User talk:184.148.28.151

September 2020
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to St. Matthew High School (Ottawa)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at St. Peter Catholic High School, you may be blocked from editing.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

Edits
Edit like a grown-up, please.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess you just don't get it. We are a group of teachers using all the tools at our disposal to make school fun for our kids in this strange era.

We know you think of Wikipedia like some inviolate immaculate edifice.

But it's not, and you know it's not.

Our intent was to have these changes up for the first day of class, on Tuesday, as part of our intro for our students. The changes would have been undone by Wednesday.

So, yes, we are all grown-ups. Twelve experienced teachers, who value our school, and value our students.


 * Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works - we have enough teenage vandals as it is, we don't need adults and staff doing it too. Please stick to the facts, and leave out the Terpsichorean Ecdysiast team. This kind of thing stopped being funny on Wikipedia around 2006.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

okay, we are all sitting here agreeing with you. You are right. We are wrong.

Good?


 * You're good, especially if you set a good example by citing your sources.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

St. Peter Catholic High School
Hi there, I see that you've already had some discussion with Acroterion and Oshwah regarding your edits to St. Peter Catholic High School. Please note that if there aren't sources to support content (especially content that comes across as promotional, or discusses living people), then it probably shouldn't be included in the article. I'm refraining from removing the unsourced content for now, as you're still editing and learning, but those things should be corrected. Also, I would strongly recommend that you create an account, declare your affiliation with the school on your user page (as required by our Terms of Use), and continue on cautiously from there. Waggie (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at St. Peter Catholic High School. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

Chris Troutman, did you read what we wrote? Honestly, this is becoming a really sad conversation. As teachers, we do our best to put good content in front of our kids. We have been warned, earlier today, and have taken account of, wikipedia's protocols. We have talked to four editors thus far. EVERYTHING we have submitted since then is real. We are really frustrated with this. Please do not undo our contributions to our page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.28.151 (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First, you don't own any article on Wikipedia so don't attempt to assert otherwise. We don't care what's true. We care what can be verified through sources and you haven't provided any. You already received your final warning. Go screw with your own webpage. You don't get to screw with ours. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

wow...

'we don't care what's true'

wow

Let's try this again, shall we? And we hope to God there is another more senior editor reading what you write, who has better people skills and a better understanding of things

We CANNOT cite sources for what we are putting in to our school site, as NO SCHOOL IN THE WORLD can do so, unless it's a board announcement (and yes, go do your research and confirm our new principal's name and our new OA's name, etc.)

We used to warn students not to use wikipedia as a primary source, for obvious reasons, but in the recent past, we have allowed our kids to use the site as a starting point, to suggest new avenues of research.

But...when you write "we don't care what's true", that is staggering. Absolutely staggering. We get it. Unverified information can be a huge issue. But you seem to have no sense of reality when it comes to what actually goes on in schools. Do you really think that when we get a new club or teacher or program that it's written up somewhere?

Give your head a shake, man! That's just not reality. We're sitting here absolutely amazed at the wormhole that some wikipedia editors inhabit.

And, please, save your superior comments and attitude for someone else. Among the group sitting here now, we have five doctorates and three masters, so no, we're not stupid, and no, we're not just 'screwing around'

and to say that we 'asserted' that we own the website, wow, again. We never asserted that.

Please, please pass this conversation on to whomever is your superior
 * Wikipedia is a community of volunteer editors and some are a little more...blunt...than others. We don't really have "superiors" in the traditional sense. It's not an anarchy, we do have administrators (such as and ) and if someone steps over the line, they can be sanctioned. I do really wish  had been more constructive in their statements. I think Chris Troutman assumed that you were asserting ownership when you said "Please do not undo our contributions to our page." You should be aware, however, someone adding unsourced material to an article they have a connection to is a highly contentious activity due to the problems we have with folks trying to advertise on Wikipedia. I'd rather keep this constructive, however. Please listen to my advice regarding creating an account and restricting your content additions only to those you can provide a reliable source for - unsourced content can be challenged and removed at any time, by anyone (true or not). Also, to clarify, each Wikipedia account is for an individual person, it should not be shared amongst your colleagues. Hope this helps! Waggie (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * FWIW, a core epolicy here is verfiabilty not truth; please read that page for more information.
 * Wikipedia is not a form of social media where you can post things to amuse your friends, although enough people try. The community tends to react quite harshly to those that do. If they continue, after being warned then being blocked from editing is almost inevitable to avoid disruption. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrator note
We expect editors to follow the same general principles as one would expect a college-level student or a business professional to observe: provide sources and appropriate attribution, behave with respect, behave professionally, and don't waste the time of volunteers in this global encyclopedia project with jokes and arguments about why the rules that apply to everybody else shouldn't be applied to you. We expect editors who represent an organization or who are employed by an organization to abide by the strict letter of WP:PAID and WP:COI - anything else is a violation of Wikipedia's terms and conditions. We generally cut school articles a little slack, because we understand that it's harder to verify information about administrative changes and internal facts. We expect teachers to behave as educators, and when they don't, we assume they're students pretending to be teachers. As noted above, group sharing of an account is forbidden, but it's not quite as stringent for anonymous IPs, as a practical matter. I've reversed Chris Troutman's changes as a matter of good faith. In return, we'd like to see some cooperation from you: the alternative is to revoke the editing privileges from this IP as a time sink for our volunteers in this educational project.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)