanks for your comments. I kind of though suggesting a little research before nominating an article for deletion was an attempt to educate the nominator regarding what they did wrong, although it obviously wasn't taken that way. I must admit that I get frustrated by the amount of time I spend 'saving' articles on notable subjects from deletion which I could be spending on improving the encyclopedia, and that perhaps came across in my comments. Since the nominator is an Administrator, I would have expected them to be familiar with all of the relevant guidelines and notability criteria. From what I can tell, the nominator here actually speedy deleted the article, which in my view was totally inappropriate, then restored it at an editor's request, and immediately put it up for AFD. The speedy/restore/AFD sequence wasn't explained by the nominator, who simply argued that there was no assertion of notability, which is obviously not correct to anyone familiar with WP:MUSIC.--Michig (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The only reason I would offer the advice, is because of mistakes I made ..... no one's perfect, starting with me.

I actually tend to be more toward he side of deleting articles, though I don't consider myself a "deletionist", yet I completely see the side of those who invest the time in creating legit articles, or those who at least see that an article is legitimately notable.

I also agree "admins should know better", but my personal experience has led me to believe that they some can be as fallible as any of us. Don't get me wrong, I've met excellent admins, but I've also met my share that are not as expert in some areas as you would think. Some are excellent at handling vandals, not as good as handling mediation. Others are great at sifting through AfDs, but give chronic vandals far too many passes. It is an imperfect world. I'm certainly not taking the side of the nominator (I voted for keep!), but I've come to learn that one person's expertise here is someone else's Achille's heel ... you and I may have a very good understanding of WP:MUSIC. This admin may very much have understood WP:N, and not really have known about WP:MUSIC (hard to believe, but could be). Under WP:N, this could have been a very murky area (that's why we have WP:MUSIC ... to clear up those things). Is it possible this person had an agenda? Maybe, I dunno. I've just met enough people where the error was one of ignorance vs. evil intentions. I appreciate the props. Best of luck, and have a great day! LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The administrator certainly knew about WP:MUSIC because I quoted it when I asked for him to restore it! Robort (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification on the Benet Academy page. DPCBOSS (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for the note on my talk page. I must admit to only looking at the ratings given by the other projects before adding the assessment for WikiProject Schools. I have ammended the rating to C-Class, but I think the article needs work in the following areas;

• The lead doesnt summarise the article adequately. If you had 30 seconds to speak about the school, what would you say, put that in the lead.
• Get the schools logo, with a Fair Use Rationale.
• Possibly move the Tolton Center section into academics
• Convert some of the alumni section to prose, is there a former students union? or something like that, that would need to be included.
• the athletics section should be in the extra curricular section
• the extra curricular section should have information on some of the programs at the school, eg. debating, music, bands, community service, boarding (if it exists) etc.
• a list of notable teachers, and a list of all previous headmasters would be good.
• some information on the campus of the school
• information on fees charged (if applicable) and any scholarships on offer.
• Most things on the article need to be expanded, and backed up by independant third-party sources.

Many thanks for your message. Hope my advice helps, if you need any further assistance, regarding this article, another article or wikiproject schools, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks. Five Years 16:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bingo! Thanks for that information. I will get to work on that very soon. This helps a great deal. I am going to move part of this over to the article talk page, of for nothing else to provide explanation for these changes when I make them. Very much abliged! LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for not taking issue (at least so far!) with my tongue-in-cheek edit summary.[6] Sometimes the chance for humor is there and I just can't resist trying. - House of Scandal (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It took me about two minutes to think this one through .... I decided to stay mum on that. Thanks for the note on it though. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Very clement of you. This would be a better project if people made an effort to be less thin skinned. Thanks again. - House of Scandal (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The intention in creating the article on Numeridex was certainly not to promote the products sold by the company. If it appeared that way, I, the author, certainly apologize. I have taken the following steps to correct the situation: First, I deleted most of the listings naming the products sold by the company. Second, included a verifiable notable classification of Numeridex as one of the fastest private growing companies in America. Third: added some additional independent links to verify the above. Numeridex, although a small company, I believe has made a contribution to computer related technologies, especially by the authoring and publication of two desktop guides now added to the article in reference. We will welcome any additional suggestions to improve this article. Thank you--Colmirage (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure why you reverted my edit on this page. It is completely true and had legitimate historical value and facts. Tell me exactly why your reverted it. Do you actually read the information before reverting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amdrag568 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Amdrag568!

