User talk:Miss Mondegreen/Archive 2

Editing of other user's comments on talk pages
Hi. Please stop warning users for making minor gramatical edits to other user's comments (such as capitalisation of the word "I"). This often annoys users, and does not help to ackowledge their good faith edits. Even Jimbo Wales edits people's comments for gramatical reasons now and again. Example. Many thanks, --Rebroad 09:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your uw-vandalism3 warning to a new user
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. --Rebroad 11:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 

Refs (replies and ANI reports)
ref: Miss Mondegreen's reply at Rebroad's talk page "Leave me alone" ref: Miss Mondegreen's report at ANI "Rebroad: wikistalking etc" ref: Rebroad's report at ANI "User insisting on giving level 3 user warnings for first time warnings"


 * User:Newyorkbrad asked Rebroad to leave me alone and not comment for my edits and for me to do the same. As such, I did not reply to some questions Rebroad had asked--I noticed them at the same time I got the message from Newyorkbrad.  Rebroad and I both left the multiple discussions about the issues at hand and have returned to editing once more.
 * Almost all of the editors who weighed in at the User insisting on giving level 3 user warnings for first time warnings discussion at ANI agreed with my decision--some thought I was too lenient. As such, the IP vandal in question, 81.65.181.36 has a talk page strewn with assorted vandalism warnings including a blatant vandal warning, although ironically, no edits have come from this IP since the day before I warned it.
 * ref: User_talk:81.65.181.36 Miss Mondegreen | Talk  11:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy on Devon Taylor
ref: My comment on One Night in Hackney's talk page It's not a speedy, it's a prod, which gives people wishing to retain the page a minimum of 5 days after the tag is added to improve the page.  One Night In Hackney 303 08:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, sorry, you're right. I don't think that really changes my opinion however.  Proposed policy shouldn't really be cited as a reason that something should be removed or moved or anythinged--I think it can be used it discussion, but you wouldn't cite an essay for example as a reason to do something--until ATT is policy, until it has consensus it isn't citable, and especially for things like this, I don't see the necessity of citing ATT over V.
 * I do like prods over speedies--thanks for calling my attention to that, I just don't think we should be citing non-policy. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   09:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I hadn't checked WP:A recently. Last time I checked it didn't have the proposed template on it, it had basically superceded WP:V. The point does remain broadly the same though, lack of verifiability.  One Night In Hackney 303 09:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yah--WP:A lost policy after the poll, and a lot of pages have had to be changed--that's how I came accross the Devon Taylor article. Or I might have come across it when changing WP:A to WP:ANN for all of the announcement links that never changed.  Anyway--I wasn't sure if you knew or not but either way, I didn't want to change what you were citing for you.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   09:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What is your interpretations of WP:V?
ref: Recent edits on Template:Synthesis  I don't understand, what is your interpretation of this sentence:
 * "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

Clearly, we can't say "that has not been verified in reliable source", that would be very contrary to policy: the source is not doing the verification, the idea is that we just check that the material is in the source. I'm curious about your interpretation of that sentence. --Merzul 07:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Now the issue that's been going back and forth has been what word to use where the word published is used now, and what policy to link to then, right? Now look at the wording closely--"has not been published" the antecedent is "unpublished synthesis"--so changing the language there to "is not verifiable by" doesn't change policy.  Unpublished synthesis is what isn't verifiable, or isn't attributable, or isn't published--but the language is such that this doesn't come accross clearly.  Whichever word is used, this is incredibly confusing, so I'm going to work on a new wording now.
 * And since the issue at hand is content that is not verifiable as well content that is not sourced, policy relating to this should most certainly be sourced. WP:V covers both of these issues, and is the only document that is current policy and it's stable.  WP:ATT isn't currently policy, is undergoing immense change and is based on WP:V anyway.  WP:RS is a guideline, undergoing some amount of change and based on a large portion of WP:V.
 * On another note, I'm confused by the "entire article no doubt" in the documentation. Miss Mondegreen | Talk  07:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just redid the template again. I used your old wording which I think is much less confusing with antecedents.  I used WP:V, but not at the expense of the wording of the template.  Let me know what you think. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict at Template:Synthesis
Ack! Revision at 23:34 and at 23:59--I wonder why it didn't tell me the page had been changed already?

serves to advance a position In re your change: I think that "serves to advance a position" is much harsher language and it's more specific language. This narrows the template usage--it's possible to have synthesis without advancing a position and this template should cover all synthesis. If a particular position is being advanced by synthesis, a template can be added as well, so I don't see the necessity of either making the language harsher, or splitting this into multiple more specific templates.

