User talk:Kirchner18

 Hello ! Thank you for your contributions.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject&mdash;we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Lyneham High School
People should have a Wikipedia page in order to be on lists. There are exceptions, but the cited link is not sufficient. See Notability and wp:listpeople wp:wtaf Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss notability of Lieutenant John Wheeler
Please consider discussing your reasons why you believe that Lieutenant John Wheeler is notable enough for inclusion in talk:Lyneham High School. Jim1138 (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Lyneham High School. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

REPLY: The so called "editing war" was all being waged at your end, so perhaps threatening to block yourselve(s) as well would have been a more appropriate and less antagonistic apparoach under the circumstances.

I was re-edited my contribution on the misapprehension it was not loading successfully, not realising it was being deliberately deleted so swiftly - and so counter-intuitively as it were. That is to say, I was editing the "Notable people" section on the basis of the commonly understood dictionary definition of the term, rather than what it appears Wikipedia guidelines mean, which is more along the lines of "famous/infamous". Lt John Wheeler is certainly neither famous nor infamous, but he is particularly notable amongst Lyneham High School alumni as he was the only ex-pupil who lost his life in the horrendous and socially significant Vietnam War. Indeed, thankfully he is the only ex-pupil of LHS to have done so in any war as far as I know. There is a bronze plaque in the foyer of the Lyneham High School to remind pupils, staff and visitors of Lt Wheeler's sacrifice, as well as a street named after him in an Australian state capital, ergo he is quite literally notable alumni- in the real world at least!

http://www.memorial.act.gov.au/person.php?action=detail-image&id=3356&image=1

It really appears quite nonsensical a professional soldier and officer honoured by his country to lead a platoon of troops into action can lose his life doing so, yet not be "notable" by Wikipedia's definition, whereas a professional junior athlete who served her country at the Olympics regrettably without placing anywhere is notable. The majority of reasonably minded folk would consider them as both notable alumni at the very least, worthy of any mention on a page pointing to their school's mentionable alumni. Any other evaluation creates a danger it could be construed as political-influenced opinion, or a shallow Gen Y preoccupation with celebrity. One would presume those concerned with the direction of Wikipedia would be above such narrow and short-sighted deviations. At the end of the day policing Wikipedia to the extent of censoring common sense contributions does nothing to address this site's own notoriety as an unreliable source of information. It also puts off those informed from contributing.

Talk:Lyneham High School
Just to let you know, it is completely inappropriate to edit comments on an article talk page. I have restored them. If you want to edit your own comments, I guess you can do that, but it is still ill-advised. As far as others' comments go, leave them alone in the future please. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

OK Gtwfan52, just to let you know in return, in the absence of Wikipedia showing the logic of providing a 'Reply' tab, it is completely inappropriate for you to suggest I edited someone else's typing - and if I have an edit tab to even conceivably do this to someone else's message, then why on earth would Wikipedia enable such an obviously problematical tab to another party instead of a 'Reply' tab???

If I wish to edit my own comments naturally I should be able to do that. After all, Wikipedia have provided an edit tab on my computer screen for at least one good reason, wouldn't you think? I mean, posters should be able to at least correct their own grammar and spelling errors, right?? It is a practical norm on any reader-friendly website after all, isn't it???

But if it is genuinely "ill-advised" to edit in your opinion, then I'm sorry but that is even more absurd than the farcical and frankly ill-mannered comments above, not to mention the counter intuitive rule that kicked this whole incident off to begin with.

All the more so when that same nonsensical rule of 'a person cannot be mentioned on a Wikipedia page if they don't have their own Wikipedia page' is not being universally policed. Just take a look at this page for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCnzelsau

As at date of this posting, 9 people out of 15 listed under "Notable People" with no Wikipedia page of their own whatsoever - and this is not a recent listing if you care to look, it goes back years.

Laziness, incompetence or an absence of a uniform and sound rationale?

This is by no means an isolated instance and illustrates perfectly why Wikipedia has such a poor reputation for quality control - and why people roll their eyes when Wikipedia is quoted as a source. You guys were so ridiculously swift to jump so heavily on the editing of a high school page, when the object of the edit was simply to help apolitically INFORM others just a little about the school's historical connection to the tragedy that was the Vietnam War. What could be more well meaning and harmless than an edit like that?

This whole incident goes to the very heart of the integrity of Wikipedia - for Wikipedia staff to deliberately render an otherwise historically deficient Wikipedia page less informative because of a nonsensical and non-uniformly policed rule and, in the process, attack and repeatedly misrepresent an editor for using the very edit tool Wikipedia provided to them.

Like I said before, all it does is put well meaning people off - if Wikipedia is serious about appealing to well meaning people to donate cash, then make it something well meaning and worth donating to.