Archives

Archive 1

Hey @Melchior2006. Thanks for your good work on cleaning upMOS:PUFFERY on highered pages. If you're interested, I have recently been cleaning up puff and undue information on secondary education pages in New England. Perhaps you might be interested in doing the same — there is a ton of work to do for to upholdWP:NPOV.GuardianH (talk)21:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, @GuardianH. I will take a look a little later. You are working your way through these pages in a regional manner? Can you give me the category you have been working within? --Melchior2006 (talk)06:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Melchior2006 I think schools inTemplate:New England Preparatory School Athletic Council would be a good start; I've been combing through a number of them recently. Schools in that template tend to have additional categories within them (i.e. miscellaneous athletic associations, etc.) and other categories within them, so you can also use those to branch out into other schools.GuardianH (talk)18:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On an additional note, categories such asCategory:Private high schools in Connecticut orCategory:Private high schools in New York (state) by county, etc. etc. are great to look through.GuardianH (talk)18:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Melchior2006, I thought you might be interested in this. A whole ton of the articles of schools listed inG30 Schools could use some substantial cleanup in terms of puffery removal.GuardianH (talk)04:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I took a look. You were right! --Melchior2006 (talk)06:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melchior2006. Thank you for your work onThomas Meienhofer. Another editor,North8000, has reviewed it as part ofnew pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|North8000}}.(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk)15:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melchior2006. Thank you for your work onList of Princeton Triangle Club shows. Another editor,North8000, has reviewed it as part ofnew pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for your work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|North8000}}.(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk)15:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melchior2006. Thank you for your work onList of Northfield Mount Hermon people. Another editor,North8000, has reviewed it as part ofnew pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for your work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|North8000}}.(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk)15:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melchior2006. Thank you for your work onPeter Jarolin. Another editor,North8000, has reviewed it as part ofnew pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|North8000}}.(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk)15:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melchior2006. Thank you for your work onFrançois Bruys. Another editor,North8000, has reviewed it as part ofnew pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|North8000}}.(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk)15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melchior2006. Thank you for your work onList of Milton Academy alumni. Another editor,North8000, has reviewed it as part ofnew pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for your work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|North8000}}.(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk)15:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melchior2006. Thank you for your work onList of Princeton High School Alumni. Another editor,North8000, has reviewed it as part ofnew pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for your work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|North8000}}.(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk)15:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleList of Germantown Friends School alumni is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Germantown Friends School alumni until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

 // Timothy :: talk 15:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Melchior2006. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Bernard James Elmer Murphy, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.FireflyBot (talk)11:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your tireless work on colleges, universities, and secondary schools expanding material, formatting, copyediting, and cleaning upboosterism, with diligent discourse on talk pages. What a big magnifying glass you have indeed, and the articles are visibly better off for it.GuardianH (talk)00:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I really admire your work, too. Fighting boosterism is especially important when it comes to higher ed, since there is so much academic corruption out there and people abuse Wikipedia in order to promote schools or cover up deficiencies. --Melchior2006 (talk)06:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Melchior2006,

I'mJoseywales1961, and Ipatrol new pages here on Wikipedia.

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged a page that you created (Richard Daschbach) for deletion because it is unnecessary per one of the criteria atWP:G14.

If you feel that the page shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact thedeleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with{{Re|Joseywales1961}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Josey Wales^Parley08:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseywales1961: I just added another Richard Daschbach to the disambig page. --Melchior2006 (talk)08:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks have a nice dayJosey Wales^Parley08:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseywales1961:. Could you pls revert your deletion of the disambig page? There is nothing left there anymore. --Melchior2006 (talk)08:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created has been deleted as an attack page, according tosection G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages thatattack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and filesare not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may beblocked from editing.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)17:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which page do you mean?Melchior2006 (talk)21:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please seeWikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pietro Amenta.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)21:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the info. The discussion about the deletion clearly shows that other editors don't think it was an attack page, and it was online for more than a year without any criticism, but I accept your decision. --Melchior2006 (talk)22:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It occurred to me, from the interests you mention on your user page, that you might be interested in checking some of the German musical theatre-related articles against the English ones. If so, here are some possible things you might be uniquely positioned to look into:

