User talk:Neutron
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
- If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
Redwolf24 9 July 2005 09:04 (UTC)
P.S. I like messages :-P
[edit] Question
Hi Neutron! Redwolf24 isn't on at the moment, but I saw your question, and since I'm a good friend of his, I'm going to answer it for him.
The difference is that one is for you to talk to us (in a way) and the other is for us to talk to you. Your talk page (this page) is for other users to leave you notes (and if you want, for you to respond back to them). If you have a question for a user, you should go to thier talk page and ask it. (Like you did for Redwolf24; see, you've got it down pat!)
Your user page (the other page) is for you to tell us things about you. You can look at other's pages to get ideas (mine is here and Redwolf24's is here). If you have questions about how someone put something on their page (images for example) you can either ask them on their talk page, or you can click on "edit this page" and see if you can figure it out. We have a page about user pages (Wikipedia:User page) so you can go there and read more if you'd like. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask Redwolf24 or I either one; we're both friendly.
Oh, and by the way, WELCOME!-- Essjay · Talk 18:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bridgewater Township, New Jersey
Hi Neutron! I'm happy to help. First, let me say, I read the edit and felt it was inappropriate, so I reverted it. (Sorry if you were wanting to do that.) As advice, I would say, feel free to revert on sight anything you feel is not NPOV. The best thing to do is to leave a note (like mine) stating why you removed it, and what you think could be done to make it acceptable. You can discuss the change (I've done that in the past) if you think some users may believe the edit is acceptable; where you believe the edit was inappropriate and believe the majority of users will agree with you, it is acceptable to revert first and discuss later.
Technically, there isn't any "dispute" at this point. Articles are frequently subject to this sort of "editing," and the result is usually a revert and nothing more happens. Disputes develop where one editor adds text like this and refuses to abide by community consensus that it be removed, or where no such consensus exists. I have fired the first volley, let us see if the anon will return to create a dispute. If s/he does not, then all is well. If s/he does, let me know and I will involve myself again.
If you have any other questions, or if my answer wasn't clear, let me know! -- Essjay · Talk 02:52, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Chief Justices
Just FYI since you are the Chief Wikipedian of New Jersey, I have just created articles (very small stubs actually) on two Chief Justices of the New Jersey Supreme Court, Arthur T. Vanderbilt (1948-57) and Joseph Weintraub (1957-73). I had recently created one on Weintraub's successor who lasted only a few weeks, Pierre P. Garven (1973). This clears up some red links in the New Jersey Supreme Court article as well as extending the succession box back in time a bit. It also completes the series on Chief Justices that New Jersey has had since the Supreme Court became the highest court in 1948 (Constitution of 1947). Although the title Chief Justice existed before that, I think it is a natural break-point, before which substantial research would be involved. In the succession box on Vanderbilt's page I did not put a predecessor but rather indicated he was the first CJ under the 1947 Constitution. Neutron 21:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Added note, I had missed the fact that there was no article on Robert Wilentz (which I couldn't believe considering how recently he had been CJ) so I created that one, too. Neutron 21:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the title and thanks for creating the articles. I agree that post 1947 is a useful break point, and if we could cover the past 60 years, we can work backwards from there. I had added Chief Justices to the NJ Supreme Court article and we seem to be closing the loop on this subject. Thanks for your efforts. We may be able to find material from obituaries for some of these guys. Let me know if I can help with anything. Alansohn 22:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:List of school districts in New Jersey
You may want to look at the comment I made here and the associated article edit. Funnily enough, after I decided to edit the article, I looked at the talk page and realized that it related to a discussion that you and I had almost two years ago. If you'd like to revert what I did, I would not feel too badly about it, but this is how I think it ought to be done. If we are going to leave it this way, then the intro probably should be edited to say something like "Non-operating districts, when listed, link to the corresponding municipality's article." Or maybe that violates some rule against self-reference on Wikipedia. I don't know. I just hate red links, and as I said two years ago, there is never going to be a viable article on a non-operating district, or in my opinion, a one-school district either. They are, nevertheless, officially school districts. No need to respond to my talk or here, you can just comment at the article talk page. Neutron 18:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm always glad (and surprised) to see someone editing the NJ school districts article. Just about every multi-school district has an article, the ones that are left are almost all vocational, single-school or non-operating. The redlinks don't bother me as much, as they serve as reminders of work left to be done. Removing them would be more visually pleasing but would remove the prod to actually creating the articles. When I saw your edits I thought it wasn't how I'd do it. I was thinking that it should either be removed (as it's not a district) or should point to the receiving district, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with what you did in your edits. Thanks for your efforts and for actually bothering to discuss. It gave me the opportunity to again see my title as "Chief Wikipedian of New Jersey". All the best. Alansohn 20:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure
I just wanted to let you know about the formation of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure. We hope to cover all the major motions and parliamentary procedure terms. You are welcome to join. Thanks, Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template cite parl
Frankly, my grasp of coding is pretty terrible too. I looked at it and basically reached exactly the conclusions that you did through exactly the same methods. Anyway, OM's unblocked now; I'm sure he'll take a look at it next time he's online. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Parliamentary Procedure Article
Neutron,
I like how you cleaned up on the Parliamentary Procedure article right after I did some major editing. The page was in such a rough content state that I felt I needed to do something and once I started I ended up doing more than I anticpated. This article is far from what I would like to see but I am content to see it to continue to evolve.
