User talk:Qwerty5225

Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio)

Thanks for your interest in editing the Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio) article. Unfortunately, I had to revert your recent edits for the following reasons:

First, in regards to the list of all classes available, please become familiar with Wikipedia policies as well as those of the WP:WPSCH project and what constitutes a good article. Lists should generally be avoided, especially long lists, within a specific article. Read WP:NOT to also learn what Wikipedia shouldn't have. Since Wikipedia is not a directory, it shouldn't have a listing of every course available at the school; that's what school websites and course catalogs are for. Instead, the section on academics should focus on what classes are generally available, highlighting any that may be unusual or different from other schools. This should all be in paragraph form with proper sources. Any type of list should be within the paragraph. For an example of a school article that was featured, see Plano Senior High School. While the Roosevelt article by no means has to follow the Plano SHS article exactly, it provides a general example of what a good article looks like.

Second, as the for the website, generally just use the domain name since the district owns it. When I open the Roosevelt website, my browser says "http://www.kentschools.net/rhs/". The district bought the domain for a reason. You'll note other articles also do not use the "state issued" address either when they have their own domain name. Really, it's a minor issue and your concern that "if the district forgot to renew the domain" is remote at best, especially since all staff e-mails in the district are "@kentschools.net". If that happened (highly unlikely) we can change it on the article.

Last, I removed "newly-formed" from the athletics section since the Western Reserve Conference was "newly-formed" 13 years ago (1996), so it really isn't new anymore and it is awkward to say the "then newly-formed." Simply stating it was "absorbed by the Western Reserve Conference" is correct and accurate. And yes, I originally wrote "newly-formed" when that section was first written and have thought it was somewhat awkward for some time. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And yes, the sports section does need to be rewritten, but remember, small lists aren't bad, but excessive and very long lists are what need to be avoided. Ideally, there should be paragraphs about the schools most notable (i.e. most successful) teams and their accomplishments and then a list of other sports available. There's a huge difference between a list of 25 sports and over 200 classes. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines

About the web address: "kent.k12.oh.us" is not easier for people to remember, especially those who are not familiar with school websites. While it is shorter by a few letters, it is far less easier to remember, otherwise the district would not have gone to the trouble of acquiring use of the domain name kentschools.net. You'll note that Jluscre also stated on my talk page: "The name was registered as an alias to provide an easier to remember address and to provide our staff with an email domain." It is inetersting to note that the district did not need the domain to have e-mail as the "kent.k12.oh.us" domain also has e-mail with it; in other words it was strictly out of convenience for memory. People who don't use the state issued addresses regularly easily confuse the order of the different parts. Lastly, the Kent City Schools actively promotes "kentschools.net" as their website address (see internal links on the site as well as the latest printed district calendar), so that should be reflected in the article about them since it can be sourced.

As for the directory issue, it would be more a directory if it had phone numbers and e-mail addresses along with the physical address. To quote from WP:NOTDIR: "Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are not encyclopedic." As it stands now, it is no more informative than the typical school infobox which can be found on both the Roosevelt and Stanton articles. You'll note those infoboxes also contain the physical address, enrollment, and principal of the respective school.

Also, please read WP:CREDENTIAL and do not replace the "Dr." in front of Joseph Giancola's name. Wikipedia policy asks that the titles not be used in the article. Please become familiar with Wikipedia standards, guidelines, and policies so your edits can be more constructive. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Web address

Both http://www.kentschools.net/rhs/ and http://kent.k12.oh.us/rhs/ will go to the same page and both will show up in the web browser. Further, if you hold your cursor over the link to "Theodore Roosevelt High School" at the bottom of the page, the address it directs you to is http://www.kentschools.net/rhs. In either case, you get to the same website, so for the sake of making it easier for ALL readers to read and remember the site, that is why I insist on keeping the "kentschools.net" address. And since the kentschools.net address was already there and is indeed a correct address, there was no need to change it in the first place. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