• Does ourMusical theatre article adequately reflect the non-English-speaking musical stage in Europe and beyond, as far as your research may have led you?
• Should anything from our English article on musical theatre be added to the equivalent German article?
• Is it true thatStarlight Express had a historically long run in Germany? If so, can you please add a ref or two to our article on it about the German production?
• Are there any other examples of record-setting runs in Europe or other non-English-speaking countries that have surpassed, say, 5,000 performances?
• Gilbert and Sullivan works (one of my particular interests) have been played in Europe and around the world since the 1870s. This is mentioned briefly in the "Legacy and assessment" section of that article. Is the article missing anything particularly noteworthy?
• Broadway, off-Broadway, London and other US/UK theatres have often hosted foreign (and foreign-language) productions and touring companies. Are these described adequately in the obvious Wikipedia articles, and if not, can you add some description of the most important such productions and touring companies to them? (for example,Broadway theatre,West End theatre,off-Broadway,Theater in the United States,Theatre of the United Kingdom,musical theatre,theatre, etc.

Happy editing! --Ssilvers (talk)22:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely do work on musicals. --Melchior2006 (talk)15:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melchior2006, thanks for taking a look at the Daniel Diermeier article and making those changes. I was wondering if you had any interest in theedit request I made for the article to expand on some of Dr. Diermeier's more recent work with Vanderbilt? Any feedback you can offer would be highly appreciated. CheersVandyBE (talk)15:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can take a look. --Melchior2006 (talk)15:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm4meter4. I wanted to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions toPacific Repertory Theatre have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please useyour sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at theTeahouse or theHelp desk.Removing scholarly publications which are used in inline citations within an article is unacceptable.4meter4 (talk)21:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Let's move this talk topic to the appropriate page (Pacific Rep Theater). See you over there. --Melchior2006 (talk)21:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:4meter4#Forest_Theater_and_Golden_Bough_Playhouse 4meter4 and Ssilver are discussing opposing merger of Forest Theater and Godlen Bough Playhouse together.Graywalls (talk)02:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls I don't know about that. At this point it is a one-sided conversation. Ssilvers left a message on my talk page which I have not responded to yet. I haven't looked at those theatre pages yet, and have not formed an opinion. However, I do know from researching the PRC article that both of the theatre venues are old and historic and have long histories that go back to the early 20th century. Both theaters pre-date the PRC's creation in 1982 by decades and have entries in architecture books, histories of Monterey County/California, and of course coverage in newspaper archives across many many years; enough so that lengthy articles which passWP:SIGCOV would be easily feasible. I would not be surprised if they were on theNational Register of Historic Places or some other similar historic designation list which would passWP:NBUILDING. Without even looking at the articles, my concern over a merger would be that the theaters lack a shared history for the majority of time that they have been operating as theaters. It really isn't until 1994 that the theaters begin to have a shared history, and as both theaters date to 1910ish there is about an 80 year history where they were independent of one another. For this reason, I suspect that a merger may not only be challenging, but also not ideal if not impossible to do. A bundled article would be clumsy and un-focused (what would we even call such an article). It also would be challenging to maintain both an appropriate encyclopedic scope and to match the standard article structure/WP:MOS practices used encyclopedia wide for articles on theaters. That said, if you have a well argued position as to why they should be bundled into a single article, and what the structure of said article would look like I would be open to hearing that proposal. Best.4meter4 (talk)03:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think i might have been caught up in your trimming boosterism cruft.

