User talk:LonelyBeacon/archive4

Hi

Hi LonelyBeacon! I don't think we've met before... in any case, I look forward to working with you on the Benet article! :D Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to meet you, Edge ... I am coming off of a long break, and I am still getting back into the swing of things. I don't think I will be making too many contributions to the article (it is in great shape to begin with), but from time to time, I might stop in with thoughts ... nothing more. Best of luck to you! LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles 05:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GBS Men's Lax

Hi - I appreciate your edit on the Glenbrook South High School page but they did actually win the Men's Lacrosse Championship in 2000. I have went back and linked to the IHSLA site that has record of this.WashingtonWikiUser (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)WikiDCUser[reply]

No problemo! The issue was that this information was initially being inserted into a section that had been referenced ... that is problematic though I am glad that it is back in and fixed. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deerfield and Simone Elkeles

Hi, thanks for the help. Will the source work on Simone Elkeles work for Deerfield High School or do I need to find something else? I hope to write a page on her in the near future.Tinytink (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC) ....Also can you tell me how to fix the ref to hide the URL and create a title to click on to lead you to the URL? Tinytink (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That should be it. Let me know if I should change anything else. Tinytink (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Could you do me a big favor and head over to the Simone Elkeles page I've created and tell me how I can better organize her works? Thanks Tinytink (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last question and I'll get out of your hair. I see you removed USA Today Bestseller. I am looking at my copy of her book and It has it written on there but I can't find an online record with USA Today about... Tinytink (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think:
1. It is possible this information never made it into the USA Today online edition.
2. It is possible that USA Today does not archive that information.
You might try and take a look to see if there is some website that tracks best sellers and see if they have it. If you need to find the website I removed, you can always check the history of the Deerfield article, and it will come up. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Gibbons School Article Review

Thanks for reviewing first off, quick question: why did you remove notable faculty? Notable faculty was an accepted section listed in WP:WPSCH/AG. At least two of the three are notable people, each receiving coverage in the media. Coach Mullis is considered the best basketball coach in Baltimore history...how is that not worthy of inclusion in this article? Wberkey (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be notable for inclusion as a student, alum, or staff member, the person needs to mee the notability policy. That is the person either needs to be the subject of an article, or eligible for an article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So provided I reference them, they can added again?Wberkey (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend ... if you can verify that the person in question meets the general notability policy, then you can add them. I will tell you that this will be difficult for teachers. In order to meet notability, they would need to be the subject of significant (long term) third party references (that is, references not written by the school or by themselves), and said articles would have to directly address the person. For example, if an article was written about the basketball team and included an interview with the coach, that would not meet the threshold of being an article about the coach. If a few newspapers all wrote retrospectives about the coaches career as he retired, that still would likely not do it, as all of the articles did address the subject directly, but were all about a single event. If you could demonstrate that there were multiple third party sources that were directly about the coach over a period of time, then he might meet the threshold for inclusion. There are some editors who erroneously believe any red link should be deleted ... so one thing I always recommend is write the article about he person first, then add them to the list.
Something else to be a little cautious about, and please do not take this as an accusation. I understand the school is closed, and being a Catholic school guy myself, I know how alumni and staff can feel when these things happen. One of the things wikipedia is not, is a memorial. It is also not a website for schools that have closed. Sometimes, especially with recently closed schools, some editors take it uponthemselves to turn the article into a time capsule repository of everything about the school (I just had to take an axe to another Catholic school article, Archbishop Quigley Preparatory Seminary), and likely will need to go back and trim even more.
I hope that answered your question ... sorry to be so long with the response, but I thought you deserved the reasoning that I am operating under. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for the advice! And as for the memorial part, I completely understand. Everything about the school has been erased, and the reason I am doing is to provide accurate information on the school for research purposes. High schools are a very important part of Baltimore culture, and Gibbons made a substantial contribution to the community and its alumni. The work on this page is purely academic and not necessarily out of pure desire to make Gibbons seem surreal. The closing has sparked my interest however to create a page containing accurate and detailed information about the school, and I feel considering wikipedia is the first link that pops up when Gibbons is searched on Google, this article should be a fair and detailed account of my old school. Thanks again for your help! Once I get some more info and clean up a bit, will look forward to another review.Wberkey (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you the best of luck ... high schools are also a big part of Chicago culture. I know you certainly want an accurate article ... as one person once put it around here "Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about fact" ...I think all they were trying to say is: you might be telling the truth, but if it isn't verifiable, then it doesn't belong, no matter how true it is. On one level, that is a shame, as it likely precludes things from an article that might very well be interesting. On the other hand, without verification, it becomes too easy for lies to creep in. If I can be of help, please drop me a line. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you do me a favor and review the leadin I just finished writing for the article?Wberkey (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you reassess the article? I've taken out much of the content commented on and expanded what needed to be expanded. Looking to reach C-status. What needs to be done? Wberkey (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment RGS Guildford

