User talk:82.15.109.83

December 2023

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to School Information Management System. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice, I reverted your change and then removed the link. I am legitimately updating this article as the market share is vastly reduced now. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not basing your changes on reliable sources, you are not legitimately updating this article - you have to comply with sourcing policies. MrOllie (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point is I have used a reliable source - if you actually clicked through to the source you would see that it is a reliable source and I am legitimately updating the article. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. You have to meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, not your own. Somebody's self published blog does not remotely qualify. MrOllie (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have also posted the updated statistic without link - why is that being reverted too? The existing statistic and link are many years old. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the data supplied directly by the UK Government through a Freedom of Information Act request using the well known platform for doing so is a valid and reliable source? You'll note the requestor's name is none other than the writer of the very respected blog I previously referenced but if you must have the raw data from the UK Government directly then this is the horse's mouth so to speak.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/school_mis_suppliers_as_of_the_a_4#incoming-2488556 82.15.109.83 (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reverted for the reasons I just explained - you must cite a source that meets Wikipedia's requirements. 'whatdotheyknow.com' doesn't either. If you want to update this article you're going to have to read, understand, and follow WP:V and WP:RS. MrOllie (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So the UK Government respond with the raw data that supports the assertion and that isn't good enough?

This data isn't published directly by the UK Government - it is only obtainable using a Freedom of Information Act request - can you advise how I correctly cite it so that my update stops being reverted please? 82.15.109.83 (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By finding a reliable, secondary source. MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the pages you have directed me to give examples of "reliable" sources but they are not a list of the only acceptable sources.

A FOIA response that is published on the Internet is, IMHO, a reliable source and I challenge your reversion - can you tell me how I can go about asking someone else to review this matter please?

Just in case there is no process what about this source:

https://www.whichmis.com/mis-market-churn-summer-2023/#:~:text=The%20summer%202023%20data%20is,share%20only%205%20years%20ago! 82.15.109.83 (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's another self published site. You're going to have to actually read the policies in question, picking whatever shows up on google and asking over and over without even a nod at understanding the polices involved is just a waste of both your time and mine. If you are having trouble understanding the requirements, you can ask questions about them at WP:TEAHOUSE - but please do not waste their time with more URLs that obviously do not meet the guidelines. MrOllie (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have literally given you a direct response from the UK Government with the raw data there is no more reliable source than this:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/school_mis_suppliers_as_of_the_a_4#incoming-2488556

Since the pages you reference do not contain exhaustive lists of what sources are acceptable and I have read them I fail to see how a directly published UK Government response to an FOIA request is anything other than a reliable source since it is answered as a statutory requirement and the data is provided in raw form so there is simply no commentary or interpretation.

Therefore I intend to re-edit the article using the data supplied directly by the UK Government as the source and if you revert it again I will challenge it.

You could also adopt a more welcoming tone, your replies have been abrupt and rude thus far. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and 'challenge it' right now, because I am absolutely going to revert any self published links or unsourced changes. MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You must stop attempting to edit war in self published sources. MrOllie (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link provided is not a self published source it is a direct response from The Department for Education a department of the UK Government. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being disruptive with my editing I am providing you with a primary source for the statistic which is provided DIRECTLY by The Department for Education which is a department within the UK Government. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, self published and primary sources are not acceptable. Come back when you've got a major newspaper or an article in a peer-reviewed journal. MrOllie (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand what a primary source is - data published directly by the Government is literally a primary source. I have moved this discussion to the article's talk page as recommended by the Wikipedia dispute resolution page. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what a primary source is - what you don't seem to understand is that we do not use them like this on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I have provided the direct proof behind the statistic and you would rather have a commentary on this from a newspaper? The facts are evidenced in the data provided by the UK Government. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines prefer. MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will end this discussion here in the interests of it taking place on the talk page. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. MrOllie (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.