Yes, I did read your edit before I reverted it.

1. You should read wikipedia's policy on verifiability and policy on reliable sources. Any information that can be challenged requires legitimate, third party, neutral sources to back it up. The school paper would not be considered "third party", but the Sun Times, the Tribune, etc would be.

2. Even if you have these sources, the fact that a student brought a gun is just not encyclopedic. You can also readwikipedia's policy on short term news stories. Wikipedia is not a school homepage, and it is not for news items of short term importance. This is not a major news story, and sadly is not an uncommon occurrence, even if it is for your school (and given what I know about Niles West, that is not a common event.

In short, I made that deletion in accordance with the policies of the encyclopedia.

I wish you the best of luck on your continued editing. Have a great evening! LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Were reinstated during the AfD by User:RockMFR as a unilateral decision. That shouldn't happen while an AfD discussion is going on, but he's an admin with those powers so he did it. That's where the bad faith is as he should have waited for a decision to be rendered before bringing back dead articles. The bad faith is not on my part. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

How is it bad faith to resurrect an article that is not up for deletion? I mean, I could understand if an article was tagged or was being protected pending the outcome of a decision, but from what you are saying, that isn't the case. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was from my list of examples of previously deleted articles in my opening statement for deletion. That's a slap in the face. I would have no problem with them being brought back if the consensus of our AfD is to keep, but if he wants to resurrect them now, then I have the right to add them to my list. He never would have known about those articles if it wasn't for me using them. It's the first time I've seen him in our endless discussions. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 22:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

BTB, I have to tell you, I think you are out on a limb here. Seriously, I know of no policy, or even a suggestion of one that says it is bad faith to work on articles like this. I mean, it is very common to have people work on articles that are up for deletion, and fix them before deletion closes, and save them from deletion. It can be frustrating when you look at an article and say "delete", and then four days later someone says "come back and look at it" and you go back and find it is much better .... and then you change your disposition. That is not bad faith .... that is editors doing their job. When you start adding articles late in the game, that means we have to go back and start checking them too. In addition, there are some editors who call it bad faith to nominate an article so soon after it has been created, as it does not give editors the chance to put in the needed fixes. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

They weren't fixed. Look at the pages in question. I'm not opposed to people working on articles while an AfD is going on. In fact, that rallies people and improves Wikipedia. However, these articles were brought back in their dead state. They clearly were not upgraded. If you think those should exist then you shouldn't be in this reluctant keep mode. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 22:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you reblock User talk:64.86.17.112? He's a Davkal sock who is Wikistalking me. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

SA, I am not an admin, so it is not in my power to do so. I left a message at ANI asking someone to look into this and see what they can do. I am sorry that I cannot do more about it than that. I will also leave a further warning on the IP page, though I think the two of us realize that there is little chance the warning will stop this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I believe you may have added the shared IP tag in error to an IP that is owned by a hosting company.[7] I am going to remove it from the IP talk page. If you have any questions about this, please let me know. Vassyana (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem! I can understand how the shared IP tag seemed appropriate, so you really have nothing to apologize for. I find ARIN (and a Google search if I don't recognize the company names) to be very helpful in distinguishing between ISP/company IPs and hosting/proxy IPs.

