User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 3

'Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave comments, critiques, etc., below. Unless you specifically request that I answer on your talk page, I'll be answering here, as I prefer to keep as much of the conversation in one place as possible. Thanks! Akradecki 04:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)'

Art articles
Moved comments inadvertently inserted into other sections above to here Akradecki 18:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I very much apprecate your help. Please free to addit out what you think is wrong. Sincerely Yours, Marika Herskovic 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I will try to follow your direction. Sincerely YOurs, Marika Herskovic 18:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have run into major problem. You probably recall that all my writing about "Modernist" IP74.66.233.248 (which I took from his user site) disappeared from your user site. To my knowledge I never had anyone else helping me to adit but you. I did have my name stupidly on the wikipedia. This man had known me, tried to sell his painting to us and visited our home. I was stunned to find my words disappearing. When I checked Modernist user site history it provided the information that he deleted it with the explanation: "violation of privacy". He has been writing articles about himself and reproducing his paintings on wikipedia. It is tough to keep all these as a secret. Intimidation works with some people but it never worked with me. The truth will always emerge. Now I have found that my IP number had been used to make changes on articles. This morning at 6:59AM local time I checked the New York School. My IP number was used 8 times when I was not even awake. I do not know what to do. This is serious now. Please help me if you can.

Sincerely Yours, Marika Herskovic
 * First, please understand that it's not only your IP number. It's the IP number of your internet service provider, so there's bound to be several thousand people who live in your region that share the same IP number. It's like the first 3 digits of your phone number...it's region-specific. I'll go check the histories later...if he's vandalizing the article, then it can be reverted. If it's a content dispute, you should take it to the article's talk page and try to gather community consensus as to what the text should read. Try to not focus on his behavior...that will only cause you stress. Focus on your goal: to document the history of art for the world to understand better. Focus your energies there, don't worry about what he says or screams. You'll feel much better. I'll check back later, right now I've got to go spend some time with my wife! Akradecki 21:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying. Therefore we are changing my identity. I will never use my name again. I am going to use the Anonymizer to protect the IP number. By the way his deletion for "violation of privacy" was my writing to you on your your 9th Street discussion page.

Thank you for your advice. My regards to your wife. You can see my books on Amazon.com. Please provide me an address to send you copies. Sincerely Yours, Marika


 * Hi, I've taken the reference to the identity of Modernist back out, for the same reason you are changing your identity. I want to respect both yours and his identities. Also, if you have issues with each other, please debate those on your userpages, not mine...I want a good working relationship with both of you, and don't want to be caught in the middle of a dispute between you that seems to have its genesis outside of Wikipedia. As for Modernist editing the article on himself, if you think that this is a violation of WP:VANITY, there are appropriate venues for that, starting with the article's talk page. You can also contact an administrator, if you need to. Please be aware, though, that WP policies discourage people from writing about themselves, but in certain cases, it's tolerated, when the subject is noteworthy and the article is written from a neutral point of view. I have to admit I've been tempted to do an article about the book I wrote, because it's received multiple independent positive reviews (the guideline for notability), but to this point I don't feel that it's really appropriate for me to do; that's my judgement call, and maybe Modernist has made a different judgement call - it's not for me to get involved there. Again, everybody, let's not focus on these disagreements, lets focus on providing quality material that educates our readers. Akradecki 14:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi! I have changed my identity but they have not moved my talk page yet. I have the account and I did the "move" but nothing happened.

