SVHwikieditor
Welcome! edit
Hello, SVHwikieditor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Naraht (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
While I agree that the old version of the page was bad, what the replacement with had *no* references and looked like it was written by the school's PR office. I have reverted it, I'd like work with you to create a properly referenced page with a Neutral Point of View.Naraht (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I am authorized to update this page as a member of the school's administration. The page offers extensive external and internal (wiki) links to neutral websites, and uses an objective tone of voice. Please clarify how you are affiliated with the Waldorf School of Baltimore before making judgement calls about the information provided, and/or attempting to block any page improvements.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SVHwikieditor (talk • contribs) 16:22, July 19, 2017 (UTC)
- Please read the Wikipedia policies regarding Conflict of Interest, Ownership, and Citing Sources. In short, people directly affiliated with the school are constrained not to edit the page. Waldorf School of Baltimore does not *own* the page any more than the North Korean Government owns the page about North Korea. I would be happy to bring in a third party on this, however I hope that you will look through the rules on how Wikipedia is run prior to that. (Also, posts should be signed by typing ~~~~ . Naraht (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Randolph Finder, if you feel compelled enough to oversee the information listed on an elementary school's page in Baltimore, Maryland, please feel free to bring in a 3rd party. I would prefer that versus you repeatedly undoing the factual edits that needed to be made to bring the page up-to-date. As you have stated yourself, that last page was "bad", but you're against this one because it lacks "external references" (???). This had proven to be untrue, as stated in my previous comment. Please clarify why this page means so very much to you, as for you to watch each update and pass judgement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SVHwikieditor (talk • contribs) 17:38, July 19, 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion Randolph, I have submitted the page for 3rd party review. Have a good rest of your day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SVHwikieditor (talk • contribs) 17:51, July 19, 2017 (UTC)
- Where you have posted this wasn't where I meant Wikipedia:Third opinion, but WP:DRN was probably where we were ending up anyway. What pages that I as an editor have chosen to watch or edit over the last decade is my choice. I added it to my watchlist because it had "Johns Hopkins" spelled as "John Hopkins" and I saw that it needed more work than most. You don't appear to understand what an external reference is, please look at pages like United States, Down near the bottom in the section marked references, are the type of references that I mean (they are displayed down there but linked and in editing done in what is being referenced.
As I indicated, Conflict of Interest is the primary issue. Please see WP:COI and understand that that is a primary policy of the board. Waldorf School of Baltimore doesn't own or control the page about Waldorf School of Baltimore at all. Until you understand that, I don't think you will have any luck making any permanent changes to the page.Naraht (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Randolph Finder, this is the first time you've provided any feedback worth using. Your exact words were -- "old was bad, new isn't much better" - this was neither constructive or helpful, and the page was reset by me without hesitation. It has taken multiple messages to get around to the fact you balked at the the way "Johns Hopkins" was/is spelled, which can obviously fixed very easily and doesn't require resetting the page back to it's "bad" prior listing. Correct? While I have you, please note almost all Wiki pages have some from of "conflict of interest" with internal folks (who actually care about what is being posted about their organization) monitoring and editing content. What you deem "subjective" is subjective at best. Please feel free to submit the page to 3rd party view, as you are clearly overly invested in fighting some imaginary "good fight" with me about an elementary school's page. Also, DO NOT attempt to contact our offices again, as this crosses way too many boundaries. I no idea idea what would complete you to take this that far. I look forward to the 3rd party's feedback.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SVHwikieditor (talk • contribs) 19:08, July 19, 2017 (UTC)
- My second response here accented your WP:COI. John Hopkins being corrected to Johns Hopkins was the original reason that I started watching the page and has nothing to do with the fact that I reverted you. I completely disagree that most pages have some form of conflict of interest. Given the large number of pages that are semi-automatically created for individual species of insect, plants and fungi from reference works and every Census-designated place in the 2000 census, there are a great deal of pages without conflict of interest. The point is that the rules of Wikipedia (regardless of what you think they *should* be) limit those who have a conflict of interest on the article like yours. *That* is what I wanted you to read at WP:COI.
- The place where you have submitted is fine, although some level of overkill (Probably best from my point of view is if I had submitted to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard). I was under the apparently mistaken impression that explaining the rules that Wikipedia runs by might help us work together to make a page which was better given the rules that Wikipedia works by. I have previously contacted employees from other organizations which have made good faith efforts and had it work out.
- And this has nothing to do with what your organization is, I'd work the same way for an article about a semi-pro Lacrosse team. - Cheers. Naraht (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've been looking at these changes too. Beyond Naraht's concerns (COI, Ownership, lack of sourcing, and POV) there is a copyvio problem also. Some of the material is copied verbatim from the school's website, or is overly closely paraphrased. Wikipedia cannot host such material unless it is first released into the public domain or the editor proves that he owns the copyright and explicitly gives us permission to reuse the material.
- Dispute resolution is not appropriate until this has been discussed at length on the article's talk page. The discussion here is not sufficient. For example, there is now a second editor who has removed the material who is likely not aware of this discussion, and I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't come here to leave a message. Content discussions must be on the article's talk page where other editors can see them.
- One last note, SVHwikieditor please read WP:EW. You are edit warring. Stop and discuss it or you may end up blocked. Meters (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)