And, ouch! Your injury was certainly more painful than my own! I simply dislocated the finger backwards (tearing me open a small bit and exposing the joint) and broke a few bones in the face. No need for pins, fusing or other surgery (thankfully). Thank you for the kind sympathy and well-wishes though. :) Vassyana (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello . this is a hard thing to do sometimes and im trying to fill in some of the blanks.

there arent references for all those entries and i didnt reference mine. basically because i havent figured out how to add all the blue links to my references. I have a high level of understanding and sometimes wikipedia is a little over my head. this online encyclopedia is definitely not a thing to help fill in blanks without maybe a friend around to help with the things i seem to have missed. ill get it and well all have an entry that is comprehensive and effective. thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow (talk • contribs) 07:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Lonely Beacon, P.S. how does a person prove they are alumni of a school i have my diploma? Thanks for your time. eventually ill know what is needed for wikipedia in general ,and that criteria will be burned in my memory leading any future entries to be successful. as of now im a learner. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow (talk • contribs) 07:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The user has no migrated to User:207.210.78.194 as you probably have seen. Can you help out with that one too? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

(sorry, I don't know how to contact you but I am a coach at Golden Gate High School in Florida and I posted some of our teams accomplishments on the page. I was wondering why you deleted them. Please email me at >>e-mail redacted<< so I can see how to get them on their, again sorry for writing you on your page but I do not know how to contact you and I don't understand why you deleted my teams accomplishments)

Coach, greetings!

If you go back to the article, and click on the "discussion" tab, it will take you to the Talk Page. I left an explanation there. To make it short: inclusion of the names of staff, coaches, and students, unless they are notable beyond being a teacher, coach, and student (that is, notable enough to have won a national award, or have their own article on Wikipedia). Also, it seemed that the bulk of what was deleted was a word-for-word news article about the team. If you go to WP:NOT it explains that a core policy of this encyclopedia is to not be a homepage for an organization. That pertains to both content and writing style.

In terms of high school articles, as it pertains to sports, the general minimum for inclusion in the article is that the team have done something notable at the state level (ie finished top 4), and that individuals finished with some national mark. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I hope this helps answer your question. As a teacher and former coach myself, I completely understand.

I know you didn't mean it, but I take the insinuation that I would post sources without reading them to heart. It sounds like you are accusing me of being dishonest. I know this wasn't the way you meant it to sound, so I'm not angry. I just figured you should know that was how it came across. Protonk (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I did not mean to insinuate this about you, and I hope you will have a change of heart. I want to make that clear. I perhaps get too flippant for my own good at times .... but it is never my intent to insult.

However, you must admit that those sources really are not making the case that this article should be saved, and I am having an impossibly hard time seeing how this article is not hopelessly in POV. I really feel that I have a firm standing in policy, and I see nothing coming across other than "I like it". I run into too many people that say Wikipedia is a hopeless mess, that it is inherently flawed because there is so much information that is poorly sourced. I have tried to improve that, but it seems that far too many times an article comes up for deletion that is not only poorly sourced, and is never going to be sourced well, that too many people say "but I and enough people like it, so let's keep it. Too many times it really seems to be "the rules apply, unless enough people want to throw them out. I'm the last one on Earth to quote rules and regs, but there are times it makes sense. It is very frustrating at times when you try to look at things from other people's perspective, and you just can't see the logic. That doesn't means its not there ... it means I just don't see it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Like I said (or did I just think it and choose not to write it), I don't have an emotional attachment to the article. I disagree with you that it is hopelessly POV but I can see where you are coming from. As for the sources, to me this list only needs someone to say two things: is the article controversial and why. Presuming that the source isn't Jack Thompson and is otherwise reliable I'm prepared to put it in the list. thanks for the comment. Like I said above, I really didn't think you meant it but the one thing I'm careful about is proper and accurate representation of sources. Protonk (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because you commented at the AfD, I wanted to inform you of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Think About Life. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for putting up with so much of the same vandalism to the same page again and again. You have proven yourself as a great Wikipedian. After that little threat you made to me on my talk page, I don't think that I will be vandalising anything else any time soon. 76.24.204.168 (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's a complicated situation that I never completely understood, even when I was a student there. The school doesn't sponsor it, meaning they don't give them any money, but they still include their information, record, and team photo in the yearbook every year. They field both Varsity and JV teams and, at least when I went there, it was probably one of the more popular sports. I think we should keep it in the article. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I totally know what you mean ... our school has the same thing, except the school has zero affiliation: no yearbook photo, the students cannot advertise at school (read: they dump a couple of hundred flyers on the hallway floor before any home game). Given that, I would agree it should go in the DHS article, we just gotta make sure it is cited. In my school's article, I would not put it in, because our school really puts up the brick wall on that group.

