Talk:Department of Defense Education Activity/Archive 1

POV of History section
The following statement is in the "History" section. There is no citation for it and it refers to the present day, not the history and it is a controversial statement. The need for integrated schools can be seen in the pattern of today's Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS).---Funandtrvl (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ramstein is in the KMC
''FYI to any/everyone reading this: all of the following was copy-and-pasted here from user talk:132.159.67.15 by request from. To be clear, he/she requested that I respond on this talk page to the edit(s) he/she reverted since December 2017. is opposed to my use of the edit summary to explain my edit and feels it's important/relevant enough to be discussed on this talk page. Thus, I copied everything from that talk page because it explains our disagreement without having to paraphrase our discussion. Note (1): "KMC" in the subject/headline refers to Kaiserslautern Military Community. Note (2): I've included the warning messages for context...
 * Note: I certainly did not "request that all of this be "copy-and-pasted here" - the WOLF  child  02:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OMG. Did you actually read the entire introductory paragraph? I clarified that first sentence with the three sentences that follow it. It feels like you're looking for something to be upset about. 132.159.67.15 (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Department of Defense Education Activity, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. - the WOLF  child  23:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * I have used the edit summary... every time. Anyone can look at the article's edit history and see that. Posting this warning on the talk page multiple times does not make this warning statement true. 132.159.67.15 (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Department of Defense Education Activity. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. '''Note: You are again reminded of the potential Conflict of Interest here as well. If you continue to disrupt that article with continued reverts while refusing to discuss the issue on the talk page, as required by Wikipedia, all of this may be taken into consideration in any report potentially filed against this account regarding the conduct of its user(s). Again, follow the Policies & Guidelines of his project if you continue to edit any further. Thank you - the WOLF ' child  19:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * It's interesting that you're accusing me of edit warring when you were the one who initiated this back-and-forth series of revisions. You reverted my edit on December 15. If you are opposed to this practice why didn't you apply this advice to yourself? Why didn't you "collaborate with [me], to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement" and/or "...use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors." This policy applies to you as well but it appears you're ignoring it when it comes to your own actions. In addition, it seems like conflicting directions on your part. These warning statements encourage using the article's talk page yet you haven't posted anything about my edits on the article's talk page at all. You've only used this talk page. Since you've started (and sustained) the conversation here, this is where I'll continue it. 132.159.67.15 (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Your argument about COI is a non sequitur. Wikipedia allows editors--even paid editors--with COI to edit articles. The only caveat is their relationship to the article's subject must be declared. Someone has already taken the liberty to identify my IP as being on a defense network; therefore, I've already been declared. Posting multiple COI warnings on this talk page does not invalidate my edits. COI is not an issue unless edits are unduly bias. For example, if Mariah Carey's manager added this sentence to the Mariah Carey article --> "Mariah Carey is the greatest singer the world has ever known" then COI is a clearly an issue because (A) it's a bias statement and (B) it's likely the manager's COI is affecting their ability to edit objectively. However, if Mariah Carey's manager added this sentence --> "Mariah Carey won three Grammy Awards in 2006" then there is nothing wrong with that as long as the relationship he/she has with Mariah is declared. COI would not invalidate that statement. John Doe could post the same thing and it would still be objective and true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.159.67.15 (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Although I've never met you, I think you already know what the policy on COI is which really makes me feel like I'm wasting my time explaining this. I also think you know Ramstein is in the KMC. The base is physically located within that region in Germany. This is very easy to fact check. As a matter of fact, even though there isn't a reference provided, the fact that Ramstein is in the KMC is already stated in the article. Somebody else typed it there. What I did was removed the sub-header, clean up the article; even a casual user of Wikipedia can see the table of contents is overkill. It makes no sense for Ramstein DoDEA schools to be in their own section when there is already a section for KMC DoDEA schools and when the table of contents is already excessively long.
 * I truly do not understand why you're reverting my edit. You can easily see that...
