This is an archive of past discussions about Xavier School. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The War Between Xaverians and Rmcsamson

- Don't worry. We shall keep fighting Rmcsamson's lame war. - - Rat
- Melodramatic
- Creep
- Sucks
- Autistic
- Molester
- Stupid
- Ox
- Nerd

Xavier Wikipedia Page Updates

ok nevermind alam ko na kung sino nagedit....

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.8.234.242 (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Prominent Alumni

Why is it that the "controversies" section is considered "unencyclopedic", and this isn't? This too is a matter of opinion. What makes the two sections so different? WHERE ARE THE CITATIONS TO PROVE THAT THEY TRULY ARE PROMINENT? I think some people here are suffering from selective vision.

True. Apparently, Patstuart and Rmcsamson (both could just even be the same person) are the idiots responsible for this mess. Just because certain information shows some particular "negativity" in it does not mean it already should be outright deleted. Patstuart would even lie about having all these IP's (counting about 6-7 now who's complaining) come from just one single person. Wow, what a way to show off. Your arguments are complete fallacies from Hasty Generalizations to Poisioning the Well. They think they're smart with these "flowery" arguments of theirs, but their just complete jerks with a sad, stupid life.

That's actually quite a good question about the Prominent Alumni section. Maybe the section should be edited too. As for the latest remark by the other anonymous user, I'm sure that wherever you managed to read about the names of common logical fallacies also mentions the kinds of arguments employed by most of the IP users: hasty generalizations, argumenta ad hominem, argumenta ad absurdum, and poisoning the well. All the energy that is expended by the anonymous IP users would have perhaps been put to some better, more productive use had they just posted the appropriate citations for the unencyclopedic controversies section. What's sad is that they seem to insist on resorting to name-calling instead of actually contributing to Wikipedia by posting the citations, which they claim exist. Rmcsamson 19:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't see the difference. In that article about prominent alumnis, you merely added the tag that questions the validity of the information. Why can't you do the same in the controversies section rather than outright deleting them? Truly, you are suffering from selective vision.

I actually dare you to prove whether or not I actually added the tag you're mentioning. If you go through the versions of the page one by one, you'll see that I did not add them. You're free to prove otherwise. Your ad hominems are getting boring. Perhaps you can finally supply the citations that have been talked about as lacking. Rmcsamson 12:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It doesn't really matter who placed the tag. The point is, the prominent alumni section also failed to supply the proper citations. Unfortunately, your biased selective vision prevented you from deleting this article. Instead, you merely resort into suggesting that it should be edited. Why don't you just outright delete it as well like you always do with the controversies section? Why is your judgement so biased? Truly Rmcsamson, selective vision has damaged your intellect to the core.

I think you've wasted enough of our time trying to make points without being able to substantiate your claims. A list of alumni is actually a factual list, which is more easily verifiable, hence the only concern being a possible need for editing. This is unlike the controversies section which, to this day, has never ever had the benefit of proper citations, only sweeping, unsubstantiated claims that the information is on the XS website (a comment made so many times that it's actually downright disappointing that those who insist that the information is available don't even bother placing the citations which they claim exist). Second, if you're going to go and say " you merely added the tag that questions the validity of the information," I suggest actually being able to show that it was I who made such an edit. Hiding behind the comment that it "doesn't really matter who placed the tag" only shows that you're not sure, if not downright wrong, about your accusation. And finally, Patstuart's right: if you want to have a decent discussion about the issues at hand, stay on point, and quit resorting to boring ad hominems. That said, reversion will continue until citations for the controversies section have been provided, and my position that there may be a need to edit the alumni section has not changed. Rmcsamson 17:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you are guilty of WP:POINT. I personally won't put the alumni back in, but it's quite common, when someone doesn't get what they want, to go on and try to apply their changes elsewhere. You have done this. I suggest you read the link above. We're creating an encyclopedia here, not trying to prove a point. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Patstuart, you're not getting my argument. The point is based on our argument between Rmcsamson and me that the prominent alumni section did not whatsoever contain any citations. You're not understanding the information. I am simply talking about the prominent alumni section not having any citations and yet is still being included in the encyclopedia. Stop making elementary fallacies of Hasty Generalizations. Furthermore, stop making hasty stupid accusations of me violating WP:POINT because clearly the point in this argument whatsoever is not connected to that policy. Stop making useless arguments until you've read and reread and finally understood the information above. Then, that will be the only time where you can make an argument with some substance. Seriously, we're not following up with what your saying. At least Rmcsamson provides some level of substance in his arguments but you don't.

