User talk:BaronLarf/Archive 1

For messages regarded opera articles, see the Opera archive.
For messages regarding school articles, see the School archive.
For messages regarding Wisconsin articles, see the Wisconsin archive.

Comments for a new Wikipedian

Welcome!

Hello, BaronLarf/Archive 1, 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 04:14, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC) BaronLarf

Hi. Usual practice is to wikilink the first appearance of a relevent term (for example "Mexico" in the Cancún article) rather than every occurance. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Duly noted. --BaronLarf 20:04, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also curious why you're changing the capitaliations in the categories for names like McWilliams and MacCarthy. What are we missing? Thanks --BaronLarf 23:16, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Simple really. In wikiworld (and a lot of others) McWilliams is not the same as Mcwilliams alphabetically. Bornintheguz 23:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Categorization

Hello there! When you are adding categories to an article, please be sure that it is not already covered by a more specific category to avoid redundancy. I found a couple of articles to which you added Category:Wisconsin politicians that were already in Category:Governors of Wisconsin; one of those was additionally categorized as serving under both houses of the state legislature. Obviously all Wisconsin governors and Wisconsin legislators are also Wisconsin politicians. If we didn't exclude from articles all parent categories to which they necessarily belong as members of subcategories, Coles Bashford, for example, would also be placed in Category:U.S. politicians, Category:Government of Wisconsin, Category:State governors of the U.S., Category:Wisconsin, Category:People from Wisconsin, Category:American people, Category:People... This would obviously create a mess. Thanks! Postdlf 00:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I've completely redone the subcategories for Category:Wisconsin politicians, so this should be more in line with what you prefer. --BaronLarf 20:04, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

National category

Hi. I noticed you categorized Ernestine Schumann-Heink in "German opera singers". She was not from Germany. She was born in what is now the Czech Republic as a citizen of the Austrian Empire, and later became a U.S.A. citizen. I changed it back to just "opera singers". (I suppose she could be placed in both U.S. opera singers and Austro-Hungarian Empire opera singers if necessary.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation 05:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed her categories to to Czech and American opera singers. --BaronLarf 05:43, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Opera singer Categorization

Hello VMORO. The Category:Opera singers has been taxonomically grouped into people by voice type and also into Category:Opera singers by nationality. As such, the Boris Christoff article should go into the Category:Bulgarian opera singers, and should not remain in Category:Opera singers since this is a parent category of the Bulgarian opera singer category. The same goes for Category:Bulgarian people: Bulgarian opera singers is a subcategory of Bulgarian musicians, which is a subcategory of Bulgarian opera singers. This avoids redundency. Please see Wikipedia:Categorization if you have any addition questions. The same goes for Raina Kabaivanska. Thanks. --BaronLarf 16:15, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Once again, there are no articles in the Category:Opera singers except for the ones that you are reverting there. They have all been subcategorized, as is encouraged in the Wikipedia:Categorization. I encourage you to visit the Opera singers category to take note of this. It's rather silly for Boris Christoff to be the only exception. This isn't "hiding" the article, just giving it a greater degree of categorization.

For example, someone like Renée Fleming could be listed under Category:American singers, Category:American opera singers, Category:United States musicians, Category:Opera singers, Category:American people, etc. Instead, she is just listed under Category:American opera singers since this is a subcategory under everything else. It reduces redundancy and makes categories much easier to navigate through. Cheers. --BaronLarf 20:53, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I can see that now. I reverted them as the last time you subcategorised them, you had done that only with them (or you had started with them). VMORO

I guess it is a little late to be asking this question but I am wondering what the use is of categorizing opera singers by nationality. Whose idea was this? What is the point of a categories with just one entry such as Peruvian, Jamaican or South African opera singers? At some point, this level of granularity becomes counterproductive. -- Viajero 17:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whose idea it was. When I first looked at Category:Opera singers, it was only partially and arbitrarily done. (Some Italian opera singers were under the main category, some under Category:Italian opera singers, for instance.) I went through all opera singers and added two types of categorization to them: vocal range and country of origin. Thus, Luciano Pavarotti is linked under Category:Tenors and Category:Italian opera singers.

I believe that there are too many opera singers just to be listed under the main category. The division into nationality has the following benefits:

The number of opera singers on Wikipedia (and the number that eventually should be on Wikipedia) is rather high. Subcategorization allows them to be more easily navigated.
Division by nation and voice type is a "meaningful and useful" division, as recommended on Wikipedia:Categorization#Making groups of subcategories
Allows the subcategory to be categorized under the nation's musicians and under the nation's singers. (Example: Category:American opera singers is under Category:United States musicians and under Category:American singers)

Your point about, for instance, Category:Jamaican opera singers is a good one. This category will never be as large as Category:German opera singers or Category:Italian opera singers. But for the subcatigorization to be complete, I believe that the category needs to be made. There are many notable opera singers that still need to be added to Wikipedia, and I believe this hierarchy will allow them to be more easily categorized and navigated through.

