Talk:List of The Citadel alumni

Disruptive Edits

76.114.140.79 (talk), your recent unreferenced edits go far beyond good faith edits and have graduated to disruptive edits, resulting in an edit war. If you wish to contribute to this page (or any others on Wikipedia), you must adhere to the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines & manual of style. For starters, when making additions to the article, you must cite a reference where you obtained the information. Also, when making fundamental edits, you should discuss such edits prior to implementing them into the article. Lastly, if you disagree with revisions, it's best to discuss said edits in the article's talk page. Should you continue your sophomoric behavior, further action will be taken to preserve the integrity & mission of Wikipedia. Bullmoosebell (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been editing this page for several months without complaint, someone recently made changes to my content and deleted changes I had made without cause or explanation. Reference for the changes is The Citadel Alumni Distinguished/Notable list, DOD news releases and The Citadel football and baseball media guides as well as personal knowledge as a graduate and member of the alumni history committee. And just who are you to question these edits without the appropriate knowledge, I only make changes I know to be fact so you may trust that I know what I am doing. If you have reason to change anything kindly explain yourself.

Thanks, Bob Mebane '80 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.140.79 (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice in the history of the page that most, if not all, instances of anyone's edits being undone include a note explaining why, from unsourced edits to changes that go against an established consensus on Wikipedia. When making a change, we need to cite our sources (see WP:CS) for anything that may be controversial, challengeable, or simply not well-known. When dealing with a list of notable alumni, virtually every entry should probably have a source. You indicated that you have sources for many of the changes you have made, I suggest inputting these as links when you make a change. Try WP:CT for some easy templates to help with that, you'll likely find {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} the most useful. Billcasey905 (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC) class of '03

thanks for the info. somewhat new to the wikipedia thing so still learning the ropes. Most of the info I posted on this article is taken from official bios and the Distinguished/Notable list on the Alumni Association website; for others it can be found on other Wikipedia articles or various other websites and in many cases I know the people personally and am very familiar with their history. As I am trying to make this a good PR tool for the school I have no reason to post anything that is not accurate but I understand the concern over people trying to post things that are not verifiable. Was also trying to fix changes that some unknown person made to the article that were not necessary, in some cases they deleted info that was correct and added things that were not. Bob '80 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.140.79 (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

76.114.140.79, notice just some of your recent edits (Van McCarty, Letrat Ratanavanich, Nate Robb, William Ingram, George Seignious, et cetera). You provided no citations, no references, and no links. In such a case, these additions are not to be added (regardless of your personal feelings or knowledge). The information could be correct, but it has to be proven. Simply provide substantial proof (no blogs or social media links) and it can stay (see templates provided by Billcasey905 & links I provided in my initial discussion above).

Additionally, you removed links to personnel depicted in the list. If the link correlates to the actual person, do not remove it. Also, do not remove depictions of the branch in which the notable personnel served (USA, USAR, ANG...). Such actions are disruptive.

As for unnecessary edits, using rank abbreviations for all ranks, as well as the correct rank abbreviation for each respective service, is not unnecessary. Rather, it establishes continuity and correct information. Be sure to take in to consideration the established consensus on Wikipedia, as well as US Military doctrine. (see templates below).

In consideration of the manual of style, persons listed that are not linked should not actually be added. However, the page seems to benefit from the additions rather than hinder, thus it is of no consequence to keep them. But do not be surprised if the consensus changes.

Thanks for your pursuit to make this article a better page, but follow the rules and we'll all benefit. If you wish to contribute significantly, I suggest registering rather than simply editing through your IP address. And, when writing in a talk page, be sure to sign your comments by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) Bullmoosebell (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:US officer ranks

come on, you are being a little anal. the ranks should not have been changed just because you think they need to be. I used a generic rank form that is easier to understand, most people reading these articles are civilians who dont know anything about the military and dont understand rank. In the case of Gen. Seignious and Gen. Libutti under "Government" I remove the service designation because it implies they were on active duty when they held these posts, they were in fact retired. I have posted references to some of the other changes, if you are going to insist on a reference to every little detail like dates of service you again are being a bit overbearing. Give me a break. Have no idea what a tilde is or how to use all these strange icons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.140.79 (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

76.114.140.79, editing on Wikipedia is not personal or emotional, and it has nothing to do with anal-retentiveness. There are rules & guidelines to be followed or the edits do not remain, this is not a matter of what I insist or wish the edits to be. The edits you are attempting to provide do not meet the criteria, regardless of military or civilian affiliation or understanding. Rather than continuing your disruptive edits, research the material provided (as well as the instructions on signing your posts), then add the edits you wish in the format they must be added. Also, beware of unnecessary edits. A personal friendship with relations to notable personnel does not warrant inclusion, nor does insignificant information. It's black & white simple and until you can follow the criteria (we're not here to do your leg-work), your edits will be reverted. Bullmoosebell (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