OK, this is the last time I'm ever commenting on this page. Either provide a source, or the text doesn't go in. Every time we've asked for one, you've conveniently changed the subject. From now on, it will be reverted without comment. And don't violate 3RR, please; I'd hate to see the page protected. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To Rmcsamson: "A list of alumni is actually a factual list, which is more easily verifiable, hence the only concern being a possible need for editing." Nope. The reason why you wouldn't delete such a page is because once again you are suffering from selective vision. You are biased supporting "good" or "neutral" news. Something is NEVER factual unless it is supported by proper evidence. You yourself have quoted this idea so many times. You really think that section is factual? I myself have already seen the names and I guarantee you that several of them were purely invented. But I suppose you ought to know this right? You call that factual?? Wow. Why do you leave that section in peace? Why don't you just delete it like the controversies section? The answer once again is: bias and selective vision.

Really? Which names were purely invented? Perhaps you could have helped edit the section instead. On the other hand, I can point out which names there are real people. Rmcsamson 11:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Really?? You can actually prove whose names are the real people? Wow, show us then. I would really like to see you fail miserably. Why would I help you? My point is that that article is erronous but despite that fact, you didn't execute any type of action. Again I impose my question: Why don't you just delete that article like you always do with the controversies section?

As for the tag thing, I reiterate, it doesn't really matter who placed it. The point is this. Why do people resort to placing tags or like you (just leaving it alone) when it is downright the same with the controversies section with you say as having no citations?

You're off point already. It's clear that you have no evidence to back up your earlier accusation. Rmcsamson 11:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are making blatant nonsense accusations. The point is not about the tag. The point is why you're not deleting the alumni section when it is just the same as the controversies section. Once again, you're suffering from selective vision.

For the ad hominems, it does not change the subject whatsoever. These "ad hominems" you claim to see in my writings are merely done to supplement my argument, and not to change the subject.

Unfortunately, ad hominems do not supplement your writing. Nor do they turn your writing into an argument. For someone who seems to have a knack for naming logical fallacies, it's obvious that you missed out on the ones in your own writing. I think that's selective vision, if not performative contradiction. Again, if you cannot resort to anything better, and believe in what you're writing, ask the Wikipedia admin for arbitration, and maybe they can sort you out too. Rmcsamson 11:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is your fault that I have to resort to ad hominems. You don't seem to be getting any point here in this argument. Furthermore, you're making false accusations once again that these ad hominems are changing the subject, which they clearly do not. Again, it is merely to supplement, not to change.

I cannot see how it is my fault that you, by your own admission, have to resort to ad hominems. Your stubborn refusal to simply supply citations for the controversies section in order to settle the matter and predilection for resorting to ad hominems do not add to any argument in any conceivable logical fashion. Nor can your ad hominems suffice as citations for the controversies section. I do not see how attacking users such as Patstuart supplements your points, unless your point is precisely to attack other users and to resort to ad hominems. If such is the case, then you really are just wasting our time. Incidentally, my earlier reply was meant for an anonymous user with an IP address of 124.107.144.30 . Your IP address is 58.69.85.227 and you say that YOU have to resort to ad hominems because it's my fault. I wasn't talking to you. So should we take this as a categorical admission that you and user 124.107.144.30 are one and the same, resorting to using different IP addresses? (I'll bet you'll call this a Hasty Generalization.) Again, until you are able to supply the proper citations for the controversies section, reversion will continue. Rmcsamson 15:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You yourself have blamed me for resorting to ad hominems. Therefore, I myself simply added to what the other anonymous user had said. Take into consideration that my reply of the issue regarding ad hominems was a reply from one of your earlier replies and you simply reminded me to do so after your argument regarding the other user. Furthermore, I would like to commend you for finally understanding my point of "hasty generalization." Wow! You are learning! The only problem now is for you to use your skills of application.

