User talk:Burnaby2013

The reversion by Emarsee claimed there were no sources, but there were -- they just were not explicitly referenced. Now they are. Instead of removing, next time he should suggest references. Any similar edit by Emarsee beyond this point without a much more detailed explanation should and will be reversed.

Template removal
Please review WP:UNDUE before making any further edits to the page. As it currently stands, this single incident is described in far greater detail than any other aspect of the school. My claim that the section was "unsourced" and "undue" are completely separate and are in no way related to each other; the former has been resolved, the latter has not and has only gotten worse with each subsequent edit. █ EMARSEE   03:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to advise you that you are breaking the three revert rule. I will not be making any further edits on this subject matter for the time being, and you should do the same if you do not want to break the rule. █  EMARSEE   03:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, please review WP:BALASPS, the article is about Burnaby South Secondary, not the censorship of the school newspaper. █  EMARSEE   03:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The newspaper is a part of the institution of the school. It is a club! What sort of nonsense are you engaged in? (Burnaby2013)
 * Please assume good faith, I'm not engaged in any sort of "nonsense". My initial edit was not in any invalid; I made two separate claims; that the section that you added as undue and unsourced. Extensive media coverage still does not warrant a section on the article that is much more emphasized in relation to other more relevant sections of the article (e.g. school history - which is hugely lacking). Other editors in the past have tried to shoehorn "controversial" recent events with a large undue emphasis - if you recall, an incident at Metrotown resulted in the a teenager being detained for taking pictures inside the mall which received extensive media coverage. This section was removed from the article because of WP:UNDUE. █  EMARSEE   03:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is clear that you are reasonable. But how can you use weight as a premise for an article which is only a stub? Surely anything of any substantiality at all could be regulated by the section you are citing if you set such a premise right now. And if you do, then how will it ever be expanded? I think I have rationally argued that the newspaper is relevant, and that because it is an official club, it deserves to be in the page of the relevant school.

Do you still object? I won't bother with it anymore. I don't think Elias would appreciate this. He took a real risk to get this fact revealed to the public. Let me ask, how is this not history? It's culturally and politically significant man! It's even relevant to the constitution and stuff.
 * It seems you may have a personal connection to the person in question so please be aware of WP:COI and whatever biases you may be bringing to the table. I would have no problems what so ever if you or anyone else decided to expand on the history, the facilities or the culture of Burnaby Secondary - but as it currently stands, this single incident does not need to explained in such detail and that's what makes it undue. █  EMARSEE   04:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't help the fact that I went to school with him. You should assume good faith as well and assume that I am already aware of COI. As for rebuttal, you are suggesting that there should be an order in which people contribute to the stub. That has no rule to back it up and other articles typically are allowed to flow without such objections. If you could find a rule stating something along the lines of what you are suggesting, I would resign entirely, but I doubt it exists. I think we've established the concept of "weight" means nothing in the context of a stub, so please, unless you find something, perhaps you should reconsider having a problem with the contribution.
 * There shouldn't be an order in which content can be contributed to the best of my knowledge, but that's not the point. The section would be undue even if the Burnaby Secondary article was of sufficient length. I disagree with your assertion that weight means nothing in a stub, since we've had another editor agree with my position that the section is undue. If we take a look at the World Trade Centre article (and I don't really need to over why there would be a notable incident there), we can see that the article is of sufficient length. We can also see that the 9/11 attacks do not constitute the majority of the length of the article and other relevant sections such as the history and reconstruction of the towers are written in much greater emphasis. This incident does not deserve more than just a brief passing mention school's history. █  EMARSEE   04:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you see, you've contradicted yourself. It does not deserve that, but you are placing the responsibility of an entire research project on anybody who only wants to contribute a brief portion. Something less well known like Burnaby South Secondary School must start somewhere. You are still suggesting that there must be an order in which things are added, because the WTC article is already expanded, and the stub in question is not. Articles of less public concentration, such as these, will never go anywhere if editors like you set such standards.

Another editor agreeing with you does not mean much if you are wrong. There are different standards for stubs. Expansion is encouraged, and you are stunting it.
 * I don't believe I've contradicted myself on anything. You are currently adding one single relatively minor incident that received coverage in the local news media - it's notable and verifiable but certainly does not require an entire section dedicated to the incident. I have yet to hear from you as to why think this incident deserves such a large empahsis. I have not suggested any order in which the content has been placed in, do not put words in my mouth; content can be added as long as it does not place any undue weight on one incident or event. If you were writing about the school's sports team, writing 6 paragraphs on the basketball team and 1 paragraph on the volleyball; you would thereby be placing undue emphasis on the basketball team.


 * On another note, I doubt the censorship of the school's newspaper is even the school's most notable event and there should be other events that should receive far greater emphasis in the article. █  EMARSEE   04:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you've misunderstood me. But, by the way, I mentioned its political and cultural significance, not of the incident itself, but what it implies. And I also mentioned the importance of the constitution. But now you're going off on a tangent. Nobody was comparing clubs. You are suggesting that in order to contribute to a stub, there first must be a section on its history and other more fundamental facts. This is a suggestion that there should be an order. If you do not see why I perceive that you are suggesting such a thing, whether it is true or not, then we can not continue this discussion.

Changing the subject and asking why other things are not considered more important is nonsense. If contributing to a stub about one particular event is prohibited without adding substantially more content to make its proportion minimal, I would like to see the rule.

You would be setting quite a bizarre precedent. I disagree with your utility of the concept of "undue". But I've made my point. Our disagreement is obviously unresolvable. Congratulations on your support by another editor.
 * (edit conflict) I feel like this conversation is going around in circles. The rule that would dictate what you're suggesting would be WP:UNDUE, which also applies to stubs. Discussing the incident in the context of the school's history would not be undue, discussing the event by itself in a single section would be undue weight. I'm NOT suggesting there has to be a specific order. In any case, your edits have been removed completely by another editor. █  EMARSEE   05:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you are right then.

October 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Burnaby South Secondary School, you may be blocked from editing. - →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  03:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Vandalize? More like contribute. The reporter has claimed that the newspaper is not a part of the school, but it is a club ... just like the ones mentioned in the beginning of the article. ... Perhaps his bias should be in question.

Your recent editing history at Burnaby South Secondary School shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  03:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, no, no! Check again. I edited a different section. It was an irrelevant edit. No war going on. We're talking at the moment. Thanks.
 * Sections are irreverent, You're edit warning & should stop! Please see WP:3RR.


 * Cheers →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  04:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that one. Right. Well, I'm done anyhow. If it's pulled, whatever. That's the tragedy of the reader. Enforced ignorance will be bliss.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you.  K rakatoa    K atie   04:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)