Cheers.--BaronLarf 18:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Elena Nicolai

Hello VMORO. I know that you've created and contributed to the articles on several Bulgarians, and I was wondering if you'd be interested in adding to anything about Elena Nikolai. I can't find too much information about her. Cheers. --BaronLarf 15:52, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have only vaguely heard of her but I'll see what I can find. VMORO

Hi, I thought you might be interested to read the few lines I translated at Elena Nicolai's article. --webkid 23:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good. :^)--BaronLarf 23:32, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Grey Court School

I have changed your cat from Schools in Surrey to Schools in London because strictly speaking Grey Court School is in Greater London and not within the boundaries of the county of Surrey. I hope that's OK. Cheers. --Etimbo | Talk 12:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's fine. I was just attempting to move it out of the "schools" or "education" category where I found it and into a subcategory. Sorry if I picked the wrong one. Cheers.--BaronLarf 12:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of links on EC and LC pages

May I inquire why you removed the synagogue link from the Eau Claire page (and from the La Crosse page too I see)? I was surprised to see it show up there, but not particularly disturbed by it, but I'm curious why you saw fit to delete it without a word on the talk page as to why...in fact, you didn't even bother to comment on your deletion. What I find to be the strangest about your deletion is that the person who put it there, 4.158.171.24, apparently went around much of the midwest putting links to various synagogues in medium-sized cities...yet the only ones you saw fit to delete were the ones in Eau Claire and La Crosse. I admit, I'm not entirely impartial...as the webmaster, I'm wondering if you found something about the site particularly objectionable? TShilo12 09:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't find anything objectionable about it, just nothing notable. Why link to a single house of worship from a page devoted to a city? With that logic, every church, synagogue, etc should have a link there. If anything, there could be a link to a page which lists the places of worship in that city. The way it was seemed to be doing nothing but promoting a non-notable place of worship over others. I only deleted it from Eau Claire and La Crosse because I happened to see it there as I was going through cities from Wisconsin.--BaronLarf 15:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I agree with your decision to do so. I would take the time to delete the rest of them myself, but I'll let someone else worry about that, since listing or delisting houses of worship really isn't very big on my list of interest. Perhaps I'll open up the Yellow Pages someday when I have nothing to do (like 317 years after I die), and do just that. Or maybe one of these days I'll discover what this "boredom" thing is that people talk about. That hasn't happened to me yet... :-) TShilo12 20:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ruth Packer

I just added Ruth Packer to the recent deaths section. You are welcome to do a stub on her or something. (unsigned)

Sorry... I can't find any information on her. I'll add something if I can find it, though.--BaronLarf 23:32, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I've created the Ruth Packer article now, after more information became available. --BaronLarf 15:49, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 4, 2005, the following (7) articles are currently listed for deletion under the POV suggestion that schools are not notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy. Whether you agree or disagree, please be aware that the following schools are actively being voted on:

Thank you for your time. --GRider\^talk

Members Church of God International

Thanks for the good and critical external link. That is very helpful for NPOV. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:26, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Genealogy

What makes you think that the genealogy links on the New York page was "spam"? The site linked to is a reputable, valuable, and pertinent site; non-commercial and free to use. -- Cribbswh 14:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your objection makes no sense. My edit is identical to your edit that was reverted by Neutrality. --BaronLarf 14:19, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

There was a line item with your username that said, "If your going to remove one genealogy link, then we must remove them all. The last two were spam". Those last two were added by me. These sites are not commercial and are pertinent to the state of New York. They are research related and valuable resources. The reason that I had removed them before was because I misunderstood Pavel and when it was clear what his objection was, I reinstated the links. If I have misunderstood the line item, then I apologize. Cribbswh 14:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's take the discussion to Talk:New York#External links. Thanks. --BaronLarf 14:47, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush articles

FYI, I resent (i.e. do not appreciate) you calling the 2004 irregularities article "[my] pet article". I did not create it, I did not make the most contributions to it, I do not claim any authority over it, and I do not consider it a pet. It is the product and property of the general public, and, as such, is as legitimate as any other wikipedia article. Articles on wikipedia are not "owned" by any member, and represent the consensus of the community. etc. etc. See the pages in the community portal section for more detail about the nature of wikipedia articles. Also, please look over the behavior pages, such as Wikipedia:Civility. Again, I do not appreciate this.

Regarding the 2004 irregularites article, there have been numerous blanket pov allegations on the vfd pages, and the allegors have repeatedly been asked to bring their disputes to the article talk page and make them specific. Most of them just ignored the invitations, but a few of them decided to make contructive use of their criticism. As soon as they brought their specific criticisms to the talk page, a NPOV dispute tag was put up. Their contributions to the article were quite welcome, and all of their qualms have been resolved. They took the NPOV dispute tag down when the article met their satisfaction. As far as I know, everyone contributing to that page would like the article to be as NPOV as possible, so if you have any specific disputes, I encourage you to bring them to the article's talk page. Kevin Baas^talk 07:41, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you wanted to write such a long commentary on my use of the word "pet" on Rhobite's user talk page. I'm sorry if I offended you; such was not the intent. I am fully aware of the nature of articles on Wikipedia, but that you for taking the time to explain that to me.