I'm just editing punctuation

have a Wikipedia day, sAugmented Seventh (talk)17:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Let's move this talk topic to the appropriate page (Berkshire School). See you over there. --Melchior2006 (talk)18:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful edits at Florida State University! After reflecting on it, I tweaked your recent edit slightly to clarify the original legislative purpose, which has two elements.Sirberus (talk)14:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1]Drew Stanley (talk)03:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the tip; I expanded the article a bit. --Melchior2006 (talk)14:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

same issue -[2]Drew Stanley (talk)21:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- no rush, just wanted to point out that it looks like some of the refs you added to this article are in the wrong place/attached to placeholder "asdf" text.Gnomingstuff (talk)03:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! I added a bit today. --Melchior2006 (talk)14:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't closely monitor that article because my only experience with LMU is through my childhood experience with theCenter for Talented Youth. A lot of junk has snuck in there over the years. Thanks for taking out the trash on that article!Coolcaesar (talk)21:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Boosterism was a major problem; promotional (or unsourced) writing reduces the article's credibility and wastes a lot of space. --Melchior2006 (talk)13:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melchior2006, you might be interested in a discussion currently ongoing atTemplate talk:Infobox academic about the possibility of reformatting the template without theAcademic background divider.GuardianH (talk)23:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding to theHazing article. The source you linked does not mention alcohol poisoning, nor that Burch was a pledge. Could you please choose a different source or change your text? Thank you.Cerulean Depths (talk)20:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for looking closely! --Melchior2006 (talk)10:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I wanted to see if you had any other thoughts onthis request for the Culinary Institute of America. Let me know! CheersBINK Robin (talk)20:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good as far as I can see. I just took another look at the page and trimmed here and there, toned down some boosterism, deleted seom points that don't attain encyclo-relevance. --Melchior2006 (talk)08:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the close eye! Just for the sake of full transparency, would you mind responding with a "go ahead" on the CIA Talk page? I am more than happy to make the edit myself, I just want to make sure everything is clear to future Talk page reviewers. CheersBINK Robin (talk)16:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, wanted to check if you had seen my latest response on the CIA Talk page? Thanks,BINK Robin (talk)18:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your recent edit toUniversity of Nebraska at Kearney with the phrase 'boosterism galore' as part of the edit summary. Such a large deletion in a single edit is not optimal in that subsequent editors may find it difficult to changeparts of the text added or deleted.

In my opinion the deletions were were not al well thought out. As an example you changed, in the section 'notable people', you deleted 'olympic' from the description of a wrestler. 'Olympic wrestler' is what makes that person notable; he won a bronze medal at the 2012 Olympics in London.

Judging by your edit summary, size of your single edit deletion, and number of perhaps disputable deletions, I suggest you be more careful, lest you find similar large deletions reverted rather selectively altered. It is always wise to do your own work thoroughly rather the shifting the burden to those who follow. I made a single change and reverted the rest.

—Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they)14:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC) —[reply]

Thanks for your message. I take WP:BOLD to heart. But you're right, 14,000 is a rather large edit. The article was an exception because it has so many problems. But I will take another look and parce the edits for further consideration and discussion among editors. As for "notable" alums: we don't go into which competitions they have won, etc., but again, the Olympics might be an exception to that rule, too. As for "doing my own work" .... deletions are work. They are the first step to improving quality and reducing puff. You are welcome to help. --Melchior2006 (talk)14:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your recent edit toUniversity of Nebraska at Kearney with the phrase 'boosterism galore' as part of the edit summary. Such a large deletion in a single edit is not optimal in that subsequent editors may find it difficult to changeparts of the text added or deleted.

In my opinion the deletions were were not al well thought out. As an example you changed, in the section 'notable people', you deleted 'olympic' from the description of a wrestler. 'Olympic wrestler' is what makes that person notable; he won a bronze medal at the 2012 Olympics in London.

Judging by your edit summary, size of your single edit deletion, and number of perhaps disputable deletions, I suggest you be more careful, lest you find similar large deletions reverted rather selectively altered. It is always wise to do your own work thoroughly rather the shifting the burden to those who follow. I made a single change and reverted the rest.

—Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they)14:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC) —[reply]

Thanks for your message. I take WP:BOLD to heart. But you're right, 14,000 is a rather large edit. The article was an exception because it has so many problems. But I will take another look and parce the edits for further consideration and discussion among editors. As for "notable" alums: we don't go into which competitions they have won, etc., but again, the Olympics might be an exception to that rule, too. As for "doing my own work" .... deletions are work. They are the first step to improving quality and reducing puff. You are welcome to help. --Melchior2006 (talk)14:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your recent edit toUniversity of Nebraska at Kearney with the phrase 'boosterism galore' as part of the edit summary. Such a large deletion in a single edit is not optimal in that subsequent editors may find it difficult to changeparts of the text added or deleted.

