User talk:Greg Comlish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Greg Comlish, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! WillMak050389 03:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting help
Getting along
Getting technical

Contents

[edit] the rising fame of comlish

Hi Greg. You just seem to be popping up everywhere these days :) Dsol (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Citation tags

I assume you are referring to Española Valley High School. I did not remove the tag, User:75.91.163.47 did. A couple of editors have been removing "citation needed" tags on an ongoing basis in this article, so I have removed some of the unsourced claims. If the claims are re-added, the user will be warned for adding unreferenced information. I just think they need to be blocked for a bit, since they don't seem to be responding to reason. ... discospinster talk 15:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)



[edit] Re: AYP & DISTRICT ALIGNMENT

you must be mistaken according to the files i read LAHS did NOT pass Ayp in 2007 i dont know where your getting your sources from but there wrong!

and its Not a Constant AYP school

SECOND,

Los Alamos Changed districts in 1991 to 2AAA a THREE A SCHOOL!

in 2000 they cahnged back to 2AAAA FOUR A SCHOOL! but for X-contry and Basketball the numbers of student population didnt meet the numbers for AAAA there fore in LATE 2001 they changed in full to 2AAAA i know i have lived here for years! do u live here? cuz if u dont u have no buisness telling me that!

and stop putting those CLEAN up and CITATION NEEDED boxes on articles it looks TRASHY if u dont like the article CLEAN IT UP YOURSELF and lastly Everything on the EVHS IS ACURATE AND RAN BY THE STUDENT DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP

[edit] Wikiprojects

(re [1]) Thanks for the funny message. =) I'm afraid I don't have any good advice about starting a content-oriented WikiProject, since my project is/was about typographic quality and mostly was about getting many people to contribute a small amount of time doing an easy task. Improving the quality of the content, especially for subjects that take some expertise, will be a lot harder to recruit people for. Still, there's little harm in creating a WikiProject (you just do it) and trying to recruit some people... perhaps by looking at people who have made good contributions, or by recruiting from related WikiProjects. Probably the best thing to do is to hold improvement drives for specific articles that need it. I don't really have any expertise in investment to contribute (though, now that I've finally entered the workforce, I will probably have to start caring about it!), sadly... — brighterorange (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to delete copyright violation images

If the image is uploaded to the English Wikipedia see, here: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Deleting images. If the image is from Wikimedia Commons, see this: Commons:Commons:Deletion guidelines. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 22:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Citations and sources needed for THS

much of the material on the THS page is just thrown out and it looks like a mess! there is no sources to back up information just a bunch of dates!..on the evhs as well but only on a few items we couldnt find sources for, together lets work on the THS page and i will remove the citations needed box and the EVHS page as well because on the EVHS page most of the stuff is acurate, well i know much as being an alumni student that graduated and my father is on the board so most of the evhs article is well kept to date. Martinez07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.50.208 (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Offer of assistance with respect to Arbcom decision

Hi Greg - Thanks for your message. During a recent Arbitration Committee case, there were indications that a few business-related articles may have been the subject of biased editing. The applicable section of the decision, which identifies the articles most seriously in question, is here:

The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing naked short selling, Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, and Gary Weiss should carefully review these and related articles for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.[2]

While following this case, I made some personal inquiries in particular about the Naked short selling article, and had a couple of friends who are financial specialists look at this article; they did feel there was a subtle but definite bias in the article. In the past week or so, there has been more editing of the articles listed above; much of it has been done by editors who were previously involved and/or actively participated in the arbitration case, so it's a tad difficult to realistically assess whether or not the bias has been eradicated or bolstered. Their history is very challenging; all four of these articles were created with at least some degree of outside influence. The articles do need some independent, knowledgeable eyes to ensure they're coming closer to our hoped-for standards. Thanks very much for offering to take a look. I hope you don't mind if I post a link to this conversation on the talk pages of the two arbitration committee members who were most active in drafting the decision, so that they will know someone has taken an interest.

Best, Risker (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And further to the above, FT2 has expressed a willingness to act as a resource in reviewing and revising these articles[3]. He's had quite a bit of experience in dealing with "difficult" articles, and I think you will find him very helpful. Risker (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your move of Zecco

Please do not "move" articles by copying-and-pasting the text elsewhere, as you did with Zecco. Doing destroys the page history which must be preserved for any page move. In future, please use the "move" link at the top of a page to move pages. Thanks. Pegasus «C¦T» 15:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Sandia Preparatory School has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. —αἰτίας •discussion• 02:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

True, True Greg sorry for removing those citation tags. However they have been restored! :) thanks for helping us along the way making EVHS a better article!!

