User talk:CoreEpic

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome you to the community and hope you enjoy your time here!

Unfortunately, your recent edits to Family Foundation School are not supported by the reference you cite. When dealing with controversial material, it is vitally important (moreso than usual) that any claims are verifiable by reliable sources. To the point: your reference mentions nothing about Mr. Cheripko in relation to the suicide, and will continue to be deleted, if you continue to make the claim using the same reference. Please do your homework, and find a proper and reliable source that supports the claim. Please also note that blogs, message boards and other self-published material aren't acceptable for Wikipedia purposes.

Finally, you must take extra care to remain within the guidelines governing biographies of living persons. Please use caution, as continued editing in this manner may lead to you being blocked from editing the article in question.

Again welcome, and Happy Holidays! - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 15:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons
Hi. In response to a request at the three-revert rule noticeboard, I have reviewed your edits to Family Foundation School. Though you are not yet in technical violation of that rule, you need to be aware of Wikipedia's biography of livings person policy. This policy, among other things, states that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Any claim that the administrators (or a particular administrator) took any action to cause or allow this suicide that is not well-sourced is to be removed on the spot. If you continue to re-add this claim without a reliable source that the administration's content "allowed" this suicide, you will be blocked. --B (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.


 * Though it is unrelated to the block, no, your edit is not validated by verifiable sources. It is sensational OR/PoV, mixed with some weakly verifiable fact. I would point out that you seem to strongly distrust and dislike the school, but the only source is the school's press release, which none of the major news networks seemed to find interesting. While the event seems real, its value in the article does not. There is a good deal of work that can be done with the article, as it is very much polarized now, with the pro-school information presented directly, and the anti-school information relegated to a controversy section. I wonder why no one has questioned the story that this was a suicide.  Really, suicide by jumping from the 2nd floor... even onto concrete... that is just strange.  I see no witness accounts.sinneed (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

suicide can be unintentional. The act of killing oneself whether or not it is intentional is suicide. Moreover, the fact that it was not included on major news networks is meaningless, the "notable" soccer program at the FFS hasn't been mentioned on major news networks either and yet no one has contested that. This is direct information that offers another piece of truth to the controversy section. The source, http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/familyschoolsuicide.html is verifiable by wikipedia's standards, are these not good enough for you? CoreEpic (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Moreover "In 2004, a student, who had been being monitored by the school because he had expressed suicidal thoughts, committed suicide while on the campus of the Family Foundation School. There is no mention of this or the student on the family school webpage" There is no sensationalizing or POV information in this. It is a direct paraphrase of the article, no opinions, no interpretations, merely a summary of the facts.


 * Your comment is completely off-topic but this caught my eye: "suicide can be unintentional" - Sorry.  No.  An unintentional suicide would be an accidental death. Hammering away at an argument that is already not working is only going to make it harder for you to find a consensus closer to what you want.  You need a new argument, if you want success.  If, however, the edit war and being blocked are goals in themselves, no one can stop you from pursuing them. You keep harmmering away that the source is a good source... well great... that source is the press release from the school.  I have not seen anyone dispute it (though the talk page is contentious and I may have missed it).  Why do you keep hammering on that point?sinneed (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning immediately after block release
I must warn you that immediately returning to the same behaviour that caused your account to be blocked from editing will generally result in a longer block. Please do not reinsert the same rejected content again, as you did as soon as your block expired. Please join the discussion. You are covering no new ground. You are inserting the same sensational OR as before. No, it is not factual. Yes it is PoV. Yes there are opinions, interpretations. No, it is not merely a statement of the facts.

From your post on the talk page: "On the same token, the school has invested a great deal of time and money to stifle any negative information about themselves that might make it to the internet." This seems an odd statement, since you are quoting from the press release made by the school.

"If you do the research, the FFS website has references to the Woodbury Reports, the woodbury reports therefore are acknowledged by the school as valid information, said reports also have an article about the suicide in 2004." Yes.

"The wiki mentions the school's statistics on graduates, that they all get into college, however the only resource that says that is the school's webpage." OK. And?