Yes, I have pointed out that you were resorting to ad hominems. To which, you (eventually) replied, "Unfortunately, it is your fault that I have to resort to ad hominems." In reply, I pointed out that I could not see how your chosen method of discussion was any of my fault, or how it gave any credibility (in the form of citations) to the controversies section . Your reply above still does not add anything to this discussion, nor gives users the benefit of the citations asked for. Perhaps while I continue to ponder the meaning of "hasty generalization" and polish my "skills of application," perhaps you can finally provide the appropriate citations. These may, after all, be an appropriate example of proper usage of "skills of application." Rmcsamson 16:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

To Patstuart: Seriously, your responses are so idiotically empty. You're not even addressing ANY of my arguments. You keep blatantly accusing me of violating Wikipedia rules but I can see no substance whatsoever in what you're saying. I raise questions and answers about your argument, but you likewise don't do the same. Instead, you always resort to continuous fallacies of Hasty Generalizations and Poisoning the Well. You keep making senseless fallacy arguments but you NEVER address any of my questions. Wow, what a debater. Stop making false accusations and lies about us just so to make you LOOK GOOD. It doesn't work. Your latest response was useless. Was it surrender? Well, simply put, you're a loser. Grow up and learn. You're so right into saying that you will no longer place a comment here because practically, as I have said, your arguments are jokes and bluff merely created to make you look like some kind of smart person.

Are you familiar with WP:TROLL? One of its main characterisitics is that a troll accuses others of doing exactly what he/she does in order to avoid scrutiny for those actions. However, we have a policy here: Do not feed the trolls. Answer the question: why haven't you provided reliable sources? Until then, you can edit this page away to your heart's content, and I will no longer respond to your inquiries. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Patstuart, I think you're already tripping far beyond the scope of Wikipedia policies. Have you ever heard of the term "showing off"? Please stop your idiotic fallacies. Stop poisioning the well with these lies of yours when clearly you yourself is the violator. Your entries are nonsense. Your argument is nonsense. You're complete nonsense. If ever you think of writing another entry here, remember to at least inject some substance into your argument.

Should the controversies be returned?

Absolutely right mate. Rmcsamson is a kid and a complete KJ. He is a useless member here in Wikipedia. He feels that he should become admin but that is just SOOO far off.

Will someone be so kind enough to re install the Fr. Johnny Go S.J. issue? And for you Rmcsamson, kindly allow the rest of the reader to have their own discretion on the issue. We are no longer kids, are you?

Whether the issue is true or not my suggestion to you fellow alumni is to just put your comment or opinion next to the issue no need to delete, unless you (Rmcsamson) own this site, then all of the reader will just have to content with what ever issue you like. (that is if any one else would still want to read your site) Friendly advice!

HELLO Rmcsamson, may I know what batch are you from ? And your current profession? I am from batch 79

I'm not from Xavier School, nor am I an interested party. My position on this matter has not changed. Rmcsamson 16:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are not from xavier, how would you know whether there really was a bomb found in the GS gym? Because every one here that IS from xavier knows that the GS students were, infact, called to the gym while a swat team searched both GS and EED.

Since I'm not from Xavier, what I care more about is whether or not the issue is true, and whether or not there are sources to back the said claims and so-called controversies. Otherwise, they're unencyclopedic, and will be removed.Rmcsamson 03:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Must I repeat myself? If you would simply ask someone from Xavier, you would know that there WAS infact a swat team and they DID recover a bomb.

Rmcsamson is simply put, a complete idiot. Don't argue with idiots. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Unfortunately, calling me a complete idiot does not give the unencyclopedic sections the necessary grounding of verifiable, reliable sourcing and citation which Wikipedia requires. For all of the discussion that has ensued on this page, a simple citation of proper sources would've solved the matter. Thus far, NO ONE has managed to pull this off. But hey, the ad hominems are entertaining. Rmcsamson 18:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If I may look in on this problem, sir (I am referring to the IPs that are speaking), the problem is three-fold:

everything must be verifiable (see WP:V) on Wikipedia - this is a non-negotiable policy - if this bomb scare happened, it shouldn't be too hard to find an internet archive
the original quotation with the bomb quote has been consistently added with other dubious content in the form of an "assassination attempt" on the leader of the school.
the use of many IP users and single-use registered users, together with the similar personality of each of these users (i.e., resorting to ad hominem attacks - see WP:CIVIL), makes the appearance quite striking of one person on a crusade to add these changes, trying to make it look like he's many different people. If this is the case, you wouldn't be the first person to try it; it's something Wikipedians have seen before.

