User talk:Jab843

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • For biographical articles to be kept there must be an assertion of why an indiviadual is notable. Biographical articles containing no assertion of notability can be deleted on sight. Fawcett5 04:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello Jab843, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Fawcett5 04:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Porter-Gaud

We can revert war Porter-Gaud all night long if you really want to, but I'd much rather you talk to me (on this page, on my talk page, or on the Porter-Gaud talk page) about what in my edits you find objectionable. Regards, JDoorjam Talk 00:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


General of the Army Harlan and I (GEN Jason) have deemed this website as a place for people to look at in order to recieve current information and going into some detail. We dissagree with you shortening the size of the page and resent the fact that you do not look at all of our efforts into making this page. As to the student council being "awsome" this was a student named SSG John has been demoted to SGT untill he has come before the council. This was not implied by our support staff and will be fixed.

Jason... Baron, right? Should I call your mom and tell her that you're playing "General" on the internet? Or can we just let this go?

Yes, you shall for we have ranks in the Website Editors Club and thus i am not play "General" on the internet. As well congratulations you finaly know how to stock people on google. However, you have found the wrong Jason :) shame on you for trying to scare me. Is this all you have to do with you time nothing better?

So, pretty clearly, we could go at this for a while, but I suspect we both have better things to do with our time. I propose a truce; let me know whether you are amenable to discussing one. Otherwise, I will resume reversion in ten minutes. JDoorjam Talk 02:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the Tearms.Jason 02:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have four issues with the page as it now stands.
The first two are deal-breakers: I need you to be willing to bend on these.
  1. The second sentence, "Porter-Gaud represents over a century of experience in preparing students for college and guiding them through their formative years to maturity," is very blatantly an opinion, not a fact. This means it violates WP:NPOV, and shouldn't be in an encyclopedic article.
  2. This is far more minor, but still obviously opinion: "In 1964, three distinguished schools..." is also not a neutral point of view.
  3. You need a source saying that Porter-Gaud graduates have gone to that long list of schools you mention. Otherwise, what's to stop every high school in the nation from making the same claim? Wikipedia requires verifiability.
  4. Finally, I would like to do edits for readability to the page. This means putting in "— to make dashes, like so:—, and putting in wiki links to other articles. I imagine this issue is the least controversial of the four.
Let me know where you stand. JDoorjam Talk 02:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The ones 1-4 are ok, due to the fact that i have a source of info, as well i require not request but require all changes are to be verified though me before they go live as to avoid this problem again. Jason 03:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I am glad we have been able to reach an agreement; you and your team, I, and the page will all be better for it. However, the requirement that you are asked for permission I cannot agree to, for a few reasons. First, of course, I do not own Wikipedia, and so cannot speak for everyone on the project. But more importantly, that goes directly against the spirit of the entire Wikipedia project, which is one of collaboration. You do not own Wikipedia, either. You get the same opportunity to veto edits that everyone else does.
However, if you think about it, you don't need such approval authority anyway. You have the power, again, like everyone else, to revert edits that you do not think are positive contributions. If something is done to an article that you don't think helped the article, I urge you first to ask yourself, "is there a way I could improve the edit that was just made, instead of reverting it?" That is the best way to avoid conflict on Wikipedia, while still making positive progress.
I will assume we have reached an agreement here. In five minutes I will begin to make three edits, one for each of terms one through three (for term three I will add a {{fact}} tag, which will say that a citation is needed, but as we have agreed, I will not delete the links which you say you have a source for).
Regards, JDoorjam Talk 03:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


One final point, which I hope you consider: you have a personal investment in this page. I do not. After we have reached a resolution here, I will keep the page on my watch list to make sure the page is not vandalized, but I will not be making edits other than correcting punctuation errors and the like. In short, I am not your nemesis. You are fully free to be the main editor of this page. I doubt after tonight that I will make many, if any, edits to the page again. JDoorjam Talk 03:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- It has come to my attention that there is a problem with the Porter-Gaud article. I'd like to have this cleared up and we can move on -- what's the deal here?

Jason -- Having not been on Wikipedia since I last edited this page, for whatever reason, there was an immediate link to it when I just signed in, and I accidently deleted it, but here it is again, pasted back (just explaining the random edit).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/b/User_talk%7EJab843_4761.html"