Two days ago, I listed the DHS article at Wikischools for a review, so if you've got any references, get 'em in there some time over the next few weeks. I know that this is no longer a "Start" ... I'm thinking a "C" at least, and possibly ... just maybe a "B". I'm trying to work off the peer review that was done to the article.

We'll get it there! LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are you from the area? You're working on DHS and I see you've also worked on HPHS and Maine South, along with the CSL North. Just wondering if I know you. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am from the area ... I work within the conference so to speak, but not at Deerfield. I also have some connections to the IHSA. I remember being at a meeting with David Frye (the former head of the IHSA) ... the topic of expansion came up. This was right after water polo got approved. He mentioned that every so often lacrosse came up. Someone mentioned "ice hockey". He got really serious: "over our collective dead bodies". HE said the IHSA would never even entertain the idea of sponsoring a sport where amateurs wore blades on their feet and carried sticks. I think that may explain some of the reasoning behind what Deerfield does. LonelyBeacon (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that's probably a big part of it. I remember the players themselves in high school saying they didn't actually want the school to sponsor them because they used to hold practices late and on holidays and do other things that they could have never done if they had to follow IHSA rules. I always thought it was weird that the school and Association were so opposed to sponsoring ice hockey. I saw a number of bad and in some cases downright dangerous injuries when I played football. One kid injured his neck on a kick return and the game had to be delayed like 30 minutes while they carefully got him off the field in an abmbulance. Yet I can't ever recall seeing any fights or violence at any of the hockey games I went to. Oh well. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I taught for one year down in a south side Catholic school ... where they would play Mt. Carmel, St. Rita, etc. Very physical, but the worst thing you would see happen is a guy skate right up to a guy and get in his face. You never saw a fight. I asked why, and some of the players told me that the mandatory penalties for fighting was basically the who season on suspension, plus there was some kind of team penalty involved. The result was that despite some very tough play, no one ever go into a fight. There were some tough injuries (lots of knees), but I would compare it to what happened in football.

I suspect that one of the other reasons the IHSA did not get involved was because it was an incredibly expensive sport. A lot of the recent IHSA legislation has been about reducing the cost to individual schools. Up until about 6 years ago, a school had to pay $50 for every state series it entered. It is now free for all schools. The downstate schools have been exercising a lot of authority over that time, which is why you now see the private school multiplier and the expansion of classes (which dilutes the meaning of state championships, but makes more available for the downstate schools to win). You may have seen that bass fishing is a recognized sport as of this up and coming year. Ice hockey, being a sport for rich north shore kids, is not high on the agenda. Even lacrosse: it is regulated by the IHSA, but they do not sponsor a state tournament. Again, it is not something on the radar of the downstate schools. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, good news! The DHS article just got rated as a "B" article, and had its importance upgraded from "low" to "mid". This means out of roughly 21,000 school articles here, DHS is one of the top 250-300 articles. The suggestion given was "needs more references". That's a place to start. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

For reverting vandalism on my userpage. RJaguar3 | u | t 10:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your response. I am an alumnus of Fenwick- and maybe I can help you out. What I added was accurate, and within the sourcing that was there. Specifically, the website and Dixon. I also was very objective in what I wrote, and with the intention of some additional clarity. I you would like me to help, please respond. I can enter into the alumni sections which you can not.Dr.Oak (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey Doc!

If you have access to those alumni areas .... those have a potential to be a big help! One of things that I have been straining to find are references for those last few alumni that are marked "citation needed" (one was that lawyer named Gorman whom you provided the grad year for). There needs to be some reference that shows this particular guy attended Fenwick. In a perfect world, there would be a secondary source, but you probably saw that a few alumni are noted just at the Fenwick alumni site.

I should just make clear: I don't want to come across as a know it all (I don't somethings about what goes on around here, but certainly not as much as others), and I don't want it to sound like I was trying to take ownership of the article. I am an alumnus of a "competing area interest", and teach in the area .... I know a few current and former Fenwick teachers very well.

