User talk:GauchoDude

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

UCSB deaths[edit]

If you are going to mention the recent massacres at Isla Vista on the UCSB page, then you might as well mention the 2001 killings as well. These events do not shed a positive light on the campus and are already detailed on the Isla Vista page, as well as having their own pages. The victims are also memorialized extensively, as well as having a special section on the Alumni page.

I believe most would agree with me when they say theyd rather focus on the positive aspects of the great school rather than dwelling on an isolated event in Isla Vista (which again, is detailed on separate pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited UC Santa Barbara Gauchos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Young. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

James Kiffe[edit]

The youth section is for youth/college teams only. Unless there was consensus reached about high school teams that I didn't know about, they don't count as youth. And aside from that with the rule put into place a few years ago, if they were playing club soccer during their time in high school then I'm not sure they would be allowed to play at the high school level. That's a bit off topic but anyway, for as long as I've been editing on here we don't count high school as youth. – Michael (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

PRODs should not be marked as "minor" edits[edit]

I have noticed that you have PRODded a number of articles recently and at least in some cases (such as Jim Saia) these edits were marked as "minor." PROds should never be marked as minor edits. Also, it is generally considered good form to inform the creator of an article when you PROD or AfD an article. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kiffe[edit]

Sorry, you're completely right, I've re-visited the AFD and changed my !vote. GiantSnowman 20:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Rob Friend[edit]

So many things wrong with this edit. Firstly you should not restore unreferenced content to BLPs (per WP:BLP and WP:V) without adding WP:RS. If sources are present elsewhere in the article which confirms the information then you need to directly cite it. Secondly please familiarise yourself with WP:NOTVAND. Finally please don't send templated messages to long-term editors, as you have done here. GiantSnowman 10:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • @GiantSnowman: I'm sorry that you seemingly take offense to me reverting your unconstructive edit. I assumed good faith on your edit, as I felt you must have clearly overlooked the fact that the entire section you blanked was already sourced, so not sure where your perceived citing issues are coming from. You mention them being unsourced, however like I said originally, please take the a small amount of time to visit this and the Year-by-year tab of this, which both are clearly stated at the top of the table, for any questions you may have before blanking out the entire section. As the material in question is, in fact, sourced, your entire edit (and subsequent argument) is without merit. As I'm sure the both of us would prefer not to engage in an edit war, please review the clearly cited sources and let me know what further information you feel is required for the infotable to stay. – GauchoDude (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No, look again, the section you are adding back (currently) has ZERO references. As I've stated feel free to re-add the information with direct, in-line citations; until you do so I will continue to remove it, and if you continue to re-add it you will be blocked for continually violating WP:BLP. GiantSnowman 16:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've now DIRECTLY cited the material as is required by WP:BLP and WP:V - not so hard is it? GiantSnowman 16:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Well, here's what it previously looked like and as you can see there are sources. Now compare that to what you did to it. Also, your "sourcing" is the same exact thing, which was there previously, circled in red on both images. Please enlighten me as to how this has been changed for the better? – GauchoDude (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Err that's the wrong section. I removed the (unsourced!) 'International goals' section. Try again. GiantSnowman 17:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of University of California, Santa Barbara alumni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Wilson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of University of California, Santa Barbara alumni may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[[Danny Rosett]], Former President of [[United Artists]<ref></ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of UCSB alumni list[edit]