you are being a real dick about this. no one insisted on references to all the changes I made in recent months. I cited references for the changes I just made, and no they are not disruptive they are FACTS. Do not question my knowledge, I am the expert on The Citadel not you. I must be talking to a VMI grad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.140.79 (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No one is questioning your knowledge, it is simply that this site is meant to be an encyclopedia which requires citations of sources. If you read any scholarly work, as you obviously do, there are inline citations to sources for facts that are asserted. This isn't because you aren't knowledgeable or trusted, it simply adds dramatically to the credibility of Wikipedia to have inline citations when a reader comes to the page. That earlier edits weren't challenged doesn't mean that your current ones can't be. Every page on this encyclopedia is, to one extent or another, a work in progress and thus can always be improved with additional sources and information. This page in particular needs citations very badly. When you're adding information to this or any page, please use the citation templates I referred you to earlier. I inserted the dates of service for Gen Ingram and Gen Robb, along with a citation to the source you provided. If you cite sources in this way, your edits will not be reverted for lack of citations. As to the issue of signing your posts, a tilde is typed by holding the shift key and pressing the key next to the number one at the top of your keyboard. Your posts on a talk page will be signed if you type this character four times at the end of your message. I also suggest you register as a user, the link to that page can be found at the top right of your screen. Many editors are immediately suspicious of edits made by unregistered users, which show up simply as an IP address. Your work and knowledge of The Citadel's history are much appreciated, I've been focusing on pages related to athletics so far, and I'd love some help with that and all the other things that should be included on WP about the school. Billcasey905 (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a PR tool for the school

In a remark above, an anonymous editor says he is trying to make this list a good PR tool for The CItadel. We call that promotional editing, and it will get you blocked. This list should be a simple listing of the notable persons as Wikipedia defines notability who attended The Citadel, whether they graduated or not. Nobody who is not notable enough to have an article about them goes on the list; nobody who is notable, and who attended the school, should be excluded because you don't approve of them or what they did. My alma mater's list includes a Prime Minister, a President who was thrown out of office, and a leader of the American Nazi Party; all three belong there because they are notable, not because I approve or disapprove of them. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

If people care about this project, rather than wanting to publicize The Citadel, they should start by creating articles about the people on this list who do not have articles; because otherwise those items on the list will start being purged. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to apply the WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline here. We can discuss the inclusion of people who do not have an article on a case by case basis. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...this list has existed for years and no one had a problem with its content until Worlds Lamest Critic got a questionable addition removed, sounds like a major conflict of interest and attempted retribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:149:8100:B951:9963:681A:552A:73A3 (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what "conflict of interest" means but that's a whole different problem. If you want to add people to this list, they need to have a page in Wikpedia already. If you think someone should be added that doesn't have a page, make a case for it here. You can read the guideline at WP:LISTPEOPLE. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

gotta just love how some editors selectively enforce rules, insult posters and use their position to enact revenge when they are proven wrong on anything. I see no part of the guideline stating that notable people must have a wiki article, obviously more "do as I say not as I do".Bob80q (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Bob80q, you are absolutely right. I misstated the guideline. It doesn't say that people in lists must already have an article, just that they be notable enough to have an article. If you want to add someone who doesn't have an article, we can discuss it here. I'm told this is how it works on similar lists, so your problem isn't with me but with the guideline itself. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

OK so if we can have a civil and objective discourse - first I have submitted draft articles on several folks previously on the list and waiting for decision from editors; 2 who would clearly qualify as 'notable' are LtCol George McMillan (pilot with the Flying Tigers and combat ace with 8.5 aerial victories) and LtCol Horace Crouch (member of the Doolittle Raiders and combat veteran of the CBI Theater and Korean War), both are on The Citadels Distinguished Alumni List.2601:149:8100:B951:9963:681A:552A:73A3 (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Bob80q, please sign in with your account. It will make it easier for others to follow the discussion. Your draft for George McMillan was declined because "submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability". Have you read WP:LISTPEOPLE? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(1)we already established that a person does not need a wiki article to qualify as notable,(2)I provided 5 different references proving he was a member of the Flying Tigers and a combat ace, if that isn't 'notable' and not enough references something is really wrong. Perhaps it would be best if another editor were to be involved with this page, and I don't mean OrangeMike either.Bob80q (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

All I can suggest is that you read WP:LISTPEOPLE again. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just seen this. People obvious qualified for an article are included. This does not include all the people that have been removed, but it does include members of congress.

there does have to be a efeence, which is easy enough in such cases. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Would someone alphabetize the lists?

Please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

They appear to be in chronological order by date of graduation. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of alumni of The Citadel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120914123046/http://www.ultimatebellaire.com/stories/226080-bellaire-grad-cameron-wells-drops-22-points-in-citadel-win to http://www.ultimatebellaire.com/stories/226080-bellaire-grad-cameron-wells-drops-22-points-in-citadel-win

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Columbo

I think it should be noted that an episode of Columbo was filmed here. By Dawn's Early Light. 2601:188:C780:B980:156C:2B61:E022:5BF2 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)