The original issue I had was what appeared to be information being added without the reference, but since you are saying that this info is covered by the references already there, then it sounds great! Best of luck .... hopefully the article will be assessed soon. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

• The article now looks very complete, devoid of peacock wording and with all points contained within the sources given. As a finishing touch, you may want to transfer the portait on the Edward Fenwick article to the Fenwick school article as well. The added graphics would be a nice visual balance. It might look good at the very being of the history section on the left side, balancing the shield on the right and the astronaut photo below. I also think that the profile drawing of Bishop Fenwick is very relevant for the school article because Fenwick H.S. has a painting of Bishop Fenwick in exactly the same pose hanging within the school in Oak Park. The caption could read, "This rendering in profile of Bishop Fenwick, the namesake of Fenwick High School, was also created into an oil painting displayed at the Oak Park, Illinois school".Dr.Oak (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Tremendous suggestion! I had to check to make sure that the image was in the public domain or had its copyright released, but its public domain, so we can use it in any appropriate article. I copied your caption suggestion, and gave it the left justification that you suggested. The balance was just as you predicted. This article looks great. I was hoping that it might be up to a "B", but this might just be good enough to reach Good Article (GA) status now. I think I will go poke the folks over at the project. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Very attractive and compelte article. Good job!Dr.Oak (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Hi LB. I think what you did with the graphics is perfect, it has nice balance, and anything else is overkill. As for the cost, I think the additional info I added within the table is all that is needed. Fenwick is $9800 for tuition, but then it is up to the students/parents to decide if they want to play in sports, take oversees trips to study abroad etc., that of course, would jack up the price. Those extras are not included in the general tuition package. I will see if within the website or Dixon magazine there is some info that I can source for some of the more costly activities. But I think the article really looks great.Dr.Oak (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added a sourced tuition and fees section that provides some additional facts.Dr.Oak (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's awesome. As a matter of fact, I will use that as a model for writing that section in other schools. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I agree, and I would keep him if I was 100% certain that he attended "as a student", but the records with the early guys are a little dodgy. It show involvement with him and the school, but maybee not as an official student. I think it is better to be concervative. Joe Corvo- shows up no where at all- all alumns will have a record of his attendance years and/or years of graduation. I doubt Corvo's attendance. You can serach by name or even dates of attendance in the data base to get info. Corvo is no where to be found.

• Right now, I am going to update noted teachers, followed by more info about school clubs and extra curriculars, and possibly some more info about theology, if I can source it- and then I will close out- the article would be excellent. Dr.Oak (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi LB, I think the article looks great and complete, and I'm going to close out now. Take care, hope we talk againDr.Oak (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Greetings  

The reason I changed it was because from what I have seen on most school pages is that a picture of the school should be the "main" picture to show what it it looks like. I won't edit it again, but I just wanted to tell you why I changed it so you didn't think I just did it randomly. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 22:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem--Yankees10 04:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your question on Talk:1996 Summer Olympics about Kerri Strug inspired me to try to improve that article. I think it now more precisely addresses your question, though I'm not sure there will ever be a definitive answer to it. Retrospectively, it's clear she didn't. But if you put yourself in the literal minute of competition, the question, "Did she really need to do the second vault?" is one of those debatable points in sport, like "would you rather have Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays or Duke Snider in your outfield?" The numbers say you take WIllie Mays, but there are "intangibles" that make the other two compelling. As my responses on the Talk page make clear, a lot of the "why did she do it" is quite subjective, like the sport itself. It would probably be a violation of NPOV to include that at Kerri Strug. But we can at least assert what people both at the time and afterwards have said and let readers draw their own conclusions. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 04:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. Your edit at came up on my watch list, and I thought your explanation made perfect sense. Even as I was sitting here watching the men's Olympic gymnastics, I was reminded of what you noted: the media, with their watchdogs who are tracking the scores are fully knew that the team had clinched the bronze, but in the heat of competition, when time is so critical, it is not so obvious. Also, I very much see the point about the need to keep up the appearance.