GauchoDude, what was your logic for deleting the UCSB alumni list from the Richard Schroeder and Sandy Neilson articles? See, e.g., diff. I would think you would want to link to two Olympic athletes who are UCSB alumni to the UCSB alumni list (and include them in the list). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: - If you'd like to visit Category:University of California, Santa Barbara people, the category in question, to see how many people are actually listed there, I think you'll find that it's a grand total of 0 as everyone is in subcategories with that as the starting point. Schroeder's and Neilson's pages were reflected to show this and were placed in a more specific category. In due time, they will be put into sport-specific categories along the lines of Category:UCSB men's swimming and diving (or in Sandy's case, women's swimming and diving) as those are their respective sports, however for the time being they've been placed in the more specific category of Category:UC Santa Barbara Gauchos athletes, which is a subcategory of Category:University of California, Santa Barbara alumni (and thus of your UCSB people category in question). Thanks. – GauchoDude (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@GauchoDude: GD, I have no issue with your building out of the UCSB categories over time. Having been through a very similar process with University of Florida alumni, athletes, faculty, etc., I commend you for your efforts, and offer my assistance if I can be of any help. My question, however, is unrelated to UCSB categories. I wanted to know what your reason was for deleting the links for the UCSB alumni list article from the "see also" section of these two Olympic swimmers -- I routinely include these "see also" alumni list links for all U.S. Olympic swimmer articles on which I work. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: Sorry, I guess I wasn't as clear because I know what my personal plan is for the entire UCSB-system pages and I didn't share that as well as I would have liked. Long and short, I plan on having the set up be very similar to how the University of California, Berkeley's set up is as that seems to be the most in-depth coverage regarding people associated with a particular university (disclaimer: that I could find in a quick search). As such, the article for List of University of California, Santa Barbara people was split into an Alumni page and a Faculty page (and for whatever reason turned into a redirect page despite having nothing linking there of note). The Alumni page, once I get around to it, will eventually have an off-shoot page specifically for athletics and sports. Therefore, 1. the link you posted to is now a redirect page and 2. the link that you'd want to post for the page hasn't been created yet. Kind of in a bit of limbo for now. – GauchoDude (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Got it. Understood. Don't forget to add a "see also" for the new UCSB jock list to Rich and Sandy's articles when you're done. I've found that the "see also" links significantly increase traffic to the linked "list of" articles, and I assume thereby increase traffic to all of the bios on the list. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: Will certainly try, but I feel I've bitten off more than I can chew with this whole project! Not sure when I'll get around to that bit (at least to a level of my standard) or if I'll even remember when it comes time. Down the road, feel free to add those in where you feel necessary though if they're not there. Thanks for those other leads! – GauchoDude (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

2012 season and Peter McGlynn's Assault on a Referee and 2013 bounce back[edit]

I've read the articles about editing you mentioned. I have gone through the article to search for wording that is improper. I believe I have corrected words and phrases that do not conform with wikipedia's guidelines.

I believe that deleting the paragraph all together shows bias by trying to hide history. This article is fact not my opinion or anyone else's opinion (I'm not the only one to edit contribute to this section.) Thus, deleting this portion of the article shows a non-neutral point-of-view. I realize this is an embarrassing part of UCSB's history. I see you have a clear attachment to the topic and I believe you are trying to lend a positive bias to the entire article.

With that, said, I think we need to come to a compromise because we are wasting too much time flipping this back and forth. So I would like to see your proposal for what should be written.

One example of how a neutral point of shown in the article comes at the beginning. The article states that Vom Steeg was yelling at a ref but it also state why he was yelling at the ref.

I've also corrected some grammatical errors that have resulted from multiple people editing the article. I see that someone wrote many parts of the article in the present tense. I don't know if that was you or someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldurkin (talkcontribs) 17:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

GauchoDude, this edit of your's would fit the definition of bias. Paul Holocher resignation - Despite the valiant efforts by head coach Paul Holocher to push Cal Poly to a respectable level of play, it was announced on August 11th, 2014 that Holocher had stepped down from his role to join a youth soccer club.[9] Holocher, who spent 8 seasons guiding the team, abandoned them just 12 days before their first scheduled match of the 2014 season against the California Golden Bears.[10] He left with a final record of 72-60-25 and only 1 NCAA Tournament appearance. Phil Ruskin, a second year assistant coach, was promoted to be the interim head coach upon Holocher's departure having never held a head coaching position before.[11] Predictably, Cal Poly lost their first match to the unranked Davidson Wildcats after giving up 4 straight second half goals.[12]

can we just agree to a truce to not slander each other's school's articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldurkin (talkcontribs) 08:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment[edit] Alex (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, GauchoDude. You have new messages at JMHamo's talk page.
Message added 22:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JMHamo (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Rob Friend[edit]