Articles on wikipedia should, indeed, represent the consensus of the community. This is why I was confused on your continued efforts to place a statement on the George W. Bush opening paragraph which others believed should not be placed such a position of importance in the article.

As far as the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities article goes, I had tried to enter into the discussion a month or so ago, but you repeatedly disagreed with every statement I had made. I received no support for my proposals and saw that this was a contencious article, so I chose not to pursue the matter further.

If I may, for a second, digress for moment about that particular article. Please do not construe this as a personal attack, just an observation. It seems that people who seriously believe that there existed a concerted effort to disenfranchise Democratic voters feel quite strongly about it. On the other hand, there are those who aren't convinced that a significant number of irregularities occured, such as myself. I don't feel as strongly about this issue simply because, in my opinion, statistical whining doesn't change the election's result. I will not go through as much effort to make an article such as that one NPOV from my perspective. But for those who seriously believe that great injustices have been wrought, Wikipedia might be the only outlet to vent these feelings. There is no way that I can match the passion that others feel on this issue, and I don't really feel like waging a hard fought battle alone for that article.

I look forward to working with you again. --BaronLarf 15:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

A nice reply. I have replied on the GWB talk page regarding the meaning of "consensus", according to wikipedia policy.

I don't particularly remember the conversions we had a month ago, and if I disagreed with you, that is not neccessarily objection to either of our arguments, or either of us, regardless of the proportion. Likewise regarding support for proposals. Regardless, users should feel welcome on all pages and I regret that you did not feel this way, and that I, as I suppose you mean to say, was a factor in this.

I really don't think anyone on that page has a strong opinion about how many irregularities there were, or whether there was a concerted effort to disenfrancise Democratic voters. (I see, however, how one might get this impression from reading the article.) From my experience, the contributors to that page have presented and organized the facts pertaining to irregularities in the 2004 election in a straightforward and impartial way. I wouldn't doubt that most of them, at least, are of the opinion that, say, Mitofsky has offered no evidence to support their explanation of the exit poll - vote count discrepancy. But I would much sooner believe that they are of this opinion because Mitofsky has offered no evidence to support their explanation of the exit poll - vote count discrepancy, than because they believe there was a concerted effort to disenfranchise Democratic voters. I would sooner believe this because I have read Mitofsky's reports, and they offered no evidence to support their explanation. Likewise regarding the inequitable distribution of voting machines. The probable are of the "opinion" that the voting machines in Ohio were not distributed in an equitable manner, because the voting machines in Ohio were not distributed in an equitable manner. I think you'll discover that everything in the articles has this simple explanation. Ockham's razor. No where in the set of article is it alleged that there was a concerted effort to disenfrancise Democratic voters, and the information in the articles is not guided by or contingent on that hypothesis. The information in the articles is a neutral presentation of the empirical facts, irrespective of any given hypothesis. Kevin Baas^talk 18:48, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome, and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\^talk

Opera & Opera singer stub categories

Why is opera-stub not a subcategory of music-stub? Same question about opera-singer-stub (which should really be classical-musician-stub, but that's a separate issue). --Wahoofive 18:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Category:Opera stubs is indeed a subcategory of Category:Music stubs. The Category:Opera singer stubs is a subcategory of Category:Musician stubs. If you'd like to create a classical-musician-stub, by all means go ahead.

Cheers.--BaronLarf 18:34, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Strange, it doesn't show up in the subcategory listing of Category:Music stubs. Maybe it's just a latency problem. --Wahoofive 19:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. But if you look at the Category:Opera stubs, it shows that it is categorized under Category:Music stubs. I was hoping that it would show up on the Music stubs by the time you checked the message. ;^) --BaronLarf 20:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hi BaronLarf, I discovered that that is a bug in the category system. It will only show up if you go to the alphabetical section in which the subcategory goes, "O" in this case. I changed the categorization of opera stub to [[Category:Music stubs| ]], at least it's consistent with the other subcategories this way. BTW, my real reason for coming here is that opera-stub is currently discussed on WSS/criteria, you might want to check that out. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Schoolwatch

Thank you for your ongoing assistance with the Coppell High School article. If you come across other articles which you believe should be added to Schoolwatch, please be my guest and make any changes you see fit. --GRider\^talk 21:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments

On the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Oak Hills High School you subtelly changed a comment user:Chriscf had posted with his vote [1], as an experienced Wikipedian you should know this is completely unnaceptable. If you think that he meant something different to what he put, you should have posted a comment below him, and/or alerted him on his user talk page. He can then chose to correct it if it was actaully a mistake. I have reverted your change but retained your comment. Thryduulf 23:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to change Chris's vote; when clicking on the signature button to place the signature code (--~~~~), it accidentally was put randomly in the middle of the article. I must have left one of the "-"s behind.

Thank you for catching it and changing it; please do not automatically assume that I had malicious intentions.