In my opinion the deletions were were not al well thought out. As an example you changed, in the section 'notable people', you deleted 'olympic' from the description of a wrestler. 'Olympic wrestler' is what makes that person notable; he won a bronze medal at the 2012 Olympics in London.

Judging by your edit summary, size of your single edit deletion, and number of perhaps disputable deletions, I suggest you be more careful, lest you find similar large deletions reverted rather selectively altered. It is always wise to do your own work thoroughly rather the shifting the burden to those who follow. I made a single change and reverted the rest.

—Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they)14:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC) —[reply]

Thanks for your message. I take WP:BOLD to heart. But you're right, 14,000 is a rather large edit. The article was an exception because it has so many problems. But I will take another look and parce the edits for further consideration and discussion among editors. As for "notable" alums: we don't go into which competitions they have won, etc., but again, the Olympics might be an exception to that rule, too. As for "doing my own work" .... deletions are work. They are the first step to improving quality and reducing puff. You are welcome to help. --Melchior2006 (talk)14:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very fine reply—I will take you up on your offer—puffery in educational institution is likekuduz, you can not kill it, only cut it back. I live in a state, Georgia, with lots of kudzu. It's said that lazy mules can be overtaken and smothered by the vine.

The puffery starts with middle schools and runs through sections of departments of graduate schools.

I am sorry, "doing your on work" did come over as harsh". I should have said that making huge edits make it difficult for any other editor to make changes to make changes to a small section (even you, if you decide to revisit). If anything, huge edits makesyour initial work harder.

Huge edits to an article attract attention of the wrong kind. Revenge editing at the younger end of the age range. Huge edits can, because there no individual edit summaries, discourage potential editors from participating further. It's a balancing act. Puffery in educational institution articles is easy to recognize, but the usual effect is that it's unencyclopedic, not misleading, information. Another approach is to add a hidden message, only seen while editing, to the section<---Please see [[WP:XYZ]]---> or<---Please pick persons for listing in a ''notable alumni'' section that will be known at some time outside your state or region for actions that are newsworthy---> (whatever message you find works best).

In my opinion, Olympic medal winners are always good for notable lists; Members of the top, very selective professional organizations like theNational Academy of Sciences; top tier awards for achievements in various fields such as the Fields Medal, Nobel Prize; well-known artists, producers, other creators, and agents for same, Academy Awards winners (any of EGOT awards); well-known journalists, national network anchors and commentators; multiple season players and coaches in top tier professional sports leagues; US governors, senators and representatives, Cabinet members and ambassadors, mayors of major cities; breakout businessmen, particularly those who established an industry (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs...),general officers of the US military, awardees of the top two medals of each US armed services branch; members of the federal judiciary. And lots more categories that may qualify.

The above are just my opinion. I may have left out categories that I would give an easy pass. Do you know of any Wikipedia essays dealing with 'notable lists' for educational institutions? Or a group that targets puffery?

For me, since I do not write articles, consider educating and encouraging potential productive editors is important. I tend to write long edit summaries where appropriate.

—Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they)15:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC) —[reply]

p.s. I may be responsible for the duplicated sections. My latest OS update from Apple, to IOS 18.4, is causing problems. I've lost edits often; did not think duplicated sections were also happening. —Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they)16:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC) —[reply]

