User talk:CarlosKorea

October 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, CarlosKorea. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Response to unsubstantiated claims
No, I fully intended to remove the flags posted on the article in question. The claims made were wholly unsubstantiated, and border on accusatory in tone. I have no conflict of interest in this matter. I am not employed by the subject of the article, nor am I an alumnus of the school. My closest association with the subject is that I live approximately 1.3 miles from its campus. So please refrain from making accusations of bias or COI without evidence, as this is specious at best, and defamatory at worst.

The language-tone flag has also not been substantiated regarding the article in question. No laudatory nor condemnatory language has been published in this article. As such, the flag was without merit, which is the reason I removed it pending some evidence of the claims carried within it.

It also bears mention that these flags were absent when I began editing this page. As I have improved the content and citations of information enumerated within it, this makes little logical sense. The objections made seem to be of a stylistic manner, thus rendering them without merit, given the wide range of styles inherent in this site by its very nature.
 * I also think you were editing promotionally. You may not have intended to do so, but you did. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

That is your opinion only. You have nothing to support it, no evidence and no corroboration. These sorts of unsubstantiated claims are, by their nature, biased when they are not accompanied by evidentiary support.

October 2018
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.


 * You really must read our guidelines, rather than continuing down this road. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

You have yet to advance any substantiation for these claims. The proper tack for you as an editor would be to point out the promotional language and the conflict of interest you claim is inherent in my contribution. Without evidence, you are simply stating an opinion, one that holds no special merit, at that. So please provide some support for your claims, or try to help contributors rather than making unsubstantiated claims against them.

To the editors
The flags that you have posted on my contributions smack of the worst kind of finger-wagging. For people who claim a dedication to rationality and empiricism, you have provided no rational foundation for the claims you have advanced against me. Claiming that I have some sort of conflict of interest is the worst kind of smear, given that you neither know me nor have any real evidence to support this claim. And that is the whole issue here, support. If you have an issue with my contribution, it is incumbent upon you to elucidate it. The burden of proof is on you as the claimant. Simply stating that I am promoting St. Pius X High School has no merit. Beyond that, there is no rational basis explaining why anyone would want to promote a non-profit secondary school operated by an order of Catholic nuns. I would be very, very interested to read your exposition on that notion.


 * Hi. Thank you for trying to improve the article on St. Pius X; a lot of our articles on schools need some love (and some still don't even exist). Thank you also for engaging with other editors' concerns, and especially for posting on the article talk page.


 * I looked at this version edited by you, and I've seen worse in terms of promotionalism. It can be very hard not to come off as boosterish about something you know and care about, and that's where the notion that you might have a conflict of interest is coming from; that would include if you were head of the PTA or the alumni association, not just if you were employed by the school or otherwise by the diocese. It's also to a certain extent a pre-emptive warning, since the WMF does have rules against undeclared paid editing and many people are unaware of that when they start editing here. But as I say, I've seen more promotional school articles. The biggest no-no I saw at a quick glance was including the fees; that's also the kind of information that rapidly becomes out of date.


 * I don't know whether you have written for an encyclopedia before (including whether you previously edited Wikipedia as an unregistered editor, as many of us did), but if you haven't, you may not be aware how dull and affectless the ideal encyclopedic style is. "Just the facts, Ma'am." And that's bound up with the fact we try as far as possible to base everything on what others have previously said/written in reliable sources. That keeps us focused on the essentials rather than on what may seem interesting. (And it gives readers an overview plus information on where they can check the data and find out more if they want to.) It seems that nobody thought to give you any welcome information, other than a bot inviting you to the Teahouse. We have templates that in addition to showing where you can ask for help or information, list where to look up our guidelines and terminology. Forgive me if there was such a template posted here and you removed it, but if there wasn't, that was remiss of us as a community because a lot about how we work here is not intuitively obvious. So after I save this, I'm going to slap a big welcome template at the top of this page. (One small example: type ~ or click on the icon that looks like a pencil or a squiggle, to append a timestamped signature to your talk page posts. Another hint you may find useful: type somebody's name in a formula like this for my name: and append the signature to the post, and the editor will get a notification that you mentioned them. It doesn't work for IPs, unfortunately.)


 * You have mentioned here as well as on the article talk page that you were working in part from published sources that are not on line. Those are perfectly fine. It would be much better if at least some were independent of the school, but that's the problem with old yearbooks and newsletters, not the fact they are not on the internet. If you have access to old Houston Chronicle articles about the school that don't happen to be in the paper's online archive, that would be wonderful, for example. Just give as much bibliographic information as you can, for example the exact date, title of the article, author if any, and if possible also the page number. I imagine there are such sources for at least some of the school's history. In any event, please cite what sources you are using. That's what the "more citations needed" tag means. (The IP, who is a good egg, said much the same in response to you on the article talk page.)


 * I hope some of this helped. If not, sorry to have wasted your time. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I was not the originator of the content regarding the athletic accomplishments of the school's varsity teams, the content that has since been erased by someone else. The most that I did was reorganize and edit that content. It bears mention that the content in question was neither flagged nor cited in any way by the "editorial" people here. But as soon as I made some changes, the article was hit with three different flags almost immediately, one of which was highly accusatory.

I have learned since then that this is common practice on Wikipedia, and that people like me, proverbial passersby, normally are not allowed by the editorial moguls on this site to contribute anything. Content added or edited by people like me is nearly always reverted to a previous version, because we are not members of whatever club to which one must belong to attain the privilege of contribution. Given that, I will not waste my time arguing over something that is so trivial in the scheme of life. The only reason I made the additions in question is that I have lived in Northside for 40 years, and St. Pius has been a fixture of our community since I can remember.

But I will leave this to the dictators of this site so they can make of it what they wish. I have a sour taste in my mouth about this site and will neither use nor attempt to contribute to it in the future.

October 2018
Please stop removing maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Rather than waste time arguing and removing a valid template, you could add sources to the article. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

If you had read the article's talk page, you would see that I have already stated that citation of much of the historical information on the school is not listed in any published volume cataloged by the Library of Congress. The founding and establishment of this small high school is not chronicled in any major historical volume. Rather, it is chronicled only in the school yearbook, alumni newsletters, and the memories of those who participated in the events. Moreover, there are no electronic sources for this information. As such, the information can either be accepted by community assent, or it must be truncated from the article entirely, which serves no one well.

As far as me being obstructionary, that is untrue. I came to this site because I wanted to make a contribution to the article on a small, almost-obscure subject that happens to be in the neighborhood I have resided in for the past 40 years. I have no ulterior motives. I work amongst the dying all day at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, and I enjoy writing and conversing online in my free hours. To accuse me of some sort of bias in the editing of an article on a small Catholic high school beggars credulity. It is the sort of pettifogging that drives people away from sites like this, people who might otherwise make meaningful contributions to such sites. Some of this editorial commentary (especially from Drmies) smacks of internet moderation done by those who derive satisfaction from passing summary judgment. It is not a good look, to speak colloquially, and certainly not beneficial to the end goal of expanding the knowledge base available on this site.

So, that said, ban me if you wish. That is certainly your right, but just because it is your right doesn't mean it is right. You would better serve new contributors and the community at large by providing substantiation and evidence for these sorts of claims when you post them. This is the burden incumbent upon all editors, save perhaps for those who hold the cosmic capital that would allow one to edit by decree, the Ben Bradlees of the world and such. But I knew Ben Bradlee. I served with him in the Senate. Senator, you're no Ben Bradlee. That is all.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)