To recap, if you have citation, it can be added in. But until then, please stop adding it; or if you do, it will be reverted, because it violates Wikipedia policy. If you don't like the policy, you can feel free to take that up in a policy debate channel; but as it stands the policy must be followed.-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

First, let me reiterate again that the information has ALREADY BEEN VERIFIED. Tidbits of information concerning these topics can be FOUND IN THE XS WEBSITE. Moreover, many people have already contested that these facts are true. This proves beyond recognition that the information is verified. But if you're still skeptical, you just might wanna visit Xavier and ask around. I'm sure they'll be more than willing to help you.

If the information is verifiable and available, it should be no problem for the anonymous user to post the citations which can direct Wikipedia users to the proper pages in the XS website. Until this is done, and the information is verified, then the reversion will continue. Rmcsamson 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Second, you keep on claiming that these I.P's all belong to one person. Where's your proof to that? Stop making such false claims and idiotic assertions that their information is written similarly. If you truly think that these I.P's all belong to the same person, then I would to raise the question of whether these usernames themselves (ex. Rmcsamson, Patstuart, Loganchiam) ALL BELONG TO JUST ONE PERSON. In case you don't know, it is actually quite easier to make several different usernames in Wikipedia than displaying different IP's in the site. Therefore, it is just as highly probable than you yourself is just ONE PERSON logging into several different usernames. These incidents of a person bearing several different usernames actually happen much more frequently in Wikipedia.

If you have a problem with other users, I suggest asking for help with arbitration from a Wikipedia administrator. It is likely, however, that an admin will just ask you post the proper citations instead of engaging in useless bickering. Rmcsamson 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to know you finally found out it was "useless bickering"! The argument is useless because you are a complete idiot. I hate arguing with idiots. The arguments are going nowhere. It becomes "useless bickering" like you said.

EVERYBODY LISTEN: DON'T ARGUE WITH IDIOTS LIKE RMCSAMSON, THEY BRING YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL AND BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE.

I find it interesting that a) you regularly resort to personal attacks, as per above, b) you resort to what is almost certainly lying (e.g., saying you're multiple people, when several factors point to the fact you're the same person), c) conveniently forget to find a source every time we bring the issue up, d) include other unlikely material, and e) never address any of our arguments. Then, after all these consistencies, you have happen to wonder why no one wants to include your information, and, quite frankly, have the gall to call RMC a jerk. If you would be willing to have a real discussion, and talk about any of the problems we have brought up (for example: can you not find a source? or do you just not feel like searching for it? or - more likely- does it not exist becuase the event never happened), that would be one thing. But in all the discussion we've had, you've never once even attempted to address our questions. So please, if you ever want your content to be in the encyclopedia, start acting reasonably, and have a discussion, rather than just calling people names. Until then, I consider this matter closed, and will revert our changes to the page without comment. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

WARNING: Rmcsamson and Patstuart is just one person!

I'm moving your comment because you never sign and date them, and it's impossible to figure out who said what, and when. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I hope you file a check user complaint, just so you can see that it utterly fails. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I also hope that you would also file an IP complaint to find out that all the different IP's here came from several different persons, so that you as well will utterly fail. But don't worry, Patstuart, I'm going to file a complaint about you, cause you're really doing nothing to improve Wikipedia. You're not just not doing anything to improve on it, but also making it worse.

GOOD OL' POLL

Do you think the 'controversies' and 'assassination attempt' articles be kept on Wikipedia?
Yes Votes: 2
No Votes: 0

-maybe not the controversies part, but the assasination attempt definitely should have a place in the article.

-The assasination story is definitely not true according to Fr. Go himself. Please stop posting vandals on this page. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganchiam (talk • contribs)

-This is a flawed poll for 4 very large reasons.

1) Wikipedia is not a Democracy. So it doesn't matter anyway.

2) One of the yes votes suspiciously comes from an IP, meaning it's probably a double vote.

3) I count 3 people saying no, though we refuse to actually vote due to reason #1 (Patstuart, Loganchiam, Rmcsamson). That leaves the Yes/No ratio at 1:3.

4) If the assasination really occurred, then you would have a source; it's not that hard to find. But you conveniently forget to give it to us.