Cheers.--BaronLarf 01:28, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Lawrence University

Hello, BaronLarf. I suspected you might be a Lawrence graduate. The Lawrence University page is well on its way to respectable. It certainly needs more treatment of Bjorklunden, which should have its own article. I would also like to see the Conservatory with its own article. Milwaukee Downer deserves an article as well (with the predecessor schools given redirects). Few of my contemporaries at Lawrence have gone on to enough fame and fortune (though one is apparently an Internet-porn king) to warrent articles. If they do, I'll be sure to add them to the list of distinguished alumni -Acjelen 20:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

anonymous comment

You're 20-something?? I didn't know there were younger people interested in opera. But, an large audience does not tune in to the Metropolitan Opera broadcasts, and my only edit, "most people know nothing about opera" is not nonsense, nor vandalism. But, Hitler loved Wagner operas, when he was dictator from 1933 until 1945. 4.160.216.114 10:36, April 10, 2005

4.1xx.xxx.xxx

Schoolwatch (again)

To avoid being associated with a user that has now been banned from any kind of activity in the area, as well as POV-pushing, I would advise that you unwatch and unlink User:GRider/Schoolwatch, and instead consider making use of the somewhat less provocative and more open alternative, Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch, which looks to be coming on nicely as a community project where views on neither side are suppressed. I hope the wider Wikipedia:Watch turns into a useful, NPOV, resource. Chris talk back 18:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In regards to GRider's User:GRider/Schoolwatch page, I have been warily watching his arbitration case. I have no association with him other than a common school-inclusionist viewpoint. Now that the case has been decided against him and he promptly broke the rules of his arbitration, I think that it's rather pointless to continue using his userspace, since he won't be able to edit any page having to do with deletion for a year. I like the new Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch; all it began as was a copy of listings from GRider's page. I've been keeping both up to date, but I agree that it won't do me any good to edit a page in a banned user's space. Thank you for your comments. --BaronLarf 19:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch isn't really about school inclusionism. GRider's page is. By the time the arbitrarion proceding got moving, Grider had stopped his objectionable behavior. The whole thing is an excerise of peevishness on the part of people who don't like GRider. Klonimus 04:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- While I do have some misgivings about the severity of the punishment imposed, it does appear that he broke the rules and continues to not show respect for the system. I think it makes the school-inclusionist movement, if you will, look bad if we are organized around a page on his user space. If you wish to keep updating his page, go for it. I'm picking my battles, and I've decided not to go on fighting this one. --BaronLarf 12:30, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Hi there! Happy to hear that, and I'm sure we can continue to respect one another as Pedians despite having different opinions. Down with factionalism :) ! Radiant _* 12:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Beer

Welcome to the WikiProject Beer. You may have noticed that we're very new, but we've hit the ground running and are making some progress. Thanks for the help! – Clockwork Soul 03:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Schools by century

Hi BaronLarf! Recently I've taken to categorizing schools by the century they were established, i.e. "[[Category:Schools established in the 1800s]]". Would you agree that this might be helpful to a potential researcher? Also, the category name as it stands is a bit wordy, do you have any suggestions for something less verbose? Cheers --GRider\^talk 23:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey GRider, welcome back. Yeah, I noticed the new categories. I can't say that I have a huge amount of enthusiasm for it; the vast majority of schools are going to be in the 1900s category, and the categorization doesn't, in my opinion, add some new dimension to the school categorized. I don't know of any other institution categorized this way, and institutions founded in one century versus another aren't that different. It's not the same as categorizing works of art, music or literature by century, where when they were created really makes a difference in their make-up, in my opinion.

I think that what really needs to be done is a revitalization of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools, where you, I and other school-inclusionists could discuss what we need to do to make school articles better.

What is your reasoning behind the new categories? Maybe if I understood them better I could support them more. Thanks for the message. --BaronLarf 00:29, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

This effort was initiated as a form of cross-categorization, not "pointless sub-categorization" as someone recently put it. My reasoning is that this could be very useful to a researcher looking for schools which began in any given century. Given that the vast majority of school articles are bound to be created in the 1900s, it may be best to sort those out by decade rather than century, but it is an interesting way to look at schools much like how we have songs and movie titles by year on Wikipedia. Can you think of any additional potential benefit this may provide to a researcher? --GRider\^talk 16:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for WikiProject Schools, yes, I do agree that this project needs revitalization and I offer you my assistance in any way possible. --GRider\^talk 16:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jeb Bush & SummerFR

Jeb Bush

Thank you for any format changes you did to improve the Jeb Bush article. I was a bit perplexed that you came to that page, after I then saw this on your user page: "Trying to make articles on George W. Bush neutral really makes me want to scream, though, so I don't do much on that page." Ini any event -- please note: you are the 2nd person to change the way quotes appear in the article, and both you and the other wiki person claim to have the format correct, but neither one of you agree. So. I will just wait till the 3rd person comes along and changes the format again. Same thing with certain other format changes that others approved (and I never did in the first place), but you changed, and, I am sure, again, someone will come along and then change your format saying it was wrong, too. So, I am staying away from format arguments since no one here seems to actually agree on format. With respect to photos, kindly read my talk page and you will see an on-going discussion about it. Thanks again for your interest and help, and I am being sincere, because if you made the page look better, I appreciate it. But, FYI, I believe the photo issue is already resolved. And, I will let the other person I am already involved on that, on my talk page, know more. SummerFR 17:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BaronLarf, I can not tell if you have seen my latest response to you about your concern over the myflorida.com photos, as I do not yet see any response from you