NPOV wording? I'm confused as to what in mean in terms of NPOV wording in re the actual template language. If you're referring to what document is linked to--WP:ATT can't currently be linked to as it is proposed policy, not policy, and while RS can be linked to, WP:V covers the issue of inclusion standards as well as sourcing the material that meets those standards. In addition, it's policy while WP:RS is a guideline and it's WP:V is less prone to changes.

If that's not what you're referring to, then ignore that explanation and please let me know what language you think is POV. Miss Mondegreen | Talk  10:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was very unclear, I apologize, what I meant with NPOV wording is that there are two ways to distinguish improper synthesis from good "source-based" research:
 * Based on NPOV -- something is an improper synthesis when it "serves to advances a position".
 * Based on V -- something is an improper synthesis when the general thesis is no longer attributable to the sources.
 * It is currently unclear which is preferable. My own position was essentially what you have argued here, but see this discussion, where Metamagician argues that "serves to advance" a position is a better way to express this. Anyway, I don't know why I made so much fuss over this, the problem as I saw it was that we can't say "verified in" because that misrepresents the verification process described in WP:V. Saying "verified in" would imply that information must be verified by the source, which is not what is demanded by WP:V. But in the end, this isn't so important, and I'm sorry for being so jumpy. --Merzul 19:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ooooh--That is confusing. It never occured to me that you could be using NPOV to refer to the actual NPOV policy language.  I don't think I've ever actually seen NPOV in an edit summary referring to a difference in policies and not saying "this wording is impartial and the previous wording wasn't"
 * I haven't kept up with all of the various debates at ATT (who has?)--that's one that I missed and one where I personally really don't like the stronger language. The stronger language sounds harsher, but IMO ends up providing weaker policy as it doesn't count not serving to advance as synthesis, when it technically is, and needs to be called so.  It's always possible to elaborate--or in the case of the template, make a second template.
 * I'm not sure it ever actually did misrepresent WP:V--but it sure got confusing at some points. Anyway, I like the current language.  It's clean, it's clear, it's easy to understand, and it's most definitely supported by policy.
 * I don't think you were jumpy--the whole thing got more than a little confusing at times, especially with all of the edit conflicts. I really enjoyed working on the template.  It's one of the dozens I'd come to switching ATT pages back to V pages, and it's one of the few I stayed at and will keep on my watchlist in the future.  I might even get myself a userbox "This user fights synthesis with templates!"  Or not.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   23:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was confusing... And :) regarding the userbox, fighting to get rid of synthesis is an uphill battle, because such sections are generally well-referenced, so I really wish you good luck in that effort. --Merzul 07:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No kidding. Though tagging with specificity is helpful, definitely an uphill battle.  I think the problem is twofold--lots of things aren't sourced, so when people want a source for something where points a and c are sourced but b isn't, people don't see SYN, they see someone being an insane stickler.  The other problem is that people think that SYN is ok, becuase they don't see the difference between SYN and OR and synthesis and original research--which are necessary to write an encyclopedia article.  (I.E. the difference between the wiki policies and the English language).  And of course, if SYN includes POV pushing, then there's a whole other side as well.
 * *shrugs* Well I'll fight anyway--but probably without a userbox. I really like the idea of userboxes but the actuality is somehow never quite the same (course tell that to the hours I lose every time I do my userpage!) Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Uploading
Moved from a sub-userpage of mine.

I've never been great with image uploading legaleeze and since I haven't been following the new "yes/no" fair use stuff I thought I'd ask before uploading a few things.


 * Photos from the Los Angeles Public Library's Online Database from 1925 are public domain by now right?
 * Images of a school logo are fair use.
 * A photo of the front of a school would be fair use, but if I put it up, it would be taken down in a flash as easily reproducible, right?

