User talk:Thisisliam

St Thomas More School
Whoever you are, please stop adding 'famous alumni' to this school article UNLESS you can prove their notability with a source. Normally on wikipedia, people are not included in articles as being famous unless their (this should read there) is actually a wiki article on them! Bleaney (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoever you are, please stop deleting the 'NOTED alumni' of this school article UNLESS you can prove that they are in fact NOT a NOTED alumnus of the school in question. Your claim that it is NORMAL practice on wikipedia for people included in articles to be somehow 'famous' due to having their own article is not strictly the case. There are many examples where this is not so, and, regardless of whether this is true, you are using a very poorly defined, subjective definition of fame, and one I would assumed which is based on limited if any knowledge of the school itself. The alumnus of a school is constituted by former pupils, the eminence of whom cannot and should not be measured on the grounds of them having or not having a ‘wiki article’.


 * WRONG. If the 'notable person' is listed on wikipedia, they need EITHER a wiki-linked article OR a SOURCE PROVING THEIR NOTABILITY. You have provided neither. Unless you can do this, DO NOT CHANGE THE ARTICLE. This is your final warning, if you do this again, I will make moves to have you blocked from editing wikipedia. Bleaney (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WRONG. Please refer to the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Christi_College,_Cambridge#Famous_alumni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_College,_Cambridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_College,_Cambridge#Notable_alumni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girton_College,_Cambridge#Notable_alumni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Cavendish_College,_Cambridge#Notable_staff_and_alumnae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newnham_College,_Cambridge

A small selection from another educational institution, admittedly one slightly more grand than St Thomas More Roman Catholic School, but a school of sorts none the less - Am I to understand that there are a certain set of rules governing some but not all pages? Or that the editing process is done so at the whim of a certain (elitist) group who decide what counts and does not count in arbitrary circumstance? Each article above is an example of a wikipedia page where the majority, but NOT ALL, of the notable persons listed have either a wiki-link, OR a SOURCE PROVING THEIR NOTABILITY - the person(s) who edited these pages has PROVIDED NEITHER source that YOU require. Am I to understand that you are now going to edit each of these in kind?

In your above claim I am assuming that you are making reference to the following:

Inclusion criteria

A person should be included as a "notable alumna or alumnus" if the person would qualify for an article in his or her own right under Wikipedia: Notability (people)/WP:BIO. By implication, this means that each person listed in a "notable alumni" or "notable alumnae" section should have a wikilink, either red or blue. Thus, people who have their own Wikipedia articles should generally be listed under "notable alumni" (if there is such a section at all), and people who do not have an article should generally not be listed unless the reason they don't have an article is because, although it would qualify under WP:BIO, the article simply hasn't been created yet.

Please note that this would indicate that YOUR prerequisites for inclusion are more a series of working guidelines and not final: On some occaisions, this has led to edit wars - this would appear to be the case here, although you have played somewhat of an underhand tactic by threatening expulsion. It appears that these guidelines are meant to offer standard about when to include an individual as a "notable" alumnus - as you yourself noted, this is NORMAL practice and perhaps, given the evidence from the Cambridge Colleges, not FINAL.

Making threats to have a person removed from wikipedia because they do not conform to YOUR rules in order to ensure that YOUR version of a page or wikipedia is final is a ludicrous expression of an idly granted power. OPEN SOURCE, OPEN ACCESS - or does this not apply to articles that you have passed your oh so discerning eye over? Could I not challenge you with the same threat and demands?


 * Your boring me now, and creating other wiki accounts for yourself to re-do your edits is against wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not perfect, but just because other articles are not perfect does NOT mean that editors should and could be allowed to improve articles to make them conform to qualtiy standards. I am now going to go about seeing if I can get the page protected, you wont win on this. Bleaney (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I have no idea who edited this page in the last instance, it certainly wasn't me - you afford me too much credit, creating an account had not crossed my mind, in fact I'm unaware as to how this is done. Alas it appears that I will not be able to fulfil my desire of amending the page to include a former notable student of the school, because your decisions somehow outweigh my own - suggesting that I am somehow trying to 'win' is petty, hence my inclusion of the concern that "On some occaisions, this has led to edit wars". As a former pupil of the school my sole aim was to provide more information for the wiki-article, something that due to your capacity as 'editor' I and others will now no longer be able to achieve. As you have noted, Wikipedia is not perfect, those articles do not conform to quality standards, can I assume that you will be editing these in kind? If this is not the case and you take action to protect this page, I will also take action and suggest that your editorial privileges are either reconsidered or revoked. May I take the opportunity to suggest that you browse the following pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat

I will be looking into the wikipedia policy against such actions. Finally, you should consider re-reading your posts, you need to use an apostrophe or write 'you are' where you have written 'your boring me', this is bad and sloppy English especially for someone acting in an editorial capacity.


 * Apologies if this is your first edit, but can I ask, if this student is SO NOTABLE that 2 of you now are including him, why can I not find ONE SOURCE on google even mentioning this person? How can you possibly establish notability, what has this bloke done exactly? Bleaney (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note I have moved this discussion to the articles talk page - Talk:St Thomas More Catholic Upper School. Bleaney (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * PLEASE refer to the articles talk page, as another very experienced editor has noted, it is YOUR JOB to find a source establishing notability if you wish it to be included in the article. Bleaney (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

St Thomas More Catholic Upper School
Please be in no uncertainty whatsoever that continuing to edit war over the inclusion of Jonathan Adam Filsell as an alumni of St Thomas More Catholic Upper School, in the absence of any evidence of his notability per WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines will lead to your account being blocked. The bottom line is this: unless you explain why this person is notable, every addition you make will be reverted, since the page in question is being watched by a number of people who have respect for wikipedia guidelines. You do not have a hope of winning your point merely by repeatedly adding the information. And if the person is notable, then there should be now issue with you saying why the person is notable at Talk:St Thomas More Catholic Upper School. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)