on the Jeb article discussion page. However, FYI, I did post an email response there that I received today from Gov Bush's spokeswoman, and I hope that satisfies you for now. Also, for the reasons I stated in my last response on the discussion page -- my belief that any lawyer will want to see how the photos are being used -- I intend to restore all photos as I had them, to enable those lawyers next week to see them on the page. I am asking that you leave those photos up for that purpose, since getting an answer is what both you and I seek, and I feel we will get an answer if they know what we are talking about. They will not know if you keep deleting the photos. In addition, I will later write to you a longer response on the discussion page of the Jeb article, outlining the reasons for a complaint I have about every single political and historical biography entry I have thus far read onwikipedia, and my complaint is this: there are not enough photos on those pages. There should have been more, and I will make my case about this. Consequently, in my view, as an educator and someone who wants to support the goals of wikipedia, the real problem here is not that I have posted too many photos, but that not enough photos have been posted on other wiki entries. That is something we can peraps discuss more after you consider my reasoning, to come. Thanks, SummerFR 00:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BaronLarf,, Please stop reverting my edits that I just stayed up all night to do because of the reason I already explained to you. You asked me for permission about the photos. I got you an email from myflorida. com You were silent when I posted that email. I put all the photos back so those lawyers could see them. Now you are going back in and changing all my work yet again. Please stop it. It is annoying. You are not doing anything that is helpful to your alleged complaint of pro=Jeb slant. You are just doing what you want, no matter than I got you an email and asked you to stop so the lawyers could see. Please stop it now. If you are so big on woiki rules, then you know you can not keep reverting back that page 3X in 24 hours as yo have done. So, stop it. SummerFR

Hi BaronLarf,

I was close to putting all the photos up on WP:CP too. But I figured it couldn't hurt to try to have a conversation about them with SummerFR first, especially because SummerFR is new to Wikipedia. I was surprised when s/he got into emailing the Bush folks for permission. It doesn't seem likely to me that the copyright holders will release the images under GFDL. Now I'm feeling a little over my head, and I'm thinking of asking someone with more Wikipedia experience to look in on things. I'm worried that the Bush folks will grant some kind of permission that will be incompatible with Wikipedia, and it will turn into a big confusing mess.

Also, yes, the article is POV and I'm trying to think of ways to NPOV-ify it. I know that Mother Jones ran a lengthy article about his ties to Big Sugar that tend to, hmm, undercut his claims of environmentalism. FreplySpang (talk) 01:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Freply Spang, I don't know what "POV" means in wiki talk, but I am guessing it means you think the article is too slanted pro-Jeb. The last link I added, in the concluding paragraph, is an opinion piece that I think is decidely anti-Jeb. Have you read it? What did you think of it? I added that in an effort to appease you, but it seems you want something akin to an in-depth analysis of the sort that Mother Jones can publish.

If you are willing to write opinion pieces or whatever, to extend the article, to a much longer version, and that is something wiki wants in an encyclopedia, well, then, do it. But, as I said to you or someone else, I honestly don't think any encyclopedia entry is the place to attempt to denigrate someone's acomplishments -- and, believe it or not, even while there is of course criticism one can make in every area about every governor, there are, in fact, MANY environmental accomplishments of this particular governor, in terms of expanding the preservation of land, helping endangered species, and a long list of other things I could name. You might be surprised to know that environmental groups -- none of which I belong to or head, by the way -- have not only endorsed Gov Bush in the past, but have given awards and honors to him, to reflect his comittment to the environement. Yes, it's true. Believe it or not. BTW, do you live in Florida as I do? Do you know these things as people in Florida do? That's why people vote for him. People here care about the environment, deeply, whether they head an environmental group or not. And, any governor who didn't care at all would not last very long in this state. Any rational person would tell you the same thing I am telling you. But, people out of state tend to thinmk they are experts about this state, when guess what - they are not. They like to come and protest here and the rest of the state gets polled by newspapers, and big surprise, no one in the state agrees with the out of the state protesters. It has happened constantly, in every controversy here, from One Florida on down. One Florida, for example, has 66% approval rating in this state. Do the busloads of protesters that have come from out of state to Florida to protest One Florida even know that? I will guess not. But the Miami Herald knows it, as they did the polling.

No, they do not all agree with him on every issue, and yes, there are controversies in Florida, and yes, I intend to mention that fact if you would only give me a chance to write all the text I would like to write, but, people like you seem way too eager to highlight one issue over a record that is a lot more than one or two issues in any area. It might be painful for you to know environmental groups have given him awards, but, I can prove to you they have.

Does Mother Jones ever want to write an article about that fact? Should that fact be mentioned in an encyclopedia? Is it so terrible that myflorida may want to cooperatie with wiki? These are fundamental issues for discussions on a political forum, not a forum about the gathering of knowledge, in a non-partisian way.