I find that the real problem of Wikipedia is: luck of genuine peer review. It is hard to spread all over because the requirements are so high in every field. Sometimes ambition is not in harmony with capability. Format does not replace creativity. Loud voice does not substitute for talent. In life being arrogant gets you not very far. At any moment in time we all have to know our place in society in relation to each other. This is a dynamic part of reality testing. We all have to develop the need for each other and some times this discovery comes just too late or never. The ability to differentiate, to discriminate to make a judgement and to be responsible for is the basis of all success. This was an unreal experience for me and for my husband. He is a radiation oncologist. A very stressful profession. I hope that I can forget this incident. Knowing me is not very likely. I will probably wait for a while before continuing this activity. For some reason I cannot be intimidated. Thank you again for all your help. Our offer is still standing about the books. You could see the type of book that we want to publish and you would get a large dose of fine American art of the 1950s. Sincerely Yours, Salmon1 16:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You can do the move of the talk page yourself, I've left instructions on your new talk page. I'll email you my address, and I can send you a copy of my book in exchange. My medium of art is photography, but you might like it anyway. Akradecki 16:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I Received your Email and I thank you again. I do not think that I did any progress in the transfer of the talk Page. I followed your protocol but I do not think that it worked.

Thank you for all your help. Sincerely Yours, Salmon1 19:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Great Transition Initiative
Why are you reverting the links I am adding to this resource? Have you even looked at the site? 

What's your criteria for this action? I am trying to link relevant topics to this information, this should be helpful to all. Why are you removing my work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.81.2 (talk • contribs)


 * First, please post new comments at the bottom of a user page. Second, please sign your comments with four tildas (~). Third, I've stated my reasons in the edit summaries. Much of what you're adding is considered "linkspam". Please consult WP:RS and evaluate your links as sources. Much of what you're adding are not independent, verifiable references but rather POV essays that exist to promote a specific point of view. Wikipedia articles are not a place to promote your particular philosophy or world view. Additionally, some of the links are commercial in nature (ie, amazon.com), which are inappropriate. Akradecki 20:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Example: I added an external link in the Future Studies article to Great Transition Initiative-- a well respected scientific group that has published alternative scenarios of the global future (scenarios which have been picked up in UN assessments and elsewhere). I haven't linked to any Amazon.com, or any other "commercial" enterprises. Nor have I challenged the NPOV of any articles!! Your explanation not only makes no sense, it doesn't seem sincere. Please do not revert my work unless you have good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.81.2 (talk • contribs)


 * Again, please sign your comments. As to your reply, I strongly disagree. The site you have linked to has a clear agenda to present, and it doesn't appear that you are adding it to the article to support a particular statement or quote, but to promote that site's viewpoints in conjunction with the article. And I'm sorry, but a link that is "http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0151005575/103-8948210-4235827?v=glance&n=283155 Damasio: Looking for Spinoza" is clearly commercial. Akradecki 21:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and from the pattern of your edits, it seems that you are sprinkling these references in many different articles, which is typical of someone from an organization who is trying to promote that organizations works and viewpoint, rather than trying to improve a particular article. If you are associated in any way with the Great Transition Initiative, that would make it especially inappropriate. Akradecki 21:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