Hello, you recently reverted an edit I made adding a transportation section to the page, as per the GA review suggestions. TheWashington University section, which was linked as an example to use (although, not for the transportation section in particular), does include information on public transportation, such as train lines. If you disagree about the relevance of this particular information, I wonder if we can bring this up on the talk page and see if we can come to a consensus. In the meantime, do you have a problem with the information on the shuttle system/rideshare program, or can I re-add those parts to the page?Charter6281 (talk)18:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I don't think bus stops or shuttle systems are relevant for an encyclopedia, but let's move this to the UChicago talk page and see what others think. Do you want to start the talk section, or should I? Since you are proposing the content, I suggest you start the discussion over there. See you soon.Melchior2006 (talk)16:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I started the talk section, although I'm new to these kinds of disputes - please let me know if I set up the discussion wrong or if there's a special template I should use instead.Charter6281 (talk)04:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have written here that he only wrote one play. He did co-write HELIOGABALUS with H. L. Mencken. Project Gutenberg has a virtual copy of it, if you would like to take a look.173.23.142.45 (talk)20:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Go ahead and make the change, I'm all for it. --Melchior2006 (talk)05:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You recently attempted to remove the controversy section from The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama’s Wikipedia page, which summarises the institution’s past association with playwright and director Chris Goode. Goode met his future husband while serving as a guest lecturer at the school, when his husband was a student (they started dating whilst his husband was a student and he was a lecturer). In 2021, Goode was arrested in connection with allegations of child sexual abuse and possession of child sexual abuse material after his husband reported finding over two decades’ worth of such material, including images of infants, on Goode’s personal computer. Goode died by suicide shortly thereafter, and in his suicide note expressed praise for the creators of child sexual abuse material. While the school has not issued a public statement on this matter or published any updates to its safeguarding policies in relation to the alleged circumstances, these details are supported by reliable published sources and meet Wikipedia’s verifiability standard. The section records a notable aspect of the school’s history, in line with Wikipedia’s requirement to include significant, well-sourced information, irrespective of whether it reflects positively or negatively on the subject.British Theatre Transparency (talk)10:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "attempt to remove" the controversy section; I removed it. I have no doubts about the reliability of the sources and the facticity of the affair, but this is not the right place for it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for activists, as laudable as your cause may be. My argument is that Goode and his husband are not sufficiently well-known to go into the institutional history of RCSSD. --Melchior2006 (talk)10:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He was the artistic director of Camden People's Theatre from 2001-2004, which was itself founded by faculty members of the school. His company 'Chris Goode & Company' was a national portfolio organisation and in receipt of permanent funding from Art Council England, in much the same way nationally significant theatres and cultural institutions get funded. Simply because you are unaware of the historical significance and level of integration that Chris Goode had with the School doesn't mean the entire controversy is not part of the institutional history. It might not be comfortable but it is factual and relevant.British Theatre Transparency (talk)10:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what other editors think. --Melchior2006 (talk)10:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion will be continued on theTalk:Royal Central School of Speech and Drama page, that is where it belongs. --Melchior2006 (talk)12:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to contactRoberto221, please do so on his talk page and not mine. And really, the "See also" section of bishops' articles is a major concern of yours that you had to go out and get the "consensus" of three people? When I was studying for my advance degrees in theology, discernment was a big part of what we were taught. In the 20+ years since it makes even more sense. Give it try it some time. Then maybe you can focus on what is important and stop focusing on the trivial.Farragutful (talk)23:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the redirect. Will do. Talk pages are a way of reaching consensus, so thanks for being constructive and helping editors reach it. --Melchior2006 (talk)10:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit to the article forMainland Regional High School (New Jersey) simply does not respect basic and fundamental Wikipedia policies and standards. Despite the claim in the edit summary that you "Cut completely unsourced assertions, boosterism", in fact, the overwhelming portion of the content you removed was made up of several different reliable and verifiable sources from independent sources. This is simply inexcusable.

I will also point out that the term "boosterism" means nothing, has no basis in Wikipedia policy and serves as no justification for removal of anything.

This edit will be reverted and material that can and should be retained will be kept in the article; those things that can be sourced will have references added; and the trivially minimal material that cannot or should be removed will be.

Please refrain from further such mass removal of sources and sourced content, in the absence of any discussion and consensus supporting your edits.Alansohn (talk)20:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed this enough in the past, so I see no need to go into it now. Thanks for your improvements to the page. --Melchior2006 (talk)04:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you in the dispute since you commented in discussion.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#City_College_of_New_YorkGraywalls (talk)22:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageDaniel Diermeier, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• Ageneric title error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)16:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]