Talk:Xavier School/Archive 1

message: ok nevermind alam ko na kung sino nagedit....
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.8.234.242 (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Xavier Wikipedia Page Updates

message: Do you think the 'controversies' and 'assassination attempt' articles be kept on Wikipedia? 
Yes   Votes: 2 
No    Votes: 0
-maybe not the controversies part, but the assasination attempt definitely should have a place in the article.
-The assasination story is definitely not true according to Fr. Go himself.  Please stop posting vandals on this page.  Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganchiam (talk • contribs) 
-This is a flawed poll for 4 very large reasons.
:1) Wikipedia is not a Democracy. So it doesn't matter anyway.
:2) One of the yes votes suspiciously comes from an IP, meaning it's probably a double vote.
:3) I count  3 people saying no, though we refuse to actually vote due to reason #1 (Patstuart, Loganchiam, Rmcsamson). That leaves the Yes/No ratio at 1:3.
:4) If the assasination really occurred, then you would have a source; it's not that hard to find. But you conveniently forget to give it to us.
So please stop adding this stuff in, until you can find a source. -Patstuart 00:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is clear enough. Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Rmcsamson 14:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No citations, no dice. Rmcsamson 14:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If there are no citations, then there's no proof to back up the claims made in the sections. They will be deleted until such claims can be properly backed up. Rmcsamson 14:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GOOD OL' POLL

message: Searching for 'Days with the Lord' using the search feature doesn't seem to be working. Can anybody please fix this? TY.
This article greatly needs its share of criticism. Xavier School has been a very controversial private institution since it opened to public in 1956. People have the right to know what goes on inside the halls of Xavier School. Please open your eyes Rmcsamson.
:: It's simple, really. Provide proper citations, and the entries can stand. Otherwise, this is simply rumor-mongering. Rmcsamson 13:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's also quite simple to add the citations yourself, since you insist that there are supposedly entries in the XS website. I suppose that they should be easy enough for you to properly use. Until then, expect the entries to be removed until they're properly cited. Rmcsamson 17:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Stuff

message: This section's longer than the rest of the entry. It's also unencyclopedic and libelous. I had to remove it for the time being. Rmcsamson 15:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're not facts, they're unencyclopedic, and don't belong here. If there are proper citations, then maybe they can stand. Rmcsamson 12:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The question isn't whether or not they're 100% factual. The entries being added are allegations which are supposedly based on fact. If there is some sort of factual basis, then there ought to be some reference to which this basis can be attributed. Wikipedia is not a venue for venting opinion, unless perhaps that opinion is popularized enough to have been noted elsewhere. Otherwise, you end up with an article with non-neutral sections which skew the article toward a non-neutral point of view, which is unencyclopedic. The citations asked for are simply verification if there is even factual basis to what has been added, leading the article toward neutrality and being more than what might be the opinion of a single Wikipedia user. The same holds true for Neopets. Again, citations are needed. If those cannot be provided, the entries will be deleted. Rmcsamson 17:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Kindly reread the entire sentence again, instead of merely resorting to selective quoting. If you can prove your so-called majority, let's have it. Again, no citations, no dice. Rmcsamson 15:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, your (imagined) complaints aren't sufficient as citations. No citations, no dice. Rmcsamson 14:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's pretty simple. The entries being placed are libelous and smack of rumor-mongering, which isn't what Wikipedia is about. If you want the entries to stand, cite appropriate sources, and make sure they're neutral. Until then, expect them to be deleted again and again and again. Rmcsamson 16:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a quick look at 210.213.126.248's contribs and I think we have our answer. -Patstuart 19:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No citations, no dice. Rmcsamson 06:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ad hominems don't work on Wikipedia. Citations do. Rmcsamson 15:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please consult existing Wikipedia policy before resorting to ad hominems. Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Rmcsamson 12:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaints section 

message: I am interested in languages and would like more elaboration on the training of Chinese language in the school.--Jondel 00:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese training

message: The Jesuits are from China  who were expelled. There are even caucasian Jesuits but they don't associate with the Jesuits of Ateneo.  A history of the Xavier Jesuits would be very interesting.(I almost became a Jesuit.)--Jondel 00:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesuits

message: Please stop posting vandals on this page.  
Who took out the sections about the assassination attempt on Fr. Johnny? Also, what happened to the section about the bomb threats?
The public needs to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.70.250 (talk • contribs) 
REPLY: You're right. Apparently, Rmcsamson is the one responsible for continually deleting these articles even after repetitive edits bringing them back. I agree with what you said. THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW. But Rmcsamson's blind foolishness continues to keep the world in the dark. He must be banned from the Wikipedia community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.126.248 (talk • contribs) 
: It's pretty simple. The entries being placed are libelous and smack of rumor-mongering, which isn't what Wikipedia is about. If you want the entries to stand, cite appropriate sources, and make sure they're neutral. Until then, expect them to be deleted again and again and again. Rmcsamson 16:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a quick look at 210.213.126.248's contribs and I think we have our answer. -Patstuart 19:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No citations, no dice. Rmcsamson 06:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ad hominems don't work on Wikipedia. Citations do. Rmcsamson 15:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bomb Threat and Assassination Attempt

message: Seeing the constant vandalism to this page, does anyone think we should semi-protect it? I'm pretty close to nominating it myself. -Patstuart 01:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protect 

message: Rmcsamson really uses his time to go back to edit and delete stuff about Xavier School?
Why? Hate XS? 
Rmcsamson is vandalizing this article
What do you think? 
Yes
- Mohnke
- An Anonymous IP Address (Simply put, Rmcsamson sucks, big time.
NO
: Please consult existing Wikipedia policy before resorting to ad hominems. Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Rmcsamson 12:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rmcsamson 

message: Hey, please don't delete all the comments on the talk page. That's actually considered vandalism. You can archive if you'd like. -Patstuarttalk|edits 14:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting comments