that link is not something i added -- what has created that confusion? I don't even know Damasio? Seems like you got your wires crossed. Also, if it is not spam then it is not inappropriate -- doesn't matter what organization I am from. The links I've added are under EXTERNAL LINKS -- you are supposed to refer people to valuable resources BEYOND wikipedia, such resources are often not NPOV. The links to the Great Transition Initiative are particularly relevant to the articles they were added to. What is your definition of Spam? Is the problem that I added a whole bunch of links at once? In which case, I should just do it one per day? sorry here's the signature 66.92.81.2 21:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If that link is one that you didn't add, then that's an illustration of why you should not edit from an anon IP...you'll get blamed for others' errors. I put in the diff link to show you that the IP was the same as yours. I'd strongly suggest that you create your own username if you're going to continue to edit. By "spam", I mean what it is commonly used for here: the self promotion of one's website, product or point of view. A typical spamming technique is to visit a number of articles that are semi-related and drop the same references or external links there. And yes, it does matter what organization you're from, because WP has issues with "vantiy" posts. Also at issue is the independence of the links. The GTI website makes it abundantly clear that it is not presenting information from a neutral, independent point of view, but rather from an agenda. That makes it inappropriate. Akradecki 00:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Gaming/Fish Tank Clan post
ok...this is an encyclopedia...so you cant post about gaming but you CAN post about all sorts of random shit and porn and stuff??? That is ridiculous...how about getting your priorities straight? Also, do you just go around and search for pages to have a problem with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saatana (talk • contribs)
 * Um, yes I do, actually. Well pages that have problems, that is. I do both New Page and Recent Change patrolling. See, some of us take building a reliable, academically citable encyclopedia seriously. I've spent hours writing well-referenced articles, and I also spend time helping sort out the entries that don't conform to our standards. You can certainly post about gaming - many people do - just make it encyclopedic. Your participation on the encyclopedia is invited, but at the same time, we ask that you educate yourself about how things need to be done. If you want to make a serious effort to do that, you'll find that I, along with many other editors, will bend over backwards to help and coach. Akradecki 02:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I never said that I didn't take this seriously. Also, give yourself a pat on the back for doing such a good job on writing articles and taking so much time to research them. Isn't the purpose of encyclopedias to teach people and enrich their knowledege base?? Because it was the last time I checked and thus, I posted about gaming and a group of gamers which informs the people about them and therefore, is encyclopedic. Feel free of course to argue if my definitions are wrong or something...not that you really need my permission because I know that you are going to do it anyway. Saatana 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just informing someone doesn't make it encyclopedic. What makes the article encyclopedic isn't necessarily its subject, but how it's written, how sources are cited, etcetera. Again, this isn't the wild, wild internet. Yes, everyone is invited to contribute, but we have a pretty well-thought-out set of policies and guidelines that are in place to ensure that all the articles are reputable. Akradecki 02:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How an article is written has nothing to do with it being encyclopedic. If you disagree then go lookup the definition. Also, its hard to cite sources when there really are none except for your own brain or the website of the people, which I put on the page. Everyone is invited to contribute, but only if they are conformist simple minded bastards? Thanks for helping my page get deleted again.


 * You're most welcome. Akradecki 13:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the heads-up and explanation about the clan page. I really should have checked those deletion logs lol. Good to see that the correct result was achieved, and quickly. Happy editing! Batmanand | Talk 13:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

RMS_Queen_Mary
There still seems to be some argument on the talk page, so I'd rather not unprotect it. You could always use Edit protected (or just reply to me) to have stuff added to the page. -- Steel 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hey, that's extremely kind of you. I really appreciate the words of support, most kind. All the best, Gwernol 23:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, you earned it, as far as I'm concerned! Akradecki 23:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

X-Prize
Hi, I see you you are an expert on topic so respect your decision and removed the entry. --Nevit 08:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi! I don't know if I'm an "expert", I just work a few hangars down from them. I always come to work wondering what wierd stuff they'll have out on the ramp today... Akradecki 14:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mallory Jones
The fact that the article needed cleanup didn't influence my decision to tag it for deletion. I did some short research and found very little about the subject, so I chose to request deletion. Since you've raised objections, I have submitted the article for AFD discussion to generate further consensus. Please feel free to participate if you have more info about the subject to add. Thank you --NMChico24 22:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem...that's the correct forum. FWIW, your google search seemed to use the wrong name. Akradecki 22:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

True v USAA
I see that Carnildo has already appropriately handled the matter. – Chacor 00:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Re : New Art Criticism
Doesn't look like anything to do with notability - As long as it is not original research, as long as it is verifiable, go ahead. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Sanctioned Vandalism by Administrators
Free content....manipulate the masses through suppression of ideas and truth and wisdom, which they as yet have failed to attain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.149.74 (talk • contribs).
 * Ok, I've taken the liberty to "edit" the really long diatribe that was posted here by a now-blocked POV pusher. If you really want to read it, here's the historical record: Akradecki 00:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