Any chance you could re-assess the article Royal Grammar School, Guildford? Thanks TheAuthor22 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TFSouthHSlogo.png

⚠
⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Song removal from the Northwestern HS Article

Hi. Thanks for the speedy review of the Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) article. Just one question thus far... why did the three songs posted under the Choir section, need removal? Was some sort of Wiki policy violated that somehow wasn't flagged before by many of the other administrators? Maryland Pride ... a Wikipedia contributor (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

I've been meaning to ask, I stole the citation templates from your userpage a while back.. I hope you don't mind, I've included a link to their origins on yours, if you want to be credited in any other way, or want them removed, let me know? nonsense!thisWikiManOnespeaking.drivel! 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

I've been meaning to ask, I stole the citation templates from your userpage a while back.. I hope you don't mind, I've included a link to their origins on yours, if you want to be credited in any other way, or want them removed, let me know? nonsense!thisWikiManOnespeaking.drivel! 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't create them, so there's no need to credit me ... thank you for the kind offer though. If it has helped you, then I am glad that this helped. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LAHS Assessment

Hi. Thank you for your assistance with Los Alamos High School. You cut a lot to the article, but I think that overall by eliminating items of less significance, the article appears cleaner, more professional, and more serious. I have been the primary maintainer of the article for a few years now, and historically I was strongly leaning on the side of inclusion, especially if there was a reference; this was not always the right move and I was getting frustrated with the clutter. It was kind of a bummer to see the article classified down after several years of edits, but the important thing is that quality is going up. I'm going to try to scrounge up some of those citations you asked for. If you have any suggestions as to independent resources where I could things like college enrollment, that would be a big help. Thanks Again! Greg Comlish (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another question. There's a substantial section of the LAHS article devoted to compliance with the Adequate Yearly Progress requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. I've tried to simplify the section with a table, and I think that helps, although I'm beginning to think that it might not be sufficiently encyclopedic. Love to get your opinion on that one. Greg Comlish (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re: AYP ... on the one hand, professionally, AYP really says nothing about a school (some mediochre schools are on AYP, some nationally notable schools are not). On the other hand, it is easily referencable material that applies to a nationally notable law, and I suppose that some people think it is highly important. I think it is OK to reference the current year, and (if possible) sum up the school's trend in a sentence or two. I don't think you should be discussing every year's results.
As far as college enrollment, I am not sure that this information would be available independently, unless the state of New Mexico reports it.
That's probably not much help. Sorry about that! LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

modifying talk page comments

Gasp, I sinned and did it to you. Heads up in case you are offended, but I'm claiming IAR to improve the 'pedia. 04:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

How DARE you fix my poor spelling that made me look foolish, Tedder! Change it back .... CHANGE IT BACK, I say!
Eh, on second thought ... LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Situations like this are exactly why IAR exists as a rule. tedder (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a nice poster child as to why that rule should be changed! IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just another case of admin abuse from tedder... Anyway, I'm just here to say thanks to LonelyBeacon: thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha ... and just this past week, I saw a sysop block an editor for the same thing!--Epeefleche (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like this? Hopefully there's a difference in tone. tedder (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its one thing for a newbie to think they can alter comments and get away with it ... it is something different when they get warned about it over time and still do it ... not the brightest bulb in the string of Christmas tree lights :-) LonelyBeacon (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your insurrection has been noted at the admin cabal. tedder (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Hi ... I've left you a response to your query here. You missed signing it, but I've tracked you to your doorstep in any event, to make sure you did not miss my reply. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Carmel

Lonely Beacon,

Why have you removed the notable business alumni from the Mount Carmel page? Specifically, you removed the entries beneath the dashed line (see below). Other comparable wikipedia pages have significantly lesser "notable alumni" listed- many without notations/references (i.e. see Michael R. Fine of Loyola Academy for one without a reference, and John Baron of Fenwick for someone of comparable or less notable fame). I realize that Highbeam may not be a direct news source, but it's unfair to expect that those contributing to wikipedia articles can pay for a subcription to such a news site to gain full article access. You actually have to google some search terms (highbeam wont let you see the FULL article, which of course is the reference). What is wikipedia's stance on using archiving sites like Highbeam? And if there is none, what gives you the authority to reject entries based on its' use? Thanks in advance for reconsidering.

(please add this back to Mount Carmel page, notable alumni section):

- * Thomas Carey, CEO of Hawthorne Race Course. - * William Harty, marketing executive who created the Keebler Elves.[1] - * John F. Gilmore, Jr., former CEO of Goldman Sachs, Chairman of Chicago Board of Trade in 1986 and elected to the Future's Industry Association Hall of Fame.[2] - * William B. Graham, CEO of Baxter International from 1953 to 1980. Under Graham's guidance, the organization built the first artificial kidney.[3]

Heya unknown editor!
The issue of notability is not one that is open to much interpretation (some, not all). The notability policy is one of Wikipedia's oldest an important policies. As far as school articles, in order for alumni to be listed, they must either be the subject of an article on Wikipedia or must be eligible for an article. To this, there is virtually no exception.
Before deleting the people noted above, I did a check for their articles, and found no articles. A scan of the claims to notability for these people did not seem to have any claim to notability that satisfied this policy. Please do not assume this to be a sleight against these individuals. They may very much be notable and important people in their local communities and within the school community. I am not in a position to judge that, and do not. However, at least from the perspective of Wikipedia, these individuals do not seem to meet the requirements for notability and inclusion. This explains why Fine and Baron are included in these articles.
You might consider trying to start articles on these folks. If the articles survive, then adding them to the Mt. Carmel article would be a slam dunk. I don't have enough knowledge of these individuals to judge if person "X" is more notable than person "Y". The notability guideline establishes whether or not the person is notable. I think I am right, but am willing ot admit that I might be wrong. I encourage you to pursue article creation, and see where that goes. I do wish you the best of luck in doing this.LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear JPMorganChase IP: Agree with Lonely. The relevant wp guideline is WP:LISTPEOPLE. I would suggest that for any notable person whom the editor would like to add, he either write a wikipedia article (the option that would benefit the project most) and link to it, or provide one or more refs in the list itself reflecting notability. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Can you guys please enfornce these standards on other schools as well? I helped create this article years ago- LONG beforee content was under such a microscope- and although I don't have time to become an official wiki-police-guy (editor?), it does PAIN me to see this article held to stricter standands than others of comparable content (i.e. notability, history/achievement, etc). See other Chicago Catholic Schools and please encourage the LonelyBeacons and Epeefleches of THOSE pages to enforce similar standards. THANKS.

Also.. my quetion about highbeam.com was never answered. Can it be referenced as a legimate news source? If so, I'm going to attempt restoring the notable business alumni.

Thanks for your reply- I'm very impressed by your guys vigilance in maintaining these- but also a very small bit perterbed by the fact that A) other schools pages are not beind held to these standards and B) the content I've tried to add over the years has been totally legit. If I were to to lose my job, I might consider creating original articles for those business alumni- but the fact that I do not doesn't change their achievements. Other schools are also listing 2nd-4th place finishes as their athletic achievements (see Fenwick, Loyola)- and I'm not seeing anyone remove those!!

I hope you guys understand my goal is not to get into an editing war- I love Wikipedia- but if I can't throw up accurate edits, I feel that other pages should be held the same standards. I also feel that if I post something accurate, it shouldn't simply be removed (in the past, didn't wiki-police simply add a note that said "reference needed"??)...and then that left it open to the wiki-community to find one! And in opinion, that's the whole BEAUTY of wiki-pedia.. the whole group of us (wiki police and non-wiki police) working towards more and more accurate articles over time (not simply deleting/removing stuff). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.143 (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heya!
I'm just going to throw a few things out:
1. I agree that the strength of Wikipedia is in everyone contributing!
2. The new guidelines on only listing state championships is relatively new (only in the last 6-7 months or so) ... it does take time, as all of us are busy with outside projects or other projects here at WP. Please don't think that Mt. Carmel is being picked on ... being busy with other things, I tend to get to schools as edits pop up on my screen and it reminds me "I should clean this up while I remember it". For what it is worth, I work at Maine South, and I took out their non-state titles on January 5, 2011. Please don't think this is a move against Mt. Carmel, he Catholic League, or anything like that. It just takes time.
3. The thing that kind of stinks ... and I had to learn this the hard way: Wikipedia is not about fact or accuracy .... it is about verifiability ... if it is not verifiable by reliable sources, then it really doesn't belong. That means that a lot of accurate information is never included. That stinks because there are lots of bits of information that I personally know are true, but it isn't written up in a newspaper or magazine or on the internet somewhere .... and so I don't get to include it.
4. I'm not sure who the Wiki-police are. While there are certain editors who have been voted by their peers special powers to protect articles, block editors who are screwing around, etc, all editors have the right to challenge unreferenced material, and remove it as they see fit in accordance with policies. You are certainly free to remove the non-state titles from other articles, if you would like. In the absence of that, I get to them when we can. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping in the other day

HXL49 is still at it making attacks on my talkpage, do I have any recourse at this point? I already had ANI two months ago about him, which was soundly ignored by all.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Painting with a broad brush

Not a broad brush at all. It would only be an American who would, consciously or non-consciously, choose to not identify which air force. US-centrism is one of Wikipedia's biggest problems and one of my biggest frustrations here. If you're an American who does think more broadly, that's great, but it's wrong to pretend the problem is different from what it is. HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:NapervilleCentHSlogo.png

⚠
⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:BlckDimndConfLogo.png

⚠
⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:LoyolaAcademyLogo.png

⚠
⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Help?

I have tried all I could to fix this problem but I used to work for Nickelodeon Magazine & I uploaded the picture file of the logo for the Wiki for them & it has some issues which I hope you can fix as you did with my High School Thornton Fractional North's Wiki. If you could fix the issues, I would greatly appreciate it as you did an EXCELLENT job on TF North's. Can you make it look as streamlined & neat as TF North's? I tried all I could to fix the photo with no luck. Thank you so much! ~Jake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireteam2479 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi

Just to say a quick thanks for removing that attack message from my talk page!--5 albert square (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois High School Association

Hi. Where did you get the non-working URLs you used in this edit? They don't work because they have spaces before each item of punctuation.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a few years, but I think that I likely accessed that through a newspaper database at my local public library. It was from an earlier time in my editing here, and probably should not have included the URL in the citation. The remainder of the information is valid. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? You don't recall the details of your edit from years ago? Shocking.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall the user name I used last week to vandalize the main page. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha -- now Drmies, that's funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, wouldn't it be fun to be a vandal? They seem to be enjoying it. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Until they get bored, as they advance from seventh grade to eighth grade. Then, they take on a wp editor name and make unusual changes, claiming the imperative to be BOLD. And, if they can motivate enough of their eighth grade classmates (or edit from their home pc, school library pc, and iphone), they assert consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be Bold!

How daring! ;) Drmies (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors will come to fear me ... oh, they will! LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Individual animals

As a user who participated in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 28#Category:Famous animals, you may be interested in a discussion related to this at Category talk:Individual animals#Recent Cfd moves. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Barnstar

Thank you Kudpung ... right back at you! LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Center for Excellence

Hi! I was just wondering why you rated the article as a Start. I'd rated it at a C per Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment, and am always interested to see why someone rates an article differently from how I see it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Markvs88!
First off, I will say that the differentiation between "Start" and "C" is very loose ... often in the eye of the person doing the assessment (unlike the "C" vs. "B" cutoff which is a bit more objective). So, having said that, I have to admit that it is not so much based on hard and fast criteria. If you were to go back and restore the "C", I would not be in any position to say "that's wrong" ... and if you do feel strongly about your assessment, I will absolutely not challenge it.
To get to the point you asked: the first thing I start looking at before promoting articles up to "C" or higher is the referencing and the scope of the article. In this case, the article really only had 4 (might have been 5) sources, one of which was the school itself. Especially for a school as old as this one, that seemed to me to be too few (if you asked me "What number wouldn't be too few?", I wouldn't have a good answer for that).
The other thing I look for is the scope ... does the article seem to lean on one topic a lot more than another, which seems undue for the topic. This article seemed to talk a lot about the building (it's a National Historic Landmark, it should be mentioned prominently), but it seemed like even the "History" section only spent two paragraphs about the actual history of what happened in the school. That seemed to be too short for a school of that age.
There also was no mention of student life ... clubs? activities? Generally, a missing section is another reason I will hold an article back from a letter grade.
I hope that this is an explanation helps you to understand where I am coming from .... and how messy the process can be. I hope you do not take offense for changing your assessment ... I will feel none if you change it back. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Loose? Absolutely! I feel that this article could have gone either way, and I was just curious as to why you chose one and I chose the other. Likewise, I can't disagree... those all are good points and I take no offense at all. It's nice to see somebody else out there that takes article ratings seriously. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing No.4 High School

Hi, I noticed that you have assessed this article and rated it as Low-importance. Well, I do believe that this school deserves a much higher importance rating. Many people in China (including students from its competitors, e.g., the school that I currently go to) regard Beijing No.4 High School as the best high school in China. And it's the only high school listed on the English version of the Government of Xicheng District, Beijing Website despite the fact that there are many notable high schools in the district.

I have read your suggestions on the talk page and I have added some reliable, third-party references to both the en and zh version of the article.

The problem is, many pre-PRC period facts can't be verified since no third-party source can be found on the Internet (searched in both English and Chinese). So my question is, is using information from the official Beijing No.4 School Alumni Association Website as references acceptable on enwiki? It's not a third-party source, but it's official. On zhwiki, official sources are acceptable (though not recommended). I'm not familiar with enwiki policies and guidelines and I can't find anything mentioning official sources in the corresponding enwiki guideline page Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

If official sources are acceptable on enwiki, I'll be able to add more references and maybe I can ask for a re-assess.

--t m yan OMG 02:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schools in Israel

Hi. I saw you marked Galil Jewish-Arab School as needing an infobox. I'd be happy to do that, but none of the other schools listed on List of schools in Israel have one, so I'm not sure which template to use. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks, Arikk (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AZ schools with COI issues

Thanks for fixing Grand Canyon Prep! I have another Arizona school that requires de-puffing: James Madison Preparatory School. The issue relates to a clear conflict of interest between the founders of the school and the creator and heavy contributor to the article. Would you mind helping? Thanks, Raymie (t • c) 04:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the props Raymie,
It was hardly the worst case I have seen, but there were some NPOV issues there. I tried to do a cursory cleanup, and left a note on the talk page. Hopefully this will help focus the article a bit. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Here's another one if you want: Immaculate Heart High School (Arizona). Raymie (t • c) 02:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there was alot of advertising in this one ... a lot of weasel words and a lot of self-promotion. I tidied up a bit. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do a great job. Can you help with Tempe Preparatory Academy? See, charter and private schools have lots of these WP:PRESTIGE issues. Raymie (t • c) 20:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was hardly the worst offender, but there were some issues. Always feel free to clean them up yourself ... I certainly don't mind going in there to do this, but unless you are under some kind of directive from an Administrator to stay out, you can do what is necessary. If there is doubt, feel free to ask. If an edit comes into conflict, try and discuss it on the talk page, and if that doesn't work, you can come and get help. Thanks for staying on top of this ... schools articles in general always attract a certain amount of feather preening. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reflist 2 vs 30em

Everything about this edit looks fantastic, but.. going to |2 instead of |30em seems like a major step back. Is there a reason for it? tedder (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through and disambiguating all of the Lincoln High Schools and doing a little cleanup here and there. To be honest, I had not seen the bottom of the actual article, and I thought that was either an error or vandalism. I have replaced it because you were absolutely right, and thank you for educating me on that. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It's really handy on extra-narrow (or extra-wide) screens. I wish reflist handled it better. Ah well! Thanks for all your hard work. I know what working on school articles can be like. tedder (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by January 14, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

just busy, thanks for checking in

Thanks for the heads-up. Been hugely busy, Japan works teachers like dogs. I am not inclined to debate with a point-pushing IP sockpuppet, but I will give it a look when I get home from work tonight.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic F.C. supporters

I'm sorry to bring this up on your talk page but surely this edit is unnacceptable. Drmies and two other editors have already followed me to this page from here. I don't see why he needs to try and get more people on his side. Adam4267 (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lonely Beacon. I am sorry to bother you but if you could comment here I would be appreciative. Even if you support the proposed topic ban I would like you to comment. Thank you. Adam4267 (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Lee Noffke

Hi LonelyBeacon — I am developing an article on the American artist and metalsmith Gary Lee Noffke. I have information saying that he was elected as one of the Fifty Outstanding Alumni of Fifty Years of Graduate Education by Eastern Illinois University in 2005. I cannot find anything at the university's website or anywhere else to confirm this claim. You appear to be an expert in all things Illinoise. Do you have any idea where I could find the appropriate citation? Do not spend a lot of time on this small matter. Thank you for your help —Foobarnix (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I found the needed citation buried on page 7 of Google results! All good now. —Foobarnix (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Thanks

I appreciate your well-informed comments. That problem has been there for years. Toddst1 (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think the issue isn't over whether class info should be included (it should). The problem is to what detail. MarylandPride was going into too much detail, and while there was a claim that it paralleled the Stuyvesant article, it was going into too much detail. I think there needs to be some consensus as to what level of detail to go into, and then the article is on its way. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. Toddst1 (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation requested, please!

I don't necessarily understand how to request proper mediation, as there is A LOT of technical jargon listed... but I am having an issue with another user in the Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) article. The user "Toddst1" keeps reverting edits that I have made in that article and, while I don't have a problem with someone legitimately reverting edits, I have a problem with users reverting edits I have made when those same edits are found in other Wikipedia articles that have been classified as Featured Articles. Toddst1 keeps deleting the Course Offerings section and a similar section is found in the Stuyvesant High School Wikipedia article. The user Toddst1 then threatened to try and find someone to ban me from making further edits. As anyone can see, I don't make B.S. edits in Wikipedia. I have made A LOT of solid, legitimate edits. And when someone has deleted an edit I have made and it has been legit, I have either thanked them for correcting an erroneous edit I have made or have have just let it be. Can you provide some mediation or point me in the right direction? I appreciate it the help. --Maryland Pride ... a Wikipedia contributor (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If discussion on the Talk Page is getting nowhere, the next step is generally asking for a third party's opinion. After that would come a request for comment. I am going to be frank though: While including, in prose style, mention of classes offered is a good thing, you need to watch the level of detail you are going into. You noted that your edits were similar to the Stuyvesant High School article, but they weren't. Go back and take a look ... the SHS article summarizes their course offerigs in a couple of well written prose paragraphs, which is different than a bulleted list of paragraphs that go into a lot more detail. See if you can follow the SHS pattern more carefully ... then I think you have something! LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by January 14, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

A barnstar for you!

Thanks Husky ... the work you do is too important to have allowed so simple a request to go unanswered for too long. I was able to help, and was happy to help you make improvements. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: Schools

There is currently a long and important thread at User talk:Jimbo Wales #Notability of High Schools. This may finally be the opportunity we are hoping for to get any ambiguities cleared up regarding any perceived interpretations of (non)notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some High School in Maryland...

G'day LonelyBeacon,

Just thought I'd drop you a line... I reassessed Northwestern_High_School_(Hyattsville,_Maryland) to C class on the basis that it is waaay too comprehensive to reasonably list it as Start. I think your (and others') concerns are valid, though, so B seems out of reach for now. I've had a word with User:Maryland_Pride on my talkpage, so hopefully s/he is back on the straight and narrow. Task #1 is fixing that course offerings section, as I'm sure you'll agree. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree with you more. Having just looked back at it for the first time in a while, it seems that things are proceeding nicely, restoring some stability to the article. While there is some strong referencing, there are some things that need to be referenced, but that will no doubt happen in time. If you've had some success in bringing the article back in line, congratulations; a job well done! I hope the article continues on this path. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Patrick

Please stop reverting the notable alumni content. Just because someone isn't on television or a sports star doesn't mean they aren't notable. The Duffy family is a staple in the neighborhood and St. Patrick community and makes many charitable contributions to the school. A successful entrepeneur and philanthropist is pretty notable to me. I'd argue that Mike Duffy is more notable than the 2 NFL players that are currently listed as notable alumni who never played a down in an NFL game and currently don't play anywhere. Thank You.

Since I choose not to enter into an edit war, I choose to walk away from the article. I have removed it from my watchlist. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism

BTW, the edits of 65.43.68.203 (talk · contribs) on St. Patrick, while not within policy, aren't WP:Vandalism and as such aren't exempt from WP:EW/WP:3RR. Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's going to create a problem then. I will walk away from the article, but anyone working at the Schools Project is pretty much in agreement that non-notable people .... not just red linked but people who aren't even remotely notable (as in this case) should be removed immediately. I am not trying to be confrontational, but if people like this are allowed in, then where is the line drawn? LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LonelyBeacon. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI case

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion here regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Adam4267 (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP Schools in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Schools for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "- Article: William E. Harty; marketing exec helped create Keebler elves". HighBeam.com. Retrieved 10 February 2011.
  2. ^ "- Article: More than just a football factory". HighBeam.com. Retrieved 10 February 2011.
  3. ^ "Baxter U.S. History". Baxter.com. Retrieved 10 February 2011.