Thanks Miss Mondegreen | Talk  12:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See this website. Images of a school logo, which has been created by the school has the copyright of the school and is not fair use.  If you are getting pictures from the LA Public library, the source must have fair use for republication.  Real96  15:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the case though--I'm talking about mascot images which I've never been able to find a copyright for. The school in question not only has had to mascots, but in the past had two "identities" per year, per class, and each class had a logo similar to a mascot logo that they used throughout their highschool careers.  Out of all of these logos--the old class logos, the old mascot logo, only the current one is on their website now, which says all material is copyrighted to them, but I know that that copyright symbol has been tacked on improperly as one of their pages was taken from Wikipedia.  I know most school article include the mascot symbol, how?  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   21:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gabrielino Tongva dancers at Kuruvunga Springs.jpg
I have contacted Ms. Berhns, and I hope for a reply soon. I'll notify you once I get one. :) Bl a st  [ improve me ] 21.04.07 2356 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You'll notice however that the website hasn't been updated since before October 2006.  You can see this, and another image I uploaded under similar circumstances (except that I'm already waiting for a reply in that instance) at the article University High School (Los Angeles).  If you'd be willing, would you weigh in on the discussion above? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nvm--I found Logos Miss Mondegreen | Talk  00:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:University_High_(LA)_Warriors_Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:University_High_(LA)_Warriors_Logo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note from Miss Mondegreen:
 * Taken care of. Forgot to  . Miss Mondegreen | Talk   09:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference
Thanks for all your work on the Uni article. :) If you'd like a ref for my own name, btw, this is probably the best:  --Elonka 00:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * * gasps in shock and horror* Oh no! A wikipedian with a wikipedia article!  Is there no greater curse?
 * Anyway, you're now official WP:V--at least in terms of the Uni article and that is if someone doesn't come along and decide that your autobiography can't possibly know where you went to high school.
 * The problem with the Uni article is that there is so much to add. Since you went  there in a period of time I don't know much about, do you mind if I ask you some questions?  Via e-mail or something? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to help with general background, though of course nothing can go into the article unless we can also find a published source. But maybe I can point you in some useful directions, sure. I'm also still in contact with some teachers from that era, who might be able to help as well. Click on "Contact info" on my userpage, and choose whichever method works best for you. :) --Elonka 01:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yah, I'm basically looking for starting off points. Almost everything notable that happened seems to be well-sourced in one form or another, though some of these sources require actually leaving the house and digging through books and old-fashioned archives.  But it's hard looking when I don't know what to look for or only have a vague idea and especially with web research, looking has been complicated by the commonality of many of the search terms.  I want to use general searches, but can't and the more specific I make the search, the more quotes I put in, the more things that do apply are excluded.  I figure that by talking to various people from different periods of time I can get a good timeline idea and a good idea of missing topics and then just start to search and source.
 * Also, thanks for removing the cats from the archive page. They really aren't necessary and it totally didn't occur to me.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:University_High_(Los_Angeles)_1925.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:University_High_(Los_Angeles)_1925.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note from Miss Mondegreen
 * Taken care of. At this time I've double checked and fixed the licensing on everything that need fixing.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   12:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Late thought
Re Alumni - you know that some schools create a category to hold alumni - see Derby School - for  an example Victuallers 09:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I found out in a roundabout fashion when discussing what to do with the overly long alum list. The pages I was linked to created a seperate cat for alumni, something that I'd asked about earlier on the talk page but that no one replied to.  I'm going to split the alumni off onto a separate page first, and then cat them but yes, considering that the notable alum list is already long and is likely to end up being simply massive, I think that both a seperate page and a cat are good ways to go.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture requests
If you are in the L.A. area, Miss Mondegreen, do you mind if you take new pictures of University HS and Palisades Charter HS so they can be displayed on Wikipedia? I think the pictures would be great for the articles :) WhisperToMe 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything in particular at Palisades Charter? I don't know if I will be able to take pictures, though I am often in Los Angeles, but if you have requests for images of particular places if I can't take a picture or find a picture I will forward the request on to someone who can.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   04:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In particular, I would like the front of the school which bears the school name - something similar to this: Image:HoustonLamarHighSchool.JPG :) WhisperToMe 13:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I read your message at the Uni article and responded:

"I often post the same picture in various articles - E.G. I only need one shot of Uni, which will work on the school article itself, as well as LAUSD's list of schools, LAUSD, Brentwood, Bel-Air, etc." I am cool with whatever you do :) WhisperToMe 01:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI
Hi Miss Mondegreen, Just so you know, I moved your recent post on WT:BLP to a different section to keep the discussion together. I hope you don't mind. Take care, Kla'quot 06:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that, thank you. The discussion had been going on for a while actually (it was in full swing by the time I was reverted), but since the revert edit summary didn't say anything and I didn't check the talk page too carefully, I would have missed the discussion entirely otherwise.  Thanks.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   03:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Beatles non- malapropisms
Regarding your last comment on the discussion page: care to revert the reinsertion of the material? I think I've used up all my "bullets", and this editor seems to think I'm the only one who thinks he/she's wrong about this material. Thanks. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted and I'm following the conversation. Feel free to let me know if something like this comes up in the future on one of these sorts of pages.  I used to watch malaprop and related pages more closely, but I haven't had the time to of late, and I haven't had the time to do a major clean-up either.  I've definitely noticed that on several of these pages you're the only editor on listcruft and blatantly incorrect material watch and I know how much time and effort that takes so just let me know if something more than a simple revert comes up.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   03:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Category suppression in templates
Hi there. In order to get "category=" to suppress categories in a template, you need to wrap the category inclusion with. Then, when you pass "category=", it overrides the category inclusion with an empty string. The "category" parameter can also be used to include different categories or sort keys in that case (or really any wikitext you want). I had to make a small change to reqphotoin to make it work. I looked at making the change to WikiProject Southern California too, but since there are a lot of category inclusions there that are not grouped together, I didn't do it right away. I've since realized that it's probably sufficient to just wrap the assessment class and importance categories since all of the other ones are dependent on parameters.

The "category=" thing is one of a few techniques I've seen for suppressing categories, the others being 1) using a negative parameter like "no-cat=yes" and 2) using namespace restrictions inside the template (as you did with the userbox). I tend to prefer "category=" because the wikitext in the template is simpler and the ability to use it to include different categories is more flexible. I find the namespace thing to be a little too magical and there is no way to override it in exceptional cases. Mike Dillon 15:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I made some substantial edits to wikiprojects (socal and schools), but I think that in certain cases some of them just can't not be substed. Schools has templates with links Talk:, which work perfectly for the template as they are templates intended for articles, but then the links appear redlinked in the template and I don't know about their schools template at all, though it is working nicely substed.
 * "I find the namespace thing to be a little too magical and there is no way to override it in exceptional cases."
 * Could you elaborate? Miss Mondegreen | Talk  15:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant about the namespace check being overly magical is that it attempts to fix a behavior that is the result of an error with complicated code. You should expect people to use the template on the right kind of pages and suppressing the category by namespace takes away one of the obvious ways that you can find templates placed in the wrong place. Since the "category=" trick is explicit, it's unlikely that it will be used in cases besides its intended target (i.e. demonstrations of the template, which are rare compared to template uses). Please respond on my page if you have any questions, as I won't be editing Wikipedia for the rest of the day. Mike Dillon 16:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up
re: Deletion review for Template:User no GFDL. Jerry 22:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikielf
Replied on my talk page. -- Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť Talk to me or learn something new! 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your signature
While archiving old assessments with hidden we have disciverred that templates do not take your signature correctly. The plain-text verticle bar makes the template think the entry is two sections. I just thought you should know so that you can correct this in the future. Adam McCormick 01:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I changed my signature recently anyway to italicize the talk, I've temporarily removed the vert bar. But can you show me exactly what you're talking about?  Because the problem is that I'm fairly sure I got that signature exactly from a Wiki page on changing preferences and sigs and if it's problematic, the example should really be changed. Miss Mondegreen  talk   04:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just letting you know, but in your signature as it appears here, the timestamp is not fixed. When someone reads that later, the timestamp will be the time it is read. Gimmetrow 00:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh shoot. I was sure that I'd substed everything, but it appears that that somehow got undone.  I'll fix that and then go fix those comments.  Thanks for letting me know.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  02:15, May 6 2007

Category
Just as a heads-up, there's a typo in the category name. I think you meant to make "University" not "Univeristy". --Elonka 22:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. You can't move cats so I recreated it, put the old one up for a speedy deletion and fixed the other two places there were typos.  Btw, just because you're an alum and have a wiki article yourself doesn't mean you can't fix this stuff.  It was easy for me to do because I was still on, but had I signed off already, anyone could have.  I have no issue with other people fixing my typos.  I would btw, appreciate any help I can get with adding the cat  to all of the alumni pages--because that's going to take a while and I have to check my watchlist and then do my real work :) Miss Mondegreen  talk  23:09, May 6 2007

Barnstar
I just wanted to recognise the big effort youve put into the Uvi High page - it is much appreciated. Keep it up. Twenty Years 01:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I like barns and stars, and barnstars--well, they're the best of both, they're closer and they smell better. Miss Mondegreen talk  04:24, May 12 2007