MARKSMAN ENTERTAINMENT CORP
Before writing about your own company, you might want to read WP:VANITY. Wikipedia does not exist to provide you a place to promote your company. Akradecki 20:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC) [pasted from User talk:Bigjay10]


 * wow you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjay10 (talk • contribs)

9th Street exhibition
I redirected the second article to the first, and closed the AFD as a Keep. That should wrap up this little mess. Thanks, NawlinWiki 15:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that you aren't me, and you know that I aren't you, and we both have tried to help Maricka to no avail. Truth is she's beyond anybody's help, and I hope she doesn't do any more damage. I've been editing since June, and I don't appreciate her comments. Modernist 18:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Whew...I thought I was developing a split personality there :P ... I guess I'm a bit saddened by this, as Maricka seemed to be learning, and willing to be helped. I thought the articles were definitely improving, and the AfD was a no-brainer. Oh well, such is life, eh? I'm going back to editing the UAV pages.... Akradecki 19:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Akradecki: Please cheer up! I would like to apologize to you. I discovered that Akradecki and Modernist are not the same and I was wrong. There were number of events that were mixing me up: 1. You requested the deletion of the "New Art Criticism" before it could be cleaned up. I was just starting wikipedia. You probably realized that I learn fast and I was able to redo it with full references which made it foolproof. 2. The first statement of Modernist was "art rambling" and it irritated me. I was aware of the fact that you knew the format for wikipedia very well yet you knew your limitations as well. 3. The second comment of  Modernist written to NawlinWiki was very disrespectful: "Her accusations are like her editing -- not accurate." As you know I was the editor of two major books. One of my books earned the title: "Outstanding Academic Title" by CHOICE, Academic Library Magazine, 2003.

I was very impressed about your analytical conclusion: "Whew...I thought I was developing a split personality there..." I had the same thought. I read about it but I have never experienced it in a person until this time. Now we know that you are OK and I was wrong.

I did learn from you editing in wikipedia and there is more to learn but this little episode was educational and yet difficult for me.

Sincerely Yours, Protector 18:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for that...that was very classy of you to apologize! Hope we can work together in the future. Akradecki 18:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Kelly TM
I left a note on their talk page about the non-latin characters username restriction and how to change their username. Hopefully they do so voluntarily. Georgewilliamherbert 17:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

UAV template
Okay, do you prefer User:Salad Days/Sandbox 4 to the current one? Salad Days 05:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a close call, I guess because you do such nice work. I'm personally partial to the red, so I guess Sandbox 4. Akradecki 15:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Block thanks
No problem. Just doing my job...*whistles* =) -- Nish kid 64 18:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

TOCright
Please take a read of Section before using Template:TOCright again. I think you used it recently for simple asthetics, but that alone is not enough. Also, it should be placed after the intro, not at the top of the page. -- Netoholic @ 05:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The guidelines talk about floating only when not floating is detrimental. A little bit of push-down is simple asthetics, not detrimental.  Detrimental is more like when an extremely long list or somesuch is the problem. Leave the default TOC unless there is strong need otherwise. -- Netoholic @ 03:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Mickyt91
Not an issue, it looks like Mickyt is going to get himself permanently blocked soon enough without my help. Thanks, NawlinWiki 16:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Random Hand
Hello, i noticed you put the AFD up on my article, i cant find the info i need and it looks a bit silly having a half completed article, i have saved all the info to a document on my comp for when i can create it and finish it, is there anyway you can get rid of it for now for me? (Neostinker 17:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC))
 * I'm not an admin, but you could try putting a speedy tag on it since you're the author. Details at WP:CSD (IIRC, it's A7). Akradecki 22:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
I do appreciate what you and joe have done. Thanks. Hopefully we all can get back to doing positive work here. Modernist 17:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothanks
A few of these templates require you specify arguments by name, instead of just by sequence. In this case the arguments are pg and url

So, instead of:
 *  Seth Hoosen Kasam Dada‎ 

You need:


 * -- Fan-1967 16:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help with Nothanks...sounds wierd, but, yeah! Akradecki 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A. Radecki: I need a hand!
Saw your invitation to write you, and your list of contributions. If I may be bold, would you give advice to a newcomer? I have an interest in making controbutions, especially to art, art history and art criticism. I have 2 problems. First, my encounter with talk pages regarding these and other subjects has been unsettling. It's the talk radio or cable phenomenon: the less people know, the louder they shout what they don't know. This is frustrating for those who do know and want to share. (Will a Wiki encyclopedia survive? I mean as a true collection of verifiably accurate submissions?) Second, I've been using my real name because the Wiki people have emphasized their policy of protection. At the same time, I see all these incidents arising, with which I believe you are familiar. Looking for your input. I know you don't know me from a dry tooth socket, but maybe you'll have the impulse to give me a hand. Thanks. Julie M. (find me at ) Julie Martello 15:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie Martello (talk • contribs)

AKR: Got your message. You are very kind. Hope to talk with you soon. P.S. I'll delete my email address...so copy it down or get me at my user page. Thanks!! JLM Julie Martello 15:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Alan: A Big Thanks from Julie!
Hi Alan: Thank you SO much for your response.

First, I'd like to tell you that I am dead serious about making the best contributions I am able to Wikipedia. I know for sure it gets read, & while I'd love to be published a little bit more by print journals and (maybe) get out a book of my own, it's cool to know people are reading what you wrote. I think if more people felt like this there would be more interesting things to read, and less bickering, and the project wouldn't devolve into a mudslinging match.

You're so right about computer work being electrons on a screen and all that. But as I say, I'd like to see a time where the editing process for wiki becomes good enough that people trust the info they read, and rely on things like Wikipedia for info that's been verified. There's something creepy about the turn of many articles on its pages; you know, venturing into trivia, an article becoming more and more self-absorbed, the incapacity to separate the wheat from the chaff that is central to a printed project. But the On-line encyclopedia is so alive! Thats why I love it.

I've decided, thanks to you, that if my on-line work is any good I should be proud to attach my real name to it. If anything bounces to print work, I'll be able to point to stuff I've done on line as a touchstone.

I'll do as you suggest and keep a level head and stiff upper lip! Watch for my work in art history and art criticism for starters! Please be the first to critique my stuff. Again, Alan, thank you so much for your help. Keep in touch! Julie Martello 22:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Random Hand
Thanks for putting this article up for deletion, i created it but i could not find sufficient information for it, i tried to get another administrator to remove it until i have all the information i need to start again but they didnt reply. Thanks :-) (Neostinker 21:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

Message
Did you get my message to you? --HappyCamper 15:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi HC, sorry I didn't write back...how rude of me!. Yes, I did get your message and it was certainly an eye-opener. In the end, he seems to have deflected the subject by suggesting splitting off the UAV models to a seperate list, which actually made sense, and now has been done. I still believe he was wrong, but at the same time, I see no need to pursue the matter at the moment...he's left the TOC alone on the History page, and he never did respond to my request for an actual quote to the policy he supposedly was refering to. I think this now falls into the category of "let sleeping dogs lie." Akradecki 16:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109
The link you re-instated was to a slab of source material. I have created an external link to the same stuff on the navy.mil site. If anyone copies it to Wikisource then a link to that can be substituted. -- RHaworth 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry. I was new-page patrolling and saw this one created, so thought a link might be helpful...I will now withdraw my nose from where it don't belong... :P Akradecki 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