You know very well I told you excessive lists were a "no-no" such as listing all 200 courses offered at Roosevelt High School. Listing sports teams is fairly normal on articles, especially when they are broken up by season. Also, the amount of time the kent.k12.oh.us domain has existed is irrelevant. I have already explained why the kentschools.net domain should remain. Why is this such an issue for you? --JonRidinger (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly given my reasons for wanting to keep the "easy to remember" domain name, plus it was the original name put into the articles when they were written, so a change was not warranted. Basically your and Jluscre's changes were unnecessary and did nothing to improve the article. I did not initiate the change, it was you and you have continued to push for the change without any reaons beyond the whole "official" claim. It would be one thing if I was trying to keep a web address that directed people to a different website, but I'm not. I'm using the web address the Kent City Schools themselves promote as their web address. It's all about making it as easy to read for the reader as possible; nothing more. The fact that I started both articles is really irrelevant as I have had the same stance on other articles as well. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done...as for the school colors, you could find a source yourself if it is that important for you. Some sources list it as just red and white, while others list black as a third color. The uniform scheme with black uniforms for some sports, black trim on other uniforms, and black pants for the football team definitely suggest black is a school color even outside of the sources. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to your questions: I have made my reasons very clear from the beginning both to you and on the Roosevelt talk page. Once again; first, I wasn't the one who initiated the change to use the state-issued domain name in all Kent City Schools related articles, so it obviously meant just as much to someone else (I believe you were the one who initially changed it) as it did to me. The real question is why does it bother you so much that the kentschools.net domain name is used? As for JLuscre's comments, he merely stated the technicality that Kent City Schools owns the state-issued domain name and essentially leases the kentschools.net domain for easier staff e-mail addresses and to help people remember it (which many districts do for the same reasons as Kent). In the end, though, they are both the same website going to the same place, so there is no pressing need to use the state-issued domain. On top of that, one of the biggest things on Wikipedia is the use of sources. I have three recently published items from the Kent City Schools, all of which use and promote www.kentschools.net as their website (here is one example on pages 7 & 9). None of them use the kent.k12.oh.us address at all.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not making it right." The technicality of one being "owned" by the district is simply that: a technicality that only someone like JLuscre, who works for the district, would even know or care about. Kentschools.net is a legitimate web address, not a redirect or phony address. Like I and other editors (even those who are mainly neutral to this) have said, if kentschools.net were a simple redirect to kent.k12.oh.us, then yes, it would make sense to use the actual address. But it isn't like that. Neither address redirects to the other. Since both are the same site, it makes sense to use the address that was designed to be remembered easier. While many will follow the link straight from the article to the website, many may just be looking up info for future use, so again, why not just use the easier to remember domain name? And why don't you contribute to the discussion about this on the Talk: Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio) since it obviously does mean a great deal to you as well? --JonRidinger (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me add, conversationally, that even as a web professional who (like JLuscre) would know the difference between a domain registered to the Kent City Schools and one registered to an ISP, I find it a bit difficult to care in this case. Those knowledgeable about the inner workings of the web should also note that Wikipedia employs the nofollow tag. Therefore, there is no compelling reason I can see for using an "owned" domain on Wikipedia over one that goes directly to the very same content. I am willing to reconsider, however, if someone (JLuscre, perhaps?) can provide that compelling reason. That's why I (and I believe Jon as well) are so adamant about discussing this on the talk page. I really am willing to be proven wrong on this! ;-) -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

POV dispute

Qwerty, I reverted your edit claiming a POV dispute exists on Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio). To be blunt, a POV dispute does not mean you're not getting your way. POV disputes generally arise when the language of an article does not respect all viewpoints, not when one editor is flustered that their particular edit is not allowed to stand. You have more than ample opportunity to discuss your concerns for the article on Talk:Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio), which is where you should take this anyway if a POV issue actually did exist in the article. The POV dispute tag is meaningless without discussing a POV issue in talk. Thanks. -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Qwerty, upon reflection of my words above, I fear I may have been a bit hasty. If I may ask you for a second chance to be less so, I found something you might find useful. Perhaps we can benefit from one of the processes listed on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Let me know how you would like to proceed... you can leave a message for me on my talk page, if you would like. -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely not a POV issue, it's a preference issue. POV involves actual content issues where unverified and/or biased comments are made in the body of the article in relation to the subject (like saying "Roosevelt High School is known for its strong academic programs" without any third-party sources to verfiy). It would be one thing if I owned the kentschools.net domain and was pushing it to further my own viewpoint or product or kentschools.net was not an official school site, but neither is the case. The difference between the two domain names is simply a matter of technical ownership, but not one of content or one being "official" and one not. Also, they are not redirects to each other. For example, the popular website http://www.espn.com is actually a redirect to the real address. If you type in www.espn.com (or click on the link), you will see the address in your browser change to http://espn.go.com. If that were the case here, say kentschools.net redirected to kent.k12.oh.us, then yes, it would make sense to simply type in the actual address rather than the easier to remember one. But in this case, the Kent City Schools website exists on both domain names, not one with a redirect to another. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute

Another option when you find questionable content in an article is to place a tag at the end of the section in question. This is generally for items that lack a source but are not making any blatantly biased, POV, or outstanding claims like "Roosevelt is the top-rated academic school in the nation" or "Stanton has the best possible layout for promoting learning" or something like that. For instances like the small section on the Stanton Middle School (Kent, Ohio) article, a tag would've sufficed. It gives yourself and any other editors a chance to locate a source. After some time if no source can be found, then delete the info in question. And if you find something that doesn't seem right, try to look for sources yourself when you are able. Also, in your article edit summaries simply state what you are doing and why rather than trying to ask questions or start a dialogue. In the Stanton case, a simple "removing unsourced statement" would've been adequate. It will avoid getting other editors upset or feel like you are making a personal attack on them. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply

First, as for the word "razed" it is a common word used in many publications when a building is torn down or demolished. You not being familiar with the word is not reason enough to change it. It would be one thing if it were a term used more in British English or a localism, but it's common. It's used quite frequently in the Record-Courier and by the City of Kent (see here for an example).

Second, as for the school colors: the pictures that show them are in athletics. First: the logo itself is red, white, and black. Second, the picture from the basketball game in the Roosevelt gym clearly shows red, white, and black present in the gym itself (walls, floors, even the bleachers are black) as well as the team uniforms. I have other pictures posted on my user page that show the prominent use of black. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're offended other than because you aren't getting your way. In the end, "removed" is inaccurate and a change was unnecessary. Using a Google search is not reason enough to change a word, especially when both words have results in the millions. The building was razed or demolished, not simply "removed". Razed is neither a localism or obscure word (did you check the link from the city of Kent?). Secondly, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be written for "all ages and education levels" it's written as an encyclopedia, meaning it has certain standards. Doesn't mean it's a research journal, but it also isn't a 5th grade textbook. This article, for instance, has already been through two Good Article reviews where it was reviewed by other editors and facts were checked and grammar and writing were evaluated, critiqued, and improved. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your endeavors, but the search engine is not an ends-all. The fact that both received hits in the millions testifies that both are very common terms that are used in a variety of works. Also, you did not replace it initially with "demolished", you replaced it with "destroyed" and "removed" which carry completely different meanings. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR. Jon is at 3 reverts. You have made the same edit 4 times and are technically in violation already. I see no problem with the word razed and think it would be no problem at FAC.

1. [1] 03:43, November 23, 2010
2. [2] 04:27, November 23, 2010
3. [3] 04:35, November 23, 2010
4. [4] 04:47, November 23, 2010

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

A "revert" doesn't necessarily mean you hit the "undo" button; it's any change that is done purely out of preference and not a correction of vandalism or spelling correction. This is explained at WP:3RR. As for "razed" vs. "demolished", if you had substituted "demolished" initially, I don't think I would've reverted it, but none of your changes were to "demolished"; the first was to "destroyed" and the next 3 were to "removed", even the change where you cited your Google search of "demolished" vs. "razed" (see link #3 above). Having spent quite a bit of time writing the article and then going through WP:GAN, I'm less inclined to change it. If I remember right, that specific sentence was mentioned in the Good Article evaluation and the evaluator also used "razed". --JonRidinger (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

A good thing to follow here is Bold, revert, discuss - if you are bold and make an edit, and someone else reverts it, then discuss it (before just reverting it yourself). Usually this saves a lot of time and misunderstanding. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest on Wikipedia

Although you have been editing for over a year, let me offer you a belated welcome. I assume that you have familiarized yourself with Wikipedia policies, but it never hurts to look them over again. One policy that may be of interest to you is Wikipedia's concerns about conflict of interest. You seem to have a narrow focus on school articles in the Kent area. If you are a student, faculty member, administrator or parent you should explain your relationship to the Kent schools on your user page, which is User:Qwerty5225. Again, welcome to wikipedia and happy editing. Racepacket (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt H Whetehrigh School (Kent, Ohio)

Hi, It might probably advance any discussion about the article if future comments were to be centred on the Talk:Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio) instead of across several user talk pages. An editor has already started a discussion there. --Kudpung (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)