Martinez07 Chat :) 08:52, MT 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reply :)

here. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:WikiProject Investment

Not a problem at all, and I wish the project great prosperity. As I mentioned on the project talk page, should template assistance ever be needed in the future, just let me know. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars

re I believe you can give barnstars any time you want (particularly if you make up your own), but their value diminishes if they are given haphazardly. — brighterorange (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taos

In regards to this edit, you really should read the entire conversation that took place on different talk pages. Taostiger was offered help several times with citing sources and removing POV from the article. Read Talk:Taos High School for just some of the conversation that took place. I have a question for you. When you said some other editors are "tight asses" and "aggrieved people in this world who just enjoy pushing people around through whatever pathetic and desperate measures they can," to whom were you referring? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the talk page in its entirety. There is no evidence that these high school students have promulgated a single falsehood, committed a single act of vandalism, or engaged in any malicious edits whatsoever. All I see is a group of new users who are unfamiliar with the norms of wikipedia who are trying to make honest and constructive edits and being vaguely uncivil on the talk pages when (fairly) pointing out that wikipedia standards are not consistently applied. And your claim that help was offered several times is just laughably false. Way more false, for instance, that any edits Taostiger has ever made.
It is quite obvious that these kids feel that they are being picked on. Right now the most likely outcome of this conflict is that a quality group of students is going to be discouraged from contributing to wikipedia again. If that happens, who knows how many quality edits we lose in the long run?
The most valuable resource we have at wikipedia are the diverse group of editors and when good editors are discouraged in their nascent stages then the future of the encyclopedia is compromised. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question to who you were referring when you made those personal attacks. BTW, you weren't involved in the entire discussion, so you really don't know what the hell you're talkin about. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No, when I called "some editors" "aggrieved" "tight-asses" that was impersonal and therefore not a personal attack. Your saying that I "don't know what the hell I'm talking about" constitutes a personal attack. Somaybe instead of making unjustified claims that I "don't know what the hell I'm talking about", you could use wikipedia's retained edit history to correct my alleged misconceptions? Greg Comlish (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Examples of my "laughably false" offers of help. 1, 2, 3. P.S. If you think what I said was a personal attack, you're getting desperate to prove a non-existant point. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
3 is just you stating that "pummeling" is not POV. 2 is just you ordering TaosTiger to read WP:CITE. These aren't offers to help at all. These are just examples of you acting like a typical wikipedia authority figure. I really don't understand how somebody who repeatedly postures as a stalwart of wikipedia standards could resort to such transparently deceptive (not to mention pointless) tactics as promulgating a false citations. Again, the ethical contrast is clear. You get on Taostiger's case for posting true-but-uncited material while you have apparently no qualms about making dubious statements yourself and backing them up with objectively false citations.
The first "help" offered in 1 is a curious kind of help. Rather than explain why it is impossible that THS article be allowed briefly describe the town of Taos, you simply defer to a manufactured consensus, link to WP:CONSENSUS and generously offer to "help" Taostiger decide what is appropriate for inclusion in the article. Basically, you're offering to "help" by substituting your own judgment for Taostiger's.
The second offer of "help if you want" in 1 is reluctant but plausibly sincere.
Now let's stand back and objectively think about what has happened/is happening with regards the THS article: the THS article that all editors purport to care so much about is now entirely neglected while all editors that could be improving the article are instead involved personal conflicts. Why? Because some wikipedians wanted to take a hardline against briefly describing Taos in an article about Taos High School. A more tactful approach could have avoided what has become a significant conflict. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you still rambling about this? You're beating a dead horse. FYI, thomasalazar and taostiger "made up" and got over their differences, the high school article has been (very) mildly improved by you (although you didn't cite the refs correctly...there are few, if any, RS about this school...hence the lack of edits by me and others to cite the article), and your b.s. analysis of my edits (ex: "ordering" to read? oh really? I'm curious as to how I ordered) is pathetic and shows how you're being deceptive with judging my offers of help. The high school article isn't a "significant conflict" and I suggest you get over it and do something productive besides ramble on about an argument that took place almost 2 weeks ago. Feel free to reply here, but I'm done arguing with someone who is bored enough to analyze and lie about my edits to a high school article. Get a hobby, preferably one not related to WP. APK yada yada 10:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha! I bet you don't want to argue with somebody who is "bored enough to analyze" your edits because said "bored" person would actually examine your bogus citations and instantly see that you are full of it.
Let me answer your original question: Who I was referring to when I suggested that some editors on wikipedia are "tight asses and aggrieved people who enjoy pushing people around through whatever pathetic and desperate measures they can?" The answer: Definitely not AgnosticPreachersKid! No-siree! If there's anything I've learned in this thread it's that APK cares first about improving the articles on wikipedia. He cares not at all about pursuing minor personal vendettas.
Should you ever encounter a user who has some lingering confusion about whether his edits constitute tight-assed grievance, just refer him to me. Of course, I would be happy to help. Greg Comlish (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Right on Greg!! Great Response on this. You are my inspiration on wikipedia man! You have been a great example since the begining keep up the great good work. And i have every reason to belive that was not attack.

... TomSalazar Chat?! 9:50 MT, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Example of an attack. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marking changes as minor

Hi Greg, please don't mark changes where you add (or remove) content or citations as minor. Those are significant changes to an article, even if you are only doing one at a time. Take a look at Help:Minor edit for more information on when to mark changes as minor and when not to do so. Thanks! Aleta Sing 14:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Aleta,
Help:Minor edit does not dictate whether the simple addition of a citation is considered a minor edit or not. Help:Minor edit suggests that minor edits may be used whenever the fundamental meaning of the article is unchanged which arguably would apply to the addition of citations. Personally I could see it go either way, but I'd prefer that discussion take place on the Minor edit talk page instead of here.Greg Comlish (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request Summons > Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Diamond Joe Quimby

You have been requested to weigh in at:

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Diamond Joe Quimby

Thank you for your help in this matter. IP4240207xx (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

Thanks for the kind words at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Diamond Joe Quimby. I really appreciate that! ... discospinster talk 15:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)