David Gorcey
It appears that you were a bit hasty in deleting this article by User:Dgorcey. The article couldn't have been written by the subject, as the subject is dead! A quick google confirms that this was a real actor, with appearances in 84 films! Rawr 19:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're entirely correct. I've already posted an apology to your user page. Akradecki 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Certificated vs certified
It is a word, by was not the right one. Instructors are certified, aircraft are certificated. Akradecki 20:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, well it shouldn't be a word! :)  Never heard it in my life but I'll defer to more knowledgable folks... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It comes from the fact that all aircraft have a "Type Certificate", meaning that the FAA has determined that the aircraft type meets all the requirements. When an aircraft type goes though all the testing and reaches that point, it is considered "certificated". It's one of the industry-specific terms, I guess :P Akradecki 22:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Superpower
Hi, you it read article BRIC? João Felipe C.S 21:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but add your material to the Brazil page, don't create a redundant, non-encyclopedic entry. Akradecki 22:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

School
I think you may recreate an article, but please make sure that inappropriate content is not included and that the article stays on encyclopedic topics... We really have a bad problem with school articles, they often get vandalized with things infringing on the reputation or private life of administrators, teachers and students. David.Monniaux 23:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alan! I've added some information to your sandbox, and will add some more over the weekend. I can give a link to sources to back up the new media project I mentioned, involving The Feeling. Thanks for putting in all this effort, it's much appreciated! Tom H 23:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Tom, my pleasure. Looking forward to the additions, and yes, any media on the new project would be helpful! I can't remember...are you involved with the school? Akradecki 23:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am, yes. I'm at the Lakeview sixth-form centre, and am/have been involved in many of the projects at the school. Tom H 23:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Any idea what the admin who deleted the article was refering to about the Foundation receiving a complaint? I'd think that if this really were the case, it'd be an official request by the school. I just want to make sure that by resurrecting the article, we won't make someone in the admin there mad. Akradecki 00:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think all we need is that ref and it's essentially ready to go. I'll ask for a review so we can be ready. Akradecki 00:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know there were no complaints from the school... As long as vandalism on the article is kept down, the article (as well as being encylcopedic of course!) says some very positive things about the school that they couldn't really complain about. I could check the article with the admin there if it turns out the complaint was from them. What about semi-protecting the page to cut down on vandalism? Tom H 01:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Foundation received a complaint from the principal of Chilwell school, on September 21, 2006. The article then contained unsourced claims such as:
 * In recent years the school has had significant building work on its grounds. The school was originally built to be used for a maximum of 30 years (therefore low-cost building materials were used, such as low density plastics in the interior walls - so the school could be destroyed completely from a fire). Chilwell School is currently 6 years over that deadline, and experiences several leaking problems, and low classroom temperatures during winter, due to poor insulation (single-glazed plastic windows, gaps between doors, etc). It is also looking very stressed from an exterior view. 

While this may be true, surely such criticism, potentially damaging to the school, should be obtained from a prominent source.

As for the notable student projects, you should be able to find citations from the media (with date etc.) about them if they are notable. David.Monniaux 12:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at the references... there are citations of newspaper ("media") articles that include the date etc... surely this fulfils your criteria? Also, the new article does not contain criticism like it did before, and now includes nothing negative about the school, merely verifiable claims, facts and figures that, it must be said, portray the school in a positive light. Tom H 12:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

David, thanks for that insight. You are entirely correct that such an unsourced statment did not belong in the article. I should have seen that back then. When I got involved with the article, it had the appearance of being written by one of the Chilwell students, which is probably the source of that statement. I know that, at times, the WP has made efforts to encourage the participation of high school students, but this would have been a case for teaching them the importance of sourcing! Thanks for the help. Akradecki 16:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Tom, feel free to check with the principal, but, I also want to maintain the integrity of independence of the encyclopedia...I don't want to have any appearances of conflict of interest. That being said, I think the article is nicely neutral and informative. Get that ref for the video project, and we'll be ready to go! In many ways (size, specialites, etc), your school is quite similar to the one my 10th grade daughter goes to. Heck, I'm actually quite impressed with your school...if I wasn't out here in the wastes of the Mojave desert, I'd apply for a teaching position there! 16:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for fixing the vandalism on my talk page. I can't imagine what that was all about. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just assume that you're doing something right! Akradecki 20:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)