"The vast majority of the Wiki has information only verified by one source,..." "Apart from the FFS webpage there are very few webpages that corroborate information included on the wiki." This is one of the objections in a long fight over whether or not these articles belong in Wikipedia at all. For the moment, the consensus is that they stay.

"... however you choose to contest the detail of the suicide." No. You are misunderstanding. If you can help me understand what I am writing that causes you to say that, perhaps I can make it clearer.

"The fact that a suicide occurred on school grounds of a school that has 260 residents is a big deal." All child suicides are a big deal. That you feel the need to hammer away at this is difficult to understand. What has anyone said that causes you to think someone disagrees?

"Why not include mention of it?" "Why should it not be included?" Among many reasons: dropping it "kerplunk" into an article about a school seems disrepectful. In this case, it appears to be using the death of a young man to further the agenda of folks who dislike the school. This is addressed in the talk page, extensively. You don't agree. You are very much entitled to disagree. But you are very unlikely to push this edit into the article using these techniques. Wikipedia is consensus based, rather than "I can yell loudest!"-based.

"It has been explained in relative detail on a verifiable source, so therefore it must be included regardless of whether or not people like the detail." I am unsure where you get the idea that everything verifiable must be included. It is not required. The inverse is correct: Nothing unverifiable can be included.

Please take a moment to read this statement "In 2004, a student, who had been being monitored by the school because he had expressed suicidal thoughts, committed suicide while on the campus of the Family Foundation School. There is no mention of this or the student on the family school webpage." Since I have written a good bit about that, instead of fighting many many vandals, clearly I have done so. Since a number of other editors have killed it out of the article, a number of others have as well.

"It is factual and corroborated by a verifiable source. False. Sorry.  Just not so.  Please see the detailed breakdown at the talk page.

"The language cannot be misinterpreted to say that suicide is a regular issue or that the school assisted or condoned said action in any way, it is merely a statement of fact." False. Sorry.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by CoreEpic (talk • contribs) 23:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC) The 4 ~ characters are easy to type, please do.

sinneed (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked again
Immediately upon expiry of your previous block for edit warring, you resumed edit warring. Your behavior here is not acceptable. If you continue to readd the line, it will only result in you being blocked indefinitely. You asked on the talk page what is wrong with the edit. Apart from your edit warring, there are several issues: (1) stating that there is no mention of it on the website constitutes original research. This statement needs to be sourced to explain why anyone should care. Did the family of the student complain to the media that the school wasn't being caring enough? Are there bios of other students who died at the school, but not this one? Without a source to explain why it matters, this is just an unsourced attack. (2) Are there any reliable sources independent of the source? The link you gave looks like it is just a press release from the school. But does anyone outside of the school care enough to write an article about it? If not, neither does Wikipedia. When your block expires, please discuss the issue on the talk page without readding the content to the article. If there is ever an agreement there that it should be in the article, you may readd it, but revert warring is not acceptable. --B (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I am sorry your behaviour got you blocked again. I hope that on your return, you will join in the discussion, and read and understand the positions of others, and help us understand whatever it is you are trying to convey.  All the best in this new year.sinneed (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

On the talk page you said: "I am repeating the same argument because it has yet to be denied veracity." And on your last edit summary you said: "content is verifiable and consensus is not needed."

On reading your latest posts, I think I understand the basic problem you are facing: You don't understand how Wikipedia works at all. Here are key things as I see them: These points seem critical, and I suspect you must accept them if you hope to get this edit into the article, or, indeed, if you want to be able to edit.sinneed (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus is always required. If you are the only editor who cares about something, as long as it fits inside the rules, you may include it.(a consensus of 1) If anyone disagrees with you, then you must (must) reach consensus. If you can't then one will be reached for you by other editors... that is, you (one, both, or all, depending) will be silenced (or the article might be locked).  This is a very grave step on Wikipedia and is never taken lightly.  If you continue down the road of insisting "I am right, therefore I will do this no matter how many say I must not." then you will wind up blocked as you are now.  Please don't. Please join in instead.
 * Anything verifiable and otherwise within the bounds of the rules of Wikipedia *MAY* be included. Not *MUST* be included.