 * It's verifiable (Ramstein is in the KMC/easy to fact check)
 * COI is not an issue (Ramstein is in the KMC/easy to fact check)
 * It's clean up (the table of contents is way too long)
 * You wanted me to respond on the talk page and you got it. Please enlighten me. What is the problem with my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.159.67.15 (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Look, if you want to contribute to this project, the onus is on you to know the policies & guidelines and to follow them. I have tried to help you, by adding the 'welcome' template above which contains numerous links to information to help inexperienced user like yourself understand how the project works. Further, anytime I've had to revert one of your edits, I've posted a notice here explaining why, and again with links to information. I have also advised you of WP:BRD, which stands for "bold, revert, discuss". This is a rather simple, straight-forward guideline. Once you were reverted, it fell to you to initiate a discussion on the article's talk page and explain your edit. This gives other editors an opportunity to see this and participate. (no one knows about the comments you post on your own talk page, I just happen to see them because I was placing a notice here). While the discussion takes place, you (or anyone) are not to revert that edit again. During the discussion, if your edit is supported by consensus, policy, a reliable source or an agreement between you and whoever reverted you, then your edit may be re-added. Until, and unless, that happens, your edit stays out. That's how it works. You don't continually revert, while trying to explain via edit summaries, that is considered edit-warring and that is what the article talk page is for. I hope this makes things a little clearer for you going forward. You need to know and understand the editing guidelines going forward and you need to abide by them. Thank you - the WOLF  child  16:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) You  B oldly edit an article.
 * 2) I  R evert you.
 * 3) It is then  D iscussed on the article's talk page.
 * You never answered the question. All you did was explain WP:BRD to me which I already understood. I agree. It is a simple, straight-forward guideline, but it appears that, again, you are not applying this policy to your own actions. The "revert" paragraph states the following:
 * "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement... [which it is because the table of contents is way too long] and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary... [You were not; you kept saying my edit was unexplained when it was] ''and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one."
 * So you see, the onus was actually on you to start a discussion on the talk page, but you did not. The only reason why I continued the discussion on the IP's talk page instead of this talk page is because the IP's talk page is where you choose to talk about it. I explained this earlier in my response when I mentioned how your directions were conflicting because Wikipedia policies state to use the article's talk page but you only choose to use the IP's talk page when asking for a response on my part. 132.159.67.15 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * My edit is easy to verify. You've probably already fact-checked this, so it's very hard for me to take you seriously when you claim that if my edit is supported by a reliable source it may be re-added; you keep reverting my edit when you (probably) know there are several reliable sources available. Since you didn't answer the question I'll ask it again: what is wrong with my edit? Please don't (re)explain BRD. We've both already read it and that does not answer the question. Don't claim COI either because I am well within COI policy. Is it the fact that my edit doesn't have a reference (be honest: if I added a source or several sources, would you actually stop reverting my edit)? If all you wanted all along was a reference, you could've typed that in your edit summary on December 15 and we could've avoided this unnecessarily long discussion and this silly tug of war for the past three weeks. To be frank, I didn't think you cared about a reference for this. The article already says Ramstein is part of the KMC and there there isn't a reference in the article now. I'm not going to add a reference before you answer because I don't want to waste my time just to see you revert my edit again. However, if this will pacify you then I can make it happen. 132.159.67.15 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * First, I did not "request you to copy-and-paste" your entire user talk page contents here". A ridiculous lie like that is not a good way to start any discussion. Furthermore. the onus is not on me to "verify" or "fact-check" your edits. You made an edit. It wasn't sufficiently explained and certainly hasn't been supported by any sources. I reverted you. At that point, if you still wanted to implement the edit, it fell to you to start a discussion here, on the article's talk page, not on the talk page of the IP account you're currently accessing. Instead however, you went and reverted that edit no less than four times, which is a clear violation of the guidelines here. That, followed by the endless paragraphs of argumentative, off-topic text, that you can't possibly expect people to read (now filling up two pages). This could've been simple, the first time you were reverted, you just come here and explain your edit in more detail and provide what sources you're relying on. If it checks out, you make your edit again and we go about our business. Why is this sooo difficult for you?


 * Further, you're editing from an IP registered to the Department of Defense (DoD) and you're editing a DoD article. It's not unreasonable to notify you of the Conflict of Interest (COI) guidelines here. If you've read them and you're sure you don't have a COI, then you have nothing to worry about (and nothing to post giant walls of text over) and, again you can carry on.


 * Stop personalizing this. I am not "out to get you". Comment on your edit, not on editors and please, no more endless rants. Now, with that said, in one simple paragraph, can you explain why you're removing that content and what source you're relying to support your edit? (And do so before you revert again) That's all that is required here. Just do that and we can move on from this. - the WOLF  child  02:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

finally... (sort of)
Typically, you are supposed to respond to a discussion on the talk page, not using an edit summery. Also, disputed content should not be reverted or otherwise changed until the talk page discussion has concluded (with an agreement among editors or a consensus by the community). This is in the guidelines that you claim to have followed. Anyway... I see you finally added a source to support your edit. That's all that was needed here. Please consider that the next time, instead of edit-warring and disrupting the project with all your drama. - the WOLF  child  02:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It appears you did not read the introductory paragraph. Here it is again: FYI to any/everyone reading this: all of the following was copy-and-pasted here from user talk:132.159.67.15 by request from . to be clear, he/she requested that I respond on this talk page to the edit(s) he/she reverted since December 2017. is opposed to my use of the edit summary to explain my edit and feels it's important/relevant enough to be discussed on this talk page. Thus, I copied everything from that talk page because it explains our disagreement without having to paraphrase our discussion." This is not a lie. I clarified that sentence on purpose so that it would be clear to everyone reading how all this text ended up on this page. In addition, you are opposed to my use of the edit summary. That is how this whole thing got started. Why would you begin your most recent response by accusing me of lying but collapse all the text that explains the point of this discussion. I can exercise some objectivity and understand collapsing the warning notices. But why would you include my response that begins with "All you did was explain WP:BRD to me..." in your collapse? That is not replicated on the talk page. That began here. You're omitting that from view. BTW - I added/back dated a time stamp to your response above so other people reading will know when you typed it. 132.159.67.15 (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ?? ...I never claimed you were out to get me. I don't know why you put that in quotes. Looks like you're the one personalizing. Having this discussion with you is like having a discussion with a brick wall. You are not reading my responses, and your response about me personalizing this is coming off as hypocritical (from my POV). Here's why I feel this way:
 * On the IP talk page, you have commented on both me--the editor--and my edits. In addition, you commented on this talk page about me and my edits. For example, you went on a rant about me having COI. I know you know it's not an issue because YOU declared ME. You added that that shared IP template to the top of my IP's talk page with this edit. You did that; you did me a favor! Yet you go on a rant about me violating COI policy when you know I'm within policy because you got me into policy BEFORE bringing it up.
 * You're complaining about rants when you yourself are ranting. The most amazing thing is you're ranting about how you had to read my response on this talk page which YOU ASKED FOR. I was perfectly satisfied with an edit summary. After all, the point of an edit summary is to explain edits. You would not accept an edit summary, hence your revision of my edit(s) and the beginning of this talk page conversation.
 * You end your rant by asking me to explain myself again in ANOTHER paragraph... which will inevitably look like a rant to you. You clearly did not read my so-called "needless pagefill" because had you read it, you would have seen I've provided a response as to why I feel my edit is warranted. Since you want me to repeat myself again, here we go: I removed the sub-header because...
 * It's verifiable To be clear the information as it's displayed after my edit is verifiable (Ramstein is in the KMC/easy to fact check)
 * COI is not an issue (Ramstein is in the KMC/easy to fact check)
 * It's clean up (the table of contents is way too long)
 * In addition to asking me to repeat myself (again), you're also wanting to know "what source you're relying [on] to support your edit." If all you wanted was a source this whole time, why didn't you just say that LAST YEAR? To repeat what you typed to me: "Why is this sooo difficult for you?" Why didn't you just type that in the edit summary, the FIRST time you reverted my edit or the FIFTH time on Tuesday, January 9? You want to know why this difficult? It's because you are making this difficult by forcing a discussion on the talk page when this could have been resolved in an edit summary weeks ago. This is not hard. I had to drag this request out of you by asking leading questions. Had you just been upfront back in December we could've avoided this entire conversation and you could have avoided reading "two pages". At this point, it's probably three pages. You say this could've been simple. Using an edit summary is simple.
 * The source I'm using is Ramstein AB's official website. I just added it. I am more than ready and willing to move on from this. My question for you is do you actually want to? You initiated this talk page epic and then asked for me at the end of your most recent post to, literally, type more. More words typed. Source added. Are we finished? 132.159.67.15 (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You finally asked for a source. Please consider next time using the edit summary and simply telling me (or any other editor) what you want. How can we reach consensus if I don't know what you want? You keep saying I should respond to editing disputes on the (article's) talk page yet you are STILL POSTING on my IP's talk page. What is "sort'of" supposed to mean? Are we done here or not? 132.159.67.15 (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Do not alter/move other user's comments and do copy/add other's user's signatures to locations they did not sign. You don't get to do that. Add your newest comments below, in chronological order where they belong. If you're responding to specific comments, use quotes. This matter is now resolved. The next time you add/change/remove content without adding a proper edit summary or attaching a reliable source, someone will very like revert you. Just go to the talk page, explain your edit and provide a source. All this drama is unnecessary. You said in your edit summary that you are very "frustrated". That is obvious from the giant wall of text you added, beginning with "OMG!!!". Perhaps you should step away for awhile and calm yourself. You are accomplishing nothing with these huge rants that no one is going to read (including me). I think we should consider this matter now closed and move on... (unless you have some burning need to have the last word, then feel free to post another rant for me to ignore). Good night - the WOLF  child  03:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Here you are being hypocritical AGAIN. You criticise me of altering/moving your comments then you go and move almost all of my comments to the "finally... (sort of)" section WHERE I DID NOT POST THEM. You also removed your "needless pagefill" title. Now editors reading this won't know what I'm refering to. You even altered my update to the DODEA article. You removed the endnote I added but left the endnote section. What good is an empty endnote section? Why would you alter my edit to look like trash? And stop saying I did not add a proper edit summary. For the fourth time, typing that over and over again does not make it true. In your words, that is "a ridiculous lie". I added a proper edit summary every time. 132.159.67.15 (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should step away for a while? Are you not reading the date stamps on my comments? Open up your eyes. I commented on the IP talk page 31 Dec, 5 Jan, 9 Jan, 13 Jan and today. I commented on this talk page 9 Jan, 13 Jan, and today. I've always stepped away three to five days at a time. You're the one that responds within one to two hours of my posts. That's actually what caused the problem you're taking issue with now. On January 13, I clicked the save button to save my comments on this talk page and Wikipedia said there was an "edit conflict". Apparently, we were typing at the same time. Wikipedia said that our changes would be merged but at the cost of the collapsebottom template you added. I clicked "save". That is the only thing you added that was moved, and it was the result of a wiki edit conflict. As far as the time stamp you're complaining about, I added yours as a courtesy and I disclosed that addition to you. Did you forget that you've done this for me? More hypocrisy: look at your edit on 5 Jan. YOU signed MY comments FOR ME. I wasn't butt-hurt by that. I appreciated it. If you're offended that I did the same for you, it's because you're looking for something to be offended about. 132.159.67.15 (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if you took your own advice and stepped away for a while there wouldn't have been a wiki edit conflict. It's clear you're watching this page which is how I know you won't ignore this reply. That is "a ridiculous lie". I don't know why you typed that. The unfortunate part is you will reply without reading what I posted. I'm glad you actually admitted you don't read because it's becoming clear that you enjoy being ignorant. I don't mean that in the offensive, personal attack way. I mean that in the literal way. You reply without understanding what has already been stated which results in you not realizing the implications of your own actions (the implication being your hypocritical editing). I keep responding to you in the hope that you will understand this, but the more you reply the farther down the rabbit hole you go. 132.159.67.15 (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I will not respond to you on this talk page anymore. Be my guest and have the last word. You're the one with the burning need. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have created a brand new "DODEA" section on the IP talk page on Friday to keep talking about this article. Now we're typing on two different talk pages about that same thing. Why would you initiate a parallel discussion AFTER "the matter is resolved", especially considering all that criticism from you in December about how we should hold discussions on the article's talk page instead. More hypocrisy on your part. Are you not realizing what you're doing? I will only respond to you on the IP talk page because you (re)initiated a conversation there. Feel free to make another section if you like. You've already created FOUR there just in reference to this article, then you had the nerve to hide most of them in a collapsible table just like you did here. You are incredible. The floor is yours... 132.159.67.15 (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, so you did need to have the last word (Over 700 of them actually). Apparently you've been stewing over this for the last 4 days and just couldn't help yourself. So now we have yet another massive wall of needless text that I'm certainly not going to waste my time reading and I doubt anyone else will either. Please, go find something more constructive to do with all this wasted energy. - the WOLF  child  01:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)