User talk:Julieanne7

Welcome!
Hi, Julieanne7. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place   on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. DBaK (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Chet's
Hi. I'm afraid that edits like this are never going to carry much weight here - people will simply see you as removing well-sourced content in pursuit of your own agenda, and will revert it, as someone already did. Since all this is already out there in the public eye one wonders why it's important to try to keep it out of Wikipedia: people, including all those about whom you are worried, can just read about it all in the news anyway.

Also, you really can't use an encyclopaedia page to make your arguments about the content of that page - but the good news is that that's why we have Talk pages! ... if you go to the article and then click the Talk tab you'll find you are on a page which is for discussing how to improve the article, and you can air your concerns there. Just click the + or "new section" button and it will give you a place ready to put a title in for your section, then its text.

In all kindness though I must warn you that I don't think that attempts to limit Wikipedia's coverage of the scandal will succeed. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, and you will find there are all sorts of dispute resolution mechanisms and the like if you feel that it's being handled wrongly. Note, though, that people WILL be hard on potential libel etc - no-one here will tolerate people putting in their own comments on those involved, so if you have concerns there then please be reassured that most editors will share them. If you have a quick look at WP:BLP you'll see that this does get a lot of attention.

Hope this helps, and sorry it's so longwinded .. best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Chet's II
Hi Julieanne7. Did you see what I wrote above?

It's really quite important that you understand these points. You will not succeed in removing properly sourced content from the encyclopaedia, and if you continue to try to do so, there is, unfortunately, a risk that someone will take against you and prevent you, at least temporarily, from editing the article. The reason for this would be that your behaviour will be seen as disruptive, in that you would seem to be trying to alter the content so that it is to the benefit of Chet's rather than preserving sourced, factual information about the school. If you want to defend the school's reputation you should probably write letters or seek internet forums in which to do so, but suppressing sourced information here will, I promise you, not serve your purpose. I don't know how much clearer I can try to make this for you.

Seriously, the place to discuss this is on the article's Talk page. Please take note of what I am saying - I am trying to help.

Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to add... the people reverting your changes (like me) are not part of some faceless organisation, we are real people who are doing it for the good reasons that DBaK has outlined. But, you must discuss what you want to achieve, and why.  If you keep removing material without discussing it, your changes will be reverted, and it's likely that you will be blocked from editing further.  Please take this advice seriously.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Chetham's School of Music
Your recent editing history at Chetham's School of Music shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. I'm sorry but I do feel that we have tried hard enough to engage you in discussion now. If you go on like this, it will not meet your objective, but simply end up with you possibly unable to edit. Surely this cannot be what you want? Please visit the article's talk page. Really. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I'm terribly sorry but, for the time being at least, this is my last personal message to you, and my last attempt to be 'nice', helpful to a new user, sympathetic to your concerns, etc, about this. Please go and discuss the matter, as has been suggested many times, at the article's Talk page. Repeated removal of content which offends you is, seriously, not the way forward. Thank you. DBaK (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)