User talk:RainingmySoul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. (see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

--Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jessica Liao. John Reaves (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on E.M. Baker Elementary School, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems 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 Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the 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.

[edit] E.M. Baker Elementary School

I understand that your article is referenced, but it still may qualify for speedy deletion because individual schools, (unless they are world famous) are not generally considered notable under Wikipedia's notablity criteria. A1octopus 21:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All of the Great Neck Elementary Schools?

I am questioning why all of the Great Neck School District elementary school's need their own wikipedia article? I don't understand -- I doubt that they are going to pass WP:NOTE. I added some info to Lakeville Elementary School, but I don't think any of the other schools have such visits or nearly notable activities. Even lakeville might fail notability. Please explain the need for all of these new articles. MrMacMan 22:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Secondary schools have notable alumni, awards like being listed in the top schools in the nation and having a strong historical background as being one the first alternative schools in the nation. Each has importance, do you see many elementary schools getting their own article? No. Look over the Elementary schools in New York page and tell me how these schools relate to those schools like P.S. 193, do you see the rich historical element that article has -- none of the articles gave any of this background or WP:NOTE. MrMacMan 03:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits on Special education

Thank you for adding a citation tag to the controversial opening paragraph. Both sides in this disagreement have failed to provide proper citations for their assertions. However, reverting because consensus has not yet been reached is premature. Further more, in one of your edit summaries, you claim that since "someone agreed with you" that it meant that you could revert the edit. Even if that was the case, consensus is not reached by voting or through a popularity contest (see WP:CONSENSUS). Consensus is the resolution of a disagreement so that all sides in the dispute can live with the result. This certainly has not been achieved on the special education article. While I will not revert your edit, realize that the discussion has not ended. I encourage you be more patient with the process of consensus building. Most importantly, I invite you to provide proper citations for the constructive edits you would like to make to the article. Nposs 02:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop assuming ownership of articlessuch as Special education. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Nposs 15:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked for a response about what was wrong with the previous version of the opening paragraph that included multiple references to dictionaries. Here is it is: Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. Using dictionary references is a poor way to begin an article. The same information that is contained in that version is also found in the more recent version - they do not contradict each other. Please engage in constructive editing - that means proposing ideas on the talk page and making edits to the article that improve upon the work of others. Reverting multiple edits to your own version is not constructive. The work on this article is past the point of "my version"/"their version". Engage constructively or you will be blocked from editing again. Nposs 15:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent constructive edits to special education. The process of consensus building takes time and thorough discussion will greatly help the situation. Nposs 20:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)