I notice that after a flurry of messages to me from you and BaronLarf about those photos, neither of you directly responded to me by mentioning that email, after I posted that email from myflorida. I think it was very nice of Gov Bush to respond so promptly to your concerns, on a weekend no less. But, does he ever get credit, from certain people, for something like being so responsible and easily accessible to the public, a hallmark of his many years in office? The answer, sadly in my view, is no, he never will. It doesn't mean he's right on every issue, but, he does try to do things that other leaders, and believe me I know this, would never do. SummerFR 04:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BaronLarf, Please post on the Jeb Bush discussion page a list of all the words/ phrases you find objectionable and you think should be changed, so I can know what you are talking about specifically. Thanks. SummerFR 09:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi BaronLarf and SummerFR. After getting myself wrapped up in this yesterday, today I realized that I need to pull away somewhat. I have real-life commitments in the next week that take precedence. I'll check in as I can, but I can't spend hours on research & writing this week. FreplySpang (talk) 21:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello BaronLarf. Thanks for the message. Not sure if I dare change anything on the Jeb page (last time I checked I was blocked from editing it anyway, after last week's annoyances). I tried to make it a bit less POV and got my head bitten off for my trouble. Cheers, Jez 23:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- Oops. It took me a while for the penny to drop. I shouldn't bite the newbies. You're absolutely right. I was initially fairly brusque after being accused of vandalism, but not overtly rude. Then the accusations increased in spite of my explanations for my edit. That pissed me off and I ended up being rude to the person in question - the wrong thing to do, I know. I apologise for my rudeness, SummerFR. Jez 01:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring your message

I just don't quite know how to handle the situation, either. Joyous 23:03, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Some users that I have a good deal of respect for include Dbenbenn, Mel Etitis, SWAdair, Rossami, and Korath. You might ask any of these for their opinions of what's happening. I would say that if it gets as far as RfC, you won't be the only one with an issue about the edits, or about the manner of Summer's communications. Joyous 11:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

NOTICE OF ARBITRATION

I am leaving this message to notify you, as required by the artbitration rules, that I have asked for arbitration in this matter concerniing your harasssment of me re the JEB BUSH article. Please do not write me back. Thank you. SummerFR 11:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, SummerFR. I still don't know why you feel harassed. Hopefully someone else can step in to help us out here.--BaronLarf 11:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

SummerFR's arbitration

I'm afraid that there's little anyone can do informally. The pattern is a familiar one: an editor who ahs a very strong point of view but isn't very articulate, who sees everyone who disagrees with him as biased and hostile, and who won't or can't think clearly about the issues or reflect upon his own behaviour. I'll keep trying, but eventually I think that something more formal, such as an RfC, will be needed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I would tend to agree that an RfC against him will probably be necessary. I don't want to be the first or only person to lodge it against him, though, since that would probably seem retaliatory. I have plenty of evidence compiled, though, if one eventually is filed. --BaronLarf 20:25, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for carrying the flag of NPOV and civility for now, BaronLarf. Like you, I hope that SummerFR comes to understand the workings of Wikipedia better. Her reluctance to go over Wikipedia policies before yelling "harassment" is certainly a concern. I just don't have time to be in the thick of it right now, I'm sorry. But I think you have been trying very hard to be a good Wikicitizen and I'll support you in formal proceedings if necessary. (By the way, SummerFR is a "she.") Oh, I was just wondering: SummerFR has mentioned that your user page used to say something about "trying to make GWBush articles neutral makes me want to scream." She takes that to mean that you want them to be anti-GWB. It sounds to me like you want them to be neutral, but you're surrounded by zealots on all sides, and so it's screamworthily frustrating. Am I right? FreplySpang (talk) 21:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, your interpretation is pretty accurate. My userpage (which I've editted now for clarity) used to list one of my passions as "Trying to make articles on Republicans a more NPOV. Trying to make articles on George W. Bush neutral really makes me want to scream, though, so I don't do much on that page." What I meant by that was I had tried to get involved at the GWB page, but there were so many people on every side along with frequent vandals that I gave up on the page, more or less. At some point I mentioned to SummerFR that I was a Republican, which I thought would help her understand that I wasn't out to tar and feather Jeb Bush. But it didn't seem to help; she then wrote that I was some sort of Republican who was anti-Jeb. <shrug> Thanks much for your message, and I completely understand that you didn't have enough time to get involved in this matter. It's taken huge chunks out of my day; I'm lucky that I can spare it. ;^) --BaronLarf 21:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I confess - I am entertained. I think we need to go through the spill-the-guts mode - get it all out - deep breath - progress to useful wikipedia contributor. You appear to be the foil - I see your response in progress, but please don't sweat it. And certainly, continue to contribute in your areas of passion - I am not sure this is one of them. Wizzy…☎ 21:12, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

