Talk:Hortonville High School

Football stadium renovations
I sense an edit war starting and don't want it to go that way. I, a resident of the area, saw local news coverage of the renovations, and based on precedent from other pages of high schools in the area (I'll take Pulaski High School as an example), I added content only to see it removed by Special:Contributions:32.218.152.7 a few hours later. , you've done a lot of work with the area, what's your opinion on this, keep or delete? As additional evidence, I will bring in Manitowoc Lincoln High School with their science expansion and Sauk Prairie High School with its River Arts Center bit as cause for keeping the information. Willsome429 (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Willsome followed the proper procedure to get consensus through discussion. I live in this general area of Wisconsin but am not from Hortonville. I independently reviewed the situation per Third opinion. I argue that this newspaper is reliable enough to be used in any situation including those with the most rigorous checking (a featured article). The content is encyclopedic, not random information. If anything, I think a brief summary of the expected changes should be added (budget, what is planned to be updated). I completely agree with Willsome.


 * To our anonymous contributor friend: we welcome your contributions if they help to build this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not censored. Going against consensus and repeatedly undoing edits has consequences. First, the article has approached being locked for edit warring. Second, your editing privileges can be stopped if you keep undoing other's edits. We have a line in the sand at 3 times, see WP:3RR. You are at two right now.


 * Before you make any more changes, please explain WHY you feel this change isn't encyclopedic. You may have a reason that we haven't considered, and we want your input.  Royal broil  13:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You can stop your patronizing, condescending commentary right now. IPs are human too. Your comment has gone way beyond the pale of civil commentary, which is still the expected standard in Wikipedia. I AM here to build an encyclopedia, not to gather indiscriminate, newsy factoids together and then call it an encyclopedia article. You may disagree with me as to whether the content is encyclopedic, but just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm not here to build an encyclopedia. Moreover, as an admin like you ought to know, two reasonably explained reverts do not constitute edit warring. Before you make any more changes, please explain WHY you feel the content is encyclopedic. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. 32.218.37.44 (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I’d like to address a few things at this point in the discussion. 1) I regret any ill will caused by my edit summaries. I was trying to reasonably warn you if the length/difficulty of a project that you may be undertaking. 2) I do not consider myself on a high horse. I am often humbled when I run out of knowledge in an area and have to look for a neutral opinion. 3) I would say that we treated you like a human and were not condescending. I would go so far as to say we respected you, which I believe is why even invited you to share your opinion. 4) I have run my course with the 3RR and explanations don’t always cut it as an excuse. Now, as to why I think the information should be included: The football stadium is an extension of the school, as football is a WIAA-sanctioned sport in Wisconsin, and just as we would consider school expansions/renovations encyclopedic, this should be too. Oftentimes, the football stadium is the part of the school most of the public sees the most from television coverage and in-person attendance. In closing, I would like to express my wish one more time to keep this discussion in a positive tone, as negativity never helps in the long run. Willsome429 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you not know how to read threaded discussions? My comments ("patronizing, condescending") were in reply to Royalbroil, not to you. There's no need to keep on arguing about this edit. No one has reverted it for two days. 32.218.37.44 (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No offense intended. If there’s one thing I have learned from being on the internet, it is that the “you” pronoun could apply to anybody in the thread. Thanks for the clarification. Willsome429 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)