Talk:St. Rita of Cascia High School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article. | |
Contents |
[edit] St. Rita Colors
Per http://www.stritahs.com/Songlyrics.htm the lyrics of the St. Rita fight song begin with: Come, let us cheer for old St. Rita With her colors Red and Blue. The colors are clearly red and blue and not red and white. I know the varsity football uniform is red and white, but the freshman football uniform is dark blue and white. The baseball team is dark blue and white with red trim. The hockey team is light blue and red. All the uniforms are different and change over time. The fight song has always said red and blue.70.90.125.177 15:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Ahhhh...excellent point...I forgot about the FS, I can change based on that. Thanks!
[edit] Midway
St. Rita is close to the Midway Airport. Low planes fly over it every day, and most are Southwest Airlines planes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Vandalism?
My edits are not vandalism, they are an attempt to make the article more encyclopedic. You fail to address my edits on the merits Speciate 21:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If you would like to improve the page, that is fine. Your silly vendetta against "ChicagoIand" (when it is a valid wikilink) is not helpful.
I view the elimination of the limiting, unecyclopedic term ChicagIand to be important. Your anonymous ad hominim attack on my edits as "silly," and your ad nauseum reversions of my edits as "vandalism" will not stand. Just because you wrote the page does not give you ownership rights over it. I will continue to edit the page as I see fit. Speciate 22:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't write the page, why do you keep bringing up this nonsense. No ad hominem attacks were made. I didn't call YOU anything.
How is Chicagoland unencyclopedic? It is a valid wikilink. ?!?!?!?!?!
Chicagoland is unecyclopedia because it limits one to the 9 or 11 or whatever counties the allegdly make it up. As there are graduates who are leaders who live and work outside of those counties, I have improved the page to reflect their geographic dispersal. Here is another valid wikilink; Midwestern United States. Now, before you click on it, can you tell me exactly which states are in the Midwest? Do you think that everyone agrees on which states? Is Rockford, Illinois in ChicagoIand? Speciate 00:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that everyone agrees with your silly vendetta against "Chicagoland?"
Wikipedia is not a democracy. Again you have disparaged my good faith attempts to improve the article as a "silly vendetta." Again you have remained anonymous. Speciate 19:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If it isn't a democracy, then why do you insist on making this contentious change? And who cares (except for you) about anonymity? Do you think that by putting "Speciate" on your inane posts your identity is revealed to the world? Signing your posts means nothing. NOTHING. Constructive changes to this page are welcome. One need look no further than your contributions page to see that you are ideological in your edits. Taking out language you like, slanting posts towards your POV....
Not signing your posts means that we cannot see what other contributions you have made to wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with having an ideology, perhaps you should research that term. Anyway, I fail to see how enlarging the area in which graduates of your school are allowed to be "leaders" is bad. Speciate 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, I know more about "ideology" than you ever will. Your unconstructive changes are not appreciated. You cannot make the claim you did without citing. Did you go to the school? Do you know what you are talking about? Based on your other contributions, this wouldn't be the first time you were shooting off about something which you obviously know very little (see discussion of who uses the term Chicagoland).
Wow, you called me "inane" and somehow know that you know more about ideology than I ever will. Why would it matter if I went to the school? My edits are an effort to make wikipedia better. Speciate 02:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do you insist on making this continued change? You keep claiming that I think I have some right to ownership of the page! I have made no such claims. I didn't even go to the school (which you also assume). I have attempted to compromise here, you just refuse to include the word Chicagoland, which, again, is a valid wikilink. I have followed your changes all over wikipedia...you have gone through article after article taking out this word, that is your opinion. You don't get to force your opinion on wikipedia. The word is a valid link, used ALL THE TIME in and around Chicago. You don't want the word. I do. Others do too. I have attempted to compromise, you don't accept compromise.
Perhaps you were the one who reverted many of my other edits, then, Mr Anonymous? My view, and the reason I improved many pages with the unencyclopedic term, is spelled out where I made those changes. The vast majority of those changes went unopposed, because people recognized that my edits were improvements. See my comments on the ChicagoIand talk page itself. Why you have chosen to St Rita's to have this discussion is a mystery to me. If you are so fond of the term ChicagoIand, why don't you find a source listing which counties it is. I put a citation needed tag on the first paragraph. Nobody has been able to find a source. Speciate 17:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Your changes are not an improvement. As long as you continue to make changes without reconsidering this, attempting to reason with you is futile.
Please don't call what you are doing "reasoning." All you are doing is insisting on the term ChicagoIand. Speciate 19:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Why are you persisting in this unnecessary, unhelpful change? It doesn't improve the article. What is your purpose here? Go fight your silly vendetta against "Chicagoland" elsewhere.
Is that why you are undoing my changes elsewhere, vandal? Speciate 21:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm undoing your changes (which you are also doing to me by the way, in case you hadn't noticed) because you are WRONG. Do you like my username? I registered so that my changes are credible now, according to you. I guess there is no need for you to continue vandalizing now that I'm registered.
I am happy that you registered. Now other users can observe your contributions and your changes. By the way, did you notice that some of your changes were reverted by people other than me? Speciate 00:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
OMFG!!! IT'S TRUE!!!
[edit] Essay
There is too much un-cited and seemingly useless info, and some fluff, in the History section. Speciate 21:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There isn't. You are just looking for things to pick on...on this page. Your "help" isn't appreciated.
Wikipedia is not for your appreciation. Wherever did you get such an idea? Speciate 01:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You are blatantly trying to ruin this page. You are deleting text. YOu are putting in boxes that are messing up the entire page. Why are you insisting on this?!?! You aren't helping.
Play nice boys.
Let's work on this...I try to check this page every now and again as I'm familiar with the school...I see there has been some editing conflicts going on...let me take a look and lets see if we can sort some of this out.
I'm trying to find a cite for the CCL claim. Many would argue that it is true...generally such things are stated during fb season. I will look around.Constant Parrhesia 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
John Hoerster, 53, coach, mentor to Loyola Academy football team Chicago Sun-Times, Aug 26, 2003 by Brenda Warner Rotzoll
"He's always been recognized as one of the great defensive minds in high school football. He was certainly one of the real leaders in recent years of the Chicago Catholic League, which is one of the most distinguished conferences in all the country," said Taylor Bell, retired high school sports editor for the Chicago Sun-Times.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20030826/ai_n12512922
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Saint Rita.jpg
Image:Saint Rita.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Saint Rita.jpg
Image:Saint Rita.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