Thanks for the effort .... it is one of those really interesting stories about the Olympics that now has more truth to it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

My rating was purely based on the ratings of the other two wikiprojects on the talk page. I have assessed it formally for the project now as Start class. You were spot on with the references. It is also lacking information on a number of key areas, including an indepth campus section, and co-curricular activities. Five Years 11:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cool .... thanks ...I wasn't really sure where to put it, except that B seemed high.

I will try to find a source for his attendance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2thPOWRD (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cool, and thanks! This seems to be an important alumnus who very much needs to be included. I went ahead and added him to the list, and added a fact tag until a reference can be found. I have already looked for sources unsuccessfully, but you seem to be far more an expert than I. Best of luck! LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi LB, I see you have been busy working on H.S. pages. I was wondering if you think some work should also be done on the Barbaro family page of the Fenwick alumnus. There is some records on the family's history, and the group seems rather significant. Don't you also think that that page should also be labled "House of Barbaro" rather than Barbaro family- that is how they are discussed in records. I am on vacation till Monaday, and I have some time to kill- we can work on that together over the next few days if you likeDr.Oak (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm ...... any article can be expanded, and looking at the Barbaro family page, it seems to be lacking in terms of modern members (just a few weeks ago, I was disappointed to not find anything substantial on the current lineage of French kings ..... I think it would be a good article to expand, though I have no knowledge about the family.

Also, while I agee that "House of Barbaro" sounds better, there are two things:

Wikipedia may already have a naming convention for families. I would suggest checking a few articles like the Medicis, Bourbons, etc, and see how they are named. Also, the article notes a "Villa Barbaro", which if translated to English is "House of Barbaro"?? (I think ... Italian is not my specialty). So, this could create a confusion between a literal house and the family.

Just my two bits. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Hi LB, I made some peer review corrections which you can check out- I also don't know what to do with the Barbaro family page because I have received some static from a user named Deor- I am gathering that there must have been some vandal problems with it. What is really tragic, is that when I checked the back pages, there seems to be an exceptional, highly detailed and well sourced version that got reverted. In my opinion, that's the one that should be brought back, it seems to be in accordance with the family bio on record with the school. I am also curious, why Fenwick pulled Vitus' bio off the general categorie and into the members only group, maybe some student at Fenwick or Ignatius goofed with his info on Wikipedia.

• As for Barbaro family being changed to House of Barbaro- I am just following suit with what I see on House of Grimaldi and others. If you would revert, I would be happy to fine tune the Barbaro family article over the weekend and get it right before my vacation ends- I also agree that there needs to be more discussion with modern members- which the family bio on record is an excellent guide and sourced too, but I am afaid to touch it after my experience with Deor. If you give me the go ahead though, I would be happy to work on it. thanksDr.Oak (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Heya Doc!

I think that changes you and I have made are strong starts based on the peer reviews. The next step is going to be referencing as much as possible from non-Fenwick sources. I think what we have is very good, but the more referencing the better. I will try and go back this weekend and confirm any internet references and give a date of attribution.

As for the Barbaro Family ..... I dunno. I'm not sure what is up with User:Deor. On one side, he is correct about challenging any unreferenced material. On the other side, I think he came across as a little strong, and I am not sure what the deal with the deleted material that was cited is. Even referenced work must be based on reliable sources. This can lead to a load of headaches because one editor may have very legitimate concerns with a source as being reliable (this is especially true in the sciences), or ..... an editor who simply does not agree with a source can claim it is unreliable, and it is a huge problem .... because it then requires a consensus of editors to support one or the other, though even then it can still lead to edit warring, and that is good for no one. You need to make a decision: if you want to go restore those edits (provided they are supported by references), you can. If they are reverted, then you can try doing a Request for Comment, which would call in editors to comment on which way to go. You could also start by asking other editors on that article as to what they think is going on. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

(ec with your message above) Before you get involved in this, I'd recommend that you review the complete talk-page history (including the archive) at Talk:Barbaro family, as well as [[Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mctrain]]. There is an extensive history of sock-puppeting and hoaxing at this article (and in many other places on WP), involving attempts to insert mentions of one Vitus Barbaro into the encyclopedia. In addition to Mctrain, User:Tiki-two, User:F550, User:Thost, and User:Save venice (all indefinitely blocked), among others, have been involved, and many of them have also showed an interest in the Fenwick High School article. Dr.Oak shows every indication of being another incarnation of these users, and I have little patience for any recrudescence of the problem. Deor (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, that's an explanation, and if that's the case, so be it .... sockpuppets deserve to be unraveled in the spin cycle. It just felt like a lot of strong language without explanation. I see that Dr. Oak got blocked, and that a check user appears to be underway. That should clear things up.