Thoughts on the proposed insertion at Family Foundation School
I copy this from the talk page because you seem to be saying you can't find it. Also added a point by another editor more knowledgeable than I.

Thoughts on that proposed insertion: "On another note," - cut, the lead-in isn't needful "the administration of the Family Foundation School allowed a boy to commit suicide" - that would be a wp:OR part - cut. One could almost as well argue that you, CoreEpic, allowed him to commit suicide. " Having arrived at the school only a few weeks prior the boy plunged to his death." Sensational, not quite a sentence, repetitive -cut. "There are no references to this event on the Family School's webpage." and there should not be - cut. Another editor notes that this is OR, unless you have a wp:RS saying it.

Cutting away these extra words leaves "In 2004, a boy committed suicide a few weeks after arriving." And this is a terrible tragedy. A very dear 17-year-old family member, distraught over a breakup with his girlfriend among other youthful disasters, killed himself. This markedly changed the lives of many people (I had to wake up his grandparents to give them the news). But it does not belong in the Wikipedia article for the school he attended. Using the death of someone's loved one to pursue an agenda is really not very nice. Is there a Wikipedia guideline or rule that says "Don't add mean stuff that isn't needful"? Well, no, I doubt it, but... I don't think you'll get a consensus to add this in, even with the OR and sensationalism removed. That said, I note that I have been wrong before. I just don't see how adding this tragedy improves the Wikipedia article. If their web page claimed "We guarantee no one will be able to commit suicide if they attend our school." then I would be arguing forcefully for both the claim and the refutation to be in the article. As it is? No. On further reading... the boy jumped off a 2nd(second) story balcony. Unless the school is willing to use restraints it isn't going to prevent a 2nd-story jump... and suicide by 1-floor drop is very very rare.sinneed (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. ''Immediately after returning from a block, did this. Do not readd this content again. It is vandalism - edit-warring. You have been warned repeatedly, blocked twice, and have immediately returned to the edit war. You have not joined in the discussion. If you continue down this path you will not be able to edit Wikipedia.'' sinneed (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/CoreEpic for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. John Sloan (view / chat) 20:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What?CoreEpic (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''In dismissing my position on the current consensus not to include content, you said "So apart from consensus by biased parties, what reason do you have to not include the reference?" Do not do this ever again. Each of us is entitled to have an opinion. This is not bias. It is having an opinion.'' sinneed (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinions have no place on this, no original research is a rule on wikipedia. You are allowing your opinions which you are entitled to to dictate the contents of a wiki page leaving out details which in your opinion aren't wikipedia worthy. Why?CoreEpic (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic


 * Don't get cocky because you didn't get blocked by the closing sysop. The only reason you got away with it was lack of edits by the suspected sock puppet. Continue to use that account for PoV pushing or any other disruption and I can all but guarantee you a block. John Sloan (view / chat) 20:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No sock puppets here. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.CoreEpic (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Personal attacks
I have opened a case regarding your ongoing use of personal attacks against other editors, here. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 00:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Family Foundation School
Please review wp:tendentious editing, wp:POINT. If this continues, you may face sanctions, possibly including being blocked, or being banned from editing these articles. - Sinneed  14:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what part of my edit was tendentious? Do not accuse me of something that you have no grounds to accuse me for. CoreEpic (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)CoreEpic


 * You are removing sourced content, and also removing a citation. Stop now.  You may well be blocked again, or banned from editing any of these school articles, if you continue.-  Sinneed  15:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you believe the content needs to be removed under wp:BLP, it is critical to say so. Since this is a living person, if the information were not cited, it could be removed at once.  However, there are 2 sources here. 1 addresses attendance at the school.  The other addresses soccer play for a professional team.
 * BLP would NOT be a reason to remove a source. Leave it in.  If you feel the source is not a wp:RS, you may want to gather support for your view at wp:RSN.-  Sinneed  16:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Your addition to Talk:Family Foundation School has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. - Sinneed  16:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)