User talk:Ethnic laundry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hello Ethnic laundry, and Welcome to Wikipedia!New-Bouncywikilogo.gif

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.


Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Ethnic laundry, good luck, and have fun. --Aboutmovies (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Gaddang People, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

j⚛e deckertalk 04:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

References[edit]

When adding text to articles, please remember to provide reliable 3rd party references. I don't disagree about the influences on Free Jazz (though see interviews with Cage himself on the subject), but an assertion that people were serious is essentially point-of-view and needs to be grounded in something tangible. AllyD (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  • And please also use the Edit Summary? It makes it easier for other editors watching article changes. AllyD (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Seconding what AllyD said. One change in particular caught me attention: the lede now says "free jazz is alternately described as an attempt to return jazz to its roots, or to unearth a 'primitive' collective experience." "Alternately described as...," by whom? (See WP:WEASEL.) And is it really just one or the other? Generally, anything set forth in the lede should be corroborated, with sources, somewhere else in the text. That's just the first thing that caught my eye – "Why Free Jazz?" really needs attribution as well. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you've reverted the article, as you seem to have acknowledged where AllyD and I are coming from, yet your revert doesn't address any of the WP:V issues. You mentioned that you are "still at work" on this – may I suggest not using the article itself as a working draft (especially until verifiability is resolved)? Your personal history is genuinely intriguing, though I hope you don't mean to draw from this when you work on the article (as it's impossible to verify – please see WP:EXPERTISE). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 27 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

South Kent School[edit]

I recently reverted your edits to South Kent School. Please see WP:EXT for proper usage. If there if information relevant to the article and from reliable sources, please consider adding the information to the article and using the links as references. Deunanknute (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at South Kent School, you may be blocked from editing. Deunanknute (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


I am working diligently to avoid expressing anger at your characterizations! Please tell me (with examples) how you interpret material I added earlier today as "soapboxing, promotional or advertising". While I believe I earnestly followed W. guidelines, I am willing to listen-to & adopt reasonable suggestions. Peevishness merely makes me (and many others) lose interest in compliance...Ethnic laundry (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, perhaps heavy-handed getting my attention, rather than peevishness...Ethnic laundry (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The primary reason was the external links, which had already been discussed. Also, "The small student-body size, and ongoing access to faculty has been cited by graduates as having a profound and positive effect on their lives" is purely promotional, and adds nothing to the article. Deunanknute (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Working on the links. I was interrupted while referencing the quote (belongs to the Columbia Journalism article, and is supported by NYT article). You asked to move exlink material into article - which I'm doing - but am not uninterrupted. Articles address school add of "prep basketball" program (eg: a dozen un-academic inner-city youth) in early 2000s, and school's claim it was/is in accord with mission (1933 Father Sill article in New Yorker).Ethnic laundry (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have articles of your own which you like ME to criticize, you're welcome to ask!Ethnic laundry (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no relevance to a Wikipedia article in those links. They are essentially 'puff pieces' and contain no encyclopedic information not already in the article. If I am wrong, please, tell me what information, relevant to this article, is in those links. Deunanknute (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

——————————

Actually (as I mention above): Articles address school add of "prep basketball" program (eg: a dozen un-academic inner-city youth) in early 2000s, and school's claim it was/is in accord with mission (1933 Father Sill article in New Yorker). You do not impeach the sources, so I challenge you to tell me why the subject is "puffery" and not a legitimate topic. Indeed, your categorization demonstrates that you have not read all the articles - several of which are critical of "prep" b-ball programs and of SKS itself.

You also may compare my SKS article amendments with those of similar schools to see if some community standard is being breached. I'd suggest Groton, Avon Old Farms, Cate, Darrow (randomly from memory; but you likely want to make your own choices). Should you wish to create, promulgate, and then enforce a standard for all private schools, fine. I don't believe that's what you're doing here, and ask you to examine your behavior.

I understand your abruptness is a concommitant of your busy-ness, but you have to slow down enough to judge between what is a real concern and what you merely don't like. Meanwhile, I'm going to avoid contributing any page while I'm uncertain of how it is evaluated... Ethnic laundry (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I went over every article again, and noted what I got from them here:

  • Outdated piece on iPad use in the classroom; not relevant or unusual
  • Article about Kissinger and Stockdale; mentions an arena, but mostly about Stockdale his relationship to Kissinger
  • New York Times [1]
  • Article about Rob Thomas, who went to, and was greatly helped by SKS, but not about SKS
  • Danbury News-Times [2]
  • Outdated article about a one time reduction in electricity use; irrelevant
  • Standard sports coverage; SKS was top, but no more than routine coverage
  • 60 Minutes [3]
  • good article on the basketball program, but very outdated, and mostly opinion, not hard facts
  • Columbia Sports Journalism [4]
  • Mostly seperate pieces on individual students, what SKS info there is is mostly quotes and weasel words
  • "The small student-body size, and ongoing access to faculty has been cited by graduates as having a profound and positive effect on their lives"
  • This statement is correct in that graduates cite the school... , but it is an unimportant/irrelevant opinion
  • Headmaster Vadnais & SKS on YouTube[5]
  • the school has an official website, that website can link to youtube, Wikipedia doesn't unless necessary

As far as other articles go, articles are judged on their own, not against others (see WP:OSE)
Hopefully this clears up the reasoning behind my actions Deunanknute (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Much better explanation of what you intended, but in many cases it underscores what your multiple reversions have failed to understand. I am making efforts in the article to discuss the 2000's 'prep' basketball program (and subsequent hockey and soccer programs) in the context of the school's mission formulated in the 1920s. These programs are [a] vastly different than the traditions of the first 75 years of the school, and [b] similar to programs that have received significant criticism in the press. I believe it is obvious the subject deserves consideration in any but the most superficial description of the school. Can you help me accomplish this objective - or are you merely a nay-sayer?Ethnic laundry (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the 'prep' basketball program, etc. Then do so in the article, using proper links as cited references. Don't just list them under "External links."
As far as the schools mission from the 1920's, please see WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI. In fact, the whole page is a great guideline for school articles.
If you want, you could post proposed changes/additions here, in the article's talk page, or in your sandbox and I'll give whatever input I can. Deunanknute (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:South Kent School (aerial).jpeg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:South Kent School (aerial).jpeg, which you've attributed to http://southkentschool.org/about/fast-facts-about-sks. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)