I moved your note re importance to this page and responded there. Feel free to make further changes to importance if you think I have misjudged. Barryjjoyce (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


Just letting you know I removed the PROD you added. I cleaned up the page quite a bit, and I think it passes WP:BAND. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gareth Hopkins (disambiguation)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Gareth Hopkins (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:2DABS, hatnotes are the best option

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Carol Greider's Wikipedia page[edit]

Dear Gaucho Dude,

Dr. Greider is trying to edit her Wikipedia page to remove all reference to her ex-spouse - Nathanial Comfort. We noticed that GauchoDude edited the page again on 1/22/2015 and put back the reference to Nathanial Comfort that we had taken out. Please do not edit any personal information on Dr. Greider. Do not revert to cached versions of the page. Thank you for your help and cooperation.

Shirley Crow, Administrator to Dr. Greider — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrow1 (talkcontribs) 15:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from re-editing my corrections for my page[edit]

Dear GouchoDude I find it frustrating that you keep making changes to my web content without bothering to verify that my changes are factually correct and a matter of public record. My assistant Shirley Crow has been helping me correct the entry on my wikipedia site. I understand that you are the one who keeps editing this back. If you need verification of some fact, you are welcome to ask for verification but simply reverting the changes I make is not helpful. I would appreciate it if you would tell me who you are as having an anonomus person editing my site and deleting my changes is not in the spirit of transparency that i would expect. (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Carol Greider

@, please see Scrow1's talk page for this discussion. At the end of the day, we're striving first and foremost to get the information correct. Doing so requires sources to do this and all information in your article MUST have references to indicate veracity. Please feel free to alert an editor such as myself as to information that you feel is incorrect so we can search to find corresponding evidence of your claim(s). Furthermore, this is not "... [your] web content..." and as such can be edited at will by anyone, provided there is proper evidence and sourcing to verify the claims. Lastly, I would visit the Wikipedia:Notable person survival kit for any further questions you may have. Please let me know how I can be of further assistance in correcting your biography. —GauchoDude (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

GouchoDude- My page again continued wrong information that you posted. I am not sure why you insist on posting very personal information about me. Please refrain from this. It is not clear to me why you hide behind this pseudonym. I once again ask you to contact me Directly If you really do believe in the truth and putting up on the web what is right you will be willing to have an honest discussion. You have once again invaded my privacy by posting inaccurate information on the wiki site about me. I can explain to to why your postings are wrong and are an overstepping of my privacy. I have once again edited what you posted. If you have any sense of approtiateness you will listen and hear me out.

I have registered a dispute with Wikipedia, because it is not fair for you to hide behind your pseudonym and be the ONLY person editing my page, and yet not listen to input when it is presented. This is NOT a free and open collaboration, if you have all the power to make changes and I can't talk to you a about the errors that you are putting out about me.

I am Carol W Greider. You however have chosen to remain anonymous. I challenge you to have some guts an call me or e-mail me to discuss the issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carol.w.greider (talkcontribs) 02:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library signup[edit]

Hi GauchoDude,

You have been approved for a account through the Wikipedia Library. One of the requirements for an account is that you have your preferences enabled to receive email messages on English Wikipedia. I need to email you a very short signup form to fill out. Would you mind changing your preferences so I can do that, please? Your email address (and no other information) will be passed on to so they can activate your subscription. If you're no longer interested in, please let me know. Thanks! HazelAB (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@HazelAB: I believe this has been rectified. Thanks. GauchoDude (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re signup[edit]

Hello, GauchoDude. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dana E. Glauberman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High-definition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Don Hertzfeldt page[edit]

GauchoDude, you asked for clarification on why I am reverting your edits so here they are:

- Why change the infobox at all? You are actually making it less informative by removing information. Just leave it. - "Hertzfeldt attended college at the University of California, Santa Barbara where he was originally enrolled in acting." Is completely untrue. I followed your source and you misinterpreted it somehow. He was always a cinema major and "dabbled" in acting. - "He switched to film making and went from VHS to animation as the latter was cheaper." Makes no sense whatsoever. None. You don't go from "VHS to animation." VHS is a format. Animation is a cinema medium. What the article already states, and more clearly, is that he went from VHS (in high school) to 16mm (in film school). And though he wanted to pursue 16mm live action in film school, he found sticking with animation was cheaper. - You mention after college "Hertzfeldt continued in the industry." What does that mean? What industry? He was an independent animator who worked alone. What industry is that?

