Talk:Perry Hall High School

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Maryland: Baltimore Low‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Baltimore Task Force (assessed as Mid-importance).

recent edits 7/3/2015[edit]

There seems to be some misunderstanding by an IP editor on this page just what a Wikipedia article is. Let me clarify:

This is not Perry Hall HS's "page" on Wikipedia. It is Wikipedia's article on Perry Hall HS. It in no way belongs to the school or its students, and people connected with the school (students, staff, alumni) have no more right to edit it than anyone else. As a matter of fact, if editors connested to the school edit in the fashion that the IP has been recently, it is actually easier to remove an editor from editing the page due to the inherit conflict of interest.
Factuality is not the only criteria for inclusion of something in the article. There is documentation somewhere on exactly how many ceiling tiles there are in the school, I'm sure. Should that be included? Heck no.
This article is written for the entire English speaking world. It is not written for the student's staff or alumni of the school. Things that are only of interest to the people in the school's community are not to be included in the article. Exactly what do you see as the significance of burying a time capsule? Will Mitch in Minneapolis or Betty in Bhopal give a damn in 15 years. No.

Further, if someone challanges an edit you have made by removing it, you do not just put it back. That is called "edit warring" and is frowned upon by the Wikipedia community. Instead, you come here and try to form a consensus of interested editors on what if anything should be included about the subject. This is not social media. It is an encyclopedia. John from Idegon (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: recent edits 7/3/2015[edit]

Looking at the edit logs for the page and the talk page the "time capsule" spammer and sock issue seems to have been dead for over a year. 68.134.246.232 (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point? John from Idegon (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the disclaimer still be there if the issue is dead? It's clear that they got bored and moved on, people of that type usually do, so it's not like they're coming back. 68.134.246.232 (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The talk-page is a record of discussions about the article, not a "current issues only". I don't see a disclaimer, just an historical discussion. That's why talk-pages are in chronological order and comments are all signed and dated. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, where there is a prohibition on removing others' comments and nothing that approves of removing discussions once their issue is moot in someone else's opinion. DMacks (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it seems to have been placed to serve as some sort of disclaimer 68.134.246.232 (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly date-stamped 2.5 years ago, and it is only visible here on the talkpage where we have discussions about development of the article over time. This is all just "hallway/office chatter", not the actual encyclopedia content that readers see. That there *was* a problem, and that it was discussed, are facts, and that helps explain the nature of the edits to the article at that time and the WP:CONSENSUS/coordinated response to it. No, it's against site standard guidelines to remove it, don't even bother trying. DMacks (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]