User talk:CT Cooper

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No conference awards to be listed

I was wondering whether you were aware of the precedence which states that conference level awards are not considered notable for high schools as a assessor stated on the Shenandoah Valley Academy article. I undid the delete on that section since I found multiple instances of private high school articles listing these, and could find no discussion on it. It seems rather arbitrary to say no conference awards, but state/district awards are notable since many private schools only compete in conferences and do not get state awards as public schools do. Thoughts?Salegi (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Policy wise the main tests for inclusion of content within articles are verifiability and reliability, not normally notability. However, in certain cases it may be reasonable for editors to be more exclusive on what is included in an article. You will find some recent discussion on award inclusion at WT:WPSCH#Sections of the article. WP:WPSCH/AG#S has been recently changed to remove the no local awards language from the guideline, with only dedicated notable awards sections having the notability requirement. Despite this being a change I supported, I'm not fully convinced there is a clear consensus on school award inclusion across Wikipedia. There are many school articles, and I frequently come across stuff within them that shouldn't be there, so I would use precedence of other articles carefully. In any case, I am not hugely familiar with U.S. sports awards, so I do not have a strong opinion on this particular issue. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

Hello Camaron. I just have a question on the status of the Led Zeppelin article. Why did you further extend protection on the page? We do have a consensus on the heavy metal debate. RG (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like your close to reaching an agreement. However I extended the protection as I wanted consensus to solidify before unprotecting. If no further issues are raised soon, I will unprotect the page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Camaron. I think a consensus has been reached about the inclusion of "heavy metal" as a genre in the infobox. You could feel free to unprotect the article. Again, thank you very much for your efforts as an active, ideal admin. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, with the endorsement of two on their being a consensus, I have unprotected the article. I'm glad to be of help. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Southmoore High School

Why do you keep on changing my edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andimthomas (talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not add any of my personal views. I edited out the inappropriate edits from someone else and added text from the official school website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andimthomas (talk • contribs) 17:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My edits are taken right from the official school website: http://www.mooreschools.com/shs/site/default.asp So can I please just continue working on making this wiki page? I started editing because I saw the inappropriate edits someone made. I'm not the one writing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andimthomas (talk • contribs) 17:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the content you added as it read as promotional, and hence was in violation of the WP:NPOV policy. If it is from the school website then that is even more reason for removal, since such material is a copyright violation. Please place content in the article that is in your own words only. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not adding a non-neutral point of view. I am adding things that are on the official school website: http://www.mooreschools.com/shs/site/default.asp I started editing because I saw the inappropriate non-neutral point of views and I'm trying to improve this Wiki page. --Andimthomas (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It didn't read as neutral to me, and material from the school website is unlikely to be neutral. In any case the neutrality issue is mute since material from other websites which is copyrighted should not be added regardless of if it is neutral or not. Please only add content in your own words, see Wikipedia:Copyright. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Eurovision 2010.png

I personally think there is no need for File:Eurovision 2010.png to be used in the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 article, we already have the image as part of the main contest logo. A few problems with the file that I have noticed are; the file is rather large, and needs to be reduced, plus you can see that the red of the flag can be seen on the outer edge of the 'heart' and 'i', with heart itself having had a large chunk out of the where the top two points cross over and my last point is that the positioning of the flag should be futher to the left, as seen here . I've also notified the original uploader (5219736P (talk · contribs)).  [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree; I never noticed the faults in the image itself but with this been within the main logo it seems superfluous, and does not pass WP:NFCC. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Facebook campaign - That sounds good to me

It has been written about in ESCtoday, do you think that reaches the standard to be in the article? 安東尼 TALK 17:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)