On the Consensus link, I have the same question you do, does it belong here?. The page had "Consensus" as another kind of parliamentary procedure, which is not supported by any evidence I can find. As a decision making protocol, "Consensus" (I use it with a capital 'C' to differentiate it from the general meaning of consensus), although not as well defined as parliamentary procedure, is well defined enough in certain groups that it is seen as an alternative to using parliamentary procedure. With a small 'c', "consensus" means general agreement. The use of Parliamentary Procedure more often than not does results in consensus, but it uses a different process than a formal Consensus procedure.
In any case, I did edit the previous page to remove the 'misconception' about consensus, but I didn't feel comfortable in obliterating it from the page. Perhaps it should go in a link section? Parlirules (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks...
...for this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to detract in any way for your support of Sarcasticidealist, I just wanted to mention that I was not in any way criticising him or his reversions. I was merely suggesting that, since reversion of edits by blocked editors is not obligatory, and they may be left if useful, he might consider backing off on reverting edits to parlipro articles by Sarsaparilla socks (same user as Obuibo Mbstpo). It was a suggestion, not a criticism, based on possible value to the project, but it would be entirely his call. --Abd (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
But it's come to my attention he's removing useful contributions from ip editors on the plusnet IP on that the basis they might be me. Odd how he wants different treatment for his meatpuppet. section31 --87.113.69.38 (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bridgewater-Raritan High School
The article in question is a reasonably good one compared to most I assess for WikiProject Schools, and I must admit, it seemed almost unfair to give it a start-class rating, given the amount of work that appears to have gone into it. The issues i felt were as follow;
- The history section needs expansion, and I dislike that there is mention of sporting uniforms in that section. It should be a section based solely on history.
- It would be good to have a section on the campus of the school, although it is breifly discussed in the history and symbols section, it would be really nice to know more.
- The section on administration should be removed, see WP:WPSCH#WNTI.
- The large number of awkward one line sentences need to be merged into flowing paragraphs.
- The history section is unreferenced, and there is a citation needed tag, which needs to be fixed.
- There isnt much information on Enrolments, fees/scholarships, house system (if applicable).
Hope this helps, if you want me to reassess the article after any changes have been made, feel free to do so. Thanks. Five Years 17:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bridgewater-Raritan High School
I reverted the edit that you made to this article yesterday. It appears that when you inserted information about the "Shop Rite Cup", you also inserted information abut Ramapo High School which obviously did not belong in this article. I am sure this was unintentional. I tried to figure out which parts of your edit to leave in the article, but I was uncertain and wanted to get the extraneous information out of the article as quickly as possible, so I just reverted the whole thing. Neutron (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how my cut-and-paste went awry, but it did. Thanks for the catch and the notification. I reinserted the intended details. Alansohn (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Kate Whitman
An article that you have been involved in editing, Kate Whitman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Whitman. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kate Whitman
Hi Neutron, don't be discouraged by the AfD process, it happens sometimes. I think the article can be saved but, even if it ends up being deleted, it was worth your creating it so that a community discussion could occur. Try not to take anything that happens here too personally, it isn't meant to be that way. Thanks for your contributions. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
