User talk:Educate348

November 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Whitehouse Institute of Design has been reverted. Your edit here to Whitehouse Institute of Design was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.change.org/p/the-hon-tony-abbott-free-freya-newman) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Whitehouse Institute of Design
Hi Educate348. In regard to Whitehouse Institute of Design, there was a previous discussion about whether or not to include the material you've been adding at Talk:Whitehouse Institute of Design. The decision of those involved was to leave it out and only add a brief mention. You are more than welcome to open up the discussion again and see if there is support for adding it back, but unfortunately you'll need to get that support - in particular, you need to avoid edit warring to add the content to the article. - Bilby (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I support Bilby's comments. We've discussed the issue at length, went through a Request for Comment from the wider community and the result is the current consensus version. Please read through the existing contributions on the talk page and if you feel you have anything new, that hasn't already been covered, please add your voice. Just looking at your edits, your preferred addition appears to duplicate previous material that was generally agreed to be too much for the current article. --Pete (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages. Firstly, I am new to Wikipedia editing, and had noticed that there was not much at all on that whitehouse page regarding any news events from 2014. I opened an account in order to add a new edit to it, assuming it was considered of value in Wikipedia for people to learn new things about stuff they don't know. I had also considered that seeing as there is in fact mention of Frances Abbott and a scholarship under the Alumni section of the page that it would be ok to mention some of the surrounding issues from an objective stance. I later did read some of the lengthily involved discussion on the talk page, but it is so long, tedious, and quite a lot of arguing between a few people. It seemed that there were three people who decided the consensus rather than allowing other people to bring their perspective to it. I noticed that a few other people enter the discussion very very briefly and then leave.

What I posted was actually very objectively written, and was just a brief account of some of the attention the college has had in recent months and why. I might add this to the discussion page if I can work out how to restart that. please note that in the initial edit I had a link to an external link for a petition regarding support for Freya Newman, which I edited out immediately after being given notice that this was frowned upon for that page in relevance.

Also, I did not expect that the messages on the history of edits page were specifically to me, I realized this only later once it was repeated. However, they were quite rude I thought: 'which part of please discuss and gain consensus isn't clear'? Wikipedia rule states to "be nice", and to "remember you were once new too". I am not engaging in any edit war. I think that deleting my edit so quickly is potentially engaging in a war and is a show of dominance, and is not fair, whatever has been decided previously when I wasn't around. Educate348 (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * We have ways of doing things here. We've worked out what works and what doesn't, and given the diverse assortment of editors, all with different perceptions, few with any real-life connection, that's quite an achievement. It would help if you followed some of the links you were provided with as part of your welcome message above. If you read and follow the advice given, you'll do well.


 * Your material hasn't been deleted as such. It's always available in the edit history. Just not visible or accepted in the article itself. You can re-open the discussion, but the basic problem is that the article on the school is so short that having much more than a sentence on just one student is undue weight. And that student isn't notable enough to have her own biographical article here. We also have strictures about implying things that are not stated. There is no actual evidence that anybody - apart from Freya Newman, currently awaiting sentencing - did anything improper. --Pete (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)