User talk:Memo18
Welcome!
Hello, Memo18, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Your request for rollback[edit]
Hi Memo18. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
- Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
- Rollback should never be used to edit war.
- If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
- Use common sense.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Mifter (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
TH[edit]
Did you request accounts at [1]? If so, this was a long time ago, I would like to talk to you. Thanks. JoeGazz ▲ 14:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Reviewer granted[edit]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent Changes[edit]
I removed three items.
Please specify why this is a problem.
First the items listed as "controversies" under the page are not "controversies" as they relate to the school. The Marijuana arrest happened off school grounds and after the students had graduated when they were not under any supervision by the school.
I also removed a directly inflammatory expletive statement about a single individual which has no place on this site. Wikipedia is not the place to hurl insults at people you don't like.
Please advise why this is a problem.
Blueman19 (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Disruptive Editing Claim[edit]
This is a re-post from my "TALK" page as I am not sure you will see it if I don't post it here:
This is not disruptive editing. This is legitimate editing. An individual place a person's name followed by "is a bitch" which is neither appropriate (in any context) or called for on this site.
With regard to the other two edits, I removed the section called "controversies" as they represented a person's desire to paint the school in a bad light. As a representative of the school, my reading of the rules is that I have the right to make these edits directly on the page. Just because someone posts something doesn't make it a fact or qualify it as a "controversy" and this appears to be a direct statement that was intended to paint the school in a bad light, on one hand, and just insulting in the case of naming a particular individual and saying she was a "bitch."
Please indicate why this is a problem. This does not qualify as "disruptive editing" as you have it defined below:
Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of
* disrupting progress toward improving an article, or * disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia.
Please note that disruptive editing is not usually considered vandalism, but vandalism can be disruptive. Each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether or not the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In addition, if an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, then that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.
As a representative of the school I have a right to correct "mis-information" about the school and as a human being I have the RESPONSIBILITY to remove offensive statements made about people that have no other impact that to hurt those people.
Please explain yourself.
Response to your question: Explain why was not be deleted till now. OK?[edit]
Your Question: Explain why was not be deleted till now. OK?
I am new to the school and I honestly don't think anybody knew about the post until now. We are going through a complete re-structuring and evaluation of the website and reviewing all the ways people know about the school and this page came up as a result of Natalie Portman winning an oscar. Her bio lists the school. We checked it and found the controversies section and honestly found it funny that most other private prep schools have no-such section. Plus we found offensive statement (I referenced and deleted) about a member of the administration.
We evaluated the relative weight of the controversies section and reviewed other schools for guidance and read the guidelines of Wikipedia and decided it would be best to remove it ourselves (it seems to be what Wikipedia tells us to do). And We don't think the "controversies" title is warranted. I can list 10 other schools in our area that have a host of things like this happen. This seems to be a direct effort by one or two individuals who want to paint the school in a bad light. We do not have a problem with factual information being placed on the page. But does this rise to the level of "controversy"? To be published on a world-wide website? I don't think so. By that measure this removal of content is in no way a violation of the rules of Wikipedia or the "spirit" of what Wikipedia is trying to do. But if a friend of yours is arrested for doing something stupid or making a bad decision is that a reflection on you and warranted in your bio? I don't think that qualifies as fair/valid.
I don't think our attempt to remove this is in any way disruptive to Wikipedia or the principles upon which it was founded.
Sorry about some of the incompleteness of prior responses, still trying to figure out how this all works.
Blueman19 (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a rule at Wikipedia, that says that you can remove content without consensue. Memotalk with me 19:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you please explain how I am supposed to get "consensus" on this? When the two people who have any stake at this point are probably me and the person who made the post several years ago. So what I am supposed to do?
Shouldn't it be a requirement when someone posts something that is negative about a person or organization that the burden of proof be on the person making the post or claim? In most free societies the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim/statement to prove the statements are not false or else the person can be sued in a court of law. In this case, a person posted a few things that are clearly negative about this organization and they have no burden of proof or even are required to back up what they say with a statement that proves these are indeed real controversies for the school. If I go on your page and start making claims that your are doing a poor job of managing the content on Wikipedia do you have to get consensus to get it removed? I would think I need to prove that you are indeed doing a poor job before I can make such claims.
So I am challenging what is on this page and claim that this is deliberate attempt by someone who does not like this school to cast the school in as bad a light as possible. And that the stated "controversies" are not that. I am writing this above a statement that says: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. So I am stating that the information contained on this page under the heading "controversies" is not verifiable and is false. These do not constitute controversies for the school. So what do I do now? Please advise. You are very zealous in your desire to stop "vandals" as you state, yet is not fair to protect the rights of the innocent? If these are substantiated truths then by all means this and any other organization has the right to publish it.
Please tell me what I need to do to get this changed and get consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueman19 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Dacia[edit]
 |
--Codrin.B (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are already a member of the Romanian version. Maybe you wish to join the English version as well, as I see you are active. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Romania[edit]
 |