User talk:Ottoump

Incremental changes to articles
As example, for articles that need major improvement, I copy sections into my Sandbox, work there, then paste back to the article. (Sometimes ref repairs are needed after the paste back.) Using this method, I have been able to raise articles from C-class to Good Article status (see Folate for recent). I declared my intentions on the Talk pages of the articles. I also left notes on the Talk pages of editors who had a history of significant editing of those articles in the past. Good luck with your endeavors. David notMD (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Your connection to the topic?
What is your personal connection to Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton? Employed by? If so, it is mandatory that you declare this on your User page. See WP:PAID for guidance. There is also a STRONG recommendation that if employed or otherwise paid by, the process of making changes is to describe proposed changes on the article's talk page so that another editor can either implement or decline. I realize that this would be extremely tedious given the major changes you are making, but please try above all else to achieve a neutral point of view (NPOV). Also, from glancing at your draft, my opinion is that you intend to provide far more detail than is appropriate for a Wikipedia article about a school. David notMD (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

From looking at the Talk page of the article, I see that you are in a conflict-of-interest situation, but not paid. Your COI should be stated on your User page. Your changes to the article have triggered several template tags at the top of the article, and a blunt statement from a very experienced editor "The article appears to have been written by the marketing department of the school, stuffed with unsourced trumpery and promotional puffery. I have hacked some out other stuff remains, but poorly sourced to pdfs etc." David notMD (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Ottoump. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest 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, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * 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 are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. You are adding large amounts of promotional material to the article please STOP Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand Theroadislong, I disclosed my relationship to the school in a conflict of interest notice on the article's talk page several weeks ago. (I'm the parent of an 8th grader. I'm not employed by the school, paid to do this, etc.) Is this Conflict of Interest notice not apparent on the talk page of the article, or should it go somewhere else? Ottoump (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are adding volumes of extremely promotional material, some unsourced and some sourced to their own website, this is not acceptable, please stop. Theroadislong (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia recommends that a COI statement also be placed on your User page. Both Theroadislong and I have been cutting content, that while true, is excessively detailed for what is appropriate for an article about a school. I see that the draft you created and are transferring content from - to the article - is much longer than the existing article. Please stop adding to what is already a bloated, excessive long article. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * David notMD – OK, I'll stop adding to it, and I'll put the COI statement on my user page. But I hope you don't mind if I get some additional opinions from WikiProject:Schools? I studied their FA examples to try to make this better, and I thought it was consistent with the project's objectives. As for removing the entire LMS section, this strikes me as relevant to the essence of a multi-division school. You guys seem to be acting pretty harshly to a guy just trying to improve his kid's school's WP entry. Ottoump (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is NOT the school's Wikipedia entry, it is an article about the school on Wikipedia and articles require writing in a neutral tone and must refer to reliable independent sources, we have no interest in what the school says about itself. Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. I should say "Wikipedia entry about his kid's school." Ottoump (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I just received an "email not confirmed" notice, which was probably a good thing since it was an old email address. I'm not sure if it was sent as a result of any activity here – in case it was, please note that I've updated and confirmed my email. Ottoump (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm removing the COI for Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton and replacing it with one for Randolph School. This is associated with a move from the California Bay Area to Huntsville, Alabama, and the attendant switch in schools. I remain interested in Sacred Heart's article, although I'd also like to see improvements in Randolph's. Ottoump (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The next stage
In the past few days you have been exposing a few of Wikipedia's systemic problems and I hope we can work together to try and solve them. Just bringing them to the surface has been a great contribution. The reaction of some experienced editors has been little short of hysterical.

I used to say that I never touched US articles as I have never visited so have no personal experience. But, I have been dragged in and wrote High school (North America) as high school has differing meanings in the UK. There is a appraisal section that got deleted on a potential copyvio that needs to be rewritten as it is too close to the source document - it needs a 'native speaker' to finish the task. Possibly new references should be found. If you have a moment I can explain further. Also, I would like a 'consumer' to read through it and give some comments- could you persuade your daughter to make some critical comments on the talk page. --ClemRutter (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, ClemRutter. I appreciate your contacting me, and the explanation. I'd be happy to lend a hand on the High School article, and to get my son to review a later version.


