User talk:Beaconboy

Wineville Chicken Coop Murders

Beaconboy, I have no idea what you're talking about. I did not "demand corrections", I did not "attack" anyone, and I certainly never said nor implied that anything in the section was a lie, except in your imagination. I simply pointed out that some passages, as written, made no sense, which is true, and did not require a reading of the source, grammar is not source-specific (even if meaning was, and therefore, would've required it to clarify the matter). Thanks again for your help. Nightscream (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about, because in fact I did not attack anyone, say or imply anything in the section was a "lie", and there was nothing inappropriate about my tone. My messages were perfectly polite. Nightscream (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the kind words you left on my talk page! Wahrmund (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wineville Chicken Coops

An IP editor has made a couple reverts here. He's not happy with citing the James Paul book. Do you have a copy of it so that a more exact citation can be given? I no longer have a copy. Wahrmund (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will get out the book and cite the exact page.

July 2018

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Christine Collins. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call it when someone ignores the truth as handed down by the State of Calfornia? That is not my commentary, point of view or my analysis............it is the truth. Is there no room for the truth in Wiki? As the article reads, it gives readers the false impression that the son was not murdered. Is there no room for these facts? Beaconboy (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Adolph Rupp, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Rockchalk7 17 23:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to cite a reliable source for the fact that Mr. Rupp was coached by phog allen Beaconboy (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1, anything that is challenged by an editor to require a source, requires a source per Wikipedia policy. However, that is not what I'm saying needs a source. His playing career does not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. A brief mention in the body of the article is fine, but it doesn't need mentioned in the opening. What needs a source is the NCAA records list.--Rockchalk7 17 00:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what is wrong with it being mentioned in the opening? I note this, because of your personal opinion stating that Mr. Rupp did not contribute much to the team. That is you inserting your personal opinion and prejudices. Please allow the revert. Beaconboy (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at all what I said. What I said was his playing career wasn't notable. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact. He isn't in the Hall of Fame as a player (just as a coach), his jersey isn't retired, he didn't win any major awards, and his playing career doesn't have any significant coverage in news sources (just his coaching career). The lead paragraph of an article establishes notability. He's notable as a player, not as a coach.--Rockchalk7 17 00:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you said that "he didn't really accomplish anything as a player". That's your personal bigoted opinion. You did not state that that his playing career wasn't notable. I quit donating to Wiki long ago, over bullies like you, who think they own this page. You take is just disgusting and has nothing to do with facts as we know them. Beaconboy (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki's definiution of Notability: Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; a) We know that Adolph Rupp was coached by Phog Allen. if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. b) we know that there are hundreds of reliable independent sources that can be found on whether or not Adolph Rupp was coached by Phog Allen. Seems to me that this does meet the standard of notability. Beaconboy (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You once again have missed the point. The issue isn't verifying he was coached by Phog Allen. If that was the issue, I would have removed it from the Early Life section as well. The article itself even says he was a reserve meaning he didn't play much, if at all. Substitutions in basketball weren't as common 100 years ago as they are now. Once again, the issue is his playing career does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. He only played college basketball, so the relevant notability policy is WP:NCOLLATH. Requirement 1, win a major award (nope). Requirement 2 were inducted in the Hall of Fame of their sport (nope, not as a player at least). 3, Gain National Attention as a player (nope). 4 applied to individual sports (wrestling, track, etc) 5 applies to coaches which isn't the purpose of this conversation.--Rockchalk7 17 00:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH are notability guidelines for the creation of a standalone article about the subject. They say nothing about the contents of articles.

WP:NOTEWORTHY says: "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. [...] Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies."

The playing career of a hall of fame basketball coach is noteworthy enough for inclusion in his article. PK-WIKI (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, however the NCAA records still should not be added back without a source.--Rockchalk7 17 01:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I will get a source and note it and add the records back into the article. Beaconboy (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Make sure each record is verified either by a single source or multiple. Any records you cannot verify, do not add it back.--Rockchalk7 17 21:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we were able to resolve this without an edit war or either of us getting frustrated.--Rockchalk7 17 21:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your email

For starters I didn't even know I had that turned on, I have turned it off. Second, it's not unprofessional or threatening to ask you not to start an edit war. I ask that when I feel like reverts might be headed towards an edit war. It's nothing personal, it's just to avoid the frustration that comes with edit wars for both sides. My comments do not demean Adolph Rupp. I didn't say he was a terrible player or a horrible human being. I just stated his playing career did not meet Wikipedia's definition of notable. I reiterated this right here on your talk page. Yes I did learn from the other editor that was irrelevant for inclusion in the opening. Not a single thing I said to you was remotely close to threatening and I have gone back reviewed everything I said. This is your talk page and you're more than welcome to remove my comments but I will not be removing my comments myself because they were not wrong. I do not appreciate being wrongfully accused of a lack of professionalism or demeaning the subject of the article, especially in a hidden way like emailing me. Just let what happened go. You got your way and what you wanted is in the article. I will not be returning to this talk page about this subject because I'm done discussing this and was done with it a month and a half ago.--Rockchalk7 17 04:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you do not care what I think about your comments. That does not mean that you are innocent of the things that I spoke politely to you about in my email. I have tried to work this out with you, with a lack of a professional response from you. I am going over your head now, per Wiki rules. Your comments that Adolph was an unremarkable player, etc. have no basis in fact. It is just your personal biased opinion. Good day, and we will both see what one of your superiors has to say about your comments. Keep in mind, I tried to work this out with you. Beaconboy (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]