Thank you for your explanation. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I reverted to elimate the edits added by the Barbaro hoaxer (see topic above this). While they are supposedly sourced, so were his false claims about Vitus Barbaro. If there was any factual info in what I removed, that you can confirm from independant sources, please re-add them. Regardless, I apologize for the inconvience, but I couldn't find any good way to remove the hoaxer's probably false edits other than the full revert that also removed your good faith edits. Edward321 (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I understand .... thanks for that ..... after what looked like an article that was on its way, it has been a disappointing couple of days. It's not your fault by any means. If I sounded angry or miffed, please accept my apologies. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are very welcome for the peer review. If the article is the subject of frequent vandalism, please let me know and if it is bad enough it can be semi-protected. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the kind offer. I don't think that vandalism is an issue. There was an editor who was doing some work on it. I thought everything was on the level, and it later turned out the editor was a sock for a banned user. That editor has been banned, and some cleanup was done that took out some legit edits. It was not the fault of the editor doing the cleanup. It is just going to take a little work to get the article back to some order. Again, thanks for the offer, but I think the article is back to some relative stability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your effort to get this article into shape. Sorry I needed to use an ax instead of a scapel on the reverts, I hope this hasn't made you discouraged. This article needs people like you who truly seek to improve it. Edward321 (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dagnubit Ed, I thought I had responded back to you ..... I completely understand ... the reversion needed to be done, and I think I was able to restore just about everything else that needed to be restored (I think .... it was less than I thought). I was a upset over other things unrelated to your change. I was sidetracked on some other projects, and am getting ready to head back to school. I hope to get back there soon and continue work. I think that it is on the right track now, and hope to get back to cleaning it up again soon. Sorry that I did not get back to you sooner. I was at fault for sounding a little more upset than I should have been (which is to say that even if I was upset, I shouldn't have taken it out on you). Thanks for the kind words! LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

"rv ... something" - that's the first outloud laugh I've had all day. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad :-) .... honestly ... I had no idea what to do .... I didn't want to call it out and out vandalism (though it probably was), and I couldn't rightfully say it was a good faith edit. It was just .... something. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Was wondering what your reason was for removal of the list of Governors that was added to the "Oklahoma" article. It looked like a good addition. It wasn't my edit, but wondered, "Am I missing something here?" Odestiny (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Heya Odestiny!

I had done a quick survey of states, and found that all of the ones I checked had a separate "List of governors" page to avoid lengthening the article. I probably should have noted that as a suggestion.

Though ... upon further reflection, I checked six states (Illinois, California, New York, Florida Pennsylvania, Michigan) that are considerably older (and hence have really long lists of governors compared to Oklahoma. I would suggest starting a list article based on those other lists. I agree that it is important, but the list in the middle of hte article is probably making the article too long.

I apologize for not making the suggestion in the summary. You are absolutely correct about this list being important. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it looks like there has been one all along.

I just added a link to the list in the "See also" part of the Oklahoma Government section of the article. This should prevent anyone going through the trouble of accidentally adding it again, and gives people the ieda that it exists. Hopefully this will solve the problem. Thanks for the communication on this! LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

They seemed superfluous to me (not sure there's a guideline that says that info should be included). It also looked weird to me having them for a few people but not others. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've seen them in a number of articles ..... depending on the strength of the source, that info is provided in sourcing, sometimes not (hence the reason it is available for some and not others). I think it is pretty standard that when listing an alumnus from any institution that their graduation year be given. WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#WNTI does not list it as information that should be excluded from an article.

Funny edit summary (-; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply