User talk:BaronLarf/School archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Grey Court School[edit]

I have changed your cat from Schools in Surrey to Schools in London because strictly speaking Grey Court School is in Greater London and not within the boundaries of the county of Surrey. I hope that's OK. Cheers. --Etimbo | Talk 12:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's fine. I was just attempting to move it out of the "schools" or "education" category where I found it and into a subcategory. Sorry if I picked the wrong one. Cheers.--BaronLarf 12:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion[edit]

As of March 4, 2005, the following (7) articles are currently listed for deletion under the POV suggestion that schools are not notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy. Whether you agree or disagree, please be aware that the following schools are actively being voted on:

Thank you for your time. --GRider\talk

More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion[edit]

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome, and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\talk

Schoolwatch[edit]

Thank you for your ongoing assistance with the Coppell High School article. If you come across other articles which you believe should be added to Schoolwatch, please be my guest and make any changes you see fit. --GRider\talk 21:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments[edit]

On the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Oak Hills High School you subtelly changed a comment user:Chriscf had posted with his vote [1], as an experienced Wikipedian you should know this is completely unnaceptable. If you think that he meant something different to what he put, you should have posted a comment below him, and/or alerted him on his user talk page. He can then chose to correct it if it was actaully a mistake. I have reverted your change but retained your comment. Thryduulf 23:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to change Chris's vote; when clicking on the signature button to place the signature code (--~~~~), it accidentally was put randomly in the middle of the article. I must have left one of the "-"s behind.
Thank you for catching it and changing it; please do not automatically assume that I had malicious intentions.
Cheers.--BaronLarf 01:28, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Schoolwatch (again)[edit]

To avoid being associated with a user that has now been banned from any kind of activity in the area, as well as POV-pushing, I would advise that you unwatch and unlink User:GRider/Schoolwatch, and instead consider making use of the somewhat less provocative and more open alternative, Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch, which looks to be coming on nicely as a community project where views on neither side are suppressed. I hope the wider Wikipedia:Watch turns into a useful, NPOV, resource. Chris talk back 18:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In regards to GRider's User:GRider/Schoolwatch page, I have been warily watching his arbitration case. I have no association with him other than a common school-inclusionist viewpoint. Now that the case has been decided against him and he promptly broke the rules of his arbitration, I think that it's rather pointless to continue using his userspace, since he won't be able to edit any page having to do with deletion for a year. I like the new Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch; all it began as was a copy of listings from GRider's page. I've been keeping both up to date, but I agree that it won't do me any good to edit a page in a banned user's space. Thank you for your comments. --BaronLarf 19:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree, Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch isn't really about school inclusionism. GRider's page is. By the time the arbitrarion proceding got moving, Grider had stopped his objectionable behavior. The whole thing is an excerise of peevishness on the part of people who don't like GRider. Klonimus 04:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • While I do have some misgivings about the severity of the punishment imposed, it does appear that he broke the rules and continues to not show respect for the system. I think it makes the school-inclusionist movement, if you will, look bad if we are organized around a page on his user space. If you wish to keep updating his page, go for it. I'm picking my battles, and I've decided not to go on fighting this one. --BaronLarf 12:30, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi there! Happy to hear that, and I'm sure we can continue to respect one another as Pedians despite having different opinions. Down with factionalism :) ! Radiant_* 12:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Schools by century[edit]

Hi BaronLarf! Recently I've taken to categorizing schools by the century they were established, i.e. "[[Category:Schools established in the 1800s]]". Would you agree that this might be helpful to a potential researcher? Also, the category name as it stands is a bit wordy, do you have any suggestions for something less verbose? Cheers --GRider\talk 23:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey GRider, welcome back. Yeah, I noticed the new categories. I can't say that I have a huge amount of enthusiasm for it; the vast majority of schools are going to be in the 1900s category, and the categorization doesn't, in my opinion, add some new dimension to the school categorized. I don't know of any other institution categorized this way, and institutions founded in one century versus another aren't that different. It's not the same as categorizing works of art, music or literature by century, where when they were created really makes a difference in their make-up, in my opinion.
I think that what really needs to be done is a revitalization of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools, where you, I and other school-inclusionists could discuss what we need to do to make school articles better.
What is your reasoning behind the new categories? Maybe if I understood them better I could support them more. Thanks for the message. --BaronLarf 00:29, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
This effort was initiated as a form of cross-categorization, not "pointless sub-categorization" as someone recently put it. My reasoning is that this could be very useful to a researcher looking for schools which began in any given century. Given that the vast majority of school articles are bound to be created in the 1900s, it may be best to sort those out by decade rather than century, but it is an interesting way to look at schools much like how we have songs and movie titles by year on Wikipedia. Can you think of any additional potential benefit this may provide to a researcher? --GRider\talk 16:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As for WikiProject Schools, yes, I do agree that this project needs revitalization and I offer you my assistance in any way possible. --GRider\talk 16:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Attempt at compromise on schools[edit]

Hi there! You asked this on a school deletion discussion, "With no consensus, isn't the deletion policy default to declare "no consensus" and keep the articles? --BaronLarf 15:06, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)". You are of course correct, articles are kept unless there is a clear consensus otherwise. But given the spirit of Wikipedia, it is preferable if a consensus can be formed - otherwise people will just keep repeating themselves :).

That said, there has been some fragmented talk on getting a compromise. One suggestion is to keep articles on schools that have a lot to be said about them, and to keep-but-merge information on schools that don't indicate much of interest about the school. I would like your opinion on this. Of course this still needs to be worked out, but BEEFSTEW seems like a good starting place for drawing the line. Yours, Radiant_* 07:37, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Radiant!— Thanks for the message. I have come to the belief that all secondary schools (including high schools) are inherently notable. Elementary and middle schools should be merged into an article on the school district. I respectfully disagree with the BEEFSTEW system. Having said that, I believe that articles on Wikipedia should be of the highest possible calibre, so I do try to improve secondary school articles as much as possible, and watch over the ones I have edited to guard against POV additions and vandalism, to which high schools seem especially vulnerable. Cheers --BaronLarf 11:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm glad to hear you're improving them; I'd be a lot happier with a good article on schools (or indeed anything) than with a stub. Still, how would you feel about merging school stubs, and have them broken out to their own article if and when somebody comes along to provide more information to elevate it above stub-status? Radiant_* 12:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
I personally would rather expand the stubs now rather than merge them and break them apart later. In the interest of compromise, however, I could agree to merging of school stubs into school district articles, provided that no information was deleted. I would then propose the following timeline for the creation of new high school articles:
  • Mention the school districts in the municipality on the municipality's article
  • Create an article on the school district
  • If enough information is included, break out articles on the high schools to their own pages. These articles should have a good amount of verifiable information, with a format agreed upon at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. They would not, however, have to pass any notability test in order to be broken out.
The issue of non-government funded schools (private schools in the United States) would still need to be discussed. Primary schools should remain merged with articles on school districts. How does this sound to you? Cheers. --BaronLarf 20:43, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm away for a couple of days, I'll talk to you afterwards. Yours, Radiant_* 23:08, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Have a good wiki-vacation. --BaronLarf 01:56, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Keep all school articles[edit]

BaronLeaf, i applaud your efforts on keeping school articles in wiki. I also like the idea you have, by the way, for merging elementary schools and junior highs in with school district articles as a fair enough compromise for those who complain that wiki is too cluttered (which is not an issue in deciding whether to delete or keep according to wiki guidelines anyway). my argument for keeping schools is straightforward enough (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Crescent School for a more thorough version) - thousands of alumni exist for any one school, they and hundreds interested in education or the community a school is located in are all potential wiki users. that s too many potential users to needlessly not provide info for by not providing the articles. given that there is not strong argument for deleting and one for keeping, i m at a loss really why those opposed to school articles persist. Best regards, Mayumashu 17:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! I haven't lost interest, and would be happy to make some kind of compromise on schools. Radiant_* 14:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Mayumashu — sorry for the delay in replying. I somehow didn't see your message when you left it a few weeks ago, and just noticed it now. Thanks for your input, and I would welcome anyone and everyone who wants to help forge some sort of compromise. I think everyone involved wants to have quality articles on Wikipedia; the question seems to be how to go about it.
Radiant — thanks for your reply. What response do you have to my proposal? Thanks much. --BaronLarf 16:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Scratch that; I just discovered Wikipedia:Schools. --BaronLarf 01:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah good, I was just about to point you there. Radiant_* 08:43, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Vote request[edit]

Please cast your vote at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_principles_poll#Straw poll: This set of polls is premature and will only be divisive. Thanks, Radiant_* 11:17, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

List of high schools in Illinois[edit]

I agree that the list of high schools does not go on the state page. In order to avoid having people just start a new list on the same page, I think it would be a good idea to have a new page for "List of high schools in Illinois" like there already is for Pennsylvania and New Jersey. With a name like that, anyone going to the page would know exactly what they are getting - nothing more, nothing less. A link on the Illinois page would let people know they should go elsewhere to list their schools. What do you think?

Personally I think that a list of high schools is useful unless it is a complete list of every high school in the state (which I don't see happening any time soon). But a seperate article is much better than a listing in the article on the state. --BaronLarf 14:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Caulfield Grammar FAC[edit]

As a user who loves their schools, I wanted to let you know about this current school FAC nomination. Please have a look and a vote. Thanks. Harro5 03:26, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think that there's a ways to go before this or any school gets to be a FAC. While I don't think that secondary schools need to be notable to have an article, some notability will probably be required to convince people of FAC status. But the article really does look great. --BaronLarf 14:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

School discussion[edit]

Hi there! I've summarized the lengthy Wikipedia:Schools discussion and listed the statements that got approval from most people. I believe it's been a constructive page, and WikiProject Schools has benefitted from the revitalization. Anyway please take a look at it and write on the talk page if you found this acceptable. Also I'd appreciate some help in keeping any future VfD discussions on this matter from getting out of hand (I'm not entirely sure how, but we could set a good example by casting concise votes referring to /Arguments). Yours, Radiant_* 11:00, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to keep VfD's out of hand; I think the best way is to just not have them for verifiable schools. But I like the compromise. --BaronLarf 15:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Richard Montgomery High School[edit]

I think it should be okay to remove the sort of obvious vanity/nonsense which various anons have been adding to the article. If, on the other hand, they're adding anything that might be construed as valuable information, and you think it's not notable or too much detail or whatever, be careful about reverting repeatedly. No, I don't think you've broken the 3RR, but I tend to be more lenient on such cases than other admins might. — Dan | Talk 00:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the WP:3RR seems to be pretty clear that it doesn't apply to reversion of simple vandalism, but I just wanted to make sure my interpretation was sound. Thanks much. --BaronLarf 00:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

GRider as sock[edit]

Thryduulf responded to your query about the GRider sock comment on my user talk page. Actually I didn't know the details, but knew that David Gerard considered that account to be a sock and that he had investigated and apparently determined, using his new psychic super-arbcom powers, who was running it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From Tony Sidaway's talk page

I noticed that you refered to GRider as a sockpuppet on an edit summary for the WikiProject Schools page. Out of curiosity, who is he a sockpuppet of? I've run into him several times, and would be curious to know. Cheers. --BaronLarf 20:45, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard ran a check and has posted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Developer help needed that GRider was being used as a role account (along with several other accounts) by the sockpuppeteer and that he has suspicians (sp?) of who this is. To my knowledge though he hasn't posted anywhere public who he suspects. See [2] and [3] (see the last added paragraph). Thryduulf 21:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the info--BaronLarf 00:08, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Princeton High School[edit]

I started what I thought of as a stub of an article (probably not correctly noted as such at first, but I'm a rookie) over at Princeton High School that has since been marked as VfD and then redirected to Princeton High School, Sharonville, Ohio. Over the past couple of weeks, I wholesaley (sp?) rewrote the article and yesterday posted the much improved version. The page is still marked for deletion, and I noticed that you'd voted to keep and expand the entry. I'm curious to know what else you would like to see added to the article in terms of expanding it. --phschemguy 10:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

There's been a big debate over whether or not your average, everyday high school should be allowed an article on Wikipedia. I, and others, believe that they should (with a few cavaets). Others believe that there should be a requirement of "notability" about the school before letting it stay. Sad to say, your article is just one of scores that have been nominated for deletion and battled over. For a glimpse at some of the debate, see Wikipedia:Schools (proposed compromise), Wikipedia talk:Schools (discussion on compromise), Wikipedia:Schools/Archive (previous discussion that led to attempt at compromise), Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools (project page for schools), Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch (a nonpartisan page which lists schools up for deletion), Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Votes for deletion archive (history of attempts at deletion over the past few months).
How do you prevent your school from being deleted, and how do you make it better? Follow the format given at WP:PJSCH, stay away from something that might be called a Vanity page, and write things that make your school unique and, possibly (hold nose) "notable." --BaronLarf 11:21, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology[edit]

I noticed we were editing this page simultaneously this morning, and I'd like to get your thoughts how the article should be improved. (Initially, I should mention I am relieved that you pulled the trigger and removed a lot of the extraneous cruft (name of student computer administrators etc.)—since I hesitated for fear of being "the bad guy," despite the fact that it clearly junked up an otherwise serviceable article.)

I attempted to consolidate some of the extracurricular activities (e.g. the Shakespeare Troupe and TJ Theatre sentences), but I'm dissatisfied how the resulting article appears as a collection of one-liners without much substance. Any suggestions, or should the whole thing be excised—perhaps in favor of a single paragraph describing such matters in summary only?

Thanks. --Ryanaxp 05:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

User:AAAAA[edit]

Hi there! If people such as this bother you and keep adding irrelevant detail, you should probably discuss it with them (preferably with a third opinion as well). Most people are reasonable about that and will understand what is and is not encyclopedic. Those few that don't could end up blocked - adding irrelevant or nonsensical material after being repeatedly told not to is a form of vandalism. Not that I mean that you should use that as a threat, but I just meant that there's a way of dealing with them if they really don't listen. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about, but I assume that you're referring to Dr. Michael M. Krop High School. I had indeed brought up the subject at Talk:Dr. Michael M. Krop High School in an attempt at discussion, but I was going through a bit of high-school burnout last week, so I really didn't want to have a long debate about why the top 10 students for each year should be listed, etc. Instead of it turning into a revert war, I mentioned my concerns on the article's talk page and then posted my concerns on WP:PJSCH where I hoped others could help me and give other opinions. (I believe that this is where you probably saw my posting.) If you check out User talk:AAAAA, you will notice that many other people had posted their objections to his level of detail going all the way back to September of 2004; my objections had been noted their by others and ignored. I welcome your contributions to help solve this, if you'd like to get involved, but I've see this sort of problem on a regular basis with high school articles; this user just is more persistent in pushing his opinion that anything and everybody at his school is notable. Cheers. --BaronLarf 12:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)