No, on some level I'm entertained, too. Especially when comments were removed from my user page. As if I wouldn't see that and revert it! Heh heh. Thank you for your comments. On the User:BaronLarf/Arbitration with SummerFR page, I'm just trying to more or less document what happened so if I ever get nominated to be a moderator when I grow up, I can show that I play well with others. Thanks again. --BaronLarf 21:23, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like SummerFR has left the building, see her user talk page. Wow. She really took it all hard. I can't imagine coming into a large, functioning community and not finding out how it works before making waves. You did a good job staying cool and enlisting others, and not making it personal. (From my point of view, of course. Clearly SummerFR took it personally.) Your pal, ;-) FreplySpang (talk) 13:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that last night. Thanks much for your moral support throughout; I think I can take my Wikistress meter down a level now. ;^) Oh, and sorry about calling you a "he." Next time I'll check user pages. --BaronLarf 21:26, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

No problem about the gender thing. It was just funny that we could be such great "pals" when you didn't even know that! Anyway, an anon with a familiar editing pattern is now adding stuff to SummerFR's user page and user talk page. FreplySpang (talk) 21:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been monitoring that, too. It seems like she's trying to recreate the Arbitration case on her userpage and talk pages. I want to tell her that she can do that just by hitting "edit" on the arbitration page and copying all the Wiki-code, but... it's probably best if I didn't. --BaronLarf 21:47, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well. Darn.

I'm sorry that the matter has reached Arbitration so suddenly. I wouldn't be concerned about it; I doubt that the arb. committee will even agree to hear the case. Arbitration is supposed to be the last resort, not a starting place. Let me know if there's any way I can help. Joyous 22:43, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ouch! Typo!

Oh, no! I read your page User:BaronLarf/Aribtration with SummerFR and wrote an encouraging message on its talk page a while ago--some hours ago--at least, I thought I did. :-( See the typo though--"Aribtration"? Clicking on the link in your sentence "If any user has suggestions on how I could have better handled this situation, please let me know on this page's talk page", which didn't have the typo, took me to a whole 'nother talk page, one with no userpage attached to it. I only just figured this out. Shit. Anyway, please click on the link to see my original message. What I wanted to say was, I think you've handled the situation as well as humanly possible, don't let it get you down, and, uh, maybe you want to do something about the typo thing, so you don't get any comment forks? --Bishonen | talk 23:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks. Duly moved. --BaronLarf 00:40, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Attempt at compromise on schools

Hi there! You asked this on a school deletion discussion, "With no consensus, isn't the deletion policy default to declare "no consensus" and keep the articles? --BaronLarf 15:06, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)". You are of course correct, articles are kept unless there is a clear consensus otherwise. But given the spirit of Wikipedia, it is preferable if a consensus can be formed - otherwise people will just keep repeating themselves :).

That said, there has been some fragmented talk on getting a compromise. One suggestion is to keep articles on schools that have a lot to be said about them, and to keep-but-merge information on schools that don't indicate much of interest about the school. I would like your opinion on this. Of course this still needs to be worked out, but BEEFSTEW seems like a good starting place for drawing the line. Yours, R adiant _* 07:37, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Radiant!— Thanks for the message. I have come to the belief that all secondary schools (including high schools) are inherently notable. Elementary and middle schools should be merged into an article on the school district. I respectfully disagree with the BEEFSTEW system. Having said that, I believe that articles on Wikipedia should be of the highest possible calibre, so I do try to improve secondary school articles as much as possible, and watch over the ones I have edited to guard against POV additions and vandalism, to which high schools seem especially vulnerable. Cheers --BaronLarf 11:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you're improving them; I'd be a lot happier with a good article on schools (or indeed anything) than with a stub. Still, how would you feel about merging school stubs, and have them broken out to their own article if and when somebody comes along to provide more information to elevate it above stub-status? R adiant _* 12:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I personally would rather expand the stubs now rather than merge them and break them apart later. In the interest of compromise, however, I could agree to merging of school stubs into school district articles, provided that no information was deleted. I would then propose the following timeline for the creation of new high school articles:

Mention the school districts in the municipality on the municipality's article
Create an article on the school district
If enough information is included, break out articles on the high schools to their own pages. These articles should have a good amount of verifiable information, with a format agreed upon at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. They would not, however, have to pass any notability test in order to be broken out.

The issue of non-government funded schools (private schools in the United States) would still need to be discussed. Primary schools should remain merged with articles on school districts. How does this sound to you? Cheers. --BaronLarf 20:43, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm away for a couple of days, I'll talk to you afterwards. Yours, R adiant _* 23:08, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Have a good wiki-vacation. --BaronLarf 01:56, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Keep all school articles

BaronLeaf, i applaud your efforts on keeping school articles in wiki. I also like the idea you have, by the way, for merging elementary schools and junior highs in with school district articles as a fair enough compromise for those who complain that wiki is too cluttered (which is not an issue in deciding whether to delete or keep according to wiki guidelines anyway). my argument for keeping schools is straightforward enough (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Crescent School for a more thorough version) - thousands of alumni exist for any one school, they and hundreds interested in education or the community a school is located in are all potential wiki users. that s too many potential users to needlessly not provide info for by not providing the articles. given that there is not strong argument for deleting and one for keeping, i m at a loss really why those opposed to school articles persist. Best regards, Mayumashu 17:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! I haven't lost interest, and would be happy to make some kind of compromise on schools. R adiant _* 14:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Mayumashu — sorry for the delay in replying. I somehow didn't see your message when you left it a few weeks ago, and just noticed it now. Thanks for your input, and I would welcome anyone and everyone who wants to help forge some sort of compromise. I think everyone involved wants to have quality articles on Wikipedia; the question seems to be how to go about it.