So please stop adding this stuff in, until you can find a source. -Patstuart 00:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes. " quoted from the article you linked :)

First of all, it is a fact that the two votes came from two completely different people. And if you look closely at the history page, you will find that both votes actually came from two different IP addresses. So stop making false assertions that one of the votes suspiciously comes from an IP when both votes actually came from two different IP's. So if I voted "yes" myself, the total count would be three votes.

This is clear enough. Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Rmcsamson 14:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Second, can you please at least elaborate on the matter that you actually talked to Fr. Go? Or if you can, can you please give us some concrete evidence? Or are you just putting words into his mouth?

No citations, no dice. Rmcsamson 14:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

...therefore father go never actually said that the attempt never occurred. I don't see any citations other than what logan posted. How is taking out the assassination attempt section on the basis of just one persons word, using the word you seem to love so much, encyclopedic?

Third, many people have already complained about the stuff concerning the 'controversies' and 'assassination attempt'. This is more than enough verification to let these entries stand. Though I acknowledge that citations would provide better ground for these articles, we all know that it is not that easy to find certain citations. The Xavier article is not one of those "popular" articles wherein you can instantly find the sources you need on the internet in a click of a finger. The Xavier article belongs to the underground base of unknowns. Less than 3% of the entire Wikipedia user database have probably read it. It is definetely not that easy. The best evidence that we can give are actual documents (ex. letters, reports) pertaining to these said incidents. For your benefit, we are actually trying to find these sources even though public majority is already more than enough proof that these entries should stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimyc26 (talk • contribs)

If there are no citations, then there's no proof to back up the claims made in the sections. They will be deleted until such claims can be properly backed up. Rmcsamson 14:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Stuff

Searching for 'Days with the Lord' using the search feature doesn't seem to be working. Can anybody please fix this? TY.

This article greatly needs its share of criticism. Xavier School has been a very controversial private institution since it opened to public in 1956. People have the right to know what goes on inside the halls of Xavier School. Please open your eyes Rmcsamson.

It's simple, really. Provide proper citations, and the entries can stand. Otherwise, this is simply rumor-mongering. Rmcsamson 13:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's very simple. As I have said, if you just OPEN YOUR EYES, you're bound to find the citations you need in the XS website.

It's also quite simple to add the citations yourself, since you insist that there are supposedly entries in the XS website. I suppose that they should be easy enough for you to properly use. Until then, expect the entries to be removed until they're properly cited. Rmcsamson 17:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The citation is the XS website itself.

I removed a large chunk copyrighted material that was copied directly from http://web.xs.edu.ph/static/About%20Xavier/briefhistory.php . If anyone wants to add information about Xavier School's history, feel free to use that as a reference, but don't post copyrighted material directly. TheCoffee 11:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I am thingking of removing the unprotect. Is is safe from vandalism?--Jondel 02:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Complaints section

This section's longer than the rest of the entry. It's also unencyclopedic and libelous. I had to remove it for the time being. Rmcsamson 15:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The removed section was an internal matter and complaint of personnel which is indeed not part of an encyclopedia. --Jondel 00:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would you remove this section? If you really wanted to help, you could've rephrased the complaints, instead of removing them outright. The complaints themselves might not be facts, but it's definitely a fact that many people have complained about that.

If they're not facts, they're unencyclopedic, and don't belong here. If there are proper citations, then maybe they can stand. Rmcsamson 12:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Rmcsamson: Not necessarily true. Just because something isn't 100% factual already makes it unencyclopedic. Haven't you ever read other Wikipedia articles containing sections about 'controversies' and 'criticisms'? Because in your current state of mind, it's obvious that you have not. The article on Neopets is an example. As you may or may not know, that website has been very controversial from the start. Particularly, there's an entire section devoted to user criticism for the website. Now these criticisms are not entirely factual, since these are merely complaints concerning user experience when surfing the website. It's a good thing though, because despite the fact that an enormous amount of people (probably in the thousands) edit the website, none ever did the pathetic move of deleting outright any so called "unencyclopedic" articles. The best thing they do is to simply edit the articles for convenience and better information UNLIKE YOU. Just as the anonymous user has said, "The complaints themselves might not be facts, but it's definitely a fact that many people have complained about that." User criticisms on Neopets aren't entirely factual, but it's definetely a fact that a lot of people have already complained about these issues. This is what makes the articles stand, just like in this article right here. While I could probably find some citations you're begging for from the XS website or from a 'hate' site somewhere out there in the internet, it doesn't really matter in the long run. Sometimes, it is not about the citations, but about the majority.