Your tea
☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺ Camaron1 | Chris 18:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

List
ref: Miss Mondegreen's comment on Victuallers talk page  Hi, if you look on the assessment project page there is a chart that shows the unasseeed etc. To target this we work off the list of unassessed schools. On that list are all schools (actually any page) that has an edditted schools template on it. To clean this up I have set every page that is a school list to be labelled a school list. Its not of great value so we have no attacked pages that are list but don't have a schools assessment template, Hope this makes some sense Victuallers 07:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, I think so. I got what your edit was attempting to do, and I copied that form when I added the other wikiproject templates to the talk page.  I was more confused and amused by the wp:alabama banner that you added--I thought it was just a little ironic that the wrong wikiproject state got added right after I'd moved the page to reflect what state it was in.  The whole point of exact location names is less confusion and not more and.... My already addled brain found it funny I guess... Miss Mondegreen  talk  08:37, May 15 2007

The University HS redirect
If you wish to contest the University HS redirect, please see Redirects for discussion - The redirect does not meet Speedy criteria, which you can read here: Criteria_for_speedy_deletion WhisperToMe 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My point with the redirects is that people tend to be shortsighted - they may believe that the article ought to be at X location, and if it is not at X location, then they will assume the article does not exist and will begin typing. I have seen new users start school articles with no caps or all caps. I have seen school articles deleted due to lack of meaningful content. In short, anons and new users may lack brains and common sense. I honestly did not, though, consider the argument brought by the closing admin: people may bookmark the old location and become flabbergasted to see the article gone... poof! WhisperToMe 03:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, not so much the latter as they can check the deletion record and see that the page exists at a new location, but that this article, unlike a lot of school articles has not only been around a long time, but during that time had a lot of pages link to it. Deleting the redirect breaks the old versions of those pages, which isn't of much consequence if it's a fairly recent article or little links to it, but that's not the case here.
 * I understand what you're saying about where articles get created and various types of wiki behavoir, but are you arguing that all of these people are typing into their browser the exact location of where they assume the article is or should be and not using either google, or google wikipedia, or most obviously the search function within wikipedia? And that when the "this page does not exist" message appears, they ignore the instructions that that message provides and they don't use the search function?
 * If you're arguing that, then, I'm sorry, I just disagree. I've seen no evidence of this behavoir--I've seen evidence of wiki-laziness.  Wiki-laziness, not bothering to check if an article exists is generally easily dealt with, hopefully it's quickly dealt with and it shouldn't be catered to.  In any case, it can't be catered to in this scenario as this redirect is only one half a dozen common and proper (pre-guideline) ways to name this page.
 * If you're not arguing that--if you think this happens with searching--then I just don't get it as this would be either the first or second search result (with the disambig page).
 * Obviously, this isn't really about this article anymore as there's another issue at play for this article (and I added something into the guideline to address that), but you're making an argument about redirects that would apply to a lot of stuff. Miss Mondegreen  talk  07:10, May 20 2007

Reply
Will you ever get a reply about coloring M&Ms between the lines? Er, whuh? I'd be happy to reply except that I have no idea what you're talking about. Unless we happen to share fandom of a certain webcomic...  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was speaking to badlydrawnjeff who had just abbreviated my moniker to MM, and as evidenced by his moniker, is not well drawn. As evidenced by the way you display your moniker, you have no trouble drawing, colouring or anything else taught in kindergarten.  Congratulations!  Move two squares forward to the first grade.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  18:18, May 21 2007

University HS article
Regarding the sentences, it may not seem that way to you, but it may be construed as a POV manner. NPOV is non-negotiable. Anyway, as for "I think that attempting to shy away from what's represented in the sources we have is a bad idea, and isn't neutral." - If there is a controversy, use X states Y. E.G. Billy Joe states that University High School's funds are not sufficient for X, etc. WhisperToMe 19:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied at article's talk page where the discussion is in full. Miss Mondegreen  talk  20:22, May 21 2007 (UTC)
 * < removed comment by WhisperToMe > Please keep article discussion on the article talk page. I watch the article and do not need to know when you have made changes or commented.  If I am not participating in an ongoing discussion, etc, and have been active onwiki, feel free to ask me to look at something, but do not use my talk page as a substitute for an article talk page.  Thank you.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  23:21, May 21 2007 (UTC)