User talk:SkipperClipper

Leave me a message

Welcome!

Hello SkipperClipper, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Looks like you know your way around the place pretty well already, but please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions or want advice.--Kubigula (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Nice job on your first day editing with this account! I hope you will share my experience that most of the people you encounter here are intelligent, pleasant and good intentioned.--Kubigula (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Old Mill High School

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Old Mill High School, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Your reasons for deletion ("duplicates external site") is not a self-explanatory reason for deletion per the deletion policy. Prodding an article should only be used for a reason that will be likely uncontested. If it is a less than obvious reason, then at the most, the article should be nominated for the Articles for Deletion procedure to get a larger discussion for consensus to delete the article. You should also be aware that secondary education (like high schools) are generally considered notable and are not frequently deleted as a common outcome for Education-related AfD procedures. Thanks. ju66l3r 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't Delete Other Peoples' Comments

Generally, it's aganist wikipedia policy to delete other peoples comments, even on your talk page, and even if you disagree with them. It's very unfair to the person who was courteous enough to take the time out to write it. Thank you. --Umalee 22:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk page and user page info

Regarding user talk pages, it is best to not delete notices, but instead, to archive them. You will find how to do this here, under "When pages get too long." Your talk page is intended to serve as a place to discuss your contributions. It ends up being a sort of a history of the work you've done and the conflicts you've been in, or the praise you've received. It's alright to archive comments or warnings, but blanking your talk page is not considered appropriate, as it is not actually yours but instead belongs to us all. Please read WP:USERPAGE and WP:TALK. Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages can often be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil. For this reason, eventually when you desire to keep the "clutter" down on your user talk page, I suggest that you create archives for these messages. I would be happy to assist you in doing just that if you ask me to. You can see a sample of archives (mine) here. As for your user page, most users seem to use it as a place to describe themselves as people and/or editing entities. Many collect links to pages they are working on and/or have been working on. You user page is more "yours," in a way, than anywhere else on wikipedia, but is not intended to serve as a personal webpage either. Once again, read here to learn more about this. -- Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1. 

   Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for a period of time. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page, replacing your reason here with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia after the block has expired, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so may be considered disruptive. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding information from policy

When pages get too long

• Archive — don't delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is no longer being discussed, don't delete the content — archive it. Here's how:
  • Create a new page (see Help:Starting a new page and Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for details).
  • Place the page in a talk or Wikipedia talk namespace.
  • Give it a suitable name: usually this is simply by adding "archive" to the original name.
  • Explain on the archive page where the text you plan to archive will come from and provide a link.
  • Cut the relevant content from the original page and paste it into the new page.
  • Replace the text on the original page with a link to the archive.
  • Sometimes you may find it suitable to leave a summary of the discussion on the talk page and provide a link to the full text in the archive.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SkipperClipper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Blocking me seems to be a severe, and perhaps uncalled for action. What happened to Assume Good Faith? Perhaps many have in their head that editing my talk page is wrong. However, I have done some reading and cannot find anywhere that explicitly states that I cannot edit my talk page, but talk pages in general. Even the pages you offer make no mention of it. Please correct me if I am wrong. If people wish to comment on edits, they should do so on the discussion pages of those that have been edited.

Decline reason:

Block seems to have finished now, regardless. Daniel Bryant 05:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Assessment

First, I would like to thank you for your enthusiasm in joining our assessment project, we can alway use more dedicated assessors. Next, please review some of the assessment being done by other members of the team for a better Idea of our style/protocols for performing these assessments. The following is a general guideline:

• Review articles you are not involved with maintaining to avoid problems with WP:COI
• Place review summary on each article's talk page using {{WPSchoolsAssessment}} or {{WPSchools}} with a custom summary.
• Place a copy of your assessment summary on the Assessments page with the following syntax:

*[[School Name]] (Rating / Importance) Summary ~~~~

• Sign ALL of your assessments and keep track of your current projects on the assessment talk page

Thanks and happy assessing. Adam McCormick 00:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent Assessments

Looks like you've got the scales down. My only comment would be that for an article to be B class is needs to be well referenced, fairly complete and be free of WP:POV. Adam McCormick 04:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your enthusiasm with assessing, I have fixed a few things on the assessment page for you. Keep up the good work! Camaron1 | Chris 10:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

If you would like me to help you with creating an archives for your usertalk page, just let me know. I would be happy to help. You can see a sample by looking at mine, which are linked here [1]. Nice work on diving in on a WikiProject, by the way! Happy editing, --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 08:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

I give you this WikiCookie as a token of my gratitude.

To thank you for awarding me a barnstar

Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 18:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Replacing red links

Hello. I just wanted to discuss with you about your thoughts on red links. I see that you recently considered them "broken" and attempted to find relevant external links to replace the double-bracket article-link with a single bracket out-link. This is a new way of thinking about these links to me. I'm not sure I totally agree, but do see the value in adding new out links and information to articles. A few considerations that I would like to share with you are:

• often someone uses an article-link because the subject of that link is notable and should likely have an article (but nobody has gotten around to creating one yet)
• I consider red links to not be "broken" but simply waiting for a page to fill in the internal wiki-linking that will bring that new page quickly into the "web" of articles here (because other articles are already pointing towards it)
• by changing these to external links, it will take longer in the scheme of things when someone does create that article for someone else to connect the two concepts together (by rearranging your external links into internal links and moving the external link to the article page or external link area of its current article) than it would if it remained red and turned blue by the creation of an article
• similiarly, it will take longer for someone to consider writing the article if there are no red links suggesting notable subjects that don't have articles yet because all red links are being changed to external links
• finally, if a certain subject is being sourced/referenced for verifiability within the article text, the {{cite}} and <ref> templates/codes would be more correct to use than a simple external link. If the information is more of an external link variety, then adding it to the bottom where all external links are listed would be better for style and for the user to find the link for more information rather than in-line with the term being linked

As you can see, I've given some thought as to why I don't necessarily agree with the way in which you've been treating red links as broken links and reformatting them into external links instead. I would like to read your thoughts on changing these links in the way that you have recently. Please feel free to follow up here or on my talk page. Thanks. ju66l3r 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

re:Foreign relations WP

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Do you think that NPOV should be emphasized on WP:WPFR?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)