I appreciate your contributions to the page but these changes are no good.

Ang-pdx (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

In response, @Ang-pdx:
  • Why change the infobox? Because if you'd bothered to take a look, very little of the information is actually shown because the artist infobox template has changed and evolved since the last time someone actually cared enough to edit it. It's not "removing" information, because the information isn't appearing to begin with. Additionally, I added more accurate information to the infobox as it stood. Granted I should have kept (some of) the awards, but that was an oversight on my part.
  • Per the source cited, "At UC Santa Barbara, Hertzfeldt majored in film and briefly double-majored with acting but dropped out of that program to focus on cinema." My sentence is factually correct as he was originally enrolled in acting, but could have been easily reworded to note he was a double major while keeping the source and link intact.
  • Per the source cited, "Hertzfeld is a self-trained animator who initially worked on VHS. While at film school he was drawn to animation as it was a cheaper form to work in..." Perhaps a more technical re-wording here is to be desired.
  • The industry. He works in film and animation. He's a filmmaker and an animator. Please visit Film industry to learn more.
Long and short, it's not helping either of us to squabble about such petty and insignificant things. I found my changes to help the article overall. If you disagree, please feel free to alter my changes. In my opinion when you do whole scale reverts, you're doing the article a disservice, especially when you're rolling back technical changes (as in the infobox) or removing sources (as in the books and articles I referenced). At the end of the day, we're both just trying to get the article with correct information. I look forward to your response. GauchoDude (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


- Correct me if I'm wrong, but the infobox went from including Hertzfeldt's influences and awards to just a line about his film degree. That seems like a move backwards. I don't know what you mean by, "the information isn't appearing to begin with."

- You may be "factually correct" about the acting thing, but the way you worded that sentence made it sound like Hertzfeldt was a failed actor who moved on to a film degree. It was very misleading. He went to UCSB to study film, briefly double majored with acting, then dropped out of it. I don't know how interesting that is to even include on the page in general. But if you think it's important and would like to reword it with more clarity, be my guest.

- The VHS/16mm/etc stuff is far better worded as it currently stands. I'm not sure why you felt it needed to change at all because you are essentially trying to say the same thing. Did you find something about it unclear?

- Film industry implies working with others, having a job under the umbrella of something larger, Hollywood, etc. It is almost the opposite of working on your own stuff solo. Anyway, let's not be pedantic. My larger point was that it was a simply another unnecessary sentence to change. He continued with animation, that's all we need to say. Let's just keep things simple.

- I also disagree with suddenly calling him "Donald" everywhere. He obviously does not go by this name and I'm not sure if that is even his legal name (?). If it is truly his legal name shouldn't it be formatted at first as Donald "Don" Hertzfeldt? It seems safer to just leave it as Don.

