User talk:Hcrane

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Rmhermen 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Hcrane, 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!

Welcome to Wikpedia and thanks for your contributions. Your article on Lou Mckee is pretty good. He is a published poet who seems notable. Ed Mooney seems to be pushing it. Please don't try to creat articles on every teacher at this high school. I'm sure most would be deleted. Please take a look at the links above and I hope you will make useful contributions to our encyclopedia. TMS63112 00:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Frankly, your edits look like a high school kid adding his friends names to a Wikipedia page. Please read Wikipedia:Notability before you continue with adding names to the Model UN section because most of it is completely non-notable. You must also cite your sources. Please look at the help page before adding anything else. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. gren グレン 00:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"One final thing, it's obviously impossible to cite resources for articles like this one, which isn't widely publicized except in local news, etc." That is exactly the problem. If you read Wikipedia:Citing sources you will see that you need to cite sources. While Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia it does require that information is notable enough that verifiable sources of information exist to corroborate what the editor writes. It is often hard enough to find information about local high school let alone specific clubs at those high schools. Even quoting a webpage from that school is problematic in many cases as a reliable source of information. I didn't remove the section about Model UN but you cannot just list the name of people who were on the team. They by no means meet any standard of notability even if they were on a winning team. Wikipedia does try to be encyclopedic and such lists are just not acceptable.

I know more about Father Judge than you might suspect and I would like to make it clear that if any school started listing the names of "notable" MUN team members then I would remove it. You must understand that everyone has local events that they accept as true and notable but they cannot be on an international source if users do not have ways to verify their truth. Look at this edit that was just made to the page. It could be true that this is an important legend to South Philly or it could be some random person trying to make up something to amuse his friends. The point is that people have to be able to verify your work from reliable sources. If that can't be done then it should not be on Wikipedia. gren グレン 00:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not claiming to know everything about Father Judge--or even that much. I questioned myself if my memory of it being in South Philly was right--I suppose I was wrong. I mentioned that I knew something about it just in passing not to portray myself as an expert but because I figured you might find it interesting. In any case, you are still missing the point. This is not about whether or not this information is interesting. The question is about verifiability. If you cannot source it then it does not belong--it's that simple. I am sorry if you do not like this rule but this is well established here. We do not assume that another editor knows what they're talking about we look at their sources. Users do not own articles, either. Look, you seem to be mistaken about what Wikipedia is and how it works. We do not allow every interesting story about schools to be part of our articles--not because we don't like interesting stories but because in collaborative projects.

When you post a message anywhere right below the text box you will see a line of text that says: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." Read Wikipedia:Verifiability which is an official policy. Also read Wikipedia:No original research. I am not telling you that what you are posting isn't interesting or informative. Nor am I denying that any of it is true. But, verifiability is different than that. Please read that and it should clear up many of your questions. I am not trying to steal your thunder from that article but as an administrator I am trying to make sure certain rules are adhered to. Thank you. gren グレン 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not adhere to the guidelines you will be blocked. If there are not verifiable references then leave unreferenced. That whole article does not have references or in-line citations. Thank you. gren グレン 17:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is called confusing English--on my part. What I mean is unless you can cite verifiable references for everything in that article then you should leave the "unreferenced" template at the bottom of the page where I put it. Sorry, my wording was pretty bad. gren グレン 20:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing References

I used my judgment for the most part. Should there be a reference stating it was established in 1954, yes, there should be. However, it seems very plausible and I leave a marker stating it should be referenced. Is a random high school teacher who is clearly marked as never having gotten his only book published notable? I highly doubt it. So, there are two issues at play. One is notability which I have removed things which show no sign of notability. I have only asked for citation on simple facts about the school which are not referenced. I hope that answers your question. gren グレン 01:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Father Judge Mock Trial ==

I see that you have changed something which has been posted concerning Father Judge's Mock Trial team. I do not understand how you can favor one unreferenced version over another. The truth is that the team was started in 1998 by Kelly O'Connor and Jeff Shall. I am looking for something to corroborate this fact. Regardless, the version which you prefer is incorrect and must be changed.Hcrane 03:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what are you talking about??? I changed it to the version you put in. So for arguments sake lets say I am wrong. Then you are to since I based it off your edit. I RV'd a guy who vandals to an edit by a guy who contributes (you). So you may want to check again on who did what...--Xiahou 03:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Hcrane! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 272 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Louis McKee - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Louis McKee

The article Louis McKee has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I have been unable to find significant coverage of this poet. Some reviews from him but nothing more than a trivial mention. I'm also concerned about the unsourced reviews here which should be eliminated per WP:BLP.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]