User talk:Rudkis

Re: Your Comments On My Editing of the Article "Dragon Academy"
I'm not certain either, regarding what the proper protocol is for dealing with issues like these, but I'd like to suggest that it might be more appropriate if it was taking place on the discussion page of the article in question. By doing that, I believe that it's much more likely to perhaps draw the attention of the school itself so that some other voices might be heard on the matter. I'll try to be as concise as possible regarding the reason behind my "reversions" of the article. Let's look at the part of the text that I find to be most undesireable in terms of it being 'unencyclopedic' in nature and the section you seem most concerned about:

[...]

"Students in the upper forms of the school, however, find this to be an unnecessary impediment to their overall academic success. One such disgruntled student, has hopes for attending university in the United Kingdom, but is worried that because of his lower grades in the seemingly vestigial art and music classes, he may not be able to achieve the required overall average. Another student feels that he would be more successful if his efforts were they more heavily focused on the academic classes in which he struggles and will be required for university application."

First of all, none of this is substantiated in any way, there is no referencing involved at all. If my interpretation of Wikipedia policy is correct, that means, at least in theory, that any editor may remove it at any time based on that alone. Actually, my main concern with this part of the article isn't the fact that it's not sourced, it's that it appears to consist mostly of an airing of the personal grievances of two (former?) students of the place and not much else. Again, my interpretation of the encyclopedia's policy is that Wikipedia should not be used as a "soapbox". The posting of an entire paragraph of the unsubstantiated personal grievances on Wikipedia of two people, appears to me to be exactly that, an encyclopedia article is being utilized to publically complain about something they don't like on a personal level. In my opinion, none of it belongs in a Wikipedia article for the reasons I've stated. Rather than simply wonder about this, I' going to post a 'helpme' request regarding the matter on my own talk page and we'll see if we can get a third opinion on the issue.

"I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to talk about your irrepressible editing of the page on The Dragon Academy. If it is I would like you to please stop your frequent reversion of the article. Your version is not in line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View. It is an add. Silencing the students right to complain about the school also goes against the school's beliefs. Rudkis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudkis (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deconstructhis"

Deconstructhis 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Dragon Academy
Regarding this comment and your contribs to The Dragon Academy ,: I removed the POV/OR paragraph (which also happens to be unreferenced, like the rest of the stub) in question in your dispute with User:Deconstructhis. Nobody is "Silencing the students right to complain about the school [...]", but you appear to have a conflict of interest and in addition to that we at Wikipedia require reliable secondary sources especially for disputed statements. — aldebaer⁠ 10:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re Wiki POV and Sourcing Standards
"Hello Again "Deconstructhis." First let me assure you that the students are not former. I have contacted the two referenced people, as I am in their class, and had them both said that the Edit written originally by "Flatulencia" is representative of their own opinions. I am unsure as to how to substantiate this so that it fits in with Wikipedia's standards. I would also like to apologize for the rather loathsome tone which my first comment had. Upon rereading it, I realised how nasty it sounded. Rudkis."


 * Rudkis, as I indicated earlier I tend to think you're misunderstanding exactly what Wikipedia (or any other "encyclopedia" for that matter) actually is. For instance, refer to these policies regarding article composition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ATT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources

If you take the time to even scan these quickly, you'll see that the very nature of what your comments consist of, in the original version, the obviousness of the fact that you've arrived at your conclusions based on "original research", which you openly acknowledge and the absolute need for any entries to be drawn from previously published reputable sources, put the content of your proposed material completely outside the realm of Wikipedia. If you're truly interested in airing your grievances in some sort of public forum regarding this school, I'm afraid the only thing I can suggest to you is to contact a local journalist and see if perhaps they're interested in covering it as a newspaper article. Continuing to edit this article in order to present your grievances in the way you've been going about it, is only going to be frustrating for you. No reputable editor is going to let them remain. Persisting in that approach, is in all likelihood only going to result in you eventually being banned by someone, something I'd rather see *not* happen. Deconstructhis 03:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Hay Swamp, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Hay Swamp was changed by Rudkis (c) (t) blanking the page on 2007-10-04T22:59:17+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot 22:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

December 2007
With regard to your comments on User talk:Deconstructhis Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Deconstructhis (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:Blotto adrift. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Deconstructhis (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Deconstructhis, you will be blocked from editing. Deconstructhis (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Please don't violate my pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plankwoodsill (talk • contribs) 01:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been reported to WP:AIV for continuing vandalism!  User  Doe ☻T☼C 01:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Daniel Case (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

James Schultz: Notability?
A tag has been placed on James Schultz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Shunpiker (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Any noteworthy and verifiable details about James Schultz would be welcome on the pages for his parents.)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User talk:Deconstructhis, you will be blocked from editing. Deconstructhis (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent involvement in the st thomas newspaper dispute
I would request that you stop tampering with users pages as you have been in the cases of Deconstructhis, sayswho and mayormcgeez. This is blatent vandalism. The fact that you are falsy changing peoples comments on user talk pages and altering text is way below the standards of good editing protocal. This is blatent vandalism. Vandalism such as this will result in blocks by administrators. Your involvement has not been helpful in resolving this dispute. Please stop. Take care Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)