PS: Try to make a longer reply this time defending your actions. I'm tired of your short continuous replies of "need citations, need citations".

The question isn't whether or not they're 100% factual. The entries being added are allegations which are supposedly based on fact. If there is some sort of factual basis, then there ought to be some reference to which this basis can be attributed. Wikipedia is not a venue for venting opinion, unless perhaps that opinion is popularized enough to have been noted elsewhere. Otherwise, you end up with an article with non-neutral sections which skew the article toward a non-neutral point of view, which is unencyclopedic. The citations asked for are simply verification if there is even factual basis to what has been added, leading the article toward neutrality and being more than what might be the opinion of a single Wikipedia user. The same holds true for Neopets. Again, citations are needed. If those cannot be provided, the entries will be deleted. Rmcsamson 17:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Unless perhaps that opinion is popularized enough..." These opinions are obviously popularized more than enough by the majority and therefore these articles not only can, but definetely MUST be included in the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.198.124 (talk • contribs)

Kindly reread the entire sentence again, instead of merely resorting to selective quoting. If you can prove your so-called majority, let's have it. Again, no citations, no dice. Rmcsamson 15:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people here in Wikipedia are already complaining about you. That proof is more than enough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.48.128 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, your (imagined) complaints aren't sufficient as citations. No citations, no dice. Rmcsamson 14:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Chinese training

I am interested in languages and would like more elaboration on the training of Chinese language in the school.--Jondel 00:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesuits

The Jesuits are from China who were expelled. There are even caucasian Jesuits but they don't associate with the Jesuits of Ateneo. A history of the Xavier Jesuits would be very interesting.(I almost became a Jesuit.)--Jondel 00:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Bomb Threat and Assassination Attempt

Please stop posting vandals on this page.

Who took out the sections about the assassination attempt on Fr. Johnny? Also, what happened to the section about the bomb threats?

The public needs to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.70.250 (talk • contribs)

REPLY: You're right. Apparently, Rmcsamson is the one responsible for continually deleting these articles even after repetitive edits bringing them back. I agree with what you said. THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW. But Rmcsamson's blind foolishness continues to keep the world in the dark. He must be banned from the Wikipedia community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.126.248 (talk • contribs)

It's pretty simple. The entries being placed are libelous and smack of rumor-mongering, which isn't what Wikipedia is about. If you want the entries to stand, cite appropriate sources, and make sure they're neutral. Until then, expect them to be deleted again and again and again. Rmcsamson 16:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a quick look at 210.213.126.248's contribs and I think we have our answer. -Patstuart 19:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Everything was going fine. The 'controversies' and 'assassination attempt' articles stood in Wikipedia for around a week or so. Various users were editing them for convenience BUT NOT deleting them. That is, until that nosy Rmcsamson showed his face and deleted everything up.

No citations, no dice. Rmcsamson 06:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Rmcsamson's utter stupidity is what keeps the Wikipedia Xavier article from flourishing.

Ad hominems don't work on Wikipedia. Citations do. Rmcsamson 15:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

Seeing the constant vandalism to this page, does anyone think we should semi-protect it? I'm pretty close to nominating it myself. -Patstuart 01:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Rmcsamson is a joke. He is a useless user in the Wikipedia Community. Rmcsamson already does nothing to contribute in the encyclopedia and yet, he just worsens everything up with his pathetic know-it-all, KJ attitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.199.123 (talk • contribs)

There's really no need to semi-protect the page. All that those who insist on putting a section on so-called controversies ought to do is add the appropriate citations. That shouldn't prove to be very difficult, should it? Rmcsamson 12:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Rmcsamson

Rmcsamson really uses his time to go back to edit and delete stuff about Xavier School?

Why? Hate XS?

Rmcsamson is vandalizing this article

What do you think?

Yes - Mohnke - An Anonymous IP Address (Simply put, Rmcsamson sucks, big time.

NO

Please consult existing Wikipedia policy before resorting to ad hominems. Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Rmcsamson 12:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting comments

Hey, please don't delete all the comments on the talk page. That's actually considered vandalism. You can archive if you'd like. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)