Radiant — thanks for your reply. What response do you have to my proposal? Thanks much. --BaronLarf 16:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Scratch that; I just discovered Wikipedia:Schools. --BaronLarf 01:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ah good, I was just about to point you there. R adiant _* 08:43, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Vote request

Please cast your vote at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_principles_poll#Straw poll: This set of polls is premature and will only be divisive. Thanks, R adiant _* 11:17, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Figaro

As you may have noticed, OldakQuill moved it to Nozze last November. He is someone who thinks it is ridiculous to use the English names. Well, as you have come to realize as well, there is no point in being dogmatic about these things. I mean, it wouldn't be very reader-friendly to have Boris Godunov in the original, would it? ;) -- Viajero | Talk 14:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that. Well, if he disagrees he's welcome to participate in the discussion on the talk page. I understand his argument and the purist in me cringes by seeing "The Marriage of Figaro" at the top of the page, but Wikipedia conventions are on the side of keeping the English title. Plus, your whole argument about Russian titles; that's when I finally became convinced of English titles, when I was about to form a redirect of The Cunning Little Vixen to Příhody Lišky Bystroušky and realized that very few people would probably type in the Czech title. --BaronLarf 14:50, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

See, this is where I believe there is some room in Wikipedia for author preferences. Article names we need to agree on, but if you create a new article on an opera topic and refer in the text to the opera as Le nozze, I would not insist on changing every instance to the English title. It doesn't weigh heavily in the final balance, but the MoS does recognize the preferences of the "first signficant author". Obviously, unilateral sitewide changes are an entirely different matter. -- Viajero | Talk 16:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that author preference has its place when it comes to British vs. American usage when discussing a foreign opera, but not in the opera's title. Whatever convention we have, I think consistency throughout the article should be kept. --BaronLarf 13:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Caulfield Grammar FAC

As a user who loves their schools, I wanted to let you know about this current school FAC nomination. Please have a look and a vote. Thanks. Harro5 03:26, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think that there's a ways to go before this or any school gets to be a FAC. While I don't think that secondary schools need to be notable to have an article, some notability will probably be required to convince people of FAC status. But the article really does look great. --BaronLarf 14:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

School discussion

Hi there! I've summarized the lengthy Wikipedia:Schools discussion and listed the statements that got approval from most people. I believe it's been a constructive page, and WikiProject Schools has benefitted from the revitalization. Anyway please take a look at it and write on the talk page if you found this acceptable. Also I'd appreciate some help in keeping any future VfD discussions on this matter from getting out of hand (I'm not entirely sure how, but we could set a good example by casting concise votes referring to /Arguments). Yours, R adiant _* 11:00, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to keep VfD's out of hand; I think the best way is to just not have them for verifiable schools. But I like the compromise. --BaronLarf 15:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

List of high schools in Illinois

I agree that the list of high schools does not go on the state page. In order to avoid having people just start a new list on the same page, I think it would be a good idea to have a new page for "List of high schools in Illinois" like there already is for Pennsylvania and New Jersey. With a name like that, anyone going to the page would know exactly what they are getting - nothing more, nothing less. A link on the Illinois page would let people know they should go elsewhere to list their schools. What do you think?

Personally I think that a list of high schools is useful unless it is a complete list of every high school in the state (which I don't see happening any time soon). But a seperate article is much better than a listing in the article on the state. --BaronLarf 14:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Richard Montgomery High School

I think it should be okay to remove the sort of obvious vanity/nonsense which various anons have been adding to the article. If, on the other hand, they're adding anything that might be construed as valuable information, and you think it's not notable or too much detail or whatever, be careful about reverting repeatedly. No, I don't think you've broken the 3RR, but I tend to be more lenient on such cases than other admins might. — Dan | Talk 00:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the WP:3RR seems to be pretty clear that it doesn't apply to reversion of simple vandalism, but I just wanted to make sure my interpretation was sound. Thanks much. --BaronLarf 00:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

GRider as sock

Thryduulf responded to your query about the GRider sock comment on my user talk page. Actually I didn't know the details, but knew that David Gerard considered that account to be a sock and that he had investigated and apparently determined, using his new psychic super-arbcom powers, who was running it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From Tony Sidaway's talk page

I noticed that you refered to GRider as a sockpuppet on an edit summary for the WikiProject Schools page. Out of curiosity, who is he a sockpuppet of? I've run into him several times, and would be curious to know. Cheers. --BaronLarf 20:45, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard ran a check and has posted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Developer help needed that GRider was being used as a role account (along with several other accounts) by the sockpuppeteer and that he has suspicians (sp?) of who this is. To my knowledge though he hasn't posted anywhere public who he suspects. See [2] and [3] (see the last added paragraph). Thryduulf 21:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info--BaronLarf 00:08, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)