 * As to the Sacred Heart article, your guidance would be enormously helpful. I'm keenly interested in what you liked about the previous version of the article because – I say this bluntly but with what I hope you'll take as good humour – it was that version's uselessness and neglect that compelled me to try to rewrite it. But I'm sure I'll learn something, and perhaps get a better sense of the intents and purposes of a WikiProject Schools article which, to date, I've basically interpolated from my own experiences and the WPSCH project page. Ottoump (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , I looked at the appraisal section and have some ideas. I'll be able to put in a little time on it tonight. Cheers. Ottoump (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * And thanks for giving me the University of Kentucky paper- I now have a little light reading to do on the train! The changes to HS(NA) are just what I was looking for. These meta articles are difficult to write as there can be so much variation. We have got Student appraissal covered- have you any thoughts on how the schools are appraised by the funding bodies? How do they assess whether the school is giving value for money- and whether it is serving the needs of the students effectively? What would the criteria be? Here in the UK there is an obsession with measuring everything Ofsted. This is a political issue, but I am afraid that it is now so ingrained that we ask it of other peoples education systems.ClemRutter (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't have much exposure to the funding body appraisal process, since we opted out of the public school system. I'm not really even sure how public school funds are sourced, except that a lot of our property taxes go to the local school board. From WP, I now understand that the federal government got into public education with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and that the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 was replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015. The latter two imposed standards on public schools that receive Federal fundings (which, I'd assume, is practically all of them). Ottoump (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Going back to the student appraisal section, I'll have my 14 yo read it over the weekend. Ottoump (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * My 14 year old read the appraisal section and thought it was clear and accurate. He questioned whether it's a good idea to use phrases like "norm-referenced grading" if the article is meant for kids his age, but I responded that it was my impression that Wikipedia doesn't shy away from terms of art and doesn't dumb-down prose for teenagers. I then pointed out that both "norm-referenced grading" and "criterion-referenced grading" are Wikilinked for further elaboration. He hadn't noticed the links, so I think he was good after that. Ottoump (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Use of strikeout type
Hi, Ottoump,

Just a brief note about the use of strikeout type on Talk pages. I noticed this discussion of yours, where you appear to be using strikeout type to indicate completed tasks. I'm not sure this is forbidden or even against policy or style guidelines, but it could mislead the regulars, as usually strikeout type has a very specific meaning; see WP:TPO and WP:REDACT for details. To give you another option, please see Template:Done which has a long list of marks you can use, as a strong visual indicator of a completed task, as well as many other statuses. If you code, you get: ✅; and there are versions with or without text, and other markers. Check the template doc for lots of choices. I don't think you need to alter that old discussion after the fact, but going forward, consider some of these other options. Mathglot (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , Mathglot. I'm happy to know of ✅ and ❌'s existence; will use going forward. (I tend to go crazy with new toys... any overuse should wear off to something sensible.) Ottoump (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Academy of the Sacred Heart (St. Charles, Missouri)
Hi Ottoump, I noticed you created a new draft for Academy of the Sacred Heart (St. Charles, Missouri), I just wanted to let you know that elementary and middle schools are usually deemed non-notable and are redirected to their district. If you are able to expand this draft with reliable, independent sources, meeting WP:GNG, please carry on. If not, I would request getting this one deleted Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, Steven (Editor). Good to hear from you!  Yes, I realize it colors outside the lines and I'm not sure that it will meet notability requirements. I kept stumbling across it in red on lists of Sacred Heart schools in the U.S. and Canada, and it was the only one of the 24 schools that didn't have an article, which bugged me. 23 out of 24! But it seemed especially a shame for the St. Charles school given its historical significance.


 * In any case, I thought I'd see if something could be made of it. Is making it a draft the right thing to do while it's in development, or should I draft it mainly in my sandbox and then move it?  Also, how long do I have to try to flesh this out before it gets deleted?  (Please note, too, that I have no connection to the school: have never been there, don't know anybody who has ever been there, have never spoken with anybody from there, etc.  I think you are literally the only other person alive who knows I'm working on it.) Ottoump (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you too, I see haha, I know the feeling. Always worth a try right? A draft is perfectly fine, that's what drafts are for — new articles created and developed, and then receive feedback before it's moved to mainspace. You can take as long as you like, no deadlines, however if it's not been edited in six months it may be deleted. All good and maybe but who knows haha Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject California/SFBA
Hello, it looks like you may live or be interested in the SF Bay Area, if so I cordially invite you to take a look at and potentially contribute in WP:WikiProject California and specifically the WP:WikiProject California/San Francisco Bay Area task force to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the region and related subjects. - Indefensible (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Academy of the Sacred Heart (St. Charles, Missouri) concern
Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Academy of the Sacred Heart (St. Charles, Missouri), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Academy of the Sacred Heart (St. Charles, Missouri)


Hello, Ottoump. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Academy of the Sacred Heart".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)