Ang-pdx (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Without trying to come across harshly, the userbox stuff is not rocket science. Look at this edit compared to this edit. Just because things get typed in the infobox section "coding" doesn't make them appear on the actual page. Case in point, you reference these "influences", and that's certainly typed into the infobox section, but it doesn't appear on the actual wikipedia page. That's because there is no such thing as "influences" within the parameters of the infobox artist template, which you can check yourself here. Removing that part of the code has a zero sum effect on the article.
  • Since it is factually correct about his life, plus it being sourced, it should be included. I concur that it should probably be worded differently, but removing the information and source isn't helpful to the article.
  • If that's what you believe, that's fine, however the source should be kept for reference. As a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons article, any unsourced information can be challenged and deleted. Much of the information in this article is unsourced and is therefore subject to challenge or deletion.
  • The film industry does not imply that whatsoever. Moreso, he's part of the community by making films, making money from said films, earning awards from his peers, and attending festivals. Agree to disagree, I don't particularly care the wording, but keep the sourcing per point above.
  • Not sure why you're opposed by calling him by his name. I believe Donald was only added a handful of times, only at the very beginning of the article and in the infobox for his birth name. Per the source, that was accurate information. The remainder of the article was left Don as that's what he's commonly referred to. I am unsure as to why you have issue with this? It's no different than Bill Clinton having his birthname as William, but the vast majority of the article refers to him as Bill. And yes, the very first bit should be Donald "Don" Hertzfeldt. That said, if you can find sourcing that would contradict it and that his first name is actually just "Don" or even "Mohammed Rasheed Don", please make the appropriate edits but be sure to include any relevant sources.
I look forward to you restoring the last edit I made, then changing the points you feel necessary so we can both collaborate to make the article better as opposed to reverting everything and saving nothing. GauchoDude (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Huh, I've never really paid much editorial attention to the infobox before. But just between your two examples, it used to list notable awards. Your current version offers the same information but removes those. Why not keep them? It may be an updated template but less information is being offered so I'm not sure why it's much of a step forward. Shrug.

I will go ahead replace those sources this weekend elsewhere in the article, thank you for providing those.

Ang-pdx (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I've already mentioned that when changing and fixing the information in the infobox, I'd left out the awards as an oversight. Those should be re-added to the new version. I just forgot to copy and paste them in from the old template to the new template. An additional strategy would be to list out the notable wins (ie: not nominations), then have the other miscellaneous one at the end "winner of over 200 other film festival awards" link to the Awards section in the article. GauchoDude (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


I would just like to say that your username in combination with the fact that you edited Jack Johnson made me smile, and get a craving for some Freebirds. That is all :) Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Weston-super-Mare A.F.C. kits[edit]

I wouldn't say I'm an expert or anything. I just worked out how to do a basic edit, using the codes from: and

I can attempt to have a go but some kits are awkward, and I'm uncertain as to whether its possible to create codes for kits that have elements that do not currently have codes. For instance, Sutton United have a brown border on the sleeves, brown pin stripes on the body of the shirt, a brown border on the bottom of the shirt and the bottom of the shorts and a brown top on the socks. All of which aren't possible as far as I'm aware to code at the moment.

Excuse me, do you have an email?[edit]

Just saying, I need you just in case I'm in trouble and stuff like that. Thanks. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@XXzoonamiXX: To what are you referring? GauchoDude (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Are you very experienced in argument or anything like that? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@XXzoonamiXX: I mean, I'm not a lawyer or anything. Usually in disagreements the facts speak for themselves. Are you having editorial issues on here? Do you have something specific to where you could point me? GauchoDude (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Before we go on, do you have any interests in World War II in particular, especially the casualty rate? I'm not saying you should know everything, but it helps broaden the topic and argument knowing what you're talking about. Do you have a private email and stuff so we could speak in private rather than here? Thanks. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@XXzoonamiXX: On the left-hand side of this page, under the Tools heading, there is a link - "Email this user" - in which you can get a hold of me. GauchoDude (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, GauchoDude. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
XXzoonamiXX (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Oak Grove High School:Notable people[edit]

Why have you removed Professor Nalty's name from the list of Notable people? Are you even an Oak Grove Alumni? No, you can't possibly be, because if you were, you would know that he was the legendary head of the English Department for decades. Many of us credit him for our appreciation of the English language, and our skill in its use. I will be returning his name to the list. Notable persons are not the exclusive domain of athletes and the infamous. Please, refrain from further vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC) @GrouchoDude: We can do this all week. You have no right to decide what is "Notable" at Oak Grove. I and my fellow students do. Engage in a dialog or keep your hands off of our schools Wiki page. From Wiki Guidelined: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, read this message.[edit]

Hello, GauchoDude. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You get my email?[edit]

Hello, GauchoDude. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.